3 ms·
"Other bad things are happening" has never been a convincing argument in any arena, regardless of the statistics. The source of the terror is not that there are
by GavinB 17y ago
"Other bad things are happening" has never been a convincing argument in any arena, regardless of the statistics. The source of the terror is not that there are deaths, but that the murderous intent is emotionally directed at them.
The rally cry needs to be "We refuse to be intimidated."
- coffeemug 17y ago"Other bad things are happening" has never been a convincing argument in any arena, regardless of the statistics. I agree with you that there is a very serious qualitative difference between traffic accidents, spousal murders of passion, and gang-related murders on the one hand, and acts of terror based on ideals and intended to intimidate us on the other. However, any time you have a limited set of resources and a practically infinite number of possibilities on how to allocate them (which is pretty much always the case), rigorous statistical risk/reward analysis is the only sensible way we know of to make good decisions. I agree that qualitative differences must be taken into account, but I think current policy is far too reactionary and sensationalist (furthermore, it doesn't fill me with too much confidence). 9/11 was not what some blogger referred to as a "sucker punch" - it was a big deal worthy of reorienting the foreign policy precisely because of the qualitative difference you mentioned. Some incompetent schmuck with some flammable (not even explosive) material in his underwear - I really don't need to hear about that on TV.
- lutorm 17y agoI disagree. If I'm dead, I'm dead regardless of whether I died in a traffic accident or a terrorist attack. This emotional reaction is what people have to fight. A terrorist attack is only more scary because you let it be.