3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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.