I'm not afraid of terrorism, are you?

[The Grand Nudger]

More specifically, avoiding hitchhikers won't help you avoid thieves any more than avoiding refugees will help you to avoid terrorism....and if you were actually looking to avoid the terrorists that -are-...rather than the terrorists of your imagination (or whoever's imagination that has you so deeply conned)...you'd be avoiding american white domestics- as we've already discussed, as the numbers bare out...not muslim foreigners who happen to be refugees.

Something tells me that you don't, can't, and it hasn't even crossed your mind.

[henryp]

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.

[Silver]

I fear spiders more than I do terrorism.

[The Grand Nudger]

With refugees, the risk/cost/other stuff is shared by everyone.  Some more than others.

-What risk?  What risk is there...with -refugees-?

With [terrorists], I don't think anyone has suggested not attempting to vet [for terrorists], have they?  There is an acknowledged risk of some level [of terrorists].  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.  

Brackets are mine..I fixed it for you.

If a risk of zero is very high, you must be a trembling mess.  You don;t seem like a trembling mess.

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.

Yes, fuck em...that's something you have in common with [terrorists].  

[henryp]

More specifically, avoiding hitchhikers won't help you avoid thieves any more than avoiding refugees will help you to avoid terrorism....and if you were actually looking to avoid the terrorists that -are-...rather than the terrorists of your imagination (or whoever's imagination that has you so deeply conned)...you'd be avoiding american white domestics- as we've already discussed, as the numbers bare out...not muslim foreigners who happen to be refugees.

Something tells me that you don't, can't, and it hasn't even crossed your mind.

If the risk of a hitchhiker actually being a thief > 0 (which it is), my not picking them up gives me a lower chance of encountering a thief than if I did pick them up.  I don't know how you can say otherwise.  

Now with refugees, I imagine the math is more complicated.  If we're taking in 70,000 no matter what, I suppose we'd have to quantify the risk of a Syrian refugee poses vs. alternative refugees.  The existence of ISIS/Al Qaeda, and their goal of mass destruction, and to a lesser extent the culture's problem solving of blowing things up, and possible increased susceptibility to radicalization... 

I'm not following the "avoid american white people!" thing either.  That risk is built in.  We can't get rid of americans.  I do avoid plenty of people and situations to try and keep myself safe.  But the idea that I'm already at risk means that adding more risk is irrelevant doesn't follow.  I go outside which increases my risk of cancer.  So there's no reason not to smoke.

[henryp]

With refugees, the risk/cost/other stuff is shared by everyone.  Some more than others.

-What risk?  What risk is there...with -refugees-?

Why do they vet all the refugees instead of just the terrorists?

[The Grand Nudger]

Because of the need to placate people like you, trapped in a prism of fear manufactured by others, I'm guessing.  We didn't vet those 800k se asians despite being engaged in or recently having been at war with them. It's not as if there's anything to indicate that they're actually terrorists, or that they pose a greater risk than domestics..now is there?

I'm not following the "avoid american white people!" thing either. That risk is built in. We can't get rid of americans.

OFC you're not, because -actual- statistics aren't compelling to you, in the place that you're in. We can't "get rid" of refugees either (I mean..I guess we could...but..uh....).. We can ignore them, as you do with the terrorists who ought to be haunting your dreams..if risk is what compels you. There's really no way out of the noose you've tied yourself into here..for whatever reason?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd rather be generous and incur, potentially, a slightly higher risk, than to be safe knowing that I could have helped and refused to listen to my better nature.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thankfully, that's not a choice we face with refugees......even if it is the forced narrative. Fact is, there's nothing to suggest that refugees would make us less safe, regardless of how unsafe we feel about it, for whatever reason.

Apparently we're all very unsafe, it's never been worse, everything's going to kill us, all the money will soon be gone, and terrorists. Fuck me, maybe Goebbels was right, lol.

[ignoramus]

What's the equivalent of Allah Akbah in French or German or Iranian or Japanese?

We can't control the 99% of garden variety homegrown murderous loonies so well just pick on the tiny % of refugees we can control. Sounds legit.