3 ms·

> thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine A risk which is orders of magnitude sma

by sago 11y ago

> thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car. Smaller even than the risk you'll choke on your next meal, or harm yourself putting your pants on tomorrow. > the choice is between doing nothing It really isn't. The alternative to bombing isn't doing nothing. The alternative is politics, dirty, compromising international politics. Which, because it involves prime trading partners and sacred cow industries (like arms and energy), that's less palatable than dropping bombs to most politicians, unfortunately. And it is very very dubious that international bombing campaigns will even 'do' anything positive for our security. I doubt anyone knows, but let's not blindly assume that 'doing something' by dropping bombs is necessarily equivalent to 'doing something constructive.'

Turing_Machine 11y ago
"A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car." By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free since the chance of being murdered is less than the chance of dying in a car wreck? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. People, in general, don't think that way.
- sago 11y ago
  > By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free Perhaps you should read what I said, because I specifically said what I feel should be done. But if you want the facile analogy, then at least stay with the question being addressed. We do not, for example, bomb areas with high numbers of murderers in them. There may be some LEOs who kill potential murders without due process of law, but it is not a tactic we should endorse. In general we respond to murder through the justice system, as we should. The choice isn't doing nothing. That's just a straw man used by people who make a false equivalence between not agreeing with them and capitulating. You can make your own position sound very reasonable if you exclude the middle.
  - Turing_Machine 11y ago
    I did read what you said. I just found it unserious and at odds with the way that human beings actually think, in particular your claim that the amount of relative risk is what should dictate the response.
    - sago 11y ago
      > at odds with the way that human beings actually think I don't doubt that, but that is no reason to suggest we let our base instincts dictate policy. The way that human beings tend to think about lots of things is problematic. We can do better. Terrorism tries to use fear as a political tool, where democratic forms of influence would not succeed. It is used because it is very successful: we are so scared of a very small risk that our national politics revolves around it. The president today said we "will not be terrorised", the irony is astounding.
new_hackers 11y ago
+1000 Arguably, doing absolutely nothing different would be the better option. Knee jerk reactions from a scared population make us much easier to control. ISIS and similar groups want a fight. Unfortunately our sports saturated culture doesn't allow us to see past 'winning', no matter how small the victory. 30 people dead is tragic, but still is quite small compared to the other dangers present in our daily lives.

by sago 11y ago

Turing_Machine 11y ago

"A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car." By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free since the chance of being murdered is less than the chance of dying in a car wreck? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. People, in general, don't think that way.

sago 11y ago
> By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free Perhaps you should read what I said, because I specifically said what I feel should be done. But if you want the facile analogy, then at least stay with the question being addressed. We do not, for example, bomb areas with high numbers of murderers in them. There may be some LEOs who kill potential murders without due process of law, but it is not a tactic we should endorse. In general we respond to murder through the justice system, as we should. The choice isn't doing nothing. That's just a straw man used by people who make a false equivalence between not agreeing with them and capitulating. You can make your own position sound very reasonable if you exclude the middle.
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  I did read what you said. I just found it unserious and at odds with the way that human beings actually think, in particular your claim that the amount of relative risk is what should dictate the response.
  - sago 11y ago
    > at odds with the way that human beings actually think I don't doubt that, but that is no reason to suggest we let our base instincts dictate policy. The way that human beings tend to think about lots of things is problematic. We can do better. Terrorism tries to use fear as a political tool, where democratic forms of influence would not succeed. It is used because it is very successful: we are so scared of a very small risk that our national politics revolves around it. The president today said we "will not be terrorised", the irony is astounding.

new_hackers 11y ago

+1000 Arguably, doing absolutely nothing different would be the better option. Knee jerk reactions from a scared population make us much easier to control. ISIS and similar groups want a fight. Unfortunately our sports saturated culture doesn't allow us to see past 'winning', no matter how small the victory. 30 people dead is tragic, but still is quite small compared to the other dangers present in our daily lives.