The Ratio: II [Archive] - Physics Forums

BicycleTree

Jul7-05, 06:08 PM

The previous "ratio" was a little unclear and vague. Just what is "worth," after all? And Monique's objection about fractional options holds. So here is the new question:

-------------

If you have the ability, through distributing money and manpower, to save x lives from terrorists or y lives from other causes, how great does the ratio y:x need to be before you are undecided which group of lives to save?

--------------

For example, if you choose y = 15 and x = 5, then that means that if you are given the choice to save 6 lives from terrorism or 14 lives from other causes, you would save the 6 and let the 14 die, and that if you are given the choice to save 4 lives from terrorism or 16 lives from other causes, you would save the 16 and let the 4 die.

"Other deaths" are deaths to cancer, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, accidents, pneumonia, etc.

Groups X and Y are equal other than their manners of death and their sizes.

This is not merely an abstraction. This is the question that must be asked by all those who allocate funds on the national level.

brewnog

Jul7-05, 06:18 PM

You forgot to add a "this is completely stupid" option. If you had done so, I would have been interested to see the results.

BicycleTree

Jul7-05, 06:21 PM

That was an abusive post, brewnog.

yourdadonapogostick

Jul7-05, 06:26 PM

you're still on this flame? get over it. i'm surprised your flame has yet to be deleted and you haven't had a reprmand.

BicycleTree

Jul7-05, 06:30 PM

This is hardly a flame--it is a poll. The statements people choose to make in it reflect their own decisions and beliefs.

Incidentally, why don't you vote in it? Where do you stand on this issue?

icvotria

Jul7-05, 06:35 PM

That was an abusive post, brewnog.
This is also an abusive post. Shut the hell up with your stupid polls and comments, we all get your point, stop trying to shove your 'look at me, I'm so subversive and objective' comments down everyone's throat, it's insensitive and pointless and it's pissing a lot of people off.

BicycleTree

Jul7-05, 06:38 PM

Actually, so far as I know only one person besides myself has voted in either of the polls. I think any point the polls are intended to demonstrate is far from made.

I don't consider it ridiculous that one might choose something other than 10, 10. I can see how you could make a point for 9, 11 or even 8, 12, for example.

I encourage people to vote. This poll is not a rhetorical question.

brewnog

Jul7-05, 06:38 PM

I'm sorry, BicycleTree, for abusing you by calling your question stupid.

I'm abstaining from this absurd poll in protest at your lack of sensitivity towards the issue, and would not be surprised for others to follow.

brewnog

Jul7-05, 06:40 PM

I encourage people to vote. This poll is not a rhetorical question.

Have you considered that the lack of response is due to peoples' general disgust at your comments, and lack of understanding, sensitivity and sympathy in the other thread?

Tom Mattson

Jul7-05, 07:00 PM

Guys,

The poll doesn't break any rules. Don't lose your cool about it. Just stop responding, and just watch them fall off the first page of GD by the end of the day.

Better yet, instead of just watching, go and reply to the threads below this one. The faster you do that, the faster this one will sink. :biggrin:

zoobyshoe

Jul7-05, 07:16 PM

Guys,

The poll doesn't break any rules. Don't lose your cool about it.
This poll breaks so many rules of common decency that I can't believe you haven't deleted it, the other one, and banned Bicycle Tree.

Given what just happened this morning in London, this isn't the time to ask Brewnog or Icvotria to maintain their cool in the face of BT's poking of their wounds.

-zoobyshoe

Evo

Jul7-05, 07:40 PM

The thread really doesn't violate the guidelines and BT has already received a warning, which he announced previously.

I think BT will soon learn that his opinions are not shared among the majority of the population and hopefully will understand why and learn something.

I agree with Tom, let the thread die.

yourdadonapogostick

Jul7-05, 07:41 PM

i tried to kill it after tom's post, but it didn't work.

mattmns

Jul7-05, 10:53 PM

I agree in a sense that the lives lost in the UK bombings are not that big of a deal number wise, as was 9/11. The whole thing is of course that these were most likely innocent people, or people who should not have died yet. Personally if you are obese or smoke, then you should not be surprised if you die at an early age. So I would have to go with a ratio (X:Y) of greater than 1:19+, meaning more than 19 Y for 1 X

BicycleTree

Jul8-05, 08:21 AM

The fat smoker may be a father, a mother, a lover, a friend.But he still chooses smoke over life.

EDIT : This post was accidentally edited by me, while I was trying to respond to it. The above is obviously erroneous. The quted words belong to BT (not mattmns) and the response is mine (not BT's).

Gokul43201

Jul8-05, 09:33 AM

BT, I accidentally edited your post ( meant to reply to it but hit the wrong button, honest). I shall do my best to restore it...give me a minute.

Gokul43201

Jul8-05, 09:37 AM

Okay, I've lost it, and can't restore it. I shall ask the admins if something can be done to retrieve it.

I apologize for the screw up.

juvenal

Jul8-05, 09:51 AM

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1018/p01s02-usec.html

mattmns

Jul8-05, 10:27 AM

The fat smoker may be a father, a mother, a lover, a friend.

Yes but it was his decision to smoke and become overweight. When someone smokes they know, or should know, the risk involved. When most people go to work, or to the train station, they usually do not expect to, and don't deserve to, die there.

Yes there are exceptions to these: People with eating disorders, but they make up an extremely small percentage. Also, people who do work at a high risk job: police/firefighters/etc. However, the percent that these people make up of the total population is nowhere near the large majority of the other side, and people with high risk jobs know it.

juvenal

Jul8-05, 12:52 PM

BicycleTree

Jul8-05, 01:36 PM

Note: the following post is approximately the post that Gokul accidentally edited, as best I remember it.

I agree in a sense that the lives lost in the UK bombings are not that big of a deal number wise, as was 9/11. The whole thing is of course that these were most likely innocent people, or people who should not have died yet. Personally if you are obese or smoke, then you should not be surprised if you die at an early age. So I would have to go with a ratio (X:Y) of greater than 1:19+, meaning more than 19 Y for 1 X
If you reduce access to unhealthy food and reduce food advertising, thus saving a person's life who would otherwise have died from obesity and heart disease, then you have saved a person's life. If you remove the cigarettes that would kill a smoker, then you have saved that person's life. That person may have been a father, a mother, a lover, a friend. Every life is valuable.

I have read about an experiment done wherein thin prison inmates were fed large amounts of food. They did get fat, but after they were returned to normal rations most of them soon returned to normal weight. Whereas someone who had attained the weight they did in the middle of the experiment just through the course of their life might spend unsuccessful years trying to shed it. Weight is a function of genes and subconscious attitudes that few people have much control over. It doesn't make sense to blame them for things out of their control.

Also, based on studies on mice, it is likely that some people are more likely than others to become addicted to nicotine once exposed to it.

However, you can take the opposing opinion that smoking and obesity can best be controlled by willpower. I don't know how many studies you can find supporting that view, but it could be a reason for you to choose a ratio other than 10:10.

I think BT will soon learn that his opinions are not shared among the majority of the population and hopefully will understand why and learn something.
The poll states right now that my opinion here is actually the majority opinion. Are people refraining from voting not because they don't want to hurt my feelings by disagreeing with me? I think if people had much disagreement they would jump right in and voice it. Why don't you vote?

BicycleTree

Jul8-05, 01:48 PM

It's completely naive (if not in bad taste given current events) to discuss the negative impact of terrorism purely in terms of body counts.

What is the impact of exogenous shocks to the economy like:

1. US political leaders being kidnapped/assassinated?
2. Ditto for US business leaders and other important figures?
3. Bridges, tunnels, subways, skyscrapers, and other structures being blown up?
4. Drinking water supplies being contaminated?
5. Dirty bombs being set off in major US cities?
6. A real nuke being set off in a major US city?
7. Capital markets being roiled?
8. Consumer confidence going down, creating a recessive impact?
etc.
You have a mix of reasons there. Some of them are in fact best looked at in terms of body count: dirty bombs, nuclear warfare, and contaminated drinking supplies. I am all in favor of much stronger measures restricting the international motion of nuclear material and technology. I don't think very much has been done about this, and I think it is the most important thing. I am doubtful about how severely a drinking supply can be contaminated, but that could be a disaster too.

No political leaders or business leaders have been kidnapped or assassinated by terrorists so far that I know of. But if they were, ask this question: how many lives of ordinary people would you sacrifice in order to save the leader? By this you may determine how much worse a kidnapping or assassination of a leader is than a bombing of ordinary people. I don't think it's much worse. It's as sad when leaders die as when other people die, but leaders can be replaced and the system will continue to function.

The other reasons you provide have to do with people's reaction to terrorism, which I agree is too great. Should we react more strongly to terrorism because of the negative consequences of terrorism due to people reacting strongly to it? That seems insane to me.

If we were to set the antiterrorism budget at 0, there's a good chance some of the above would happen. What is the optimal value? Who the hell knows. I don't think anyone has a really good handle on the probability of the above events happening, let alone the cost/benefit tradeoff of spending more money. I'm sure they've done some tests though with fake terrorists trying to sneak through the border.
To determine the best antiterrorism budget, one would have to be a team of analysts with access to information of how many dollars it takes to save a life in other areas. Personally, I think that invading Iraq, which has no nuclear weapons and no WMDs and therefore is not a truly dangerous source of terrorists, is a needless and wasteful move. But these are questions for analysts.

russ_watters

Jul8-05, 03:32 PM

The poll states right now that my opinion here is actually the majority opinion. Are people refraining from voting not because they don't want to hurt my feelings by disagreeing with me? I think if people had much disagreement they would jump right in and voice it. Why don't you vote? No, people are refraining from voting because the entire premise of the poll is bogus. In effect, you ensured that only people that agree with you would respond to the poll.

If you try just a little harder at counting, you will find you have 3 people agreeing with you and 8 (in this thread alone) who don't.

Moonbear

Jul8-05, 03:39 PM

No, people are refraining from voting because the entire premise of the poll is bogus. In effect, you ensured that only people that agree with you would respond to the poll.

If you try just a little harder at counting, you will find you have 3 people agreeing with you and 8 (in this thread alone) who don't.

I'll add my vote to the "this poll is pointless/worthless/tasteless/based on a bogus premise/not worth voting in" crowd.

BicycleTree

Jul9-05, 05:25 PM

Translation: you guys agree with my vote, but don't want to admit it. If you really disagreed, you would not hesitate to place your opposing vote.

I am interested to know any "premises" of the poll, Moonbear. I wasn't aware of any significant assumptions implicit in it. I did assume that nobody wants to vote a ratio greater than 10:10--is that where your dispute is?

brewnog

Jul9-05, 06:03 PM

Translation: you guys agree with my vote, but don't want to admit it. If you really disagreed, you would not hesitate to place your opposing vote.

Alternatively:

you're still on this flame? get over it. i'm surprised your flame has yet to be deleted and you haven't had a reprmand.
Shut the hell up with your stupid polls and comments, we all get your point, stop trying to shove your 'look at me, I'm so subversive and objective' comments down everyone's throat, it's insensitive and pointless and it's pissing a lot of people off.
This poll breaks so many rules of common decency that I can't believe you haven't deleted it, the other one, and banned Bicycle Tree.

I think BT will soon learn that his opinions are not shared among the majority of the population and hopefully will understand why and learn something.
No, people are refraining from voting because the entire premise of the poll is bogus. In effect, you ensured that only people that agree with you would respond to the poll.
I'll add my vote to the "this poll is pointless/worthless/tasteless/based on a bogus premise/not worth voting in" crowd.

I think it's quite clear how most people feel, BT.

Andy

Jul9-05, 06:14 PM

Yea it is quite clear !

I would have voted 19:1. Why? Because people have the choice to eat unhealthy food and smoke several packs of cigarettes a day. A terrorist won't give you the choice as to whether you die or not.

BicycleTree

Jul9-05, 09:51 PM

I think it's quite clear how most people feel, BT.
I think it's quite clear that this poll makes people angry because it challenges their assumptions. I notice you haven't voted.

Moonbear

Jul9-05, 10:24 PM

I think it's quite clear that this poll makes people angry because it challenges their assumptions. I notice you haven't voted.
No, that's only what you want to believe because it means you could smugly claim to be right. We've clearly stated our reasons for not voting, and your attempts at reading into our intentions meaning that doesn't exist is rather irritating. Why don't you tell us what conclusions you would draw for each of the ratios you listed if any one of them was the majority opinion? What would a majority vote for the ratio of 9, 11 tell you differently from a majority vote for 8, 12? You've also biased your poll in only one direction. What if someone wished to vote 11, 9 instead of 9, 11? In other words, it's a bogus, faulty poll, not worth voting in.

All you're doing is constructing a straw man argument here in order to justify your appallingly insensitive remarks in another thread, and we all see it for what it is.

BicycleTree

Jul9-05, 10:41 PM

Actually, Moonbear, the possibility of someone wanting to vote 11, 9 was the only nontrivial premise for the poll that I could think of. You must have missed where I stated it:
I am interested to know any "premises" of the poll, Moonbear. I wasn't aware of any significant assumptions implicit in it. I did assume that nobody wants to vote a ratio greater than 10:10--is that where your dispute is?
Frankly, I think it is very unlikely that anyone would want to vote a ratio greater than 10:10. There are only 10 possible options, and I had to cut down on the ones that are very unlikely. If that is the only objection to the poll that you can come up with, then your complaining is baseless. Furthermore, any votes for a ratio greater than 10:10 would tend to support my opinion rather than detract from it, so if the poll is biased in any way it is biased in favor of lesser comparative worth of non-terrorist-caused-deaths compared to terrorist-caused-deaths. In other words, if it is biased it is biased against my own opinion and in favor of yours (assuming your opinion is a ratio less than 10:10). For this reason you are going to call it "bogus" and refuse to vote? Stop nitpicking.

However, Evo, if you see this, then feel free add another option to the poll, "Ratio greater than 10:10" to satisfy Moonbear. If you need to alter the poll to make the new option fit, then rename the 1, 19 choice to 2, 18 and delete the previously existing 2, 18 choice.

Moonbear

Jul9-05, 10:48 PM

BT, you're right, it wouldn't matter how many options you add to the poll, we're still not voting in it. I call it bogus because of the reason for the poll, not the options provided. The problem is that no matter what option people choose, you're going to find a way to lord it over everyone how you are so right and everyone else is so wrong, and so we're simply not going to provide you with the set-up for such childish sniveling.

Knavish

Jul9-05, 11:14 PM

Nobody wants to let anybody die. Why we show so much pity for those dying from terrorism is because the death was from causes out of their control. Get it? I fail to see how you are inferring from this that people statistically favor death from obesity as opposed to death from terrorism.

BicycleTree

Jul10-05, 10:40 AM

BT, you're right,
The important thing is that you have the courage to admit it. You did the right thing.

Summarizing the rest of what you said, you don't want to vote in the poll because of any conclusions that might be drawn from your choice. I have deep sympathy for you. :tongue2:

Knavish, there are reasons--terrorism being a cause much out of the victim's control being one of them--to view deaths from terrorism as somewhat more important than deaths from other causes. The question of the poll is, if more important, how much more important? Also, "people statistically favor death from obesity as opposed to death from terrorism" is no conclusion of mine.

Moonbear

Jul10-05, 01:54 PM

The important thing is that you have the courage to admit it. You did the right thing.

Summarizing the rest of what you said, you don't want to vote in the poll because of any conclusions that might be drawn from your choice. I have deep sympathy for you. :tongue2:

I have two choice words that are the only appropriate response to those comments. Unfortunately, board rules prevent me from saying them.

mattmns

Jul10-05, 02:02 PM

Well I thought I had a write-in vote, but it was not exact. I will vote just to make you happy, although my choice would be much higher 1: \infty or so.

BicycleTree

Jul10-05, 04:21 PM

1:infinity? You mean if given the power to either save 1 life from terrorism, or to save all prematurely ended lives from other causes, you would save the life from terrorism? That's pretty sick matt.

kaos

Jul10-05, 04:50 PM

Well I thought I had a write-in vote, but it was not exact. I will vote just to make you happy, although my choice would be much higher 1: \infty or so.

nice to know my life aint worth a f***.

mattmns

Jul10-05, 05:05 PM

Well, you cannot do anything to prevent terrorism, you can, however, not smoke, eat healthy, etc.

GregA

Jul10-05, 05:16 PM

you can't do much to prevent hurricanes, earthquakes , epidemics etc...

mattmns

Jul10-05, 05:25 PM

I guess I should have definied my ratio.

My ratio is: self inflicted deaths (ie, unhealty lifestyle), vs things that cannot be controlled (terrorism, hurricanes, stray gun bullet, things that cause a person to die when they would have lived for a much longer time, that were not self inflicted).

Knavish

Jul10-05, 05:25 PM

Also, "people statistically favor death from obesity as opposed to death from terrorism" is no conclusion of mine.

This is what you are prodding us to say; why else would the poll be skewed like this? You're basically asking us how many obesity-related deaths it takes to be equivalent to a terrorist-related death. And that's a sick, sick question. Nobody wants to weigh lives.

Moonbear

Jul10-05, 05:35 PM

Well, you cannot do anything to prevent terrorism, you can, however, not smoke, eat healthy, etc.
Careful, watch his original wording. He's trying to get you to compare deaths due to terrorism to ALL other forms of death, which would include other forms of homicide, casualties of war, negligence, natural disasters, suicide, famine, disease, inattention to your health, a genetic predisposition, a chronic ailment since childhood, occupational injury, etc. He has not asked about preventable vs non-preventable, nor has he asked you to compare the value of any individual life; he has asked you to determine how to allocate funds for preventing one cause of death vs. EVERY other cause of death. He has not provided any reasonable answer choice to fit with his question, indeed, has not even provided a reasonable explanation for the options he chose to include. He is also not asking about newsworthiness of the deaths, yet we all know his agenda is to use this poll to justify his statements on newsworthiness, which is what most of us saw through the moment this poll appeared.

Moonbear

Jul10-05, 05:40 PM

If you have the ability, through distributing money and manpower, to save x lives from terrorists or y lives from other causes, how great does the ratio y:x need to be before you are undecided which group of lives to save?
Oh, here's something that's confusing. Here you define your ratios as Y:X but your poll says X:Y. Which is it?

mattmns

Jul10-05, 05:41 PM

Yeah I did not notice that the first time I read the thread, that is why I defined my ratio.

edit... hmm now I am confused lol!

Here is my vote: I would save 1 live that could have been prevented over 100000000... that were self inflicted.

Knavish

Jul10-05, 05:55 PM

As long as we haven't voted in the poll, we can continue to argue obesity (that is, self-inflicted)- vs terrorist-related deaths. This is indeed how it started out as..

Moonbear

Jul10-05, 06:18 PM

This is what you are prodding us to say; why else would the poll be skewed like this? You're basically asking us how many obesity-related deaths it takes to be equivalent to a terrorist-related death. And that's a sick, sick question. Nobody wants to weigh lives.
Agreed. And he's done it all through very tricky wording so as to entrap you no matter what you do. He sets up a ratio under the pretense that it's to allocate money and manpower, as if you're voting based on ratio of fund allocation, but then goes on to say that it's actually a ratio of lives to determine all-or-nothing efforts to save those lives, which of course is contradictory to his claim that this is a real-life situation that people have to face in allocated funding, because in real life, it's not all-or-none, you can choose to allocate proportions of funding according to relative risk of death and projected benefit of saving lives. For example, you can decide that all the money in the world won't stop someone from over eating, but with money and manpower, you can fight terrorists. Or, you can decide that some money into obesity research, some money into police forces, some money into anti-terrorism task forces, etc...will make a dent into each of those. Or you can prioritize and say terrorism is an immediate threat that we need to stop now before it gets worse, obesity is a gradual threat, so we can postpone funding that until we deal with the immediate threat, or this particular problem isn't claiming many lives, so we should put greater funding toward something claiming more lives. Yet, NONE of this goes toward the newsworthiness of any form of death.

Physics is Phun

Jul10-05, 06:26 PM

I don't see what is wrong with this thread at all. It is a very valid question. The timing might be not have been the greatest but it is still a very reasonable thought problem.
I have read, I am not sure where, a similar question just with a different situation.

You are at the switch of a railway track and there is a train comming that has lost it's breaks. on the one fork of the tracks there are X pedestrians crossing and on the other there are Y railway workers doing minor repair on the tracks.
Given that the railway workers know the risks involved of working on the tracks, which way do you direct the train?

I am quite surprised that most of you are acting so hostile to BT. It is a perfectly reasonable question that, especially given the anonimity of the internet, should be anwserable truthfully by everone.

Moonbear

Jul10-05, 06:55 PM

I don't see what is wrong with this thread at all. It is a very valid question. The timing might be not have been the greatest but it is still a very reasonable thought problem.
First, if you read the question and the answer choices carefully, you'll see it's not a valid question because it is heavily biased in a single direction. Second, it's not just an issue of timing, but the context of BTs remarks leading up to this poll.

I am quite surprised that most of you are acting so hostile to BT. It is a perfectly reasonable question that, especially given the anonimity of the internet, should be anwserable truthfully by everone.
To understand the sentiments being expressed, you'll need to follow the train of argument from the thread on the London explosions (note BT's comments and the responses he received): http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=673668#post673668

And then the first version of this poll, to which he refers in the opening post here, indicating his arguments in the two are not mutually exclusive:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=81505

Some people also develop a pattern of behavior such that one can predict their intent is not sheer curiosity when starting up a thread on a controversial topic, especially when it includes a clearly biased poll.

BicycleTree

Jul10-05, 07:08 PM

Quite so; there is a natural conclusion to arrive at from your answer in this poll. But I let you draw the conclusion.

a clearly biased poll
The only bias in the poll is that it does not include ratios greater than 10:10, which you have agreed is a negligible bias.

kaos

Jul10-05, 07:17 PM

It seems to me that this poll is starting to look dubious. it is almost as if one can assign a value or watever to anothers life. NO ONE has that RIGHT.

BicycleTree

Jul10-05, 07:22 PM

It seems to me that this poll is starting to look dubious. it is almost as if one can assign a value or watever to anothers life. NO ONE has that RIGHT.
Maybe nobody has the right, but the fact is that some people have the power. There are cases where some people have to make that kind of choice.

Physics is Phun

Jul10-05, 08:38 PM

BT your comments in the london thread were not in good taste at all. Although I don't entirely disagree with you, it is not the place to be making comment like that.

BicycleTree

Jul10-05, 08:44 PM

Physics is Phun

Jul10-05, 09:00 PM

Excessive regard??? come on! Who care how many people have died. It is important to a lot of people on PF, especially the ones in england. what do you care how much regard people are paying. Would you be complaining if someone just posted a thread that their mom, or dog, or even fish died? No. You console the person. You don't tell them, "oh well, there are plenty of other dogs out there". Again, I am not disagreing with you, it is just not appropriate to post such provoking things in a thread specifically made for keeping us informed of the situation, and talking to people who may have had people they know hurt or worse.
You talk about looking at the big picture, but you fail to see the small picture which is helping the (few by your standards) people who this attack has affected, recover.

BicycleTree

Jul10-05, 09:07 PM

The attack directly affected nobody on these forums. To the best of my knowledge, nobody on these forums knew anyone who died.

One hundred people died of cancer very recently.

Knavish

Jul10-05, 09:12 PM

Yes, but the attacks indicate potential to affect some on the board. Moreover, it is indecent and rude the trivialize the attacks and the deaths as you did.

Edit: Please get back to obesity instead of cancer; this is what you initially argued for. By changing the topic to cancer--a death from which is completely different from death by obesity--you are twisting my words.

BicycleTree

Jul10-05, 09:16 PM

Are the one hundred cancer deaths which happened in the USA in the past 40 minutes trivial?

Knavish

Jul10-05, 09:18 PM

Edited, even before I saw your last post.

brewnog

Jul10-05, 09:18 PM

You would rather that such comments be made far away from what they are relevant to? If I am saying that excessive regard is being paid to a certain topic, where else to place that comment than in a discussion of that topic?

You should remember that this is not a newspaper, where it is up to an editor to determine how many column inches should be devoted to a particular issue.

The amount of regard which a subject receives on a message board such as this is purely reflective of the amount of interest it gets. It's self regulating. If a topic appears which is not worthy of discussion, or which nobody cares about, it kills itself.

I choose not to comment on many of the issues in, say, the Astronomy, or Metaphysics forums on this site. They do not interest or concern me. I do not place posts there saying "this topic does not interest or concern me", and I certainly do not attempt to tell those present that, statistically, their issue is not worthy of the amount of discussion it has received. I do not understand why you feel the need to tell people that the topic they are discussing is not as important as you think they're making it out to be?

A thread was recently started by a member wanting to discuss some personal issues. He received over four pages of discussion on this matter. NOBODY told him that, say, African poverty was more important than his problem, even though I'm sure that everyone (himself included) would agree that it was. Perhaps, instead of trying to make everyone see "the big picture", you would benefit from either trying to see some smaller ones, or (alternatively) keeping yourself away from matters which you can't contribute anything to.

If the reason people have not voted in your poll isn't because they are not interested in it, or even think it's worthwhile, then perhaps it's because they were offended or disgusted by your thoughtless comments elsewhere.

BicycleTree

Jul10-05, 09:21 PM

Actually, if you look back to the OP you see I am not focused solely on obesity-related deaths.

Edit: Brewnog, the difference between this and other focuses of attention is that this one is highly political and therefore important.

And you know, I have asked a question recently.

brewnog

Jul10-05, 09:29 PM

Edit: Brewnog, the difference between this and other focuses of attention is that this one is highly political and therefore important.

So what's the problem with the amount of discussion it received then?

And you know, I have asked a question recently.

Good for you, but I think you missed the point entirely. I'm sure that anyone who is interested in it will add their comments. I will resist the temptation to try and tell these people that they're wasting their time discussing it, and should instead be discussing the price of crude oil, or the suicide bomb which has just gone off in Iraq, killing 20.

BicycleTree

Jul10-05, 09:34 PM

So what's the problem with the amount of discussion it received then?
There is no problem with the amount of discussion that the question of the amount of discussion of terrorist actions with low body count is receiving is receiving. The way you phrased it, that seemed to be what you were referring to; possibly you misinterpreted what I said.

Jumping to what you probably meant to be talking about, the problem with the discussion of the terrorist actions with low body count is that it makes these things seem more important on the large scale than they really are--not that each individual death is not important, which it is--and encourages drastic military action for a threat that is not as large as it seems.

100 people died of cancer in the USA in the past 40 minutes.

brewnog

Jul10-05, 09:35 PM

On behalf of everyone who was disgusted by your comments, I will accept that as a full apology.

Thanks.

BicycleTree

Jul10-05, 09:39 PM

I think you merely misinterpreted my post, twice.

Knavish

Jul10-05, 09:50 PM

You largely focused on obesity-related deaths, and you know it. There was only a hint or two about other "causes"--these causes carefully left ambiguous. Anyway, it seems you shared a different view in the other post:
..that non-nuclear terrorism is insignificant compared to larger, curable problems such as obesity..
Now you say:
..there are reasons--terrorism being a cause much out of the victim's control being one of them--to view deaths from terrorism as somewhat more important than deaths from other causes..

My only point was that I can express more pity for those who die uncontrolled deaths than those who die controlled ones. And that's all I said, and all I implied--there are no statistics involved. Simply admit that your (impudent) attitude in the last post was wrong, and I will be fine.