4 ms·
Just pointing out that the "no marshal have ever stopped a terrorist" is a bad argument. It may be a deterrent. We don't know
by fedeb95 4y ago
Just pointing out that the "no marshal have ever stopped a terrorist" is a bad argument. It may be a deterrent. We don't know
- kelnos 4y agoWe shouldn't be spending billions of dollars on a 60-year experiment for possible benefits that we can't quantify. Certainly there are ways to measure if the air marshal program works as a deterrent. Even if there isn't, I'd argue we still need to axe the program, given the cost, abuse, risks, and lack of clear benefits.
- fedeb95 4y agoYes, reasonable measures must be adopted, and if none justifies the program, it makes sense not to continue it. I'm talking about the argument alone, it doesn't add anything
- trgn 4y agoReminds me of the elephant powder joke https://www.reddit.com/r/dadjokes/comments/4pqgjk/how_to_keep_elephants_away/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dadjokes/comments/4pqgjk/how_to_kee...
- fedeb95 4y ago"May" is the keyword there. Also there may not be elephants in a city, while there may be terrorists on planes (I think some incident happened in the past, but I'm unsure). The conclusion is that it's unknown, and calls for a proper evaluation of the matter. The argument by itself is useless. Why are you using a seat belt to prevent mortal incidents, when there aren't mortal incidents with seat belts?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]