(July 25, 2016 at 7:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Why is quantifying a risk suddenly important Wallym? You haven't quantified any risks, and have ignored any attempt -to- quantify them in the first place. I find myself wondering the same thing that Boru asked...is there anything you would do for a stranger? Because if there isn;t...all this business about terrorism, and refugees shittifying our country is irrelevant, isn't it? They're strangers, end of. Lead with that.
There are two discussions. What risk am I willing to put up with in regards to hitchhiking. Which is an unknown level of danger greater than 0, and seemingly significant enough that nobody is advocating it without qualifying statements addressing safety.
With terrorism, it's about how we decide what is an acceptable amount of risk/cost to impose on others. If Captain Awesome picks up a hitchhiker, that's fine. His car, his life, his gas money, his time, etc... He's assuming all the cost/risk. With refugees, the risk/cost/other stuff is shared by everyone. Some more than others.
With refugees, I don't think anyone has suggested not attempting to vet the refugees, have they? There is an acknowledged risk of some level. What's tricky with terrorism, is that I don't believe past statistics can accurately predict the future as the potential severity of an attack could be one such that even risk of practically 0 is still very high.
So then there's the my opinion vs. what the country should do. I say fuck 'em. But I don't care about them, and most americans do. I think solid vetting is a reasonable compromise that balances the desire for the people that want to do good and the people who are incurring risk for something they don't want.
