3 ms·

This statement is so naive that it blows me away. As toomuchtodo said, there's a huge difference between n car accidents per year, and the equivalent damage do

by mtrpcic 11y ago

This statement is so naive that it blows me away. As toomuchtodo said, there's a huge difference between n car accidents per year, and the equivalent damage done by a terrorist attack, and the answer isn't just "stop making such a big deal about it". When I get into a car, I'm putting myself in a situation that could be dangerous, and am accepting those risks for the reward of not having to walk to work. When these people sat down to have a drink, watch a soccer game, or enjoy a concert, they were doing so with the implicit safety that those venues and events provide. It's the difference between "expected" and "unexpected", and your answer can't just be "stop making such a big deal", because if we didn't make a big deal, the attacks would get bigger, broader, and more damaging until they got the reaction that they wanted. It's a complex problem with a lot of moving pieces, and this answer just takes away from that and presumes that there's a simple answer to a very hard problem.

moonchrome 11y ago
> It's the difference between "expected" and "unexpected" No it's not - people die from unexpected accidents completely unaware of the risks all the time - intuitive risk perception doesn't work really well - caveman instincts and all that - risk perception is not the problem - if this was indeed an isolated incident that would not repeat it would be sad but not very relevant - an example of this is Breivik murders. But obviously this is not comparable - people behind this will try to repeat it if not dealt with - this is why it's a big deal.
Umn44 11y ago
"This statement is so naive that it blows me away. As toomuchtodo said, there's a huge difference between n car accidents per year, and the equivalent damage done by a terrorist attack," Unfortunatley from a mathematical standpoint you are incorrect, from an irrational human standpoint you have a point however. The human mind is much worse at reasoning and reality than anticipated, how you and others perceive the world is not as real as you'd like to think, thats the whole point of math and science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

by mtrpcic 11y ago

moonchrome 11y ago

> It's the difference between "expected" and "unexpected" No it's not - people die from unexpected accidents completely unaware of the risks all the time - intuitive risk perception doesn't work really well - caveman instincts and all that - risk perception is not the problem - if this was indeed an isolated incident that would not repeat it would be sad but not very relevant - an example of this is Breivik murders. But obviously this is not comparable - people behind this will try to repeat it if not dealt with - this is why it's a big deal.

Umn44 11y ago

"This statement is so naive that it blows me away. As toomuchtodo said, there's a huge difference between n car accidents per year, and the equivalent damage done by a terrorist attack," Unfortunatley from a mathematical standpoint you are incorrect, from an irrational human standpoint you have a point however. The human mind is much worse at reasoning and reality than anticipated, how you and others perceive the world is not as real as you'd like to think, thats the whole point of math and science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ