4 ms·

Terror is NOT their main risk. If the same money was put in to health, road safety, gun control, and so on, they would be much more secure and safe. Real lives

by alan_cx 13y ago

Terror is NOT their main risk. If the same money was put in to health, road safety, gun control, and so on, they would be much more secure and safe. Real lives would be saved, not hypothetical ones. But since they are high on terrorist stories fed to them by the terror dealers in government, via their media runners, they will never know that, so their sense of security is utterly false. PRISM will not save them from the real statistical dangers in any way. It will not ever give them a quiet life.

xyzzy123 13y ago
I agree with you but an honest and insightful comment (in my opinion) didn't deserve to get downvoted to gray. I thought that was reserved for crazies and trolls, not people expressing a self-evident position. The fact that the priorities of most people are not necessarily aligned with reality isn't the fault of someone explaining the status quo. This gets missed, I think sometimes, in these discussions.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  If we use upvotes to signal agreement, then it is only natural that people use downvotes to signal disagreement. I don't have a link for it right now, but pg has say that as much is expected.
- ctdonath 13y ago
  Warm fuzzies can be dangerously misguided leading to tragic consequences. The post sounds good on the surface, but such sentiment leads to ends far from what is intended. It may be honest, but not particularly insightful. A quiet life free of safety concerns is NOT a right, and attempting implementation thereof via government necessitates serious violation of other fundamental rights. A "proper" totalitarian police state is the only means to that end - and not something many of us are going to put up with. (No, I didn't downvote it, but understand why one would.)
7952 13y ago
I agree 100%. I just disagree with the Ben Franklin position that people don't deserve security or freedom merely because they suffer from the human condition.

by alan_cx 13y ago

xyzzy123 13y ago

I agree with you but an honest and insightful comment (in my opinion) didn't deserve to get downvoted to gray. I thought that was reserved for crazies and trolls, not people expressing a self-evident position. The fact that the priorities of most people are not necessarily aligned with reality isn't the fault of someone explaining the status quo. This gets missed, I think sometimes, in these discussions.

jlgreco 13y ago
If we use upvotes to signal agreement, then it is only natural that people use downvotes to signal disagreement. I don't have a link for it right now, but pg has say that as much is expected.
ctdonath 13y ago
Warm fuzzies can be dangerously misguided leading to tragic consequences. The post sounds good on the surface, but such sentiment leads to ends far from what is intended. It may be honest, but not particularly insightful. A quiet life free of safety concerns is NOT a right, and attempting implementation thereof via government necessitates serious violation of other fundamental rights. A "proper" totalitarian police state is the only means to that end - and not something many of us are going to put up with. (No, I didn't downvote it, but understand why one would.)

7952 13y ago

I agree 100%. I just disagree with the Ben Franklin position that people don't deserve security or freedom merely because they suffer from the human condition.