What Ratio of Y to X Should Determine Life-Saving Decisions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BicycleTree
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ratio

X, Y in order (see below)

  • 10, 10

    Votes: 5 50.0%

  • 9, 11

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • 8, 12

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • 7, 13

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 6, 14

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 5, 15

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 4, 16

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 3, 17

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 2, 18

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 1, 19

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • Total voters
    10
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
69 replies · 9K views
BicycleTree said:
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?

BicycleTree said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
Last edited:
On behalf of everyone who was disgusted by your comments, I will accept that as a full apology.

Thanks.
 
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:
BicycleTree said:
..that non-nuclear terrorism is insignificant compared to larger, curable problems such as obesity..
Now you say:
BicycleTree said:
..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.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the causes were not left ambiguous. I stated in the OP:
"Other deaths" are deaths to cancer, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, accidents, pneumonia, etc.
The assumption about uncontrolled deaths is that an "other death" is often a preventable death.
 
If you think I have missed something, why don't you bring it up again? Odds are, I already consider it addressed under one of my points.
 
Are you talking about the previous thread? That's the thread I'm talking about--the one in which you were mostly comparing obesity- with terrorist-related deaths. ANYWAY, I am so done with this. I think I've given you my views, and I have wasted way too much time on this. Sorry, but bye.