London Terror Attack

[NinjaKnight]

lol

You posted weeks ago it was dumb to avoid "packed public squares" like I mentioned, and yet an attack happened exactly when I was supposed to be in London......in a packed public square.

You posted in this very thread that statistics are not required for business majors when they are. To suggest it's not is just stupid.

The people in this thread also know you're wrong, you're just so amazingly stubborn and arrogant that you can't bring yourself to say it. Now please go on your typical rant about how much more likely we are to die from a falling can of soda or something.

I really don't know how to explain it in a manner that is simple enough for you to comprehend. I've tried my hardest, but you simply are incapable of understanding even the most basic of statistics. Do you really not understand the numbers involved? How many millions of people live, work and play in London and all the "packed public squares" every single minute of every single day, and you stupidly think that avoiding them due to terrorism 24/7 is a valid reason?

The statistics remark was obviously hyperbole, but I'm honestly wondering if you just blew off that class. It is incredible that someone could graduate highschool and be as purposefully ignorant on this subject, let alone college.

 

[NinjaKnight]

The chart you posted my provide perspective relative to number of deaths but it still doesn't tell the whole story nor does it support your argument. Of course most deaths are caused by disease which are typically a result of age, life choices or accident. Death by terrorism is not a life choice, disease or accident but it is potentially preventable if one makes wise decisions. Not only that but if we currently weren't spending as much as we were on preventing terrorism, I suspect the number would be way, way higher.

Ah ok, charts and numbers don't tell the story, but 85's feelings do? I thought you were an engineer?

 

[UCFKnight85]

you asked why business majors dont take statistics classes. 85 and fab both pointed out that is 100% false and it is a requirement.

i think london has had like 5 attacks this year alone. they all have had something in common and if you dont think thats a problem, you are beyond help.

Sorry, Ninja is just too intellectual for us. Everyone is dumb and doesn't get it, except him!

 

[fabknight]

Ah ok, charts and numbers don't tell the story, but 85's feelings do? I thought you were an engineer?

No, I'm not an engineer. I'm a dumb, non-statistics-course-taking-business major. Just because a chart has the word "terrorism" in it doesn't make it relevant to your argument.

By the way, I do understand the point you're trying to make, albeit not very well. I personally do not have a fear of going to crowded areas or altering my daily life because of terrorism but if there is a credible threat for potential terrorism occurring in a particular area, then common sense will tell one to avoid the area.

I also want to point out that terrorism is different than the other means of death that your little chart illustrated. Terrorism is the means to achieve the goal of destabilizing governments by increasing fear and reducing the faith of a populous in said government's ability to keep it safe thereby creating a void in order to take over. Terrorism is a different animal. Terrorism has a goal and you have to look at death via terrorism differently than you would death by disease or car accident.

 

[NinjaKnight]

No, I'm not an engineer. I'm a dumb, non-statistics-course-taking-business major. Just because a chart has the word "terrorism" in it doesn't make it relevant to your argument.

By the way, I do understand the point you're trying to make, albeit not very well. I personally do not have a fear of going to crowded areas or altering my daily life because of terrorism but if there is a credible threat for potential terrorism occurring in a particular area, then common sense will tell one to avoid the area.

I also want to point out that terrorism is different than the other means of death that your little chart illustrated. Terrorism is the means to achieve the goal of destabilizing governments by increasing fear and reducing the faith of a populous in said government's ability to keep it safe thereby creating a void in order to take over. Terrorism is a different animal. Terrorism has a goal and you have to look at death via terrorism differently than you would death by disease or car accident.

I do agree with everything you said except for the last half of the last sentence. The underlined is particularly important, because of certain peoples complete lack of understanding of how statistics work. Just because there was one attack in the last 3 months in one "public place" where a couple dozen people were injured absolutely does not justify a "avoid all public places" mentality. There have been literally hundreds of billions of people-hours spent in public places throughout London, the chances of someone being in the Tube when this bomb went off are mind boggling small. Absolutely no reason to justify avoiding "all public places" especially when the alternate is far more deadly (if you don't take the Tube then presumably you have to walk/bike/drive around London, all of which are exponentially more dangerous due to simple traffic accidents). So it simply does not make sense.

My issue with the last half of your last sentence is that there is absolutely no reason to look at Terrorism different--from a chance of death perspective. Why should we focus exponentially more resources fighting something that has a miniscule chance of killing us? If people actually cared about decreasing mortality we should focus our $ on fighting everything on that list I posted that kill more people than terrorism. Not to mention that by being a little pussy hiding in your apartment all day you are literally giving the terrorists what they want, but that's a completely different subject, and it would be understandable if there actually was a credible chance of being harmed by a terrorist. But there isn't.

 

[fabknight]

I do agree with everything you said except for the last half of the last sentence. The underlined is particularly important, because of certain peoples complete lack of understanding of how statistics work. Just because there was one attack in the last 3 months in one "public place" where a couple dozen people were injured absolutely does not justify a "avoid all public places" mentality. There have been literally hundreds of billions of people-hours spent in public places throughout London, the chances of someone being in the Tube when this bomb went off are mind boggling small. Absolutely no reason to justify avoiding "all public places" especially when the alternate is far more deadly (if you don't take the Tube then presumably you have to walk/bike/drive around London, all of which are exponentially more dangerous due to simple traffic accidents). So it simply does not make sense.

My issue with the last half of your last sentence is that there is absolutely no reason to look at Terrorism different--from a chance of death perspective. Why should we focus exponentially more resources fighting something that has a miniscule chance of killing us? If people actually cared about decreasing mortality we should focus our $ on fighting everything on that list I posted that kill more people than terrorism. Not to mention that by being a little pussy hiding in your apartment all day you are literally giving the terrorists what they want, but that's a completely different subject, and it would be understandable if there actually was a credible chance of being harmed by a terrorist. But there isn't.

Fair enough and I agree with you.

Like you basically noted, the underlined sentence is where I think the topic diverges a little. I think you're basically making the argument, although it wasn't your intent (maybe it is), that terrorism isn't necessarily about the deaths but it's more about the intent of terrorism to create change in government, culture and way of life. If that's the case then I will have to agree. Spending the enormous amount of resources is two fold, it's both protecting life and way of life. Protecting life is secondary to preserving our way of life.