Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8527114" data-attributes="member: 7032025">But it also mostly depends on the definition of harm.Exactly. It's a really strong word, especially when you say &quot;significant harm&quot;. I have been designing systems with safety implications for decade, and in these context, it's extremely strong.Now, I absolutely accept that some people could be made emotionally uncomfortable by some descriptions or pictures in old publications. But for me, there is a considerable gap between &quot;emotionally uncomfortable&quot; and &quot;significant harm&quot;.And the other thing is that are there people who will seriously claim that the &quot;harm&quot; received by reading such an old supplement or by ToA is even a fraction of what a person sensitive to these receives in his daily environment ?Not, of course, that it's a reason to tolerate it, but shouldn't there be priorities somewhere ? Again, in safety, we know that &quot;risk 0&quot; does not exist. We do our best to limit it but in all cases it's also limited by reason and economics. And we accept that, when the impact is not extreme, the efforts would be less important than for an extreme impact.I'm not against all these discussions, I actually like them since I have much to learn about this, but being outrageous about words and concepts brings nothing to the table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8527114, member: 7032025"] But it also mostly depends on the definition of harm. Exactly. It's a really strong word, especially when you say "significant harm". I have been designing systems with safety implications for decade, and in these context, it's extremely strong. Now, I absolutely accept that some people could be made emotionally uncomfortable by some descriptions or pictures in old publications. But for me, there is a considerable gap between "emotionally uncomfortable" and "significant harm". And the other thing is that are there people who will seriously claim that the "harm" received by reading such an old supplement or by ToA is even a fraction of what a person sensitive to these receives in his daily environment ? Not, of course, that it's a reason to tolerate it, but shouldn't there be priorities somewhere ? Again, in safety, we know that "risk 0" does not exist. We do our best to limit it but in all cases it's also limited by reason and economics. And we accept that, when the impact is not extreme, the efforts would be less important than for an extreme impact. I'm not against all these discussions, I actually like them since I have much to learn about this, but being outrageous about words and concepts brings nothing to the table. [/QUOTE]

Verification