I'm not afraid of terrorism, are you?

[The Grand Nudger]

You're incredibly safe from box cutters on an airplane™.  We've already discussed this....even including 9/11 the ratio of foreign to domestic is 2/1 in favor of domestics, and that's in the context of a vanishingly small risk to begin with.  Cold comfort to victims..sure..but -you- aren't a victim, so?

Are you really trying to get me to understand or empathize with your mis-perceived risk in the face of your refusal to acknowledge others -actualized- tragedies to the bare minimum point that you stop implicating them as terrorists or part of a terrorist risk which is non-existent -to- you..... ?

Let me ask you this another way. Why was it so easy to convince you that the risk was real and worth doing what you propose...and so difficult to explain to you why it isn't?

[CapnAwesome]

In the context of the terrorist who pulls his shit -while in the american car-...well..we'v got his number, we've got his ass.  No extradition arrangements, no sneaking into a country to play body thief, no invasions.   Pop, off to a prison that doesn't exist from whence no one is released.  A terrorist on american soil is in a -dangerous- position.

If you're safe from a gun in a moving car.  Imagine how safe you are from a box cutter in an in flight airplane.

I think we have a disagreement over who's reinforcing scenarios.

Two totally different scenarios, but I think there is a larger point that is being made, which is that a large percentage of the population use worst case scenarios in order to not do good and help people. Even if the actual risk is 0 or as close to 0 as possible. Whether it is refugees or hitchhikers, the worst case scenario is silly, paranoid and not backed up by any good data. In 1978, probably when there were the most hitchers on the road in the US, there were 0 incidents of rapes or murders committed by hitchhikers. The murder rate of the refugees doesn't appear to be any different then normal people, probably less.

While I think your concerns are commonly held, even probably the majority view, I don't want to ever not help someone based on unrealistic fear.

[henryp]

You're incredibly safe from box cutters on an airplane™.  We've already discussed this....even including 9/11 the ratio of foreign to domestic is 2/1, and that's in the context of a vanishingly small risk to begin with.  Cold comfort to victims..sure..but -you- aren't a victim, so?

Are you really trying to get me to understand or empathize with your mis-perceived risk in the face of your refusal to acknowledge others -actualized- tragedies to the bare minimum point that you stop implicating them as terrorists or part of a terrorist risk which is non-existent -to- you..... ?

I was still addressing the absurdity of saying your safe in a car with a hitchhiker who pulls a gun on you.  But I'm arguing against a position that's either trolling or elite level internet stubbornness.  So if I continue bickering about that, I'm the one who's being the dope.

[The Grand Nudger]

Recall, you're the one who brought in the gun....which isn't even remotely a -real- risk, to make something you called risky actually -seem- risky, when it isn't.  Can you fault a person for explaining why the situation isn't quite as risky as it might seem, why even this ludicrous scenario doesn't salvage the initially inaccurate assessment.... in a conversation largely centered upon the mis-perception of risk, in any case?

[The Grand Nudger]

Picking up a hitchhiker is super risky.
-it's actually not
What if they pulled a gun?
-they don't
But if they did?
-You're doing 60, why would they?
Because picking up a hitchhiker is super risky...it could happen.
-.................................?
And that's why we shouldn't help people in need.
-sigh



This is the spiral.

[Jackalope]

Girls are picked up thumbing (which is illegal)

Huh? It's legal in all but a few states - Idaho, Nevada, Utah, New Jersey, and Delaware.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's illegal for pedestrians to be on interstate property, scenic byways, national park throughways, etc.  Enforcement is spotty, and obviously we see a ton of em. No matter what you want to do here in the states, it's probably illegal on some technicality or another.

[abaris]

You know, I wonder if people even take note anymore.

In todays news, 87 dead refugees washed up on the shores of Lybia. These are daily news. Virtually every day another boat goes down with hundreds of casualties. I have to say I don't even remember the numbers anymore. But a few days ago it was more than 300 in one go.

[henryp]

Picking up a hitchhiker is super risky.
-it's actually not
What if they pulled a gun?
-they don't
But if they did?
-You're doing 60, why would they?
Because picking up a hitchhiker is super risky...it could happen.
-.................................?
And that's why we shouldn't help people in need.
-sigh



This is the spiral.

Why are you hyperbolizing what I've said?  Who is that for?  This is a conversation between, what?  3 people?  Who are you trying to trick into believing anything?  This isn't debate club.  There is no winning.  What's the end game of that strategy?

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you prefer:

Absorbing refugees is super risky.
-It actually isn't
What if they're terrorists?
-They aren't.
But what if they were
-They're fleeing terrorism, why would they be?
Because absorbing refugees is super risky...it could happen
-...............................?
And that's why we shouldn't help people in need
-sigh

?

The endgame (lol?) of my participation with you on this subject is to respond to comments you've made regarding the risk of terrorism, the current refugee crisis, and what would or wouldn't happen if we absorbed refugees like a responsible first world country in a position of great wealth and power...with an often repeated public commitment to the world as a force for good....and clear culpability in the current humanitarian crisis.