• Jihadi arrests in EU nearly double in 2 years: Europol
    103 replies, posted
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?
[QUOTE=_Axel;52382629]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?[/QUOTE] 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.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52382899]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.[/QUOTE] 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 [I]are[/I] 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.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52383086]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 [I]are[/I] 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.[/QUOTE] 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?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52383202]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?[/QUOTE] 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? [QUOTE=_Axel;52383086]What [I]are[/I] 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.[/QUOTE]
Gee. I wonder why. Surely not because of the immigration of millions of military aged fighting males from third world cesspools that execute gays. :chem101:
[QUOTE=BicycleDay43;52384336]Gee. I wonder why. Surely not because of the immigration of millions of military aged fighting males from third world cesspools that execute gays. :chem101:[/QUOTE] Yes lets ban males then
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.