The objection is obvious and very easy to understand; it tries to compare apples with oranges, and here you are trying to argue that they are both fruit.
"Apples and oranges" is a metaphor for things that shouldn't be compared. But that's just asserting that you can't compare two things without giving a reason. And I'm asking why not?
There are lots of statistics comparing deaths from different causes. Why not use them to make informed choices about risk?
> "Apples and oranges" is a metaphor for things that shouldn't be compared.
No it's a reference to comparisons that don't make sense.
You can compare as many apples you'd like with oranges, just as you can compare air travel with roadway traffic, but you'd be making absurd and meaningless comparisons.
Respectfully, my objection is the implication that people should be okay with an "acceptable rate of mortality" for air travel because there's a relatively high rate of mortality for automobile travel (which is unrelated.)
There is an acceptable rate of mortality for everything. In some cases it's very low, but not zero. You can't leave the house without taking a risk, and there are risks at home, too.
Once again, my issue is that you appear to have falsely compared flight safety to car safety despite the fact that the two operate in very different ways.
I already understand that you think I'm wrong to make this comparison, but I still don't understand why. Why does it matter that airplanes and cars have many differences (of course they do)? If you die in a crash, you're just as dead.
The reason I'm talking about car safety is that driving or riding in a car is probably the most risky thing that most people do all the time. And yet, we accept the risk. So this seems like a good baseline for what should be considered an acceptable risk.
So I can understand not wanting to encourage airlines you don't like. I also understand wanting to encourage airlines to be safer, because improving safety is a good thing to do.
But that's different from not flying in a certain kind of airplane because you think you might die, while meanwhile taking other risks that are much worse. That's just inconsistent. We're all inconsistent sometimes, but it seems weird to object so strongly to someone pointing it out.
> that driving or riding in a car is probably the most risky thing that most people do all the time. And yet, we accept the risk. So this seems like a good baseline for what should be considered an acceptable risk.
For cars.
I'm very glad the FAA and airlines don't think the way you do about risk. They have their own standards. And it's perfectly consistent.
I sometime commute by skateboard, but I am NOT ok with my airlines or car companies using this choice as some sort of "acceptable risk baseline" for me.
It's like comparing the mortality rate of heart surgery to that of psychotherapy because they're both performed by doctors.
If I died from talking to a therapist then, yes, I would see that as a major problem. The mortality rate of brain surgery wouldn't factor in to my decision making in this regard, because it's unrelated.
If I died on a Boeing aircraft with an inherently dangerous design flaw that makes it relatively more dangerous than other planes then, yes, I would see that as a problem.
The sad fact that driving is more dangerous does not mitigate that... because it's unrelated.
I think you're arguing that the relationship between activities doesn't matter, but when it comes to expectations, I'd argue it's the only thing that matters.
> And yet, we accept the risk. So this seems like a good baseline for what should be considered an acceptable risk.
They are completely different playing fields. In a plane your life is in the hands of a pilot or two and a computer. On the road, the risk is amplified by every other driver.
Also, skies aren't nearly as full of traffic as roads.
There is no 'acceptable baseline' that reaches across fields that isn't zero. I think this is the main point here. I doubt anyone today would consider the number of deaths we experience on the road to be an acceptable risk, either.
The objection is obvious and very easy to understand; it tries to compare apples with oranges, and here you are trying to argue that they are both fruit.