3 ms·

Give the man a prize. I wish there were a Nobel Prize for Common Sense. Very glad to see that Norway is not following the general (and useless) trend of "more s

by Tharkun 15y ago

Give the man a prize. I wish there were a Nobel Prize for Common Sense. Very glad to see that Norway is not following the general (and useless) trend of "more surveillance and fewer civil liberties" after things go boom.

jonnathanson 15y ago
It's actually not common sense, and that's what is special about it. The common-sense reaction to terrorism is to be terrorized by it, and to behave accordingly. It is human nature. We are emotional creatures, and we revert to "fight or flight" instincts when violated. It takes serious resolve and uncommon grace to rise above the gut reaction, keep calm, and remain focused on what really matters.
- smokeyj 15y ago
  > The common-sense reaction to terrorism is to be terrorized by it I think it's a learned reaction. Car accidents pose a greater threat than any terrorists, we're not terrified of cars are we? The threat has been played up by our fear mongering media, an extension of our military.
  - arethuza 15y ago
    A pretty common reason for buying SUVs is because they apparently feel safer, so I think it is possible to argue that some people are indeed terrified of cars.
  - shimon 15y ago
    Depends on your definition of terrorism. Here's mine: an act of terrorism is an attack designed to elicit a reaction massively disproportionate to the damage directly caused, typically perpetrated by a non-state actor. This is why terrorists target planes, because plane crashes generate tremendous news coverage. By contrast, if a person found an unnoticeable way to sabotage all cars in a city, making them slightly more likely to crash, and didn't seek credit, this would not be terrorism even if the act killed very many people. You might say that our tolerance for the danger of driving is logically inconsistent with our expectations of perfect air travel safety. Is that irrationality a learned or innate one? Probably a mix, but certainly at least partially innate, similar to the human tendencies to value immediate rewards much higher than future rewards, or the loss aversion bias.
    - smokeyj 15y ago
      > Here's mine: an act of terrorism is an attack designed to elicit a reaction massively disproportionate to the damage directly caused I see where you're coming from, but I feel it's too subjective. The massively disproportionate action is not under the control of the terrorizer, but rather the publicist. The media really controls who we consider to be "terrorists", rather than any empirical metric. If we have counter-terrorist groups who just go after terrorists, shouldn't we define who terrorists are? We start using words like "cyber-terrorists", and now we're all included. I just find no value in the semantic classification of boogie men except for expansion of our police state.
  - tyree732 15y ago
    I think a better comparison is with airplanes. You don't have a any real chance of being killed in an airplane, but if you were to be in a plane crash it would be horrifying and violent and you would die.
- LiveTheDream 15y ago
  No, that is common sense. The dictionary definition[1]: Good sense and sound judgment in practical matters [1]http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=common+sense&tbs=dfn:1 http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=common+sense&tbs=dfn:...
angus77 15y ago
Don't be ridiculous. The "common sense" response is always something along the lines of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". It takes real sense to see how shortsighted "common sense" usually is.
gizzlon 15y ago
Hope you're right.. but only time will tell
michaelfeathers 15y ago
I'm just wondering if someone can invite him to the US on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 to reiterate that message in a public forum. Nobody here is going to do it.

by Tharkun 15y ago

jonnathanson 15y ago

It's actually not common sense, and that's what is special about it. The common-sense reaction to terrorism is to be terrorized by it, and to behave accordingly. It is human nature. We are emotional creatures, and we revert to "fight or flight" instincts when violated. It takes serious resolve and uncommon grace to rise above the gut reaction, keep calm, and remain focused on what really matters.

smokeyj 15y ago
> The common-sense reaction to terrorism is to be terrorized by it I think it's a learned reaction. Car accidents pose a greater threat than any terrorists, we're not terrified of cars are we? The threat has been played up by our fear mongering media, an extension of our military.
- arethuza 15y ago
  A pretty common reason for buying SUVs is because they apparently feel safer, so I think it is possible to argue that some people are indeed terrified of cars.
- shimon 15y ago
  Depends on your definition of terrorism. Here's mine: an act of terrorism is an attack designed to elicit a reaction massively disproportionate to the damage directly caused, typically perpetrated by a non-state actor. This is why terrorists target planes, because plane crashes generate tremendous news coverage. By contrast, if a person found an unnoticeable way to sabotage all cars in a city, making them slightly more likely to crash, and didn't seek credit, this would not be terrorism even if the act killed very many people. You might say that our tolerance for the danger of driving is logically inconsistent with our expectations of perfect air travel safety. Is that irrationality a learned or innate one? Probably a mix, but certainly at least partially innate, similar to the human tendencies to value immediate rewards much higher than future rewards, or the loss aversion bias.
  - smokeyj 15y ago
    > Here's mine: an act of terrorism is an attack designed to elicit a reaction massively disproportionate to the damage directly caused I see where you're coming from, but I feel it's too subjective. The massively disproportionate action is not under the control of the terrorizer, but rather the publicist. The media really controls who we consider to be "terrorists", rather than any empirical metric. If we have counter-terrorist groups who just go after terrorists, shouldn't we define who terrorists are? We start using words like "cyber-terrorists", and now we're all included. I just find no value in the semantic classification of boogie men except for expansion of our police state.
- tyree732 15y ago
  I think a better comparison is with airplanes. You don't have a any real chance of being killed in an airplane, but if you were to be in a plane crash it would be horrifying and violent and you would die.
LiveTheDream 15y ago
No, that is common sense. The dictionary definition[1]: Good sense and sound judgment in practical matters [1]http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=common+sense&tbs=dfn:1 http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=common+sense&tbs=dfn:...

angus77 15y ago

Don't be ridiculous. The "common sense" response is always something along the lines of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". It takes real sense to see how shortsighted "common sense" usually is.

gizzlon 15y ago

Hope you're right.. but only time will tell

michaelfeathers 15y ago

I'm just wondering if someone can invite him to the US on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 to reiterate that message in a public forum. Nobody here is going to do it.