freeryde13 0 #1 November 12, 2004 a few quick questions, setting emotion aside for a second....or two: how many people a year are killed by terrorists each year in america? how many people a year are killed by tabaco? by alchohol? y aids? by palotants? by other cancers? is one way of dieing worse than another to relatives of the deceased? should we a smart nation spend out money proportionately to our theats to our fellow citizens?_________________________________________ people see me as a challenge to their balance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #2 November 12, 2004 Quotea few quick questions, setting emotion aside for a second....or two: how many people a year are killed by terrorists each year in america? how many people a year are killed by tabaco? by alchohol? y aids? by palotants? by other cancers? is one way of dieing worse than another to relatives of the deceased? should we a smart nation spend out money proportionately to our theats to our fellow citizens? I have no clue about the numbers, but I DO think I would have a more difficult time coping with my brother being beheaded than with him dying by some other means. I would have a more difficult time coping with him dying in Iraq than with him dying of cancer. I do think that one way of dying is worse than another.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gordy 0 #3 November 12, 2004 Quote I DO think I would have a more difficult time coping with my brother being beheaded than with him dying by some other means Couldn't agree more Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #4 November 12, 2004 People who die from smoking (or skydiving) at least did so voluntarily. They chose a vice that offered some benefits along with the risk. There are a lot of things you can do to live longer, but not all of them improve the life you do live. Soliders at least volunteered for the chance of fighting. Civilians who are bombed or kidnapped may not have done anything to lead to their outcome. It's as bad a deal as getting hit by a random cancer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeryde13 0 #5 November 12, 2004 "but I DO think I would have a more difficult time coping with my brother being beheaded than with him dying by some other means. I would have a more difficult time coping with him dying in Iraq than with him dying of cancer. I do think that one way of dying is worse than another." but thats the whole reason i said "taking emotion out of it for a second." once someone is dead, they are dead, of curse there are differrent ways to day , some more appealing than others. what i'm trying to figure out and discuss is if this whole war on terror thing is just a panic or hype kind of thing. is our nation best served putting the 150 - 200 billion dollar in to fighting this "war". does the whole thing even make financial sense. risks erses reward type of thing. i know the whole reasoning is that we gotta gettem before they blow up a nuke here in america. but before we started all this terror war stuff, i don't think they were thinking about anything but feeding the camels and praying 6 times a day. don't get me wrong, if anyone comes attacking here i'll shoot'em my damn self. but the actual numbers of americans dieing from terror a year in america in the last 10 or 20 years...including oklahoma city and 911, still in my opinion don't justify the money we're spending on it._________________________________________ people see me as a challenge to their balance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 November 12, 2004 If there was no response to the al Queda types, it encourages more attacks. See the Clinton Administration for that. The massive spending in the Cold War ultimately ended the Soviet Union as a significant threat to us. "Peace through strength" has some degree of truth and value. But yeah, 200B to keep fighting in Iraq seems like money that could be better directed. I think I would like to see oil motivated expenses paid immediately in the form of a gas tax so that we're directly paying the true costs of gasoline here. Each year we can divide the expense by the current annual sales and apply that for the next calendar year. Think of the CSpan ratings for the hearings to determine those values! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #7 November 12, 2004 QuoteIf there was no response to the al Queda types, it encourages more attacks. So by your logic we'll never be attacked again?Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
unformed 0 #8 November 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf there was no response to the al Queda types, it encourages more attacks. So by your logic we'll never be attacked again? Of course, we're a really safe country. We've got all of this terrorism protection now.This ad space for sale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #9 November 12, 2004 > People who die from smoking (or skydiving) at least did so voluntarily. 30,000 people a year die from particulate pollution from coal fired power plants. 160 people a year die from the pollution from just two power plants in Massachusetts alone. And dying of COPD, emphysema or lung cancer is an especially painful, degrading way to die. >It's as bad a deal as getting hit by a random cancer. Now imagine that cancer wasn't so random . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 November 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf there was no response to the al Queda types, it encourages more attacks. So by your logic we'll never be attacked again? That is not proper application of logic. Inverse statements aren't absolutely true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 November 12, 2004 Quote >It's as bad a deal as getting hit by a random cancer. Now imagine that cancer wasn't so random . . . People dying in their 20s from melanoma or testicular cancer lost a bad lottery. There are some risk factors, but it is quite random, and rare enough that it's often missed until too late. For all the hazards of smoking, it still only directly kills one third of its users, and takes several decades to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #12 November 12, 2004 >For all the hazards of smoking . . . . I was talking about power-plant deaths, actually. I agree that people who smoke, and die as a result, are experiencing a sad but not unexpected result of their decisions. Not really true for deaths by coal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #13 November 13, 2004 QuoteI have no clue about the numbers, but I DO think I would have a more difficult time coping with my brother being beheaded than with him dying by some other means. I would have a more difficult time coping with him dying in Iraq than with him dying of cancer. I do think that one way of dying is worse than another. And I would have more trouble with a beheading too, BUT I would probably add a little logical analysis to the whole thing rather than a kneejerk reaction to it. First I would look at the number of people killed by terrorism, which I came to about 4000 in the past 30 years, versus the 15 million or so victims of cancer alone. And given those odds of dying of cancer being 3750 times dying as a result of an act of terrorism, and about 1,000,000 times more likely than being beheaded. I would not actually even consider the thought of being beheaded in the strategy. And while being beheaded is gruesome, it is relatively quick, whereas cancer is mostly slow and painful. I would probably invest my $$ in preventing and curing the cancer rather than giving ANY thought to terrorism, other than improving the security at our borders, airports, sea ports, etc, which we have already done and continue to do. What would $150B do for cancer research? For education? For the environment? For the development fo safer fuels and better energy consumption? Priorities are all screwed up because people lay awake at night worrying about being beheaded. TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #14 November 13, 2004 Quote Priorities are all screwed up because people lay awake at night worrying about being beheaded. TK Funny....I think people are being beheaded (no matter how few) because our priorities are all screwed up....-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
