Actually White Star claimed it was "designed to be unsinkable", not that it was. And this was after describing a long list of safety features.
It's a very dangerous attitude, to claim a priori that your design is safer. The Titanic was so safe that it was not necessary to carry enough life boats for all the passengers. That's how safe it was. Once your focus is on the incredible confidence you have in the safety of your design, it's not on actual safety anymore, it's on making bold and confident advertising claims. It's hubris and there's a long history of what follows from it.
Prior to the Titanic sinking, most ships didn't carry enough lifeboats for the passengers on board. This is was because the SOP was to ferry passengers to nearby boats if a ship was in trouble.
Now, the problem with the Titanic was that there were elements of hubris in the first sailing, and probably recklessness on that part of the captain. Like any big disaster, it was a cascading failure. But they didn't underquip it with lifeboats because they thought it wouldn't sink. They underequipped it because that's what was the norm at the time.
Probably the thing that changed the most with the Titanic sinking was the fact that plenty of important people went down with the ship, plus the sheer number of people lost.
The difference in this situation of course is that SpaceX is claiming that their rocket will be safe because they are adding more lifeboats (in other words, they are bragging about their planned abort systems).
They are not claiming to be designing a rocket that cannot fail, but rather one that fails safe (though low failure rate is undoubtedly a high priority for them.)
I do not see how such an attitude could possibly be a liability. What is preferable?
Edit: I'm trying to understand your point of view. Is your issue that the are trying to make it the safest, or that they said that they are trying to make it the safest?
"SpaceX, along with our partners at NASA, will continue to push the boundaries of space technology to develop the safest, most advanced crew vehicle ever flown."
That reads to me as "We are working hard with the goal of making it the safest." They haven't done it yet, but they are stating what they hope to do.
Specifically what the article says, and which I quoted in my opening post here on this topic, is "the Falcon 9-Dragon combination will be the safest spacecraft ever developed".
This article is not just the unqualified opinion of the blog SpaceFlight Now, the article is a word for word printing of the following official Space-X corporate Press Release, exactly as quoted. It is an official claim by the company.
Regardless, I maintain that you are looking for something that really is not there.
This is from a company that has faced criticism from prominent figures that safety would be an issue simply because they were not NASA. It only makes sense that they would place a high emphasis on safety in their public relations in light of that.
Not to mention this is coming from a company who's president said just a few days ago, "In the early days of aviation there was a great deal of experimentation and a high death rate. We don't want that — the public would not be accepting — but by the same token we can't have a situation where no deaths are ever allowed, because that would put innovation in a coffin too."
This simply is not a company that is taking the safety of their craft for granted.
I still don't understand what you think their attitude towards safety should be.
