Conversation

Replying to
I wasn't? I mean I was technically, but I didn't understand why the method of death mattered so much, because the thing you were upset about was the person being gone, right? Why did it matter how they left?
5
Replying to and
You realise murder is different to other forms of death, right? If we’d solved murder those 3000 never would have died. Numbers alone is a misleading way to understand the problem. This is yet another reason Bayesianism is false: coldly preferring raw numbers over actual people.
1
5
Show replies
Replying to
Because it was 3000 people EXTRA, all murdered together. That's bad no matter who they are. It's why war, and the 20000 killed on one day on the Somme in WWI was so horrible.
1
4
Replying to
Because when 3,000 people are murdered in a fairly unique way at one time by a mere handful of people while the nation sees it happen in real-time on the television, the emotional impact is, unsurprisingly, different (as are those deaths).
16
Replying to
Now check the number of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan - you can pretty much calculate an exchange rate, 1 American civilian life = x foreign civilian lives - but remember, the war on terror isn’t over yet
Replying to
I very much relate to your thought. Unfortunately stats don’t move most people, stories do. Bertrand Russell wrote beautifully “The mark of a civilised man [Human] was the capacity to weep over a column of numbers”
7
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Replying to
it is a true story? i didn't see it as cool and edgy. At the time my parents explained it away and i accepted it, but i do like the theme of kids questioning why we're disproportionately upset at some things.
3
17
Show replies