4 ms·

A good reminder that people overreacting is often just as much of a problem as whatever they're trying to solve. One issue I had with the article though, is th

by vault_ 17y ago

A good reminder that people overreacting is often just as much of a problem as whatever they're trying to solve. One issue I had with the article though, is the overuse of hyperbole. There is no indication of how much of it was fact, and how much was embellishments and exaggerations.

Luc 17y ago
> One issue I had with the article though, is the overuse of hyperbole. There is no indication of how much of it was fact, and how much was embellishments and exaggerations. That is, in fact, a good summary of the public persona niche occupied by the author!
J_McQuade 17y ago
> One issue I had with the article though, is the overuse of hyperbole. There is no indication of how much of it was fact, and how much was embellishments and exaggerations. No, I didn't notice that it was by Jeremy Clarkson to start with, either. For the benefit of the non-Brits, that's just sort of what he does. Seeing him on HN actually makes me feel a bit queasy.
- frossie 17y ago
  > Seeing him on HN actually makes me feel a bit queasy. I'm with you. I hate this style of straw man argument, for example: "We see the same sort of overreaction to paedophilia. Just because one man in your town likes to watch schoolgirls playing netball" Well obviously if paedophilia was limited to men like watching schoolgirls play netball, and not to people employed in positions of trust to deal with other people's children abusing them horrifically, then yes, that would be an over-reaction. This kind of cartoon argument also makes it hard to have a real debate on the issue. For example we can legitimately discuss the "pants bomber" case - does the fact that one man caught attempting something increase the chances of it being done in the future, or are we like generals always fighting the last war? As to the dog argument I am rather astonished at the hysteria surrounding this pronouncement, given the very high rates of micro-chipping in the UK. And there are a whole number of reasons why dogs should be microchipped for their own welfare.
  - btilly 17y ago
    Worse than that. The pants bomber failed! And while we're at it, so did the shoe bomber! In short the system we already had - no extraordinary measures except a populace who was aware of the danger and willing to act, was sufficient. And furthermore to the extent that we are safe from similar incidents in the future it is because we have a populace who is aware of the danger and is willing to act. Actually, speaking personally, I'm mostly upset at the pants bomber for ruining a good joke. I used to reliably get a good laugh by saying how much worse it would be if the shoe bomber hid the explosives in his underwear. Now that joke doesn't work as well. :-(
  - axod 17y ago
    The point is, it _is_ a massive over reaction. Pedophilia is extremely rare. Getting every teacher to have lengthly criminal record checks done, having CCTV in schools, it's all theatre. But it's damaging. Anyone would think there were monsters lurking outside schools trying to get in to abduct children. It just doesn't happen. Apart from to the 0.000001% unlucky people it does happen to. Which is the whole point. As for dogs, it should be up to the owner if they want their dog chipped or not.
    - jws 17y ago
      s/0.000001%/0.003%/ – it is ~3000 times more common than you think. (number estimated from 879,000 substantiated child abuse cases in 2000, of which 10% where sexual in nature. Granted most of those are in a home environment not a school. If you want to just think about non-family member abductions (about as rare as things get), then you get down to something like one in 250,000 per child each year.)
      - Semiapies 17y ago
        That would be part of the problem - most child abuse of all forms takes place within families, but we pretend that we need to intensely scrutinize every unrelated adult in order to protect children from "predators". The odds don't work that way.
      - 17y ago

by vault_ 17y ago

Luc 17y ago

> One issue I had with the article though, is the overuse of hyperbole. There is no indication of how much of it was fact, and how much was embellishments and exaggerations. That is, in fact, a good summary of the public persona niche occupied by the author!

J_McQuade 17y ago

> One issue I had with the article though, is the overuse of hyperbole. There is no indication of how much of it was fact, and how much was embellishments and exaggerations. No, I didn't notice that it was by Jeremy Clarkson to start with, either. For the benefit of the non-Brits, that's just sort of what he does. Seeing him on HN actually makes me feel a bit queasy.

frossie 17y ago
> Seeing him on HN actually makes me feel a bit queasy. I'm with you. I hate this style of straw man argument, for example: "We see the same sort of overreaction to paedophilia. Just because one man in your town likes to watch schoolgirls playing netball" Well obviously if paedophilia was limited to men like watching schoolgirls play netball, and not to people employed in positions of trust to deal with other people's children abusing them horrifically, then yes, that would be an over-reaction. This kind of cartoon argument also makes it hard to have a real debate on the issue. For example we can legitimately discuss the "pants bomber" case - does the fact that one man caught attempting something increase the chances of it being done in the future, or are we like generals always fighting the last war? As to the dog argument I am rather astonished at the hysteria surrounding this pronouncement, given the very high rates of micro-chipping in the UK. And there are a whole number of reasons why dogs should be microchipped for their own welfare.
- btilly 17y ago
  Worse than that. The pants bomber failed! And while we're at it, so did the shoe bomber! In short the system we already had - no extraordinary measures except a populace who was aware of the danger and willing to act, was sufficient. And furthermore to the extent that we are safe from similar incidents in the future it is because we have a populace who is aware of the danger and is willing to act. Actually, speaking personally, I'm mostly upset at the pants bomber for ruining a good joke. I used to reliably get a good laugh by saying how much worse it would be if the shoe bomber hid the explosives in his underwear. Now that joke doesn't work as well. :-(
- axod 17y ago
  The point is, it _is_ a massive over reaction. Pedophilia is extremely rare. Getting every teacher to have lengthly criminal record checks done, having CCTV in schools, it's all theatre. But it's damaging. Anyone would think there were monsters lurking outside schools trying to get in to abduct children. It just doesn't happen. Apart from to the 0.000001% unlucky people it does happen to. Which is the whole point. As for dogs, it should be up to the owner if they want their dog chipped or not.
  - jws 17y ago
    s/0.000001%/0.003%/ – it is ~3000 times more common than you think. (number estimated from 879,000 substantiated child abuse cases in 2000, of which 10% where sexual in nature. Granted most of those are in a home environment not a school. If you want to just think about non-family member abductions (about as rare as things get), then you get down to something like one in 250,000 per child each year.)
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      That would be part of the problem - most child abuse of all forms takes place within families, but we pretend that we need to intensely scrutinize every unrelated adult in order to protect children from "predators". The odds don't work that way.
    - 17y ago