3 ms·

Your improvement on framing the issue will be to call those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters". OK, good job.

by mpyne 13y ago

riggins 13y ago
I'm not trying to have it both ways. I used to be in the WTC on a weekly basis (although I wasn't there on 9/11). I don't expect anything from others that I don't expect from myself. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters" obviously if terrorists have hijacked planes and are in the air, and you work in a potential target, it's reasonable to get out. That's what happened on 9/11. I'd note that IMO, airplanes flying into buildings can never happen again. 9/11 was a one-time shot which only happened because prior to 9/11 the consensus advice for how to deal with a terrorist hijacking was to 'not be a hero'. As you saw from United 93, that's a one-time window that lasted about 60 mins. Outside of reinforced cockpits and air marshals, I'm confident that we've got plenty of American heros who will die fighting before they let another terrorist fly a plane into a building. So if your claim is that everyone who works in a skyscraper is justified in sacrificing our most cherished American ideals because they're scared of a terrorist flying a plane into the building, we'll have to agree to disagree.
gknoy 13y ago
You're right. I'd prefer to call those who allow fear of terrorists to govern their lives (and political decisions) cowards. I would not want to insult those who wet pants by comparing them with such people.
- pekk 13y ago
  I'd prefer to call relatively reasonable, unintrusive, low-cost attempts to prevent lethal attacks on large numbers of civilians "prudent". My own "courage" doesn't give me the right to hand over the lives of others and my politics certainly don't either. Any framing which disregards the trade-off is harmful. That trade-off needs to be discussed.

Your improvement on framing the issue will be to call those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters". OK, good job.

by mpyne 13y ago

Your improvement on framing the issue will be to call those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters". OK, good job.

riggins 13y ago

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I used to be in the WTC on a weekly basis (although I wasn't there on 9/11). I don't expect anything from others that I don't expect from myself. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here those who don't like working in skyscrapers with inbound aircraft "pants-wetters" obviously if terrorists have hijacked planes and are in the air, and you work in a potential target, it's reasonable to get out. That's what happened on 9/11. I'd note that IMO, airplanes flying into buildings can never happen again. 9/11 was a one-time shot which only happened because prior to 9/11 the consensus advice for how to deal with a terrorist hijacking was to 'not be a hero'. As you saw from United 93, that's a one-time window that lasted about 60 mins. Outside of reinforced cockpits and air marshals, I'm confident that we've got plenty of American heros who will die fighting before they let another terrorist fly a plane into a building. So if your claim is that everyone who works in a skyscraper is justified in sacrificing our most cherished American ideals because they're scared of a terrorist flying a plane into the building, we'll have to agree to disagree.

gknoy 13y ago

You're right. I'd prefer to call those who allow fear of terrorists to govern their lives (and political decisions) cowards. I would not want to insult those who wet pants by comparing them with such people.

pekk 13y ago
I'd prefer to call relatively reasonable, unintrusive, low-cost attempts to prevent lethal attacks on large numbers of civilians "prudent". My own "courage" doesn't give me the right to hand over the lives of others and my politics certainly don't either. Any framing which disregards the trade-off is harmful. That trade-off needs to be discussed.