5 ms·
> This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. The article never made this point. All it said is that they
by forgotpwtomain 11y ago
> This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers.
The article never made this point.
All it said is that they kill more people. In which case it would seem reasonable to ask, can we save more lives, more effectively with enhanced gun control then with enhanced anti-terrorism measures (I suspect governments are more interested in the later because it really is a power grab for global surveillance and other not-yet-legislated powers).
> a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture.
I think 'dominate' is hardly the right word in this case, even relatively uneducated proponents of the ideology must know that such concept is totally fantastical. Rather it is more likely that assimilation is deemed (by some groups or ideologies) so completely impossible (with as you say the 'predominant culture' and I think this is important part to note, because as westerners we tend to forget that it is indeed predominant and forcefully so) that any form of destruction possible is considered preferable.
> Increasing terrorism is a sign of increasing difficulties assimilating. The ultimate worry is that in 50 years our countries will be split into separate warring tribes.
I really don't think any such worry is realistic, these people are marginalized and completely inconsequential to their nations GDP or the progress of civilization - even North Korea, which would seem the closest in this vein to have some kind of defense against as you put it 'assimilation' I think will ultimately mean very little in terms of global developments.
> I always thought terrorism was feared because it signalled that a group of people would prefer to dominate their host with violence than to assimilate into the predominant culture.
To sum it up, I always thought terrorism was feared because this is an emotion which the government and the media sell.
- lhnz 11y ago> The article never made this point. All it said is that they kill more people. If that was the case they would not have mentioned terrorism. The comparison to terrorism exists because it makes the article travel better between members of the Blue Tribe who think anxieties over terrorism are overblown and better gun control would be good. Remove the link to terrorism and the article would have had less currency within this group. > I always thought terrorism was feared because this is an emotion which the government and the media sell. The message already resonates with conservatives as they already have high anxiety about losing their 'way of life'. It's not just a case of a message that has been sold by the government and the media. Real people's innate fears [0]. > I really don't think any such worry is realistic, these people are marginalized and completely inconsequential to their nations GDP or the progress of civilization. Yes - in many cases. But there are a few countries in Europe that will be majority islamic over the next 100 years, and in those places people might lose their 'way of life'. Demographic changes are underway. As you probably realise, fear isn't always rational. Many groups of people are very sensitive to fears of losing their 'way of life'. Even without the existence of a significant threat. [0] http://www.unz.com/pfrost/are-liberals-and-conservatives-differently-wired/ http://www.unz.com/pfrost/are-liberals-and-conservatives-dif...
- forgotpwtomain 11y ago>>> This doesn't mean toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists. It means there are more toddlers. >> The article never made this point. All it said is that they kill more people. In which case it would seem reasonable to ask, can we save more lives, more effectively with enhanced gun control then with enhanced anti-terrorism measures.. > If that was the case they would not have mentioned terrorism. Your first statement 'toddlers are more dangerous than terrorists' is not to be found anywhere in the article, the article mentioned terrorism in order to make the second statement which I pointed out to you. I'm not sure what you are unclear about?
- lhnz 11y agoSorry for being unclear. My point is that the article and subsequent comments by you and threatofrain establish a frame in which stressors are measured solely by their impact on fatality. The extra attention given to terrorism relates more to the conservative fear of losing their 'way of life'. Attempting to measure both of these things solely in relation to their impact on fatality misunderstands the reasons for fear over terrorism and creates a communication problem between the left and right. I did not invoke your second point as I fully agree with it.