Europe submits voluntarily

[Loren Pechtel]

You're comparing accidents to first degree murder committed with a vehicle.

I'm not comparing the perpetrators, I'm comparing the effects on the victims.

Being run over by a car kills one just as dead when it was an accident. In fact, every year it kills 3500+ people in France, roughly 1500 of which would still be alive if the French were driving as carefully as the British. The average number of terrorism victims is a couple orders of magnitude below even that lower figure.

Accident or murder doesn't change the fact that terrorism is one of the last things anyone in France, local or tourist, who is worried about their safety should spend much time thinking about. Pretending otherwise is playing by the terrorists' book - to be feared way out of proportion to their actual capacity to inflict harm, and to further divide the French population, are two of their top goals!

Then I guess we shouldn't care about murder because it doesn't kill anywhere near as many as cancer.

But somehow I think you only are saying we shouldn't care about murder by jihadis.

 

[Jokodo]

You're comparing accidents to first degree murder committed with a vehicle.

I'm not comparing the perpetrators, I'm comparing the effects on the victims.

Being run over by a car kills one just as dead when it was an accident. In fact, every year it kills 3500+ people in France, roughly 1500 of which would still be alive if the French were driving as carefully as the British. The average number of terrorism victims is a couple orders of magnitude below even that lower figure.

Accident or murder doesn't change the fact that terrorism is one of the last things anyone in France, local or tourist, who is worried about their safety should spend much time thinking about. Pretending otherwise is playing by the terrorists' book - to be feared way out of proportion to their actual capacity to inflict harm, and to further divide the French population, are two of their top goals!

Then I guess we shouldn't care about murder because it doesn't kill anywhere near as many as cancer.

But somehow I think you only are saying we shouldn't care about murder by jihadis.

Quote me saying that we shouldn't care about it, or repeal that accusation!

"Caring about it", however, is best not done by helping them achieve their goal. Why is that even controversial?

Also, about Americans going on (and on and on) about how e. g. France has become hell on earth when in fact, even in 2015, including a couple high profile terrorist attacks only raises the murder rate to 1/4 from it's more typical level of >1/5 the US rate: They really are their own kind of funny.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Then I guess we shouldn't care about murder because it doesn't kill anywhere near as many as cancer.

But somehow I think you only are saying we shouldn't care about murder by jihadis.

Quote me saying that we shouldn't care about it, or repeal that accusation!

"Caring about it", however, is best not done by helping them achieve their goal. Why is that even controversial?

Also, about Americans going on (and on and on) about how e. g. France has become hell on earth when in fact, even in 2015, including a couple high profile terrorist attacks only raises the murder rate to 1/4 from it's more typical level of >1/5 the US rate: They really are their own kind of funny.

You're saying the terrorist murders are unimportant because they're small compared to accidents.

 

[bilby]

Then I guess we shouldn't care about murder because it doesn't kill anywhere near as many as cancer.

But somehow I think you only are saying we shouldn't care about murder by jihadis.

Quote me saying that we shouldn't care about it, or repeal that accusation!

"Caring about it", however, is best not done by helping them achieve their goal. Why is that even controversial?

Also, about Americans going on (and on and on) about how e. g. France has become hell on earth when in fact, even in 2015, including a couple high profile terrorist attacks only raises the murder rate to 1/4 from it's more typical level of >1/5 the US rate: They really are their own kind of funny.

You're saying the terrorist murders are unimportant because they're small compared to accidents.

They are minuscule compared with accidents; And the actions taken to try to prevent them are counterproductive. The money spent on extra airport security would have saved FAR more lives if it had been spent on road safety. Why are the small numbers of victims of terrorism more deserving of tax dollars than the large number of victims of bad driving?

Terrorist murders are not unimportant; But they are demonstrably LESS important, and wasting money on public terrorism awareness campaigns is despicable. Particularly as 'awareness' is exactly the result the terrorists wanted. I don't need to know the current terrorism threat level, nor do I need to be 'alert but not alarmed'. Let the police do the anti-terrorism stuff, and let them spend more time and resources on road safety than on terrorism. The public don't need the government to support terrorism by scaring the pants off everyone. But of course, politicians know that fear wins votes.

 

[Jokodo]

Then I guess we shouldn't care about murder because it doesn't kill anywhere near as many as cancer.

But somehow I think you only are saying we shouldn't care about murder by jihadis.

Quote me saying that we shouldn't care about it, or repeal that accusation!

"Caring about it", however, is best not done by helping them achieve their goal. Why is that even controversial?

Also, about Americans going on (and on and on) about how e. g. France has become hell on earth when in fact, even in 2015, including a couple high profile terrorist attacks only raises the murder rate to 1/4 from it's more typical level of >1/5 the US rate: They really are their own kind of funny.

You're saying the terrorist murders are unimportant because they're small compared to accidents.

Any individual terrorism victim is every bit as important as an individual traffic victim.

 

[4321lynx]

Speaking about deaths due toterrorism, bilby said:

They are minuscule compared with accidents; And the actions taken to try to prevent them are counterproductive. The money spent on extra airport security would have saved FAR more lives if it had been spent on road safety. Why are the small numbers of victims of terrorism more deserving of tax dollars than the large number of victims of bad driving?

This compares intentional killings by terrorists to killings caused by stupidity, sometimes criminal stupidity, in behaviour on the roads. If not apples and oranges, it compares, let us say, something like the taste of Cox's Orange Pippins to Red Delicious or Fuji apples given their relative availability in N America.
Also the terror victim rate caused by attacks on airports/planes after removal of airport security is unknown. I would bet it would rise rapidly. Care to run any sort of survey or election that includes such removal?

(btw, the Cox's win hands down compared to any other sort of eating apple imo. Provided you only buy them in the Fall, and only in a month which has an "o" in iits name.)

 

[Jokodo]

Speaking about deaths due toterrorism, bilby said:

They are minuscule compared with accidents; And the actions taken to try to prevent them are counterproductive. The money spent on extra airport security would have saved FAR more lives if it had been spent on road safety. Why are the small numbers of victims of terrorism more deserving of tax dollars than the large number of victims of bad driving?

This compares intentional killings by terrorists to killings caused by stupidity, sometimes criminal stupidity, in behaviour on the roads. <...>

The victim is just as dead irrespective the intentions.

From a utilitarian perspective, the only thing that counts is reducing harm. Thwarting evil people's evil intention is a worthy goal only insofar as their goals entail harm to other people, that is, insofar as it promotes that goal. It is not a worthy goal in and of itself.

It gets funnier with terrorism: terrorists' goal isn't primarily to kill people, their goal is to instill fear, or terror. If you help them achieve that goal by blowing the rather minuscule harm they actually achieve way out of proportion, you're, well, helping them achieve their primary goal. For them, the deaths are just a means to an end. So even if you believe that thwarting evil people's intention is worthy of itself, you're doing it wrong.

Basicallly, what you guys are promoting amounts to preventing, at best, a few dozen terrorist deaths at a cost that could have saved 1000s of road fatalities, and in the process helping the terrorists achieve their real goal, to which the deaths are but a means. In what universe does that make sense?

 

[Jayjay]

Traffic victims should be weighted against the benefits we all get from traffic, which are enormous. What's the upside of terrorism?

 

[angelo]

Traffic victims should be weighted against the benefits we all get from traffic, which are enormous. What's the upside of terrorism?

There is no upside on ignoring the threat of terrorism. Many terrorist plots have been uncovered before countless lives could be snuffed out or maimed by the swift actions of police and security forces before these savages could put their plans into action.

 

[Jokodo]

Traffic victims should be weighted against the benefits we all get from traffic, which are enormous. What's the upside of terrorism?

Now this is an apples and oranges comparison.

"What's the upside of terrorism" is like asking "what's the upside of crashes caused by speeding".

And anyhow, how does France have 5.8 deaths per billion vehicles (and the US 7.1, Czech Republic 13.9) when Finland gets by with 4.8 and Sweden with 3.5 without apparently jeopardising their mobility? Those excess deaths alone that are apparently fully avoidable without jeopardising mobility accounted for 563 deaths in France in 2013 (as compared to Finland), or even 1296 compared to Sweden (11035/17272 excess deaths for the US).

Yes, you read that right: France could save over thousand lives per year, and the US well over ten thousand, without forgoing any of the benefits of traffic, without even changing their habits towards driving less and using public transport more (since those figures I used for the calculation are already relative to km driven, not relative to the population). Those deaths are in vain whatever the benefits of traffic may be!

Here's more data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

 

[Jokodo]

(the "per billion vehicles" in my previous post should read "per billion vehicle kilometres")

 

[LordKiran]

Traffic victims should be weighted against the benefits we all get from traffic, which are enormous. What's the upside of terrorism?

Now this is an apples and oranges comparison.

"What's the upside of terrorism" is like asking "what's the upside of crashes caused by speeding".

And anyhow, how does France have 5.8 deaths per billion vehicles (and the US 7.1, Czech Republic 13.9) when Finland gets by with 4.8 and Sweden with 3.5 without apparently jeopardising their mobility? Those excess deaths alone that are apparently fully avoidable without jeopardising mobility accounted for 563 deaths in France in 2013 (as compared to Finland), or even 1296 compared to Sweden (11035/17272 excess deaths for the US).

Yes, you read that right: France could save over thousand lives per year, and the US well over ten thousand, without forgoing any of the benefits of traffic, without even changing their habits towards driving less and using public transport more (since those figures I used for the calculation are already relative to km driven, not relative to the population). Those deaths are in vain whatever the benefits of traffic may be!

Here's more data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

You and Bilby are wasting your time. You can't reason with someone who adopts a "Feels before reals" outlook because their 'feels' can't ever be wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Traffic victims should be weighted against the benefits we all get from traffic, which are enormous. What's the upside of terrorism?

Now this is an apples and oranges comparison.

"What's the upside of terrorism" is like asking "what's the upside of crashes caused by speeding".

And anyhow, how does France have 5.8 deaths per billion vehicles (and the US 7.1, Czech Republic 13.9) when Finland gets by with 4.8 and Sweden with 3.5 without apparently jeopardising their mobility? Those excess deaths alone that are apparently fully avoidable without jeopardising mobility accounted for 563 deaths in France in 2013 (as compared to Finland), or even 1296 compared to Sweden (11035/17272 excess deaths for the US).

Yes, you read that right: France could save over thousand lives per year, and the US well over ten thousand, without forgoing any of the benefits of traffic, without even changing their habits towards driving less and using public transport more (since those figures I used for the calculation are already relative to km driven, not relative to the population). Those deaths are in vain whatever the benefits of traffic may be!

Here's more data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

The problem here is that not all vehicles are the same and not all miles are the same.

Does that car go 5,000 mi/yr (easily possible for someone who doesn't use it for work) or 50,000 (for someone who spends much of their working time going from point A to point B)? Deaths per passenger-mile are a far better yardstick than deaths per vehicle.

Also, quite apart from any issue of road quality there's the basic nature of the road. City driving has a substantially higher death rate per mile than freeway driving. Freeways have a lower death rate than highways. Mountain roads have a higher death rate than plains (any open, flat terrain, not merely those that tend to be covered in grass) roads.

Until you correct for this (and I doubt there's organized data that would permit this, you probably have to work from accident reports with a human classifying the road type in each case) a comparison between nations doesn't tell you much.

 

[Jokodo]

Traffic victims should be weighted against the benefits we all get from traffic, which are enormous. What's the upside of terrorism?

Now this is an apples and oranges comparison.

"What's the upside of terrorism" is like asking "what's the upside of crashes caused by speeding".

And anyhow, how does France have 5.8 deaths per billion vehicles (and the US 7.1, Czech Republic 13.9) when Finland gets by with 4.8 and Sweden with 3.5 without apparently jeopardising their mobility? Those excess deaths alone that are apparently fully avoidable without jeopardising mobility accounted for 563 deaths in France in 2013 (as compared to Finland), or even 1296 compared to Sweden (11035/17272 excess deaths for the US).

Yes, you read that right: France could save over thousand lives per year, and the US well over ten thousand, without forgoing any of the benefits of traffic, without even changing their habits towards driving less and using public transport more (since those figures I used for the calculation are already relative to km driven, not relative to the population). Those deaths are in vain whatever the benefits of traffic may be!

Here's more data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

The problem here is that not all vehicles are the same and not all miles are the same.

Does that car go 5,000 mi/yr (easily possible for someone who doesn't use it for work) or 50,000 (for someone who spends much of their working time going from point A to point B)? Deaths per passenger-mile are a far better yardstick than deaths per vehicle.

I'm not using deaths per vehicle, I'm using deaths per vehicle kilometer. For all practical purposes, I thus am using your yardstick.

Talking about the difference between city driving and freeway driving, the Netherlands - easily the most densely populated major Western country and thus almost certain to have a higher proportion of city driving - has a death rate per vehicle kilometre of 4.5, almost 37% lower than the US' rate.

Your objections are void.

 

[Jokodo]

Basically, Americans' poor driving kills a 5-digit number of people annually, on top of the 5-digit number of people killed by Americans' almost dogmatic refusal to use public transport even where it's available or could reasonably be implemented. And that's not talking about total traffic deaths, that's talking traffic deaths that other civilised countries' lower rates demonstrate to be fully avoidable without jeopardising mobility.

As angelo would say it (ironically, since he has yet to deliver anything of the sort): Why can't you handle the truth?

 

[angelo]

On the contrary, Jokodo cannot bear to hear the truth. Ive provided endless sources of the truth about the most evil, violent backward and supremacist ideology on the face of this planet, why, every single day one opens a newspaper, opens up and reads about some new jihadists attack elsewhere in the world. And more innocent peoples deaths and maiming by these savages. Diversions claiming these victims pale into insignificance as compared by toad trauma just doesn't hold water. Even one victim of these barbarians is one too many.

 

[Jokodo]

On the contrary, Jokodo cannot bear to hear the truth. Ive provided endless sources of the truth about the most evil, violent backward and supremacist ideology on the face of this planet, why, every single day one opens a newspaper, opens up and reads about some new jihadists attack elsewhere in the world. And more innocent peoples deaths and maiming by these savages. Diversions claiming these victims pale into insignificance as compared by toad trauma just doesn't hold water. Even one victim of these barbarians is one too many.

"Even one victim is one too many" is an ideology with no practical application. In reality, you always have to consider the severity of a problem before deciding on appropriate counter-actions. Otherwise, you might very well end up doing more harm than good, even if your intentions are clean.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even one victim of these barbarians is one too many.

No. Arguments of this type are virtually certainly wrong. Perfection is unattainable, there comes a point when trying too hard becomes counterproductive.

 

[Derec]

Germans are already a minority in many schools in Germany.
That's fruits of Merkel's "open door" policy. In 20 years, these children will all be adults and Germans will start becoming minorities in neighborhoods, towns and cities, and finally in the entire country.

Percentage of elementary schools where Germans are a minority by state.

From the article.

Es sind solche Grundschulen, die in diesen Tagen viele Schlagzeilen machen. In Berlin mobbten muslimische Kinder eine Mitschülerin, weil sie nicht an Allah glaubt, und bedrohten sie. Eine andere Grundschule engagierte einen privaten Sicherheitsdienst, um die Gewalt in den Griff zu bekommen.

Translation: "It is elementary schools like that [where Germans are a minority], that make headlines these days. In Berlin Muslim children have bullied and threatened a fellow student because she does not believe in Allah. Another elementary school hired a private security service to cope with the violence." The article goes on to detail the bullying, for example telling German children they are going to hell for not being Muslim or bullying them for eating "unclean" gummy bears because they contain gelatin (which is haram under Islamic superstitions).

Note that elementary schools in Germany only go to 4th grade. And even at that age Muslim migrant children are such a violent problem that security must be hired to deal with them. And it's pretty much impossible to get rid of any of these migrants. Any deportations are limited to single adults and they occur in almost homeopathic dosages. Muslim mass migrants get in in their 10s and 100s of thousands per year, but maybe 100 get deported per year. That is not sustainable, and will lead to Germany (and rest of Western Europe) becoming an Islamic region in several decades.

Another article about Muslim bullying at elementary school in Germany.
Der Zorn der Eltern
In one case of Muslim bullying the school principal advised the girl who was bullied to not say that she is German and to wear a hijab, presumably so that she will be integrated with the Muslim majority at the school. In another school a Syrian student threatened to behead a Christian student, and the school administration excused it by saying that Syrians did not have it easy. The kid is an aspiring ISIS terrorist and thus he should be deported before he can turn his words into deeds.

Un-fucking-believable. AfD should be getting >50% given the mess Merkel has made!

 

[Ford]

The problem here is that not all vehicles are the same and not all miles are the same.

Does that car go 5,000 mi/yr (easily possible for someone who doesn't use it for work) or 50,000 (for someone who spends much of their working time going from point A to point B)? Deaths per passenger-mile are a far better yardstick than deaths per vehicle.

I'm not using deaths per vehicle, I'm using deaths per vehicle kilometer. For all practical purposes, I thus am using your yardstick.

Talking about the difference between city driving and freeway driving, the Netherlands - easily the most densely populated major Western country and thus almost certain to have a higher proportion of city driving - has a death rate per vehicle kilometre of 4.5, almost 37% lower than the US' rate.

Your objections are void.

Loren thinks that anyone even remotely Muslim or Arab is a terrorist.