I think most here can understand that difference. Its the altruistic part that you are struggling with. I don't want the thread to get any wilder than it has, but the claim made by you is that altruistic plans were undertaken for altruistic reasons without taking into account known problems. Your issue is that you have not demonstrated that either asbestos or lead paint were mandated due to altruistic reasoning. Asbestos was a good working material and mesothelioma wasn't known about yet (so neither a foreseeable consequence or altruism) and paint, not lead paint was the accepted method to help prohibit contagion issues for interior wall surfaces in homes.
Without linking altruistic sources for the actions or a foreseeable harm, all you have are unintended consequences and a derail. But I guess that is how it derails, thread wise.
Only because I experienced a moment of weakness and fell prey to your games.
Supporting your argument is now considered a trick?
Me: Your honor, I think that people that work in the insurance industry are sociopathic fucks!
Judge: Would you care to support that claim.
Me (Chico Marx accent): Oh no you don't, Judge. Ima nota fallin' for that game.
You've set up a scenario in which you've insisted that I must provide you examples that YOU accept, and that failure to provide examples that meet YOUR approval means that the entire concept is invalid.
Not really. It is a pretty simple test that must be gone through.
1) Was the product used for altruistic reasons?
2) Was the harm easily foreseeable?
Asbestos
1) Product was used because it was resiliant and didn't catch on fire well. Doesn't really pass the test, but it could be given a La Liga dive call.
2) Was Mesothelioma known? The product was used before cancer even had a name. So no.
Fail
Lead Paint
1) Interiors in home switched to paint instead of wallpaper due to contagion concerns. Lead Paint was specifically used because it looked better to painters and was much more durable. This fails the altruistic test. Paint was the soln to the interior surfaces, not necessarily lead paint.
2) Dangers of lead were pretty well understood at the time, but because of the durability of lead paint, it wasn't deemed a problem. They didn't discount that it would be a problem, but didn't understand the mechanisms down the road that would lead it to becoming a problem. This fails. You say the problem was foreseeable and they were ignored. They weren't ignored, they felt it wasn't going to be an issue because children didn't eat walls.
Fail
You've placed yourself int he role of arbiter on the entire concept, and you've dismissed the concept from consideration solely because I've been unable to provide an example that YOU will accept.
You've offered just two examples that they themselves have trouble meeting either of the standards!
It'd been quicker for you to just respond, "Nuh uh!"