Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (127723)	7/26/2005 4:43:47 PM
From: Constant Reader	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

I've heard this argument before. Not that there is not some validity to it (which I don't have the time today to go into, unfortunately), but whenever I hear it, I can't help wonder if that means we should consult a list of all deaths in the USA and allocate our resources proportionate to the incidences of death? Have you ever seen an article which spells this idea out beyond the shorthand? (I really wish someone else mentioned this because it looks like I'm picking on you but I'm not - at the moment, at least - just curious as to how that idea is supposed to work if put into practice.)

To: epicure who wrote (127723)	7/26/2005 4:47:41 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

I don't believe you can analyze the threat solely in terms of X number of victims being Y percentage of the total metropolitan London population. The fact that any particular person has a relatively small risk of being killed by a terrorist in London is irrelevant. Under current circumstances, there appears to be a decent risk that at least some of the daily commuters may become victims. Is it your position that nothing should be done to combat Islamic terrorism? Do you believe we should just learn to accept and live with it? What would be a reasonable allocation of resources to meet the threat in your opinion?

To: epicure who wrote (127723)	7/27/2005 2:31:36 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

So, you think we should wait for a really big mass casualty event before getting serious about terrorism? 9/11 wasn't enough for you? What would it take? 50,000? 100,000? Would you call it a threat then? Because, as a civilization, we have this silly idea that people have a human right to life, we get upset when they are deliberately murdered. When they are deliberately murdered by someone who proudly claims credit for their deaths and announces his intention to do it again, many times over, we assign a high priority to preventing it. I tell you this because you seem to be unclear on the concept of "murder."