5 ms·

Oh please whatever your opinion might be saying """ surprised anyone can still use the word "terrorism" with a straight face anymore """ Is quickest way to sh

Oh please whatever your opinion might be saying """ surprised anyone can still use the word "terrorism" with a straight face anymore """ Is quickest way to shut down conversation. Especially given horrific events in France, Ohio, Florida. Your argument is not only ridiculous its counter productive to anyone offering a balanced saner approach.

kabdib 9y ago
The moment the T-word comes out, you can be sure it's a power grab of some kind. Just like it was "communists" in the 1950s. I don't see any reason to compromise against a fake enemy.
wand3r 9y ago
More people die of auto erotic asphyxiation than terrorism annually (~682 people). You're insistence is what is rediculous, as parent pointed out if it was a problem--it isn't; then 0 cases have been publicly thwarted via this technique. I don't buy in that this problem is large enough not that this solution would be acceptable if it was
- aub3bhat 9y ago
  Arguing deaths due to <x> happened more frequently than terrorism in some time period is useless, if the underlying process that generates those numbers are widely different. There is no organized cult going around preaching auto erotic asphyxiation with explicit intention of causing large scale harm. On the other hand there are several organized terrorist groups which are intentionally trying to do that. Unchecked Terrorism has non stationary distribution and can lead to deadlier events that are orders of magnitude larger. Further why pick a year and not a day? At any given day the number of deaths due to Terrorism are close to zero, except you know on a tragic day a decade ago in september.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    > if the underlying process that generates those numbers are widely different. So stop the underlying process? Terrorist organizations aren't quiet about their problems, that tragic day in September was in opposition to US interference in their lives. If our goal was combatting terrorism, we picked a terrible way of addressing the problem.
    - aub3bhat 9y ago
      >>that tragic day in September was in opposition to US interference in their lives. To you these attacks are a valid grievance redressal mechanisms??? Is that the path every disenfranchised group should take?? If you are okay with such approach, no point in having a discussion.
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        It's not about whether you're ok or not with their methods. The question is, do you really, actually, want to stop terrorism, or are you just pretending, using the T-word as a political tool? The actions of not just US, but other western countries strongly suggest, that they don't actually care about stopping terrorism.
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        >To you these attacks are a valid grievance redressal mechanism? No, but neither is the "War on Terror."
aswanson 9y ago
You're more likely to die from a lightning bolt than a 'terrorist' attack. You're thousands of times more likely to die from bad driving habits or being overweight, so why is the terrorist bogeyman given so much concern in the political conversation?
- aub3bhat 9y ago
  Arguing deaths due to <x> happened more frequently than terrorism in some time period is useless, if the underlying process that generates those numbers are widely different. Rather than thinking in terms of mortality rate over a period, its more accurate to think in terms of events. A single lightning bolt strike can at most affect 0 ~ 10 people with a gaussian distribution. A terrorist attack on the other hand has a long tail distribution and can cause 10^0 ~ 10^4 deaths. There is no organized cult going around making lightening bolts with explicit intention of causing large scale harm. On the other hand there are several organized terrorist groups which are intentionally trying to do that. As far as being overweight or bad driving habits, billions of dollars are poured into health care system, automated driving and regulations with goal of reducing deaths due to them.
  - aswanson 9y ago
    Bad driving and cardiac/obesity DO cause more than 10^6 deaths per annum and get no where near the proportionate political/media attention that terrorism does. There are 10x the deaths in auto accidents than the worst terrorist attack in US history every single year. The DHS budget alone dwarfs any proportional safety return that could be made by simply raising the legal driving age by a year.
    - aub3bhat 9y ago
      >>The DHS budget alone dwarfs any proportional safety return that could be made by simply raising the legal driving age by a year. What?? What does legal driving age has to do with DHS budget? You are simply rambling, different mortality causes have different risk models. Or to explain simply you are comparing "Apples to Oranges".
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
How many people die from terrorism in a year in the U.S.? Not many. How much money do we spend on it every year? Too Much. How often do politicians talk about it? Way Too Much. It's ridiculous. It is basically a non-issue here. I bet the number of blacks killed by cops outnumbers the people killed by terrorists here in the U.S. Let's spend a trillion dollars fighting THAT problem! edit: clarify
mlindner 9y ago
Oh please, can you even look at what you're saying? Please look at some numbers before stating such ridiculous things.
- aub3bhat 9y ago
  Merely looking at numbers without understanding the underlying statistical process that generates those numbers is not how you do risk estimation.
  - mlindner 9y ago
    Please illuminate me then. What is wrong with looking at pure causes of death?

kabdib 9y ago

The moment the T-word comes out, you can be sure it's a power grab of some kind. Just like it was "communists" in the 1950s. I don't see any reason to compromise against a fake enemy.

wand3r 9y ago

More people die of auto erotic asphyxiation than terrorism annually (~682 people). You're insistence is what is rediculous, as parent pointed out if it was a problem--it isn't; then 0 cases have been publicly thwarted via this technique. I don't buy in that this problem is large enough not that this solution would be acceptable if it was

aub3bhat 9y ago
Arguing deaths due to <x> happened more frequently than terrorism in some time period is useless, if the underlying process that generates those numbers are widely different. There is no organized cult going around preaching auto erotic asphyxiation with explicit intention of causing large scale harm. On the other hand there are several organized terrorist groups which are intentionally trying to do that. Unchecked Terrorism has non stationary distribution and can lead to deadlier events that are orders of magnitude larger. Further why pick a year and not a day? At any given day the number of deaths due to Terrorism are close to zero, except you know on a tragic day a decade ago in september.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  > if the underlying process that generates those numbers are widely different. So stop the underlying process? Terrorist organizations aren't quiet about their problems, that tragic day in September was in opposition to US interference in their lives. If our goal was combatting terrorism, we picked a terrible way of addressing the problem.
  - aub3bhat 9y ago
    >>that tragic day in September was in opposition to US interference in their lives. To you these attacks are a valid grievance redressal mechanisms??? Is that the path every disenfranchised group should take?? If you are okay with such approach, no point in having a discussion.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      It's not about whether you're ok or not with their methods. The question is, do you really, actually, want to stop terrorism, or are you just pretending, using the T-word as a political tool? The actions of not just US, but other western countries strongly suggest, that they don't actually care about stopping terrorism.
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      >To you these attacks are a valid grievance redressal mechanism? No, but neither is the "War on Terror."

aswanson 9y ago

You're more likely to die from a lightning bolt than a 'terrorist' attack. You're thousands of times more likely to die from bad driving habits or being overweight, so why is the terrorist bogeyman given so much concern in the political conversation?

aub3bhat 9y ago
Arguing deaths due to <x> happened more frequently than terrorism in some time period is useless, if the underlying process that generates those numbers are widely different. Rather than thinking in terms of mortality rate over a period, its more accurate to think in terms of events. A single lightning bolt strike can at most affect 0 ~ 10 people with a gaussian distribution. A terrorist attack on the other hand has a long tail distribution and can cause 10^0 ~ 10^4 deaths. There is no organized cult going around making lightening bolts with explicit intention of causing large scale harm. On the other hand there are several organized terrorist groups which are intentionally trying to do that. As far as being overweight or bad driving habits, billions of dollars are poured into health care system, automated driving and regulations with goal of reducing deaths due to them.
- aswanson 9y ago
  Bad driving and cardiac/obesity DO cause more than 10^6 deaths per annum and get no where near the proportionate political/media attention that terrorism does. There are 10x the deaths in auto accidents than the worst terrorist attack in US history every single year. The DHS budget alone dwarfs any proportional safety return that could be made by simply raising the legal driving age by a year.
  - aub3bhat 9y ago
    >>The DHS budget alone dwarfs any proportional safety return that could be made by simply raising the legal driving age by a year. What?? What does legal driving age has to do with DHS budget? You are simply rambling, different mortality causes have different risk models. Or to explain simply you are comparing "Apples to Oranges".

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

How many people die from terrorism in a year in the U.S.? Not many. How much money do we spend on it every year? Too Much. How often do politicians talk about it? Way Too Much. It's ridiculous. It is basically a non-issue here. I bet the number of blacks killed by cops outnumbers the people killed by terrorists here in the U.S. Let's spend a trillion dollars fighting THAT problem! edit: clarify

mlindner 9y ago

Oh please, can you even look at what you're saying? Please look at some numbers before stating such ridiculous things.

aub3bhat 9y ago
Merely looking at numbers without understanding the underlying statistical process that generates those numbers is not how you do risk estimation.
- mlindner 9y ago
  Please illuminate me then. What is wrong with looking at pure causes of death?