3 ms·

It's common enough that every time the topic comes up someone new pops up to "explain" how I'm wrong. (See comment below)

• chrischen 11y ago
  > Try saying this to someone that disagrees and see how quickly they refuse to agree or accept any facts I'm not saying your arguments are wrong or right, but objectively speaking, you've described yourself.
  • nxzero 11y ago
    As stated before, I'm happy to engage in a dialogue on the topic, though please be prepared to be both logical and able to present related facts; which to say, no, I'm not describing myself, nor do I see any reasoning presented to back this up.
    • thatcat 11y ago
      The response that fear of terrorism is rational can be analyzed two ways, a priori (with intuition based on "justified true beliefs") or a posteriori (empirically, with risk assessment). The size of the risk and other empirical evidence won't effect the opinion of someone using a priori justifications. An a priori counter argument to supporting the consolidation of state power would be something like the following: Terrorism is a specific type of crime designed to generate fear and disrupt society. Systemic responses disrupt society and generate fear and so is aligned with the goals of terrorists. Therefore, the only logical response is a targeted one which does not disrupt society or generate undue fear among non-terrorists. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/#WhaPriKno http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/#WhaPriKno
      • nxzero 11y ago
        What specifically to you feel in the real world based on real events are rational responses?
        • thatcat 11y ago
          As an individual, there is not much you can do. I would say support leaders who use empirical feed back as part of their decision making process, but that requires those leaders making themselves an option first which wouldn't help much in the context of Kuwait.