1. Post #81
    Gold Member
    _Axel's Avatar
    September 2009
    6,673 Posts
    you're ignoring his point that 5 deaths in a neighbourhood (whatever the causes may be, such as from cancer) are random and happen anyways as a natural ongoing thing. it matches previous yearly numbers of deaths

    the difference with terror attacks is that while they are (relatively) rare, they have the potential to kill anywhere between a couple to thousands of people. it's called a fat-tailed distribution my friend.

    unless something like a new drug or nuclear waste disposal goes horribly wrong, cancer is unlikely to suddenly spike up and kill thousands of extra people in a year. terrorism is capable of suddenly and with no warning to take a lot of lives and cause a great deal of harm - often in unexpected places. the typical measures taken to control it thereafter (like airplane security or funding the NSA) are almost useless and barely reduce terror attacks while at the same time soaking up vast quantities of resources and manpower that could be used elsewhere

    of course there's a much better way of dealing with terrorists than typing "thoughts and prayers are with the victims" every few weeks but it's not politically convenient
    But cancer doesn't need to "spike up" to kill thousands of extra people in a year. When you get over a million deaths to cancer per year in Europe alone, a small variation of less than 1% is enough for thousands of extra deaths to occur, and that kind of variation happens all the time.
    Whichever way you put it, to say that terrorism is on equal footing with (let alone a more pressing issue than) much more devastating and lethal phenomenons purely on the basis of innocent people dying doesn't make a lick of sense.

  2. Post #82
    Gold Member
    mdeceiver79's Avatar
    March 2012
    7,397 Posts
    of course there's a much better way of dealing with terrorists than typing "thoughts and prayers are with the victims" every few weeks but it's not politically convenient
    What are those better ways of dealing with terrorists?

  3. Post #83
    Trebgarta's Avatar
    March 2014
    6,157 Posts

    of course there's a much better way of dealing with terrorists than typing "thoughts and prayers are with the victims" every few weeks but it's not politically convenient
    I wonder, what is it?

    Edited:

    There have been attacks in Belgium, Italy, Austria, Sweden, Turkey. Not world powers. This is also not to mention all the attacks in India, Cambodia, Myanmar.

    Also the 'implication' that terrorism is unique to islam is something you decided to derive from my post yourself, so i'm not responding to it.
    Why none in Italy? They have big population of Muslims & a large base of radicals.

    Poland has none because Poland isn't targeted. It is funny how right-wingers celebrate that as a victory of Islamophobia.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Android Chrome Germany Show Events Starred Starred x 2 (list)

  4. Post #84
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    10,319 Posts
    Defending it's populace from foreign threats is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  5. Post #85
    Trebgarta's Avatar
    March 2014
    6,157 Posts
    Defending it's populace from foreign threats is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government.
    Thanks for the obvious fact stated. Unless you claim that any and all refugees are "foreign threats" and refugee rights serve to undermine the security of all individuals across the globe, I have yet to see anyone disagree with this statement or any other connotations. I haven't seen anyone yet say that the number is too high and they should release some of those arrested.

  6. Post #86
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    10,319 Posts
    Thanks for the obvious fact stated. Unless you claim that any and all refugees are "foreign threats" and refugee rights serve to undermine the security of all individuals across the globe, I have yet to see anyone disagree with this statement or any other connotations. I haven't seen anyone yet say that the number is too high and they should release some of those arrested.
    My point is that saying we shouldn't focus on terrorism because things like cancer are bigger threats ignores the responsibilities of government.

  7. Post #87
    Gold Member
    _Axel's Avatar
    September 2009
    6,673 Posts
    My point is that saying we shouldn't focus on terrorism because things like cancer are bigger threats ignores the responsibilities of government.
    You do know another fundamental responsibility of the government is to ensure the well-being of its people, right?
    Appeal to government is rather pathetic, just because a threat isn't foreign doesn't mean it shouldn't be focused on when it has a disproportionately bigger impact.
    I guess terror attacks committed by nationals shouldn't be focused on either, since it's not a foreign threat but a domestic one.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome Belgium Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  8. Post #88
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    10,319 Posts
    You do know another fundamental responsibility of the government is to ensure the well-being of its people, right?
    There's no fundamental responsibility of a government to stop diseases, cancer, car accidents, etc. Accidents are accidents.

    The government is also responsible to protect your rights (not getting cancer isn't a right, for example), and that includes your right to life not being taken by another person. For example, the government is not required to stop everyone form smoking cigarettes, even though it has a good likelihood of giving you cancer, but the government is required to stop a murderer if they know it's going to happen.

    Edited:

    I don't think this is the totality of why focusing on stopping terror attacks is important, but I do think it's an important distinction.

  9. Post #89
    Trebgarta's Avatar
    March 2014
    6,157 Posts
    My point is that saying we shouldn't focus on terrorism because things like cancer are bigger threats ignores the responsibilities of government.
    I dont think when someone says "cancer kills more", that they mean we should just ignore it and let it slide. Measures are implemented.

    I think it is a counterargument to people who allege that terrorism is an exceptional threat. Because when that is the case, it will require extraordinary measures, and most people who praise Poland and Hungary vouch for such measures such as dumping all refugees on Greece and Italy, stopping all Muslim immigration, taking extra steps in reducing in-house Muslim population, crackdown on the borderline of human rights, taking away of many personal liberties, etc... A list with no end since no way to guarantee no terrorism, so no such thing as too far, right? It is an exceptional threat and we must stop it after all, no matter the cost.

  10. Post #90
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    10,319 Posts
    I dont think when someone says "cancer kills more", that they mean we should just ignore it and let it slide. Measures are implemented.

    I think it is a counterargument to people who allege that terrorism is an exceptional threat. Because when that is the case, it will require extraordinary measures, and most people who praise Poland and Hungary vouch for such measures such as dumping all refugees on Greece and Italy, stopping all Muslim immigration, taking extra steps in reducing in-house Muslim population, crackdown on the borderline of human rights, taking away of many personal liberties, etc... A list with no end since no way to guarantee no terrorism, so no such thing as too far, right? It is an exceptional threat and we must stop it after all, no matter the cost.
    That's a strawman of their position. Nobody is saying that we need to stop it "no matter the cost." The disagreement is what is an appropriate amount of cost.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  11. Post #91
    Trebgarta's Avatar
    March 2014
    6,157 Posts
    There's no fundamental responsibility of a government to stop diseases, cancer, car accidents, etc. Accidents are accidents.
    I am sure it falls under "protecting well-being" of the citizens.

    Actually, stopping diseases is mentioned and cancer is thus implied in the German constitution to be the responsibilities of the Government. IDK about the US but here in Europe, the government serves the people in all capacities that people need them to.

    Article 74
    [Matters under concurrent legislative powers]

    (1) Concurrent legislative power shall extend to the following matters:

    ...

    19. measures to combat human and animal diseases which pose a danger to the public or are communicable, admission to the medical profession and to ancillary professions or occupations, as well as the law on pharmacies, medicines, medical products, drugs, narcotics and poisons;
    Also there is the protecting of "human dignity" which is explicitly a "duty" of the State, thought that is special to here. However, I am sure disease control and making available and promoting the means of prevention and treatment of cancer is the duty of all objectively good regimes across the globe.

  12. Post #92
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    10,319 Posts
    I am sure it falls under "protecting well-being" of the citizens.

    Actually, stopping diseases is mentioned and cancer is thus implied in the German constitution to be the responsibilities of the Government. IDK about the US but here in Europe, the government serves the people in all capacities that people need them to.



    Also there is the protecting of "human dignity" which is explicitly a "duty" of the State, thought that is special to here. However, I am sure disease control and making available and promoting the means of prevention and treatment of cancer is the duty of all objectively good regimes across the globe.
    That is talking about communicable diseases, as in trying to stopping a plague. It is not talking about some overarching responsibility to stop all physical ailment.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  13. Post #93
    Trebgarta's Avatar
    March 2014
    6,157 Posts
    That's a strawman of their position. Nobody is saying that we need to stop it "no matter the cost." The disagreement is what is an appropriate amount of cost.
    I have yet to see any reasonable amount suggested by them. There are reasonable amounts that you can increase the current measures, but I haven't heard those from them. Actually, I haven't heard many amounts anyway. Most I hear is "not enough", with the increase open ended, but almost always begins with no sharing of refugees from Greece and Italy to other countries, which is absurd to begin with so I don't listen that much after they start to argue for that.

  14. Post #94
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    10,319 Posts
    Also, let me clarify that by "fundamental" responsibility of government, I'm talking about the very nature of being a government. Any and all governments have an inherent responsibility to protect it's citizens from foreign threats and to protect the recognized rights of it's citizens. Any government that doesn't do those things isn't much of a government at all. This is not true of stopping natural or accidental death.

    Edited:

    I have yet to see any reasonable amount suggested by them. There are reasonable amounts that you can increase the current measures, but I haven't heard those from them. Actually, I haven't heard many amounts anyway. Most I hear is "not enough", with the increase open ended, but almost always begins with no sharing of refugees from Greece and Italy to other countries, which is absurd to begin with so I don't listen that much after they start to argue for that.
    Of course you don't think it's reasonable... that's the whole disagreement. If you thought it was reasonable, then you wouldn't be so adamantly against them.

  15. Post #95
    Trebgarta's Avatar
    March 2014
    6,157 Posts
    That is talking about communicable diseases, as in trying to stopping a plague. It is not talking about some overarching responsibility to stop all physical ailment.
    Work safety, car safety standards, enforcing traffic rules, healthcare - all designed to help with almost all physical ailments. There are limits to a state's powers, -of course it cant STOP them, or prevent all of them, example: selfharm, like cigarettes- but as much as it is able, it helps for the overall well-being of the citizens, which includes almost all physical ailments and certainly not just an extraordinary situation like a plague. State works to prevent even common cold. State puts out ads and PSAs against cigarettes.

    The word "wellbeing" is pretty overarching.

    Edited:

    Of course you don't think it's reasonable... that's the whole disagreement. If you thought it was reasonable, then you wouldn't be so adamantly against them.
    I said there are reasonable offers but the people we see here make none. Maybe you have some, I have some against refugee influx: Making Turkey deal sooner; giving more funding to Turkey, Lebanon and Greece; More EU-organized and led initiative to evenly distribute refugees instead of German-led "Wir schaffen das". But you don't hear these from the people who say "anti-refugee rhetoric in Poland has made it the one of the few countries in Europe left without any terror attacks". The people we are talking about here misunderstand very fundamentals of the problem at hand.

    Cancer and car accident comparisons serve to put the terror threat in perspective. They aren't arguments that are inherently against counterterrorism or its expansion. The people that argument is addressed to are people that have lost perspective and thus aren't making any reasonable demands.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 10 Chrome Germany Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  16. Post #96
    Gold Member
    Kecske's Avatar
    October 2010
    2,036 Posts
    Why none in Italy? They have big population of Muslims & a large base of radicals.
    I've heard two theories about this. Immigration into Italy only really started in the 90s, therefore it has very few Muslim immigrants of the second and especially third generation, who tend to be more susceptible to radicalization.

    The other is that an attack would result in much stricter control of access, therefore limiting the potential purpose of Italy as a gateway to Europe for organized radicals.

    Or maybe just their intelligence agencies work somehow really well.

  17. Post #97
    Gold Member
    _Axel's Avatar
    September 2009
    6,673 Posts
    Also, at what point does the "fundamental" duty have to be enforced? Would focusing on those few threats until there isn't any left (which isn't possible) be a good thing even if it means disregarding more harmful matters?
    This whole government discussion isn't particularly relevant. If we lived in countries where rule of law doesn't exist and terrorists were able to freely roam around blowing people up, you might have a point, but we already have competent (as evidenced by this article) intelligence services and anti-terror taskforces. Isn't that the government fulfilling their duty in a reasonable manner? Why should we care more about this marginal threat that's already being taken care of when countless others are more devastating?

  18. Post #98
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    10,319 Posts
    Also, at what point does the "fundamental" duty have to be enforced? Would focusing on those few threats until there isn't any left (which isn't possible) be a good thing even if it means disregarding more harmful matters?
    This whole government discussion isn't particularly relevant. If we lived in countries where rule of law doesn't exist and terrorists were able to freely roam around blowing people up, you might have a point, but we already have competent (as evidenced by this article) intelligence services and anti-terror taskforces. Isn't that the government fulfilling their duty in a reasonable manner? Why should we care more about this marginal threat that's already being taken care of when countless others are more devastating?
    So what exactly is your argument with comparing the deaths of terrorism and cancer? Wouldn't that argument apply to current resources as well? Why would we spent much at all to stop even a couple thousands deaths if it's all about the number of deaths.

  19. Post #99
    Trebgarta's Avatar
    March 2014
    6,157 Posts
    I've heard two theories about this. Immigration into Italy only really started in the 90s, therefore it has very few Muslim immigrants of the second and especially third generation, who tend to be more susceptible to radicalization.

    The other is that an attack would result in much stricter control of access, therefore limiting the potential purpose of Italy as a gateway to Europe for organized radicals.

    Or maybe just their intelligence agencies work somehow really well.
    There are A LOT of radicals in Italy especially around Milan. Reminder that the Berlin Christmas attacker came from Italy and went back to Italy.

    Italian counterterrorism isn't inefficient, on the contrary I too have heard it being good. There are a few arguments being raised here but to me the most compelling one in my opinion is that it explicitly is not a target, by intention.

    http://www.dw.com/en/does-italy-play...sts/a-36897539

  20. Post #100
    Gold Member
    _Axel's Avatar
    September 2009
    6,673 Posts
    So what exactly is your argument with comparing the deaths of terrorism and cancer? Wouldn't that argument apply to current resources as well? Why would we spent much at all to stop even a couple thousands deaths if it's all about the number of deaths.
    Why don't we spend all our resources on solving world hunger?
    We can tackle several different problems at once. There's no reason to let terrorists operate freely, but past a certain point you get diminishing returns, you can't stop every attempt, and resources and interest would be better spent elsewhere.
    What are your reasons for caring disproportionately about an issue that in the end affect so few people? I suppose people dying isn't a fundamental one.

  21. Post #101
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    10,319 Posts
    Why don't we spend all our resources on solving world hunger?
    We can tackle several different problems at once. There's no reason to let terrorists operate freely, but past a certain point you get diminishing returns, you can't stop every attempt, and resources and interest would be better spent elsewhere.
    What are your reasons for caring disproportionately about an issue that in the end affect so few people? I suppose people dying isn't a fundamental one.
    I don't see how your question is relevant to what I've said. We don't spend all our resources on world hunger for two main reasons:
    1) It would only be possibly in a communistic style system where no one has private property or ownership of their own money.
    2) World hunger is more a problem of corrupt and authoritarian governments than not spending enough money. I don't know of any country with low levels of corruption and high levels of freedom that also has more than miniscule levels of starvation.

    As a clarifying question: Do you think that the amount of money spent should always be directly proportional to the number of deaths being prevented?

  22. Post #102
    Gold Member
    _Axel's Avatar
    September 2009
    6,673 Posts
    I don't see how your question is relevant to what I've said. We don't spend all our resources on world hunger for two main reasons:
    1) It would only be possibly in a communistic style system where no one has private property or ownership of their own money.
    2) World hunger is more a problem of corrupt and authoritarian governments than not spending enough money. I don't know of any country with low levels of corruption and high levels of freedom that also has more than miniscule levels of starvation.

    As a clarifying question: Do you think that the amount of money spent should always be directly proportional to the number of deaths being prevented?
    No.
    Do you think the actual impact of a phenomenon should be completely ignored when it comes to the resources and the interest we should allocate to it?
    What makes you think we should pay particular attention to terrorism besides the fact it causes the death of innocent people?
    What are your reasons for caring disproportionately about an issue that in the end affect so few people? I suppose people dying isn't a fundamental one.

  23. Post #103
    Dennab
    June 2017
    3 Posts
    Gee. I wonder why. Surely not because of the immigration of millions of military aged fighting males from third world cesspools that execute gays.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Mac Chrome United States Show Events Starred Starred x 1 (list)

  24. Post #104
    Crooky14's Avatar
    February 2016
    476 Posts
    Gee. I wonder why. Surely not because of the immigration of millions of military aged fighting males from third world cesspools that execute gays.
    Yes lets ban males then