• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

More people die from lightening strikes and bathtub falls than terrorism: Poppycock

Joey McGee

Banned
Joey McGee
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
10,307
This implicitly implies that you think that the government is spending less time on these areas than necessary, more time on terrorism than necessary, or that the whole operation is mostly wasted time. Let's discuss.

First let's take lightening strikes. The government places many regulations on building and manufacturing codes, teaches children in school to not stand under a tree etc, where should the anti-lightening strike campaign be focused? Stop golfing in the rain campaign?

There are countless anti-fall products available on the market from sit baths, to bathless baths, exercise for seniors has been pushed by the government, no one should allow their sick and elderly relative to have a bath etc... or drunk people... wait why is this an argument again?

Terrorism is a threat by humans to kill other humans. They are frequently successful, but there have been orders of magnitude more disrupted plots and arrested terrorists... 9/11 killed how many thousand? What could happen if they poisoned a water supply or blew up a nuclear plant or a dirty bomb or made a real bomb instead of that amateur crap in Boston....

Any you compare that to Lightening and bathubs?

One threat by nature and accidents, which we already address as much as we can, another by a death cult hellbent on killing us all... hmmmmmm

Anyone who thinks that Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden aren't retarded and delusional for pushing this as an argument can feel free to back up this pathetic nonsensical parody of a position.
 
Last edited:
Only if you don't know what you are talking about, and don't understand that explicitly both Greenwald and Snowden use that as their defense!

Thank you, come gain (try again).
 
Joey McGee said:
Only if you don't know what you are talking about, and don't understand that explicitly both Greenwald and Snowden use that as their defense!

Thank you, come gain (try again).
Click to expand...


More people die from lightening strikes and bathtub falls than terrorism: Poppycock
This implicitly implies that you think that the government is spending less time on these areas than necessary
Click to expand...

Text book non-sequitur. Followed by angry ranting. Doesn't score well with the judges, I'm afraid.
 
It means that two of the most established and revered players on the anti-government scene are provably cranks and losers! How about go **** yourself and try and find a real job? Snowden spends most of his day deciding best how to fellate Vladmir Putin while appearing most like a Patriot... this must be a soul-killing exercise for the young radical, who must realize that the rationalists and skeptics in his audience have abandoned him and laughed mockingly at his subservience. Gee Mr. Snowden you're such a stud, how did you ever fail special forces tryouts? Two broken legs is what did it? Oh you strapping young patriot!
 
This sounds like one of the many things math can give us a solid answer on. It seems like a straightforward comparison of one number to another, different number and seeing which is bigger. I believe this is well covered in first grade, or at least by third grade for homeschoolers.
 
Mitchell314 said:
Text book non-sequitur. Followed by angry ranting. Doesn't score well with the judges, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
No, you are just wrong. The quote I am talking about comes from Greenwald and Snowden. And I showed that it was wrong. With facts. Now I understand that within some circles there is a desire to fellate Assange while sustaining an honest discourse but that is not my business.
 
marplots said:
This sounds like one of the many things math can give us a solid answer on. It seems like a straightforward comparison of one number to another, different number and seeing which is bigger. I believe this is well covered in first grade, or at least by third grade for homeschoolers.
Click to expand...

For western nations, daily background death rate is roughly in the general ballpark of (# of people a generation ago) / (Life expectancy * 365)

For the US, that's well above the death toll of all terrorist attacks on continental American soil for the past ... uh, since after WWII pretty much.

Turns out time is the biggest threat to national security. Wholduthunkit?
 
Joey McGee said:
This implicitly implies that you think that the government is spending less time on these areas than necessary, more time on terrorism than necessary, or that the whole operation is mostly wasted time. Let's discuss.

First let's take lightening strikes. The government places many regulations on building and manufacturing codes, teaches children in school to not stand under a tree etc, where should the anti-lightening strike campaign be focused? Stop golfing in the rain campaign?

There are countless anti-fall products available on the market from sit baths, to bathless baths, exercise for seniors has been pushed by the government, no one should allow their sick and elderly relative to have a bath etc... or drunk people... wait why is this an argument again?

Terrorism is a threat by humans to kill other humans. They are frequently successful, but there have been orders of magnitude more disrupted plots and arrested terrorists... 9/11 killed how many thousand? What could happen if they poisoned a water supply or blew up a nuclear plant or a dirty bomb or made a real bomb instead of that amateur crap in Boston....

Any you compare that to Lightening and bathubs?

One threat by nature and accidents, which we already address as much as we can, another by a death cult hellbent on killing us all... hmmmmmm

Anyone who thinks that Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden aren't retarded and delusional for pushing this as an argument can feel free to back up this pathetic nonsensical parody of a position.
Click to expand...

Let's take your headline first: are you saying that more people do not die from lightening strikes and bathtub falls than terrorism (presumably in the USA)? If it is poppycock, then you have the figures to to prove it, right?

But I think that you are really agreeing that the first statement is true, but that a government policy to reduce terrorism is appropriate nonetheless. I don't disagree with that. But if more people still die from lightening strikes and bathtub fails than from terrorism, despite all the government and private interventions that you mention, then I would say that we also need even more focus than we have now on reducing the lightening and bathtub risks. And that one should realize that terrorism is not as big a risk to one's own health as is often suggested by the government and media. And that one should avoid golfing in the rain and using bathtubs without non-slip surfaces.
 
Last edited:
marplots said:
This sounds like one of the many things math can give us a solid answer on. It seems like a straightforward comparison of one number to another, different number and seeing which is bigger. I believe this is well covered in first grade, or at least by third grade for homeschoolers.
Click to expand...

I too was wonder why the OP did not contain any numbers.

I see that the actual point Joey McGee is trying to make is different from the claim in the title. Maybe he should restate his thesis.



OK, out of curiosity I looked up the numbers. A rough estimate for deaths due to lightning is about 50 per year in the US. A very rough, I'll call it a guesstimate for worldwide lightning deaths is 6,000 to 24,000.

For terrorism about 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks in the US. Worldwide, here are some statistics:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/202871/number-of-fatalities-by-terrorist-attacks-worldwide/

About 11,000 to 23,000 per year.

I could not immediately find an estimate for bathtub falls and I don't have time right now.
 
Joey McGee said:
This implicitly implies that you think that the government is spending less time on these areas than necessary, more time on terrorism than necessary, or that the whole operation is mostly wasted time. Let's discuss.

First let's take lightening strikes. The government places many regulations on building and manufacturing codes, teaches children in school to not stand under a tree etc, where should the anti-lightening strike campaign be focused? Stop golfing in the rain campaign?

There are countless anti-fall products available on the market from sit baths, to bathless baths, exercise for seniors has been pushed by the government, no one should allow their sick and elderly relative to have a bath etc... or drunk people... wait why is this an argument again?

Terrorism is a threat by humans to kill other humans. They are frequently successful, but there have been orders of magnitude more disrupted plots and arrested terrorists... 9/11 killed how many thousand? What could happen if they poisoned a water supply or blew up a nuclear plant or a dirty bomb or made a real bomb instead of that amateur crap in Boston....

Any you compare that to Lightening and bathubs?

One threat by nature and accidents, which we already address as much as we can, another by a death cult hellbent on killing us all... hmmmmmm

Anyone who thinks that Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden aren't retarded and delusional for pushing this as an argument can feel free to back up this pathetic nonsensical parody of a position.
Click to expand...

Oddly, it is stairs which produce the most domestic casualities. As far as I know, the UK was the only one to track this and they stopped in 2002 due to budget cuts.
 
Among the other problems in the OP, isn't it just a strawman? I've never seen anyone compare terrorism to bathtubs or lightning so I'm suspecting it's not a common argument. I have seen comparisons to various diseases, but those comparisons make senese.
 
Last edited:
quite the comparison.

Somehow just saying apples and oranges is not enough.

I liken it to comparing those appealing straw apples sold by overly-emotional famous people to a kettle of Scottish oranges floating in a well.

.......
ETA
and what's up with the oral sex metaphors?

MORE ETA
As for my post, I want to point out that In vaudeville routines, the straight man earned more than the comic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom