Quote :

"Ryan Singel at Wired News has produced an insightful little chart that compares the odds of dying from a terrorist attack to other causes of death in the United States. According to this data, Americans are more likely to be killed by a policeman than by a toothpaste-wielding foreign jihadist."

Quote :

"S E V E R E Driving off the road: 254,419 Falling: 146,542 Accidental poisoning: 140,327 H I G H Dying from work: 59,730 Walking down the street: 52,000. Accidentally drowning: 38,302 E L E V A T E D Killed by the flu: 19,415 Dying from a hernia: 16,742 G U A R D E D Accidental firing of a gun: 8,536 Electrocution: 5,171 L O W Being shot by law enforcement: 3,949 Terrorism: 3147 Carbon monoxide in products: 1,554"

Wired news article: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71743-0.html?tw=wn_index_29
via BoingBoing: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/17/flu_hernia_or_police.html

9/18/2006 3:47:57 AM

yeah but the flu isnt a freedom hater


AM I RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

9/18/2006 9:44:23 AM

Common sense would have told you this. What's the point?

9/18/2006 9:45:45 AM

Yeah, this didn't deserve its own thread. I think it was fine in the whole "is terrorism a threat" discussion we had a week or so back. You know, where everyone made this point using words rather than terrible graphics.

9/18/2006 10:11:53 AM

these terrorists want to kill YOU AND YOUR FAMILY

9/18/2006 10:23:00 AM

well, they do

9/18/2006 10:35:28 AM

the flu wants to kill me....

9/18/2006 10:51:08 AM

it tried to kill me before too

9/18/2006 10:54:44 AM

The flu hates our feeedom!

9/18/2006 11:02:53 AM

Um, so what?

Last I checked the flu doesn't kill in public places, en masse. I'm sure more people have died drinking too much liquor in the US then from terrorists...

9/18/2006 11:14:26 AM

Quote :

"Last I checked the flu doesn't kill in public places, en masse."

It's just spread in public places, en masse. The people that usually die from it do so in a hospital or their homes.

9/18/2006 12:00:49 PM

the turrests have been using the flu all along omg!!!!!

9/18/2006 12:08:44 PM

the numbers prove terrorism is not anything to worry about!

9/18/2006 12:53:49 PM

This just in...
Flu beheads another victim.
Another police suicide bomber detonates bomb; killing 10.
Al Queda plotting against US...President seen eating chicken noodle soup and getting lots of rest.

oh wait, no.

GTFO with that shit. Seriously.

9/18/2006 1:17:35 PM

the numbers prove terrorism is no more likely to kill you than the flu

this is using only the same logic the world uses to determine what rate your auto, health, life and every other form of insurance should be

look it up, you're looking for "actuary"

A Capitalist actor involved in the assessment of risk, with bilions of dollars devoted to its ability to do this wisely, tells you that terrorism is no more likely to kill you than the flu. Why then does the Government actor involved in the dissemination of information about risk subordinate the risk of flu in the public consciousness to that of terrorism?

This isn't some anti-American bullshit. It's as objective a fact as the insurance premiums you pay.

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 1:55 PM. Reason : ...]

9/18/2006 1:54:43 PM

its so objective it ignores the common sense differences in TERRORISM and A SEASONAL VIRUS

might be a nice assessment to a meaningless math problem...not terrorism though

9/18/2006 1:58:06 PM

What, you think terrorism doesn't get factored into your life insurance?

9/18/2006 2:03:32 PM

you're comparing terrorism to the flu virus because the ONLY thing you are looking at is numbers

you arent factoring in anything else...you are oversimplifying the comparison and you are wrong

9/18/2006 2:05:38 PM

What am I not factoring in?

The only thing I'm simplifying it to is the risk recognized by insurance companies that you face of dying in a terrorist attack. They factor this risk into the rates they charge you for life insurance, and every other form. I'm wondering what it is about their judgment that you're qualified to question.

9/18/2006 2:07:39 PM

more people die each year from a number of things than people die in the US a year from terrorist attacks

nobody is disputing that

what seems to be way over your head are the fundamental differences in diseases, car wrecks, etc, and a guerilla army of people who want to kill us and cause terror

common sense isnt that common anymore i guess

9/18/2006 2:13:46 PM

The mathematics behind calculating the risk you might die in anything is pretty complicated, too. Far less common than the alleged "common" sense that I lack in your view, and that you don't. Try applying for a job as an actuary job if you don't believe me.

Yet somehow, you're telling me to trust TreeTwista10's assessment of the risk of terrorism beyond the insurance companies' assessments that it might kill me and others more frequently. What gives you, or anyone, the credulity necessary for me to rationally trust their assessments of that?

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 3:08 PM. Reason : ...]

9/18/2006 2:44:28 PM

is that right?

fine.


Flu and Police are now part of the Axis of Evil.

9/18/2006 2:47:54 PM

War on the Flu

9/18/2006 2:48:17 PM

War on Heart Disease

War on Uninformed Decision-Making

War on Stupidity

War on Ignorance

or, for the slightly more daring

War on War

9/18/2006 2:50:21 PM

The flu wants to kill you are your family.

9/18/2006 3:02:08 PM

y'know i never did trust Stewart Copeland, OR sting

9/18/2006 3:02:59 PM

Makes you woner who exactly other people trust, huh?

9/18/2006 3:04:13 PM

common sense isnt that common anymore i guess

9/18/2006 3:06:00 PM

Quote :

" S E V E R E Falling: 146,542 E L E V A T E D Killed by the flu: 19,415 "

Scientists should be working on figuring out why people fall and how we can prevent that. Why do they waste their time on silly things like flu vaccines. They should focus on preventing people from falling down. Numbers don't lie.

9/18/2006 3:06:49 PM

there is a shit ton of research on falling.

9/18/2006 3:09:30 PM

And the government, unlike an individual (and like most corporations), can focus on more than one problem at a time.

9/18/2006 3:10:18 PM

hey some people "fell" out of the WTC's on 9/11

maybe now you'll admit terrorism is a threat after all

9/18/2006 3:10:38 PM

Only if you think insurance companies are dumb enough to fall victim to the statistically retarded concept of "double counting." Or, do you have some wild hypothesis about how people could die twice?

9/18/2006 3:11:52 PM

what is your obsession with insurance companies? what do they have to do with anything? again, you continue to ONLY look at the numbers as if there are no other variables

9/18/2006 3:12:54 PM

The numbers are the most objective measure we have available to us. Insurance companies, as I've exhaustively explained in the past, have an economic incentive to be the best measurers of them. If you have a better one, PLZ TO CITE.

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 3:14 PM. Reason : ...]

9/18/2006 3:14:00 PM

Quote :

"And the government, unlike an individual (and like most corporations), can focus on more than one problem at a time."

Like terrorism, the flu, and other things. What the devil is your point?

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 3:14 PM. Reason : -]

9/18/2006 3:14:10 PM

Why are we so fearful of terrorism? Why is terrorism receiving the priority that it is?

9/18/2006 3:15:12 PM

Quote :

"The numbers are the most objective measure we have available to us"

so what...terrorism isnt something to think about purely involving numbers...or maybe you'd rather only address it when thousands of people are being killed by terrorism every year in the US

9/18/2006 3:19:45 PM

Oh, so you're arguing for a more rational, accurate assessment of the risk that you will die in a terrorist attack than the ones the insurance companies who profit from their capacities to accurately assess risks of that nature.

I'd certainly like to be able to have access to information that assessed the idea in an objective way that involved more complex factors than even insurance companies consider. That way, I might be able to regard your hypothesis as accurate. Who besides yourself should I trust on the matter of collecting and measuring the risks terrorist attacks are going to kill you?

9/18/2006 3:24:48 PM

are you a robot or computer or something? are you incapable of thinking about things without just comparing numbers? are you one of those people who is "really book smart, but lacks common sense"? is your critical thinking limited to functions and equations?

9/18/2006 3:26:09 PM

^^^^It gets people out to the polls and it can be an issue that can get you reelected. BTW. You pretend that the rest of government operates like a well oiled corporation (no pun intended). That isn't the case. I'd rather the government cut things like teacup museums and the like before cutting things like protecting the nation any day of the week.

What kind of priority is terrorism garnering anyway? To me it's just a new label for the same old crap we've always seen coming out of government. Back in the day it was the 'Cold War' now it's 'Terrorism'. If you want to attack anything you might as well take on the whole defense/military budget that dwarfs all these things you mention. After all only a few thousand soldiers have been killed defending our nation over the past decade or so.

This whole argument is silly. If you feel like too much money is being pumped into anti-terrorism efforts feel free to vote according to your convictions. That's pretty much all we as citizen peons can do.

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 3:27 PM. Reason : -]

9/18/2006 3:27:19 PM

I've already asked you to explain what my "common" sense lacks. You haven't done so.

I've presented you with nothing but re-explanations for why I trust the insurance companies--who, unlike TreeTwista10 or me, have a tremendous amount of economic interest in being right about this risk--to assess it more than your own.

You have avoided answering why at every single turn.

9/18/2006 3:27:46 PM

why dont you ask some insurance companies if they think the only difference in terrorism and the flu virus is the number of people it kills per year since they are the authority on everything related to everything

9/18/2006 3:32:53 PM

To their shareholders, the only difference represented by their miscalculation of the two events is exactly the same: $$$.

That's why I trust them more than you. You still haven't told me what I'm missing that's so "common" about this "sense" you're talking about. I'm just presuming that a corporation with (1) access to those actuaries who understand and know how to apply this complex set of mathematics to a problem such as "calculating the risk an individual might die", (2) the enormous amount of resources dedicated to testing and retesting different hypotheses about those risks over the matter of about a century or less, and (3) the most accurate information available about what "causes individuals to die," just might know more about this than you do.

You seem to be long on complaints about why I'm wrong in trusting their assessments of risk. Why's that?

[Edited on September 18, 2006 at 3:37 PM. Reason : ...]

9/18/2006 3:36:33 PM

the only thing you are focusing on is risk of death / likelihood of death by different means, etc which nobody has disputed

your problem is you think terrorism is just a money/numbers issue

its basically an army at war with the united states and all you want to do is cite insurance companies' research on quanitifying causes of death

you are COMPLETELY missing the point as is this bullshit thread

9/18/2006 3:42:28 PM

Actually, I'm not. I'm using their data to illustrate the validity of my question. You're the one questioning their data without stating any rational reason to do so. You instead, irrationally attribute ideas into my arguments that they do not require me to presume in any way.

The only money/numbers issue I've brought up is that the money enables the insurance companies to have better information on the numbers than you do. They're more credible, in my view, than the emotional impressions created by the bombardment of images we see from the government, or media. They encourage us to believe our lives are so fragile that anywhere at any time we could die of a terrorist attack, BUT FAIL to disclose to us the unlikelihood of the possibility of the occurrence.

Their emphasis doesn't reflect the objective fact that I'm simply not that likely to die in a terrorist attack today. Or tomorrow. Or a week from now. The government's obviously not done a bad job of preventing terrorism from being something that objectively ends the lives of American citizens. Before OR after 9/11.

So, why are we now forced to deal with the nonsensically-founded emotional appeals to our fear of death in order to enact policy? Why is the issue so often portrayed as it was recently, as one between life and death? Why do the same people who snicker at Puff Daddy's "Vote or Die" concept, not also snicker at the concept that they could die of terrorism?

The numbers aren't lying. We're not dying of terrorism as much as our politicians are encouraging you to think we are. Or as much as our media is encouraging you to believe.

Why are we more afraid of terrorism than car accidents? Than influenza? Than heart disease? Than falling? Than poisoning?

These things obviously can kill us, AND CURRENTLY DO EVEN IN A POST-9/11 WORLD, and yet it's evidently much more important for us to focus on the risks associated with dying of terrorism than the risks of dying of any other cause. That's the social convention you're desperately seeking to reinforce, and grasping at straws to do so.

All I've been asking you is why...

9/18/2006 4:11:15 PM

Quote :

"Why are we so fearful of terrorism? Why is terrorism receiving the priority that it is?"

Sometimes small problems become big problems if they're ignored.

Examples of problems and bigger ones:

Quote :

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence"

Quote :

"We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."

9/18/2006 4:20:13 PM

I agree with your assessment.

So, what are the complete, rational hypotheses on the table on how to fix the problem represented by the sudden outgrowth in ideas like that being spread in the world?

9/18/2006 4:26:45 PM

^I should ask you the same thing.

Quote :

"In a capitalist market of ideas, GrumpyGOPGamecat, I don't have to suggest them."

9/18/2006 4:39:06 PM

You're right. But you obviously buy into a solution or two currently being theorized. Otherwise, you'd have some way to solve them.

What are you thoughts on the effectiveness of warfare to solve the current conflict? In this capitalist marketplace of ideas, we seem to have agreed on that solution. How come?

9/18/2006 4:42:04 PM