Fear-Mongering

fuelair · Jun 1, 2007

marksman said:
IThe miscalculation backfired. Rather than demonstrate the extent of American power, it demonstrated the limits of that power.
.

Actually, it demonstrated the limits when America does not unleash it's full power. Iraq could have ceased to exist. It did not. We did not even go to fuel-air bombs - much less anything more powerful.
There is some difference.

IXP · Jun 1, 2007

Ziggurat said:
You half-wit, I'm not comparing casualties of one sort against the other, I'm comparing RISKS of one sort against the other. Apparently that's too complex for you.

I've already demolished this argument: the threats simply are not equivalent, and cannot and should not be treated as if they are. Your repetition of it does not make it any less absurd.

Oh so, you finally agree with me. The risks are not equivalent, that is exactly what I have been saying all along. Our risk of dying in an auto accident is probably 100 times higher than our risk of dying in a terrorist attack (those in Iraq excluded).

Now please explain why you are so upset about the much lower risk and not about the orders of magnitude higher one. Could it be irrational fear?

IXP

IXP · Jun 1, 2007

Ziggurat said:
What, you think that's confined to the pro-war side? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.

If you can point out where I said that I will respond.

If it's without probable cause, it's not legal, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about on that last one.

How about this for starters:

The Patriot Act, and Bush administration guidelines for its [national security letters] use, transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

Ziggurat · Jun 1, 2007

IXP said:
If you can point out where I said that I will respond.

You didn't. Your raising the point just made no logical sense unless you did. I conceed the point: you just say stuff that is irrelevant and meaningless to the debate.

How about this for starters:

The Patriot Act, and Bush administration guidelines for its [national security letters] use, transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.

Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html

What this comes down to is you're not happy with the definition of probable cause being used by the government. And that's fine: hell, you might even be right. But there's no evidence in this report, or anywhere else, that they aren't using some criteria for what constitutes probable cause, OR that they can do such searches legally without meeting that criteria. Which was your claim.

Ziggurat · Jun 1, 2007

IXP said:
Oh so, you finally agree with me. The risks are not equivalent, that is exactly what I have been saying all along. Our risk of dying in an auto accident is probably 100 times higher than our risk of dying in a terrorist attack (those in Iraq excluded).

That there is exactly the point: we don't KNOW what the risk is for terrorist attacks. Unlike auto accidents, we simply have no good way of figuring it out.

In terms of auto accidents, there's a cost-benefit curve to spending money on prevention. We can assess the risks, we can assess the costs of reducing that risk, and we can calculate what we think is a good balance between the two, because we have (or can study) pretty much all the relevant factors. That simply isn't the case with terrorism. We do not know what the risks are. And we do not know how effective various countermeasures are. Given these intrinsic uncertainties, it is NOT illogical , hysterical, paranoid, etc. to respond much more vigorously to such events.

Furthermore, distribution of casualties MATTERS. It is not irrelevant. Concentrated casualties have a more disruptive effect than distributed casualties, because the damage to social networks is not linear with the number of casualties. That's why they got rid of the Pals Battalions. So even on a pure, backwards-looking body count basis, the comparisons just don't work.

Now please explain why you are so upset about the much lower risk and not about the orders of magnitude higher one. Could it be irrational fear?

IXP

Well, in principle, it could be. Turns out, though, it isn't.

IXP · Jun 1, 2007

Ziggurat said:
You didn't. Your raising the point just made no logical sense unless you did. I conceed the point: you just say stuff that is irrelevant and meaningless to the debate.

My original point is about the irrational response to the 9/11 terrorist attack. I disapprove of any politician of any viewpoint who makes attempts to use fear to sway voters. This is part of the irrational response.

What this comes down to is you're not happy with the definition of probable cause being used by the government. And that's fine: hell, you might even be right. But there's no evidence in this report, or anywhere else, that they aren't using some criteria for what constitutes probable cause, OR that they can do such searches legally without meeting that criteria. Which was your claim.

From the article referenced:

Issued by FBI field supervisors, national security letters do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress.

This may not constitute evidence that they are not meeting some the criteria, but it sure does not make me feel secure that they are.

And another reference:

The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters -- one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people -- are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.

If you actually believe there is probable cause for investigating this many Americans, you are more delusional than the shrub himself.

IXP

Ziggurat · Jun 1, 2007

IXP said:
This may not constitute evidence that they are not meeting some the criteria, but it sure does not make me feel secure that they are.

And that's fine: your complaint then should be a lack of transparency and the risk of inadequate oversight. Entirely reasonable objections, and a common problem with law enforcement agencies. But it's also a different objection from what you first claimed.

IXP · Jun 1, 2007

Ziggurat said:
And that's fine: your complaint then should be a lack of transparency and the risk of inadequate oversight. Entirely reasonable objections, and a common problem with law enforcement agencies. But it's also a different objection from what you first claimed.

Please let me clarify. I do believe that it is highly likely these letters are being misused, and the way the law is written, this misuse is legal.

So I still stand by my objection to legally spying on American citizens without probable cause (as it was understood before the Partriot Act).

IXP

Tricky · Jun 1, 2007

Why is it that fear always gets mongered? Why isn't there more peace-mongering?

Oliver · Jun 1, 2007

Tricky said:
Why is it that fear always gets mongered? Why isn't there more peace-mongering?

I'm just guessing here to avoid confrontations: I guess it's because many people think you're gay if you're peace-mongering. You know, that kind of Al "save the world" Gore-type.

Pardalis · Jun 1, 2007

Oliver said:
*lol* You're funny, Pardalis. You are the one who "sees Ghosts"

Ziggurat · Jun 1, 2007

Tricky said:
Why is it that fear always gets mongered? Why isn't there more peace-mongering?

Well, the conjugate for fear-mongering should be confidence-mongering, but there isn't too much of that either. I think fish get mongered a lot too. Couldn't really say why.

marksman · Jun 1, 2007

IXP said:
Many times more than $1667 for each U.S. citizen to fight drunken driving? Please show the evidence for this.

This abstract estimates the total efforts at combatting drunk driving at well over a trillion dollars annually, once you factor in municipal, county, state and federal efforts across the nation.

You're comparing that the amount we've spent on terrorism over the last few years.

Please stop making the ridiculous comparison that the amount we spend on alcohol-related deaths is pittance compared to the amount we spent to fight terrorism. It's not true. It's a popular statement in the anti-war crowd (and I'm anti-war), which people seem to accept because it sounds pretty. It's wrong. Please stop. America spends a godawful amount of money trying to stop drunk driving.

marksman · Jun 1, 2007

Ziggurat said:
Well, the conjugate for fear-mongering should be confidence-mongering, but there isn't too much of that either.

That is usually called "jingosim"

IXP · Jun 1, 2007

marksman said:
This abstract estimates the total efforts at combatting drunk driving at well over a trillion dollars annually, once you factor in municipal, county, state and federal efforts across the nation.

You're comparing that the amount we've spent on terrorism over the last few years.

Please stop making the ridiculous comparison that the amount we spend on alcohol-related deaths is pittance compared to the amount we spent to fight terrorism. It's not true. It's a popular statement in the anti-war crowd (and I'm anti-war), which people seem to accept because it sounds pretty. It's wrong. Please stop. America spends a godawful amount of money trying to stop drunk driving.

?

You either posted the wrong link or you have a serious reading problem. Here is the full text of the abstract you linked:

Abstract
This article drew on expectancy theory in industrial/organizational psychology to explain arrest productivity for driving under the influence (DUI) in a sample of Pennsylvania police officers. Expectancy theory is a cognitive model of motivation and performance based on workers' perceptions of their situation. Its major elements are estimated in a regression model: the officer's capability and opportunity for DUI enforcement (performance-reward expectancy), the instrumentality of DUI enforcement behavior for the officer, and the reward-cost balance associated with making DUI arrests. These factors account for 26% of the residual variance in the number of DUI arrests made annually once organizational effects have been removed. The relationships revealed are as expectancy theory predicts, except for instrumentality variables, which show a negative relationship to arrest productivity. This is due largely to the orientation of a small number of "rate busters," whose exceptionally high arrest rate and negative attitudes toward their peers and the department hierarchy make them a distinct group accounting for a disproportionate number of arrests.
[/QUOTE]

JJR · Jun 1, 2007

Oliver said:
I also want to add that this thread isn't about "who is fear-mongering and who's not". It's about the sources why people are still scared.

There is no reason to be afriad. Captivated maybe, but that emotion is rather . . . silly. Not to mention primitive lol.

Great changes are being made. It is a time of turbulance and also incredible stupidity. As per usual.

Darth Rotor · Jun 1, 2007

IXP said:
My original point is about the irrational response to the 9/11 terrorist attack. I disapprove of any politician of any viewpoint who makes attempts to use fear to sway voters. This is part of the irrational response.

IXP, the great bulk of political pandering/sales jobs to the people is based on emotive appeals, of which "fear" is a single type. The Dems use "fear" of medicare loss or "Fear of Social Security" going away as a card against the Republicans, the fear of loss of good paying jobs, the fear of evil Republican this or that, as part of their appeal. The Reps for their part use a variety of fears -- loss of status, high taxes, school bussing -- against the Dems.

That said, I'm also dismayed at the style of rhetoric that streams from DC, and has since about January of 2002.

The walk softly, carry a big stick style of TR is a long lost dream.

DR

Oliver · Jun 1, 2007

JJR said:
There is no reason to be afriad. Captivated maybe, but that emotion is rather . . . silly. Not to mention primitive lol.

Great changes are being made. It is a time of turbulance and also incredible stupidity. As per usual.

Quite frankly - I completely understand the confusion - I just try to wake up the rest of scared people who didn't make up their minds yet about the facts.

Pardalis · Jun 1, 2007

Oliver said:
I just try to wake up the rest of scared people who didn't make up their minds yet about the facts.

Oliver · Jun 1, 2007

Pardalis said:
You mean these facts?

*snip*

I will address these points if you explain to me if "Blow-Backs" are real, will you? ... please?

Fear-Mongering

Banned

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Graduate Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Graduate Poster

Briefly immortal

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Reality Checker

Reality Checker

Graduate Poster

Muse

Salted Sith Cynic

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing