4 ms·
And if you think about it, that's the way it ought to be. Spending and making laws are all about the consent of the governed, doing things they want. They're no
by kiba 13y ago
And if you think about it, that's the way it ought to be. Spending and making laws are all about the consent of the governed, doing things they want. They're not about math or logic.
Righhhhhhhhhhhhht.. Let throw out thinking, ethics, and morality just for some "heart". No, this is not how humanity should conduct themselves. Emotion should be calibrated to logics and numbers, not the other way around.
If heart attacks and motor accidents isn't photogenic as terrorism, the response shouldn't be to cater to the terrorism fearing population, but making heart attacks and motor accidents photogenic.
Let do what we really want rather than we think we want. Know ourselves, and we will know that pursuing terrorists by losing our liberty should not be our future.
- sliverstorm 13y agoIt's an interesting question though- which is better, to feel safe or to be safe?
- gregpilling 13y agoRollercoasters - I get an adrenaline rush when I am safe, but it doesn't feel safe.
- sliverstorm 13y agoIrrational fears- they make your life miserable, even if you know you are probably safe, but don't feel safe.
- cgmorton 13y agoThere's a reason 'Phobia' is a clinical diagnosis, not a policy justification.
- resu_nimda 13y agoTo be safe. It may be more difficult for people to swallow initially (which explains why no administration has or will act that way, gotta maintain that power now), but I think we would all be better off if society were pushing us towards logic-based policy rather than pandering to irrational emotions. We're sociopolitically treading water (or worse, slowly drowning) by continuing that. Why do we still go to war? Sending our own people to die senselessly by the thousands, for what again? It's 2013 and America is still spending vast sums of money on weapons and war. Utterly ridiculous. But that is what people have done since the dawn of civilization, and despite all of our knowledge and "enlightenment," we're still catering to these primal animal urges. The nihilist in me says "fuck it, if that's what they want, that's what they get," but the idealist weeps at the thought of the existence we could have built...
- cortesoft 13y agoWell think about the extreme cases: You feel 100% safe, but you have a 100% chance to die tomorrow You feel 0% safe, but you have 0% chance to die tomorrow Which is better? Well in the first case, you feel safe but are dead tomorrow. The second case, you feel completely in danger, but you stay alive. I would say the one where you ACTUALLY die is worse. It doesn't matter how secure you feel if you are dead.
- sliverstorm 13y agoSure, it's worse if you are highly likely to die. But what if you are very unlikely to die? What if you feel you have a 10% chance of dying tomorrow, but actually only have a 0.001% chance of dying? IMO quality-of-life is worth considering in such skewed cases.
- taurath 13y agoYou're stretching the risk portion out quite a lot more than the other side. A better question would be would you rather feel 99% safe and have a .001% chance to die tomorrow, or feel 0% safe and have 0% chance to die tomorrow.