Yet here's rms doing his thing, making the case that the chemical plant owners willfully ignored employee safety in the name of profit.
That is an argument that's not supported by the text.
The point that Stallman is making, as I see it, is to be concerned about overspending (and sacrificing freedoms) on rare salient threats, while neglecting more commonplace but more dangerous sources of danger like chemical plants and car accidents.
As a matter of public policy I could not agree more with Stallman here. For more information on this line of argument I'd recommend reading Bruce Schneier, who makes the point passionately and with authority.
Richard Stallman made several points in the linked e-mail. The point that I'm concerned with, and made clear that I'm concerned with, is that the Texas plant is the, quote, "bigger danger" than the Boston incidents. He wrote that nearly verbatim; his evidence for that was backed up in the paragraph prior by citing numbers -- specifically, numbers of people dead. That's what I'm attacking, specifically not reaction to, preparation for, or money spent on these heinous events, as I said quite clearly and will continue to say.
My edit specifically applies to the head of your comment.
That is an argument that's not supported by the text.
The point that Stallman is making, as I see it, is to be concerned about overspending (and sacrificing freedoms) on rare salient threats, while neglecting more commonplace but more dangerous sources of danger like chemical plants and car accidents.
As a matter of public policy I could not agree more with Stallman here. For more information on this line of argument I'd recommend reading Bruce Schneier, who makes the point passionately and with authority.