A terroristic problem
 

This is a really easy calculation for anyone who can think, and another example of when there is a clear right and wrong answer to a social problem. 8 bombs in two weeks, 4 lethal and 4 not, 50 people killed. A guy you think has a bomb is headed for a crowded subway and won't stop for police. Assume your goal is to save the most lives.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
Assume your goal is to save the most lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumption must be that the role of the govt/police is to help the rest of us live in a free and open society. The simplest way to make sure that there is no terrorist bomb in the UK or US or whereever, is to nuke it first all by ourselves. I can 100 percent guarantee that there will be no more deaths at the hands of the terrorist. That's right 100 percent guarantee.

Your question is flawed and designed to produce an answer. The flaw is the assumption you proffer.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assume your goal is to save the most lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumption must be that the role of the govt/police is to help the rest of us live in a free and open society. The simplest way to make sure that there is no terrorist bomb in the UK or US or whereever, is to nuke it first all by ourselves. I can 100 percent guarantee that there will be no more deaths at the hands of the terrorist. That's right 100 percent guarantee.

Your question is flawed and designed to produce an answer. The flaw is the assumption you proffer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the assumption is seriously debatable, but your counterexample is way off point. You don't save more lives by killing everyone. He didn't differentiate between terrorist deaths and other deaths, he just asserted that we should try to minimize overall deaths.

Now, what you should be arguing, and what I might agree with, is that it's much worse for a person to be killed by his government than by a terrorist. But that's a whole different kettle of worms. There's a clearly correct answer to the question as posed.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

This seems like a bad question, imagine its your son or daughter, then ask again. How many people are you prepared to see die to protect your childrens lives?

Mack

Re: A terroristic problem
 

Leaving the different kettle of fish aside, we will probably be pretty close to each other on that one.

My counter example is to show that this will minimize the number of deaths by terrorists, which is what the police action is trying to do. It is deliberating taking the preventative police measures question to the extreme, to try to make a point.

The example may be off-point. But I am glad you got the gist.

Of course there is a reasonable answer to the question as posed - there usually are reasonable answers to most questions. But bad questions should be questioned as one is then tempted to draw conclusions, and I think this is a bad question. If the assumptions are bad then answers are usually bad and conclusions from the answers are bad.

The question tries to minimize the gravity of the incident by making an emotional loaded survey question.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

Your sample size is too small.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

[ QUOTE ]

My counter example is to show that this will minimize the number of deaths by terrorists, which is what the police action is trying to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in this question the police action is trying to minimize the expected number of deaths regardless of cause. That's a big difference, and really the heart of the problem as stated.

[ QUOTE ]

The question tries to minimize the gravity of the incident by making an emotional loaded survey question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think it's quite the opposite. BruceZ is removing the emotion to allow for an analytical view of a loaded topic. It's easy to look at this type of scenario emotionally with phrases like "you can't put a price on a human life" but from a policy/decision making standpoint, you have to look at things dispassionately.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

I agree. If you were 100% sure that someone was going to commit a terrorist act, you would arrest them. If you were 1% sure you might not. That is at the heart of needing evidence and such to secure search warrants and arrest subjects.

In this situation, what level or police scrutiny are you willing to accept.

Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a really easy calculation for anyone who can think, and another example of when there is a clear right and wrong answer to a social problem. 8 bombs in two weeks, 4 lethal and 4 not, 50 people killed. A guy you think has a bomb is headed for a crowded subway and won't stop for police. Assume your goal is to save the most lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

We begin anew... [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

1. The terrorist threat is not a social problem. I have no idea by what kind of meaning you describe it as a social problem.

2. Even by your analysis, the subject NEVER presents us with a "clear right or wrong" choice. Perhaps you should have consulted some real (and intelligent) law enforcement persons, who have been actually involved in similar situations, with similra dilemmas, before putting up such a "poll".

3. Finally, your description of those who agree with your position as people "who can think" is insulting, since it insinuates that those who disagree with it cannot think! Right back at ya, then : Your position is simplistic to the point of inanity.

Oh and for the record? On the basis of the description of events in London that I have, I called it a Correct Kill by the Metro Police. The Brazilian guy, if the descriptions are accurate, behaved insanely stupidly.

But your "poll" is still flawed and biased.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

I agree that the question/poll of flawed, bottom line though is the police did the right thing in the UK situation.