October 11, 2003
"Everyone looks the same when they're on fire"
Before I start posting my oppressive, fascist opinions I have to run off to the store for some necessities. In the meantime, read this column by Jake Ryan, who was injured in last year's terrorist attack on Australians (and anyone else near them) in Bali. Then ask yourself (if you are one of the doubters) if there is any other way to stop terrorism than, well, stopping terrorists. (Via Tim Blair.)
Posted by Andrea Harris at October 11, 2003 05:29 PM
I shall sit here staring at the screen waiting for the opression to begin!
And here I thought this was going to be a boring Saturday.
Did you see her repressing me? It was awful. (But I kinda liked it.)
Welcome back! Wow... how long has it been? Almost a week without the Internet. You poor dear. You have my highest admiration for your remarkable survival skills.
Dean, I think everybody kinda likes it [snerk]
Whoops! Typo corrected. My only excuse is that I have this problem with names. For instance, I keep calling everyone I know who is nicknamed "Chip," "Chuck." I don't know why.
sure - getting rid of all terrorists would be the best way of getting rid of all terror... but like any typical leftie you ignore the basic rule of economics - there is an efficient amount of everything which tends to be non-infinite and non-zero.
we could (maybe) get rid of all car accidents by getting rid of all cars. we could (try to) get rid of all smoking deaths by banning cigarettes. we could (try to) get rid of all terrorism by killing all the terrorists.... but if the costs are too high then it just isn't worth it
despite all of the socialists rhetoric... it is not true that "no price is too high". It is not true that the government should spend any amount and do everything it can to prevent a death. Like it or not - there is an efficient amount of people to die from terrorism. Government-loving emotional and idiotic mantra doesn't change that... it just means we get bad public policy.
But hey - you're scared. Please increase my tax. That's what they all do...
Congrats, number: you've won the award for Pointless Comment of the Week. Let's all give up, lay down and die! Living costs too much.
We could MAYBE get rid of all car accidents by getting rid of all cars? Maybe?
What are you going to have a car accident in without a car to have an accident in?
Are you insane, odd number-named person?
"There is an efficient amount of people to die from terrorism", does that even mean anything?
Are you trying to say that it's socialistic to try to wipe out terrorism?
Talk about a brain misfire.
Strangely - given the stupidity of Andrea & Jack's comments... they actually displayed more intellegence that I expected. So it is possible to underestimate Andrea! :)
Andrea, I didn't say that living costs too much. But maybe you should pretend that's what I said if it helps you sleep. You make fun of the "give up" solution... but the reality is that if fighting has more costs than benefits - we should "give up". Consider the government war on drugs. Consider the government war on poverty. Giving up on these wars does not mean that poverty and drugs are good - it simply means that the huge government program is failing and should be scrapped. Complex thinking eh?
And now to Jack... the resident brainiac. :) In adding 'maybe' to getting rid of car accidents, I was accepting the fact that government legislation would fail if it attempted to get rid of all cars. Just like prohabition of alcohol did not get rid of all deaths from alcohol and prohabition of heroin has not abolished deaths from heroin.
I don't know why you're confused by the comment: "there is an efficient amount of people to die from terrorism" - excpet maybe that the concept of efficiency is alien to you?
I don't know how to dumb this down any further for you people. All things have costs. The marginal cost of saving a life increases per life saved (ie the slope of the supply curve for anti-death measures is upwards). If it costs $100 to save a life... then great. If it costs $100 trillion, then the government shouldn't act. Somewhere in the middle is the correct response... and it's unlikely to result in zero deaths.
I'm not saying it's socialistic to wipe out terrorism... I'm saying it's socialistic to support huge government programs that have costs greater than benefits - justified on the basis that "the government must do something".
Well, it's been a delight visiting this page and having my low impression of your intellegence re-enforced. But I must go and earn a living now. Don't try and think to hard... just repeat "no price is too high" and "I love my government" several times, then click your ruby red slippers together and you'll be comfortable again.
Well, fake name, you sure are an asshole. But thanks for reinforcing my assessment of your lack of intelligence, not to mention your retarded assumption that I and Jack actually meant "give up" when we were both using hyperbole to point out what a nimrod you are.
In any case, your analogy using the examples of the "Wars" on drugs and poverty won't fly, since neither of those are real wars, but merely examples of well-meant but badly-implemented government programs given macho names for dramatic (and vote-garnering) effect. In both those cases the term "war on" was used when referring to actions against both these phenomena (illegal drug trafficking and people not having enough money) because the spin doctors selling these programs to the public knew that the actual definition of war was something that already resonated strongly with people.
But you, being omniscient, already knew that.
Ain't that cute! Little 24601 doesn't even know his right from his left and here he is posting comments on the Web.
It's okay everybody, the alphabetically challenged individual has said he/she/it is going away. It seems we've insulted his/her/its 'intellegence'. That's probably because we don't 'prohabit' alchohol.
But you don't have to dumb anything down, 24(can I call you 24?), I would have understood
"there is an efficient amount of people to die from terrorism" - "excpet" it's not a coherent sentence.
It's best, Twenny, when questioning someone's "intellegence" in a rebuttal, to make sure that you've spelled intelligence right.
government legislation would fail if it attempted to get rid of all cars. Just like prohabition of alcohol did not get rid of all deaths from alcohol
Yeah, stupid Jack. You could drive your car in your living room, and then the government wouldn't know you still had it. Think these things thru before you argue against an obvious super-genius.
The anvil must have fallen on Number's head. I haven't heard a peep from him since.
There's nothing quite so amusing as the rantings of an individual who's got an obviously severely overinflated opinion of their own intellect. If only he/she/it had selected a number that was larger by 10, he/she/it would be redundantly a prime candidate for ridicule.