- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A newborn baby has died in New Mexico from a Listeria infection that state health officials say was likely contracted from raw (unpasteurized) milk that the baby’s mother drank during pregnancy.
I believe you’ve misinterpreted hitmyspot’s comment. If you think it’s worthwhile, perhaps you can describe exactly what the comparison is between, just so we’re operating on the same concepts so as to be on the same page.
I don’t think it’s worth arguing for arguing’s sake. So at the very least I hope to understand what distinctions you’ve made. If whatever it is is wholly subjective as you say then why refute the other person’s subjective view? What could make theirs more wrong or less valid than yours? 🤔
(I’m continuing to ask in the assumption that there is some shared basis in values or whatever that can make it a bit objective or intersubjective.)
The comparison being made is them growing up with these parents, and suffering the consequences of it, or them dying at birth and not suffering. I don’t think those are comparable (as in, you literally can’t weight them against each other). They have totally different ways you’d evaluate their value.
Them dying at birth has almost zero cost or consequence. How do you measure against nothing? Them surviving has many costs and benefits. You can weight them against each other to argue if it’s good or bad, but you can’t compare it against oblivion. It’s like temperature. You can say it’s hot or it’s cold subjectively, but you can’t compare it against a vacuum that literally doesn’t have temperature.