Do the labels we use really matter? Where we agree on labels they're very handy. Where we don't agree on the labels then by necessity we must use longer descriptions. But I am interested in hearing how the desert encounter between the pilot and the al Queda agent is resolved.
Stupidly, I am now going to state my opinion that if you are aiming a gun at someone for reasons other than your own then some poor choices must have been involved somewhere along the way, most of them probably not your own. If someone's invading your home, that's personal and aim a gun at them by all means. But if someone's in the armed forces of a nation with which your nation is at war, that's not personal and you should not be aiming a gun at them, but you probably found yourself in this situation through little fault of your own, and individual pacifism has no place on the battlefield, so fire away because you must.
I know this is so 1960's of me, but if everyone refused to fight then nations could no longer go to war. In other words, what if they threw a war and no one came? Don't underestimate the peace movement's role in getting us out of Vietnam, the approach isn't as naive as I know it sounds.
As near as I can tell, some people think war has only one definition, and it's the one that requires a nation/state. I don't know why we're having this debate since formal declarations of war have become anachronistic. It's hardly ever done anymore.
It only takes one to what? Hijack one plane out of the 93,000 daily flights? Endanger approximately 300 of that day's 700,000 air passengers? Who cares about that? Don't you think securing every one of the world's airports with a full search and patdown security regime, costing more than 60 trillion dollars, is an overreaction?
Where are you getting 60 trillion dollars from, just curious. That seems a bit exaggerated. But yes, airport security has gone to the extreme. In my humble opinion there has to be some sort of compromise between personal liberty and freedom and security. Where that is exactly I am not sure.
Yeah, but who cares about that? Dead is dead; it doesn't matter if you go in a group or by yourself. Car travel in the US costs more than 40,000 lives a year. Most years have zero air travel related fatalities. If TSA-style security makes even a handful of people drive instead of fly - due to the irritation and inconvenience - then security isn't saving lives, it's killing people.
In the eye in the sky downlook on humanity that is true. It is also true that it is safer to walk or ride a bicycle than drive a car. Does that mean we should not drive cars or spend money on increasing safety in vehicles?
Again we have to come to a solution. How do we provide enough security in the air without causing more harm than good. I think an increase in science and technology in the area of security may help provide the solution in the same way that advances in cybersecurity is protecting against computer attacks.
No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't have to be very large at all, it would just have to have a lot of ballistic mass. The people in the security line - where, at a busy airport, there can be as many as five planeloads all at once - are quite closely packed together. And there's no security to get in the security line.
True. However, since there have not been any attacks to people in security lines, this has not been focused on by the media and thus is not deemed as much a threat as the threat against travelers in the aircraft. Whether this is true or not.
And, in your opinion, would the likelihood and danger of being struck by lightning justify spending 60 trillion dollars and killing a thousand people to eliminate lightning?
Not sure where you are getting 60 trillions dollars. Our total public debt to debt for the United States is 16 trillion. The total global debt is about 48 trillion. You are out to lunch on the 60 trillion. But I accept that we need to reasobly balance security and personal freedom.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
Where are you getting 60 trillion dollars from, just curious.
It was in that infographic. I don't recall their source but they have a full bibliography at the bottom.
In my humble opinion there has to be some sort of compromise between personal liberty and freedom and security.
I think the problem is assuming that a single instance of a failed attack on an airplane indicates that the balance is off. We would expect some successful hijackings/bombings in a well-balanced security regime.
But why get worked up about it? Even if there were one airplane bombing a year - roughly six times the current rate of bombs on airplanes, give or take - it would still be, by far, the safest way to travel.
It is also true that it is safer to walk or ride a bicycle than drive a car.
No, it's actually more dangerous to ride a bike than drive a car, by about double, in terms of injuries and deaths per mile. Overall, though, your mortality is lower with bike riding in your life because of the health benefits of exercise. So, it's a bit of a toss-up.
Does that mean we should not drive cars or spend money on increasing safety in vehicles?
Doesn't it mean that our "safety dollars" should be spent where they do the most good, instead of chasing after the diminishing returns of trying to improve the safety of the safest mode of travel?
How do we provide enough security in the air without causing more harm than good.
Well, as I'm telling you - by doing almost nothing to secure air travel.
However, since there have not been any attacks to people in security lines, this has not been focused on by the media and thus is not deemed as much a threat as the threat against travelers in the aircraft.
Dice have no memory. I assume I don't have to explain the futility of trying to secure against terrorist attacks that have already happened.
Doesn't it mean that our "safety dollars" should be spent where they do the most good, instead of chasing after the diminishing returns of trying to improve the safety of the safest mode of travel?
That seams reasonable but in the light of 9-11, it would have been difficult to argue that we should do absolutely nothing to prevent another terrorist attack on airlines from happening. Sometimes emotions and fear outweigh logical reasoning.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
As near as I can tell, some people think war has only one definition, and it's the one that requires a nation/state.
Sure, many people think that. But that is not a fact, as I have pointed out with the definition of war.
I don't have an issue with Jar claiming this is his opinion or it is what he thinks. But he has been trying to pass it off as a fact, so I keep asking for evidence of that fact.
I know it is not a fact and so does he, but he's being a dick about it so I'll keep asking for the evidence.
In other words, what if they threw a war and no one came?
This would be great, but poor people need to go to college too, and that GI Bill is in some cases their only way there.
If you're being 1960's then remember Fortunate Son and it's lyrics.
Fantastic song! Speaking of the 60's, we also have this wonderful song from Buffy St. Marie, Universal Soldier:
He's 5 foot 2 and he's 6 feet 4 He fights with missiles and with spears He's all of 31 and he's only 17. He's been a soldier for a thousand years
He's a catholic, a Hindu, an atheist, a Jain A Buddhist, and a Baptist and Jew. And he knows he shouldn't kill And he knows he always will kill Kill you for me my friend and me for you
And He's fighting for Canada. He's fighting for France. He's fighting for the USA. And he's fighting for the Russians. And he's fighting for Japan And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.
And He's fighting for democracy, He's fighting for the reds He says it's for the peace of all. He's the one, who must decide, who's to live and who's to die. And he never sees the writing on the wall.
But without him, how would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau? Without him Caesar would have stood alone He's the one who gives his body as a weapon of the war. And without him all this killing can't go on
He's the Universal Soldier And he really is the blame His orders comes from far away no more.
They come from him. And you and me. And brothers can't you see. This is not the way we put an end to war
In other words, what if they threw a war and no one came?
The cynic in me says "They'd bring it to you..."
Percy writes:
Don't underestimate the peace movement's role in getting us out of Vietnam, the approach isn't as naive as I know it sounds.
I agree. It is easy to lose perspective and think along the 'resistance is futile' type line. But when enough people combine to make things better it can be, and has been, done. But it's slow. And hard. And very probably ugly along the way.
That's just reality, not cynicism. The anti-war movement of the 1960's provided a detailed illustration of the plight of draft resisters in this country.
But what does one do when war comes to one rather than one going to the battlefield. What does a resident of Aleppo do when rebels enter from one side and government forces from the other? Does one pick a side and take up arms?
My answer is no. One fights war with peace, by refusing to fight. The Buddhist way is the proper path. When war comes to one's town one does not pick up a rifle and bar the door. War is horrible, terrible, and one leaves the battlefield, even if it includes one's home, as best as one is able. One cedes to the warriors whatever they want. As Jesus said, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and I take the deeper meaning that he meant anything of the material world, including all one's possessions.
This does introduce quandaries to which I have no solution. For example, one is not always able to leave, as many Jews attempting to leave Germany before WWII could testify except that not leaving was kind of fatal. Some Jews took up arms and became freedom fighters, like Menachem Begin who eventually became prime minister of Israel, but by my philosophy that was wrong. He murdered Germans and saved Jews, and how one balances those columns I have no idea.
Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection by that state. Killing an anarchist or a pacifist should not be defined as murder in a legalistic sense. The offense against the state, if any, should be Using deadly weapons inside city limits, or Creating a traffic hazard, or Endangering bystanders, or other misdemeanor. However, the state may reasonably place a closed season on these exotic asocial animals whenever they are in danger of becoming extinct. An authentic buck pacifist has rarely been seen off Earth, and it is doubtful that any have survived the trouble there...regrettable, as they had the biggest mouths and the smallest brains of any of the primates. The small-mouthed variety of anarchist has spread through the Galaxy at the very wave front of the Diaspora; there is no need to protect them. But they often shoot back.
Obviously the state is part of the problem. In the 1960's young boys were sent to die in Vietnam in defense of democracy and freedom. How the communists in Vietnam were threatening our freedom and democracy was never made clear beyond the nebulous domino theory. They were defending America's interests and were told those interests were their own.
But it was the interests of an elite they were defending, and the elite's interests were defending America's power and influence around the world, wreaking havoc around the world so that we could have peace and prosperity at home. Of course, it wasn't the soldier class getting much of this peace and prosperity, whose benefits flowed disproportionately to the elite who rarely have to fight.
™ Version 4.2
