You’re in the grocery aisle choosing between, for whatever reason, almond milk and Coca Cola. Which one is healthier? I say, the almond milk contains cyanide so obviously the Coke is healthier. You’d have to be crazy to even ask how healthy Coke is after I told you that almond milk contains cyanide, right?
You really are absolutely determined to insist that this should not be a factor for anyone in deciding whether to get a Tesla, aren't you?
To the best of my knowledge (and I would be willing to bet money on it), no one in the history of the world has died from the cyanide in almond milk. Despite many millions of cartons of almond milk being sold and consumed every year.
A nontrivial number of people are known to have died specifically because of this failure of Teslas. It is not a hypothetical. It is a real, measurable danger.
Is that number high enough for any given person to choose not to get one? Well, it's high enough for me. And I think that arguing that it shouldn't be even a consideration, as you appear to be, is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst, actively risking people's lives for the sake of supporting a company you happen to like.
I’m absolutely determined to convince people to judge based on all the relevant facts.
An absolute shitload of people die in cars every year. It’s the most dangerous thing most of us do. I want to know what the increment is here. How does it compare to, say, my refusal to cut hamburgers out of my diet?
I’m not arguing it shouldn’t be a consideration. I’m arguing it should be considered as part of the totality of the evidence.
I can guarantee you that there are cars out there much more dangerous than a Tesla. (Anybody want a used Pinto?) If you were ever presented with that choice, I bet you’d have no problem understanding that the one with the electronic door handles is the better choice. And yet when I try to apply this idea more generally, I get attacked, belittled, and accused of risking people’s lives.
