NationStates Jolt Archive

Compare how many people die from disease per year to how many die from terrorism. And yet there's no panic or curtailing of civil liberties to combat disease. Mention disease though, and "OMG teh muslims r gonna blow us all up! get rid of freedom speedwise!"

Compare how many people die from disease per year to how many die from terrorism. And yet there's no panic or curtailing of civil liberties to combat disease. Mention disease though, and "OMG teh muslims r gonna blow us all up! get rid of freedom speedwise!"
speedwise?

please.

(first post)

Anyway, people get mad if you try to cut out traffic deaths, because either
1. I need to get to work on time, jeez
2. I don't want to pay taxes for that, jeez

and you can't really do much about disease.

Compare how many people die from disease per year to how many die from terrorism. And yet there's no panic or curtailing of civil liberties to combat disease. Mention disease though, and "OMG teh muslims r gonna blow us all up! get rid of freedom speedwise!"
Interesting point...

speedwise?

please.

I have no idea what this post means. Is it a request for a definition, or a rhetorical question trying to make a point?

I have no idea what this post means. Is it a request for a definition, or a rhetorical question trying to make a point?
His post was doubleplusungood, so don't worry about it.

His post was doubleplusungood, so don't worry about it.
NO.

"Doubleplusgood" is plusungood for these words. "Doubleplusgood" is the most big word for "good." Nothing can be gooder than "doubleplusgood." Do not use "doubleplusgood" too often.

Compare how many people die from disease per year to how many die from terrorism. And yet there's no panic or curtailing of civil liberties to combat disease. Mention disease though, and "OMG teh muslims r gonna blow us all up! get rid of freedom speedwise!"


I agree completely, the hysteria over terrorism has become absurd and is being used to justify all manner of foolish curtailing of civil liberties. For example, even if 10 September 11s happened every year the death toll would be barely 7% of the death toll attributed to smoking related deaths each year.

Terrible? Certainly. But I don't think it is anywhere near enough to justify dismantaling fundamental civil liberties.

The threat of terrorism justifies the extending of intrusion into citizens' privacy, but only to a level that does not cross the basic freedoms found at the core of a society. In the case of the United States, the fifth amendment of the Constitution has been clearly violated with the current detaining of terror suspects to Guantanamo Bay without any appeal process or allowance for a suspect to seek counsel. Innocent people may be held indefinitely for the rest of their lives because of this clear violation of their basic freedoms. In summary, terrorism justifies the extension of security and the violation of civil liberties, but not those clearly defined by the Constitution.

Well, people seem to want to curtail my freedom of property ownership, and freedom to defend myself and take my guns, to cut down on gun crimes, and the same people bitching about our civil liberties seem to be fine with that. How do you explain that one?

Compare how many people die from disease per year to how many die from terrorism. And yet there's no panic or curtailing of civil liberties to combat disease. Mention disease though, and "OMG teh muslims r gonna blow us all up! get rid of freedom speedwise!"


Well, thats what you get for not having a written constitution and the personal firepower to back it up.

Next item on the agenda?

Well, people seem to want to curtail my freedom of property ownership, and freedom to defend myself and take my guns, to cut down on gun crimes, and the same people bitching about our civil liberties seem to be fine with that. How do you explain that one?

I'm talking about people being overly concerned with an issue that in reality isn't as significant, when you consider the number of people that actually die from it. Your problem is not really relevant to the thread.

Because, like most herd animals, homo sapiens does stupid things when it gets spooked.

Good point. We can't allow these people to die from disease. We need to curtail their liberties to protect them from themselves. We need to ban smoking and drinking. And put everyone on a diet. Those who do not stick to the goverment sanctioned diet will be put in jail where they will be forcefeed mush containing the right balance of nutriets for a long abd healthy, though miserable, life.

Seriously though. The administration is way out of line. A little extra protection is not worth taking away our freedom. I certainly like their logic.

Terrorists attack us because they hate our freedom. They want to get rid of our freedom. (not saying this is true, just conservative logic is all).

So, Freedoms are taken away to protect us from the terrorists.

We sure showed those terrorists. They couldn't take away our freedoms now that we have enacted new legislation (that takes away our freedoms) to protect our freedom.

Compare how many people die from disease per year to how many die from terrorism. And yet there's no panic or curtailing of civil liberties to combat disease. Mention disease though, and "OMG teh muslims r gonna blow us all up! get rid of freedom speedwise!"

The entire purpose of government is to cut short liberty in the name of safety. People want to be safe on the roads, so the government cuts down on driving freedoms. People want safe food and safe medications, so the government creates the FDA. People want to be safe from offensive television shows, so we have the FCC.

Just try and start selling homemade medicines on a street corner, or perhaps giving heroine to cancer patients for pain relief, and just see how much freedom you have when it comes to the health industry.

See, the terrorists hate us and our culture. They want to convert us or kill us. Probably the latter. Disease doesn't threaten to erase our way of life -- this kind of islamofacism does.

Do I think the admin. went way out of line? To be honest, I'm not sure.

The entire purpose of government is to cut short liberty in the name of safety. People want to be safe on the roads, so the government cuts down on driving freedoms. People want safe food and safe medications, so the government creates the FDA. People want to be safe from offensive television shows, so we have the FCC.

Just try and start selling homemade medicines on a street corner, or perhaps giving heroine to cancer patients for pain relief, and just see how much freedom you have when it comes to the health industry.
Nice.

People were seriously considering a quarantine when AIDS first came along. United Kingdomese people cannot donate blood in the United States because of Mad Cow prions, and Japan still doesn't import United Statian beef.

Reduction of freedoms in the name of disease does happen and is indeed a possible reaction from fear.

People were seriously considering a quarantine when AIDS first came along. United Kingdomese people cannot donate blood in the United States because of Mad Cow prions, and Japan still doesn't import United Statian beef.

Reduction of freedoms in the name of disease does happen and is indeed a possible reaction from fear.

The quarentining I can understand an outrage for...

...but the others are quite logical. They aren't even a reduction of freedoms. They are logical steps to prevent diseases from spreading. Are you saying that if you were a national leader, and a nation's beef market is plagued by Mad Cow, that you would still import their beef even though you could get it somewhere else?