3 ms·
That only holds if being sexually molested and having naked pictures of yourself taken is weighted at zero. Furthermore, this statistic in no way indicates tha
by burgerbrain 16y ago
That only holds if being sexually molested and having naked pictures of yourself taken is weighted at zero.
Furthermore, this statistic in no way indicates that these screenings reduce the risk of dying in a terrorist attack. 1 plus 1 does not equal 0. You've allegedly doubled your risk of dying, not reduced it.
- shasta 16y agoWell, you're right to question what the reduction in risk these scanners produce, but your first point is way off. The cost of terrorist attacks is hardly limited to death. Those planes and buildings aren't free. Not that cancer treatments are, either, but if you weigh in the psychological damage to the public (you know, why they call it "terrorism"), terrorist attacks are far more costly.
- burgerbrain 16y agoThe real cost of terrorism is having to deal with all the people talking about "the real cost of terrorism", and instituting retarded policies like these scanners/molestation sessions. Planes and buildings are cheap as shit in comparison.
- smokeyj 16y agoA "terrorist" would just find another way to terrorize.. duh. Real terrorism is a drama, as orchestrated by our overlords, to polarize the public in attempt to deprive them of their liberty. That is all.
- wiredfool 16y ago1 unsuccessful underwear bomber => $500 million in contracts for scanners. There's your cost of terrorism right there.
- ax0n 16y agoThe second paragraph is almost verbatim to the statement I was about to say in response to the OP. Blacklists do not work. Antivirus software checks for a hundred thousand individual known problems, yet viruses and malware continue to evolve and bypass the blacklist. So do explosives hiding in containers that the TSA doesn't expect to find explosives in.