You are currently looking at Flamebate, our community forums. Players can discuss the game here, strategize, and role play as their characters.
You need to be logged in to post and to see the uncensored versions of these forums.
- « previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next »
The Patriot Act | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
dobnits Posted:
How many 9/11s would that number be? ‘cos compared to other ways of saving PATRIOTIC AMERICAN LIVEZ! the number needs to be really high to justify the violations. If people compared terrorism to other sources of RL b& instead of throwing a hysteric fit they would see how small the problem really is and rethink throwing away their liberties and foreigners’ rights to not be tortured. |
|||||||
Posted On: 05/30/2010 1:14AM | View TZX's Profile | # | ||||||
|
TZX Posted:
911 = High treason
How do bring to account what went on there? |
||||||
Posted On: 05/30/2010 8:02AM | AIDS woman's genitals | # | ||||||
AIDS woman's genitals Posted:
Fail.
Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Grey’s Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
Perfect example. |
|||||||
Posted On: 05/30/2010 12:13PM | View TZX's Profile | # | ||||||
|
TZX Posted: And this is relevant why? |
||||||
Posted On: 05/30/2010 12:14PM | AIDS woman's genitals | # | ||||||
AIDS woman's genitals Posted:
Because you claimed that 9/11 was high treason which it would be it could were a conspiracy or you considered stupidity and honest mistakes acts of treason. I used a well-known law to demonstrate why one has little reason to suspect a conspiracy. If you want I can also provide the long chain of reasoning and the evidence and lack of it which support this simpler observation. In addition, I used 9/11 as a measurement of terrorist acts which failed to materialize according to dobnits because of civil liberties violations, in comparison to other causes of death which would yield way more significant results with less expense and infringement. |
|||||||
Posted On: 06/04/2010 9:21PM | View TZX's Profile | # | ||||||
|
TZX Posted:
Stop banding about this word “conspiracy” There is no “conspiracy” about 911! You either believe what your told like a good little sheep,or you look thought the spoon fed media sponsored garbage to the facts at hand. I can see which side of the fence you fall on. Good day to you. |
||||||
Posted On: 06/05/2010 7:51AM | AIDS woman's genitals | # | ||||||
AIDS woman's genitals Posted:
wat.
Exactly are you trying to say? |
|||||||
Posted On: 06/05/2010 1:26PM | View TZX's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Wait, are you guys arguing over whether 9/11 was just a big conspiracy so the government had an excuse to pbum The Patriot Act?
Log in to see images! |
||||||
Posted On: 06/05/2010 2:01PM | View Skyman747's Profile | # | ||||||
Skyman747 Posted: |
|||||||
Posted On: 06/05/2010 4:28PM | View TZX's Profile | # | ||||||
Wait, so you’re placing a monetary value to human life? |
|||||||
Posted On: 06/05/2010 11:07PM | View Sneaky27's Profile | # | ||||||
Sneaky27 Posted:
Partially yes, to demonstrate that more lives could be saved with less money. Ultimately you have to place some kind of limit or we would all be paying 80% taxes so that as many deaths could be prevented as possible. The question is prioritizing and except for nuclear terrorism the current resource use is wasteful compared to the alternatives.
I’m giving some numbers here, pulled out of
IAO: $1 750 000 000
The Information Awareness Office is relevant to the Patriot Act since it was established to develop surveillance. By using a figure of $20 000 for 1 life-year (medical treatments) the IAO would need to have prevented 1750 deaths from terrorism to be cost-effective. By a figure of $5000 (fire detection and similar measures) the number is 7000. In developing countries this could have saved at least 50 000 – 200 000 lives with a conservative estimate.*
Iraq War: $1 900 000 000 000
That money could have saved 1 900 000 lives with medical treatments but if we are reasonable and bumume that adopting the successful late-war strategies early on could have saved one quarter of the money the number of saved lives drops to 475 000: about the same as died in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and London bombings in WW2 and approximately the number of deaths one could expect from one to a few improvised nuclear attacks. This money could also have saved at least 50 000 000 lives in developing countries even bumuming extremely diminishing returns; likely way, way more.
Every time you allocate money to something you are making a choice and even if we bumume that the US government has only a responsibility to protect the lives of its own citizens it did a pretty bad job prioritizing. No offense, but if people stopped throwing a hissy fit at terrorist attacks and looked at the numbers objectively government policy would be pretty different.
Also, civil rights.
* The cost of saving lives in developing countries is estimated as much higher than aid agencies report since the calculations bumume that lives must also be significantly improved; saving a child from diarrhea to suffer near starvation is not considered saving a life here, instead one has to gain real opportunity and a moderately good standard of living. TZX edited this message on 06/06/2010 9:51AM |
|||||||
Posted On: 06/06/2010 9:46AM | View TZX's Profile | # | ||||||
|
holy **** I made a good thread |
||||||
Posted On: 06/06/2010 10:59AM | View Finny's Profile | # | ||||||
|
xcuse me |
||||||
Posted On: 06/06/2010 1:32PM | View Catloaf's Profile | # | ||||||
I Posted:
TZX Posted:
Right on. |
|||||||
Posted On: 06/06/2010 7:16PM | View Sneaky27's Profile | # | ||||||
Could you explain why what I did was so bad? I bumume that you don’t mean to simply quote mine but AFAIK I demonstrated how more lives could be saved by using the money differently. If anything, people who refuse to use the most efficient methods of saving lives are acting in a bizarre way by setting the monetary value of a saved life lower when talking about some methods but higher when talking about others, especially when the methods they choose to use also violate human rights and civil liberties. |
|||||||
Posted On: 06/07/2010 12:56AM | View TZX's Profile | # | ||||||
|
xcuseeee me!!!!! |
||||||
Posted On: 06/07/2010 6:51AM | View Catloaf's Profile | # | ||||||
|
Catloaf Posted:
yes? |
||||||
Posted On: 06/07/2010 2:19PM | View meeeeeeeeee's Profile | # | ||||||
TZX Posted:
You misunderstand, I’m not bumigning moral value. I just wanted to clarify where you were coming from. Which is that a human life is worth X amount. |
|||||||
Posted On: 06/07/2010 11:57PM | View Sneaky27's Profile | # | ||||||
Sneaky27 Posted:
Ahem, are you sure you understood what I said? I said that saving a human life justifies X amount of expenses. The distinction is a bit subtle but important since technically a life being worth X amount would justify murder if it gained more money while the option I’ve been showing here would only justify inaction when saving one life is more expensive.
It may seem a bit harsh when applied ideologically but in real life we’d not see any problems related to that in a very long time because even saving all lives costing less than X will take an awfully long time. In case anyone wants to apply some kind of logical fallacies to my “confession”, just remember that saving every possible life would result in quite extreme and ridiculous measures. The term “acceptable risk” exists for a reason.
And to avoid derailing this thread any further, when it comes to anti-terrorism the price paid for the comparatively (see the calculations) few saved lives has a steep immaterial price as well, unlike many other, better, methods. |
|||||||
Posted On: 06/08/2010 2:26AM | View TZX's Profile | # | ||||||
TZX Posted: I Posted: Pretty easy to understand. |
|||||||
Posted On: 06/08/2010 4:42PM | View Sneaky27's Profile | # | ||||||
- « previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next »