3 ms·

It is because deaths due to terrorism are wrongful deaths while most others are not. In 2011, 9,878 people died in drunk driving crashes - one every 53 minutes

by 300bps 13y ago

It is because deaths due to terrorism are wrongful deaths while most others are not. In 2011, 9,878 people died in drunk driving crashes - one every 53 minutes. Is that not considered wrongful death in your mind? That's twice as many people in one year dying from wrongful death than terrorism has killed in 148 years. If we were treating this wrongful death as seriously as we did terrorism, we'd require breathalyzer starters on every single car. Hell, we'd probably bring back prohibition. Source: http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/drunk-driving-statistics.html http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/drunk-driving-statis... Your lazy fake criticism of the statistics justifiably ignored.

mikeash 13y ago
Let's not forget the roughly 15,000 people murdered each year in the US (which number does not, as far as I know, count drunk driving fatalities). If those don't count as "wrongful death" then nothing does. But nobody cares, because it's a continuous drip instead of a single big event, and because it mostly happens to poor people and minorities.
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  Yes, nobody is doing anything about those 15000 people.
cscurmudgeon 13y ago
Proper inference should consider all available data not just historical data. Just waving around numbers is not correct reasoning from first principles! Correct and proper inference should include present threats, beliefs and intentions of relevant groups. Do you account for that? Just because an axe-wielding madman has not committed any murders in the past, you would not let him be on his own. Just an instant before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, nobody in that city had been killed by an atom bomb. You would probably stare at the bomb dropping on your head waving around stats saying the bomb is not a threat to your existence. "The past never repeats itself precisely; otherwise, historians would be rolling in riches." - James Gipson, Clipper Fund Your comment is a one-way attack on sanity. It would take me a lot of effort to show where you went wrong. It takes you only a bit of effort to be wrong.
- 300bps 13y ago
  Random platitudes, tu quoque, ambiguity, lazy criticism, vague references, pedestrian insults --cscurmudgeon
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    Instead of insulting me, care to rebut my arguments? This is hilarious. I know you feel offended that I have shown that one drive a huge plane through the holes in your reasoning, but you don't respond with a barrage of "fallacies." Sigh.

by 300bps 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

Let's not forget the roughly 15,000 people murdered each year in the US (which number does not, as far as I know, count drunk driving fatalities). If those don't count as "wrongful death" then nothing does. But nobody cares, because it's a continuous drip instead of a single big event, and because it mostly happens to poor people and minorities.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago
Yes, nobody is doing anything about those 15000 people.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago

Proper inference should consider all available data not just historical data. Just waving around numbers is not correct reasoning from first principles! Correct and proper inference should include present threats, beliefs and intentions of relevant groups. Do you account for that? Just because an axe-wielding madman has not committed any murders in the past, you would not let him be on his own. Just an instant before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, nobody in that city had been killed by an atom bomb. You would probably stare at the bomb dropping on your head waving around stats saying the bomb is not a threat to your existence. "The past never repeats itself precisely; otherwise, historians would be rolling in riches." - James Gipson, Clipper Fund Your comment is a one-way attack on sanity. It would take me a lot of effort to show where you went wrong. It takes you only a bit of effort to be wrong.

300bps 13y ago
Random platitudes, tu quoque, ambiguity, lazy criticism, vague references, pedestrian insults --cscurmudgeon
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  Instead of insulting me, care to rebut my arguments? This is hilarious. I know you feel offended that I have shown that one drive a huge plane through the holes in your reasoning, but you don't respond with a barrage of "fallacies." Sigh.