Interesting Ted Talk
-
bump
-
Like I care what this dweeb thinks.
-
Great points in his post example(s) discussion. Couldn't really find anything in the last 10 minutes of the vid I disagreed with.
His data analysis in the War on Terror example is either purposely deceitful or among the worst I've ever seen.
Why did he go back 50-60 years? A more accurate (or perhaps honest) collection of that data would have started at 1995 (OKC) and continued forward. It would have also included the points: 1995- Sep 10, 2001, no War on Terror Policy. Sep 11, 2001 ->? War on Terror policy in place.
Then, honest analysis of this data takes two paths:
1. You can look at the IMMEDIATE IMPACT enacting this policy had on "US soil deaths" which have been 0. If this is the goal of the policy, then you have not only a RATIONAL policy, but a damn fine one.
2. As Huemer does next, you look at the costs of enacting the war on terror policy. Again, here Huemer either mistakenly (or more likely, dishonestly, as he appears to be of high intellect), portrays the costs of this policy (6000 US service member deaths; 200k non-US deaths) as the goal.
Because I am not in the business of determining which lives are more valuable than others, true analysis of cost vs goal here is extremely difficult. On the surface, you can immediately point to quantity, and say 206k > 3200, which is what Huemer does (again, rather dishonestly IMO) and applies that deceptively simple analysis to make his point that War on Terror is irrational policy. Huemer is immediately rewarded with his goal of the presentation: approving chuckles from his audience members as he makes no effort to hide the smug smirk on his face.
I just don't think that this is the proper or honest way to look at that data. Again, I acknowledge the high costs, but the rewards/goals are either known (US soil terror deaths = 0) or more likely unknown. Meaning, we just dont know what could have happened if we had not enacted this policy and all of the costs associated with it.
-
to Ted I would say - well you know the old saying, opinions are like assholes..... And I'll be the first to admit mine! but to continue what Legacy said about the war on terror portion..
Another deceptive piece on the war on terror given by his model when he says 50-60 years of history, does not the events of our entry into WWII because of Pearl Harbor mean the same?
I mean, why not include that bit of history?
This Ted guy supplied data of US soil deaths vs the cost of the war on terror, with a comparitive chart of "terror deaths" of OKC and 911, with non terror deaths - and the subsequent cost of war in Afganistan and Iraq.
Include the cost of WWII and see the total cost then! so then what about irrationality?
How about asking the tougher MORAL question of going to war in the first place? I will go out on a limb at the risk of being called "irrational" and say that we HAD to go to war and the cost, while it was
staggering in terms of lives lost, had to be waged in order to survive as a soveriegn nation!
To me - these so called 20 /20 hindsight guys with a fixed arguement like TED and no doubt heck, really piss me off
Plus excellent point made by Legacy stating that there are ZERO major terror deaths (apart from Fort Hood ) as a result of what is policy SINCE 911....
-
*bump
Vapor, Woody? Care to introduce your thoughts on the vid, or just continue to poke cal?
-
-
Vapor, Woody? Bueller? Never got your thoughts on the video...
..just something about Cal & the daily show
-
Vapor, Woody? Bueller? Never got your thoughts on the video...
..just something about Cal & the daily show
Vapor, Woody? Bueller? Never got your thoughts on the video...
..just something about Cal & the daily show
I never actually watched it. TED Talks, while interesting, really try my patience. Youtube has ruined me.
-
Vapor, Woody? Bueller? Never got your thoughts on the video...
..just something about Cal & the daily show
I never actually watched it. TED Talks, while interesting, really try my patience. Youtube has ruined me.
I never actually watched it. TED Talks, while interesting, really try my patience. Youtube has ruined me.
14 + minutes. I can't be bothered to devote that much of my life to this.
-
I tried finding an old SNL skit from the 80's with Joe Piscopo starring as Frank Sinatra on Gumbies Christmas Special Dammit! (with Eddie Murphy)
cant find it except for trans scripts, but everytime you post the woody woodpecker clips, it reminds me of the chairman of the board-Frank singing this song.... LOL
Flintstones. Meet the Flintstones.
They're a hip, stone-age family.
Hey, Barney, I'm talking Bedrock.
When who knew from a Christmas tree.
We'll have a good time.
A yabba-doobie-doo good time.
We'll have a gay..
it's a groovy time!
Wilma!"
Thank you so much.
[ singing ]
"Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
It's the Woody Woodpecker Song!
I'm laughing.
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Pecker Song!"
Alright, alright.. cut the cartoon crap, it's Christmastime here..
My link new link scroll down to "The Gumby Christmas Special"
-
cool !
btw, your "my linK' can' be displayed...
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login