"suggests that we should not fear it. "
I didn't say that
I really detest having to keep correcting posts that attribute things to me I do NOT say, nor do I suggest it. I think our fears should be RATIONAL, and I don't think we should vote our fears (I think we need to vote for rational solutions to our problems, and the solutions should be in proportion to the threat). You know nothing about me, and whether or not family and friends of mine were killed in 9/11. Knowing the victim of an event, doesn't make the event any more risky- it does not affect the threat, it only affects one's perception of the threat, if one lets it. I grant you, people are irrational in this regard, more's the pity (imo).
You are correct about this- people would never vote for the rational, and they would boo the idea of treating things in accordance with their actual risk- because the things that pose real risk for us, are often too frightening and big to contend with, as well as, in many instances, being lifestyle issues, so we displace, and we worry about external things that keep our minds off the really immense risks. It's unforunate, but very human.
Now, don't come back and tell me I said there was no risk in terror, or that we shouldn't fear it. Because what I am saying here- again- is that we should keep things in proportion to rational things, like numbers and odds, and not in proportion to feelings, which are irrational. |
