TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Says the guy who attributes "Dissent is the highest form of patriatism" to Ben Franklin.Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Palehorse?Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Your argument is misguided on several fronts. First, most "accidents" can be avoided ... if we are willing to take the necessary measures to prevent them. Just as with "murder" (i.e., terrorism in this context), we can reduce fatalities by spending more money and increasing government intrusion.Originally posted by: palehorse74
Are you aware of the differences between an "accident" and a "murder"?Originally posted by: Blackjack200
ignorant of the risks? 2,819 people died in terrorist attacks on 9-11. In the 6 years since, over 240,000 Americans have died in motor vehicle accidents. I'm quite aware of the risks. 1 in 100,000 Americans has died in a terrorist attack in the last 6 years, nearly 1 in 1,000 has died in a car crash.
One is often unavoidable, the other is often preventable; and I personally sleep better at night knowing that the latter is being prevented by professionals every day.
Too many auto accidents? Let's reduce them by putting more stringent safety requirements on automakers, by pouring more money into even safer roadways, and by requiring annual driver training and testing (for example). The retort, typically from the right, is "No way!. We already over-regulate manufacturers, taxes are too high, and no way the nanny state gets to make me do Driver's Ed every year. I'll live with the risk."
Guess what? The same considerations apply to preventing terrorism. Safety, be it accidents, disease, or terrorism, is all about balance and trade-offs. We have many good causes competing for the same limited pool of dollars. We do not give big brother unlimited control over our lives just so he can keep us safe. We draw a line and say that's safe enough. We allocate our limited resources to get the best bang for the buck.
The second issue with your argument is that it presupposes "murder" deaths are somehow more significant than "accident" deaths. That is an emotional assessment, not a logical one. It is this irrational reaction the Bush administration exploits so ruthlessly in its "Terror! Terror! Terror!" fear-mongering.
When trying to compare relative risk of death, the manner of death is a side issue. Number of deaths is the metric that really matters. The simple fact is that for people within the United States, the risk of death due to terrorist attack is far smaller than hundreds of other risks we live with every day. That doesn't mean we ignore the risk of terrorism, but that we need to step above the irrational fear and keep that risk in perspective.
That leads to the third issue with your argument, your insinuation that somehow you want to prevent terrorism while those of us who criticize Iraq/BushCo/whatever do not. That's absurd, and would be insulting if it were anything more than empty partisan propaganda. The real argument is over the best ways to attack terrorist groups, where "best" includes rational consideration and objective cost-benefit analysis rather than a blank check and blind obedience to lord Bush.
trust me, dude. palehorse is pretty dumb. i'm sure it's probably taking him a long time to reply because he needs to look up the hard words, like "intrusion" and "stringent" and "the".
Careful throwing those stones. Glass breaks easily.