3 ms·
But then stopping terrorism should fall somewhere around where the statistics say it should on priority list (adding in the anger/trauma). So right around vendi
by harmegido 11y ago
But then stopping terrorism should fall somewhere around where the statistics say it should on priority list (adding in the anger/trauma). So right around vending machine accidents or whatever? Those are additive as well.
Terrorism disproportionately dominates our media attention, but has a small affect on our death rate. Of course we should stop it if we can. But why place a larger priority on it than something that is more damaging to us (even after weighing in the negative emotions)?
I get it. Terrorism is scary and it's easy to have empathy for the victims. But if we accept car deaths as a consequence of modern life, than why not terrorism deaths? That I don't get.
- rnovak 11y agoI get that this is an unpopular opinion, but why does all of society have to have the same priority? As a computer engineer, the likelihood of me contributing to a 'cure for <x>', is very very low. I'd like to focus on things that I can solve, or work towards. So telling people to stop trying to solve something (that is an actual problem), because something else should be a higher priority.....seems kind of ridiculous. As for attributing terrorism to "modern life", I think that's a joke. We should just ACCEPT mass murder? Also, people DON'T accept car deaths, there are huge segments of the population working towards reducing car deaths (that's kind of the whole point behind autonomous cars, as I understand it).
- TeMPOraL 11y ago> We should just ACCEPT mass murder? We shouldn't. We should ruthlessly pursue those responsible and bring them to justice. Just like with any other mass murder case. What we should not do is to enter nationwide state of panic and proceed to bomb other countries while cracking down on minorities that had nothing to do with the attack and/or establishing a police state locally.