4 ms·
Okay, so murders in general then. Still a bigger number. By giving events like these a disproportionate audience, we provide them their precise motivation for
by lotyrin 14y ago
Okay, so murders in general then. Still a bigger number.
By giving events like these a disproportionate audience, we provide them their precise motivation for having occurred.
By going to disproportionate efforts to prevent them (or capture those who cause them) we create greater cumulative negative effects than the events do directly.
Sorry if being rational doesn't mesh with what the popular emotional reasoning deems appropriate.
What makes these murders so special? Obviously, they were on the news. Why? Because they didn't happen to faceless poor people of color? Because it's a kindergarten or a marathon, where REAL people got hurt?
Edit: Also, could HN not become a forum for this sort of discussion, please?
- bcardarella 14y agoStallman made no mention of that. He only drew a comparison on the severity of what happened in Boston to that of car accidents and the explosion in Texas. To that point I was addressing.
- lotyrin 14y agoObviously. I feel like his were apt comparisons; it's not obvious to me why intent has a bearing on the math. However, even if we suppose that intent should differentiate these acts somehow, the reactionary position doesn't seem to hold up. *Edited to clarify slightly.
- tzs 14y ago> What makes these murders so special? Bayes' Theorem.