Jump to content

Stop all anti-terrorism funding to fund car accident prevention?


Rozalia
 Share

Stop all anti-terrorism funding to fund car accident prevention?  

20 members have voted

  1. 1. Stop all anti-terrorism funding to fund car accident prevention?

    • Yes. Let the terrorists do what they like, car accidents are the real killers.
    • No...


Recommended Posts

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/18876-london-attack/page-5

 

<Brought to you by Milton Solutions. Providing beyond parody solutions to all manner of problems. Accept no substitutes>

 

Not going to bother to pick out individual statements as I'm sure everyone already knows that as crazy as it might sound, I don't need to be making up lies regarding this insanity. 

 

So to sum up. All that intelligence and counter-terrorism we do? Completely useless and a waste of cash. After all how many people actually die from terrorism really? And if we stopped combating terrorism threats how many more would actually die? 2 more a year or something? What a waste. Instead all that money should go towards stopping car accidents which as we know is the real Jihad being waged on the people.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44." -Association for Safe International Road Travel

If the funding will save all 1.3 million globally, sure. If it will only save 10,000 or something, nah.

Edited by Lail Das

"Realism is irrelevant unless it's the real world" - Lail Das

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need cars for daily life and there will always be accidents due to simple human error. All the funding in the world couldn't stop it.

 

We don't need refugees or terrorists.

 

Voted "no."

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why dont we redistribute the money from car accident prevention to self-driving car technology? Surely that will allow for 0 accidents as self-driving cars can communicate with one another, and adjust everything accordingly - you wont even need traffic lights.

 

Not only that, but it also prevents terrorists from getting their hands on that pesky truck technology, because if trucks drive themselves, you cant massacre people with it. Two birds one stone.

When's the last time you hit your phone because it didn't work? 

 

Then they'll use fertilizer. Almost one bird, one stone. 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/18876-london-attack/page-5

 

<Brought to you by Milton Solutions. Providing beyond parody solutions to all manner of problems. Accept no substitutes>

 

Not going to bother to pick out individual statements as I'm sure everyone already knows that as crazy as it might sound, I don't need to be making up lies regarding this insanity. Having a different opinion from Roz is insanity, apparently. Keep that in mind.

 

So to sum up. All that intelligence and counter-terrorism we do? Completely useless and a waste of cash. Not completely useless, just excessively expensive compared to the far larger number of deaths in other areas. After all how many people actually die from terrorism really? Think it was under a thousand last year And if we stopped combating terrorism threats how many more would actually die? 2 more a year or something? What a waste. Instead all that money should go towards stopping car accidents which as we know is the real Jihad being waged on the people.It's certainly killing more people than 9/11 every day.

 

 

"Nearly 1.3 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day. An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled. More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44." -Association for Safe International Road Travel

If the funding will save all 1.3 million globally, sure. If it will only save 10,000 or something, nah.With as much funding as is available we can advance auto safety massively with the increased funding.Thank you for being reasonable.

 

 

We need cars for daily life and there will always be accidents due to simple human error. All the funding in the world couldn't stop it. It doesn't need to be eliminated; drastic reductions are quite enough to save more people than are in any way involved in a terrorism incident.

 

We don't need refugees or terrorists. We're required to deal with refugees.

 

Voted "no."

 

 

why dont we redistribute the money from car accident prevention to self-driving car technology? Because they crash too and covering the R&D costs and then having a company use this researvch for free to advance their profits is wasteful as hell. Surely that will allow for 0 accidents as self-driving cars can communicate with one another, and adjust everything accordingly - you wont even need traffic lights. So far there are like a dozen on the roads and they've already had at least two big crashes.

 

Not only that, but it also prevents terrorists from getting their hands on that pesky truck technology, because if trucks drive themselves, you cant massacre people with it. Two birds one stone.Sure you can. The truck thing shouldn't have been a surprise. It'd been a published method from ISIS for more than a year in their magazine.

 

 

When's the last time you hit your phone because it didn't work? 

 

Then they'll use fertilizer. Almost one bird, one stone. 

  • Upvote 1

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know with all this I'm now interested to know what car accident prevention measures Milton thinks are important and expensive enough to start allowing any loony who decides he wants to kill some dudes to just kill at will. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Think it was under a thousand last year"

 

Ummmmmmm....

 

"Date :Deaths :Injuries

1970s :244 :180

1980s :657 :303

1990s :1,049 :7,757+

2000 :38 :44

2001 :4,687 :13,500+

2002 :821 :2,897+

2003 :418 :2,321+

2004 :1,066 :4,016+

2005 :348 :1,857+

2006 :319 :981

2007 :~621 :~1,730

2008 :350+ :362+

2009 :58 :87+

2010 :673+ :>1,794

2011 :717+ :1,757+

2012 :788+ :2,378+

2013 :768+ :1,839+

2014 :2,120+ :1,046+

2015 :3,097+ :3,383+

2016 :1,326+ :2,620+

Totals: 20,165+ :50,852+"

 

(This is just Islamic terrorism only)

 

I mean if you include state terrorism and ISIL acts of war then the whole number spikes massively.

_____________________________________

In this case,diverting some funding to more pressing matters is quite a sensible thing,but ignoring mass murder is simply madness.If you want to get more funding for these things then just take some cash from defense spending,besides you'll potentially get much more money than you get from cutting all counterterrorism funding,simultaneously solving these two problems is probably better than ignoring one and focusing solely on the other.

Edited by Vincent de Beer

"If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin

 

"Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith

 

We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The technology isnt perfect yet, but im certain that if you give it time and enough sustenance the number of crashes due to self-driving cars will be minimal in comparison to cars that require drivers. Human error occurs much more than computer error, especially once you have the right programming. You're suggesting more funding would improve safety? I wholly agree.

 

Besides, of the two articles i just looked up to reaffirm your statement, both accidents occurred due to human error. One man ran a red light, and another didnt yield when the autonomous car wanted to merge. If anything, this just proves my point

 

 

You know with all this I'm now interested to know what car accident prevention measures Milton thinks are important and expensive enough to start allowing any loony who decides he wants to kill some dudes to just kill at will.  Whatever they want to try. Maybe more airbags in better places, maybe fixing seatbelts so they don't irritate breasts and cause the seatbelt to be worn incorrectly by a good number of women. There's all kinds of stuff around that's not explored due to lack of funding.

 

 

"Think it was under a thousand last year"

 

Ummmmmmm....

 

"Date :Deaths :Injuries

1970s :244 :180

1980s :657 :303

1990s :1,049 :7,757+

2000 :38 :44

2001 :4,687 :13,500+

2002 :821 :2,897+

2003 :418 :2,321+

2004 :1,066 :4,016+

2005 :348 :1,857+

2006 :319 :981

2007 :~621 :~1,730

2008 :350+ :362+

2009 :58 :87+

2010 :673+ :>1,794

2011 :717+ :1,757+

2012 :788+ :2,378+

2013 :768+ :1,839+

2014 :2,120+ :1,046+

2015 :3,097+ :3,383+

2016 :1,326+ :2,620+

Totals: 20,165+ :50,852+"

 

(This is just Islamic terrorism only)

 

I mean if you include state terrorism and ISIL acts of war then the whole number spikes massively.

 

I was talking about Americans, so the above is irrelevant.

_____________________________________

In this case,diverting some funding to more pressing matters is quite a sensible thing,but ignoring mass murder is simply madness.If you want to get more funding for these things then just take some cash from defense spending,besides you'll potentially get much more money than you get from cutting all counterterrorism funding,simultaneously solving these two problems is probably better than ignoring one and focusing solely on the other. I never said all counterterrorism funding. Did you actually read what I wrote before spouting off this nonsense?

 

 

You really do know how to ask a loaded question, Roz. Pretty impressive stuff.He's also really good at making up things he's going to insist you believe them and then debate you. it works really well if you've suffered a significant head wound.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I never said all counterterrorism funding. Did you actually read what I wrote before spouting off this nonsense?"

 

You're saying that we should ignore terrorism,and I am saying that why is crazy,I mean if you want less funding then go for it,but ignoring it is nonsense.And yes you have implied multiple times that trying to stop terrorism is a complete waste and that terrorism isn't a big deal.The most obvious time is in the quote below.Just throwing money on healthcare won't automatically make it better as quality isn't necessarily judged by funding,just look at Cuba,they spend ridiculously much less than healthcare than the US yet they have one of the best healthcare systems in the world.

 

"Not really, wasting time on terrorism just distracts and underfunds areas that badly need that funding to prevent orders of magnitude more deaths than terrorism."~Milton 2017

 

 

"Whatever they want to try. Maybe more airbags in better places, maybe fixing seatbelts so they don't irritate breasts and cause the seatbelt to be worn incorrectly by a good number of women."

 

Aren't those the choices of the vehicular manufacturer?

Edited by Vincent de Beer

"If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin

 

"Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith

 

We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Milton did to be fair to him walk back slightly on the cutting of anti-terrorism as he would maybe (keyword being maybe as he ain't even sure on that) be fine with monitoring for WMDs. However general anti-terrorism? Useless stuff apparently. In return for allowing us to start getting bombed whenever terrorists feel like it he wants money to be spent towards...

 

Whatever they want to try. Maybe more airbags in better places, maybe fixing seatbelts so they don't irritate breasts and cause the seatbelt to be worn incorrectly by a good number of women. There's all kinds of stuff around that's not explored due to lack of funding.

 

... I knew you didn't have the slightest idea. The government does not manufacture cars (though there have been exceptions) to start with and if the government were to implement such things... it'd not cost the state a penny. They would merely need to pass a law stating that cars would have to be fitted with such things and there we go, job done.

 

Are you now going to pout and say you don't need to say nothing when it comes to what to spent on this car accident prevention? Let us see. 

 

You really do know how to ask a loaded question, Roz. Pretty impressive stuff.

 

Loaded question? Excuse me. He straight up has posted in the thread admitting to this lunacy. It ain't "loaded" if I am representing the whole thing accurately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I never said all counterterrorism funding. Did you actually read what I wrote before spouting off this nonsense?"

 

You're saying that we should ignore terrorism,and I am saying that why is crazy,I mean if you want less funding then go for it,but ignoring it is nonsense. No, it's sensible policy. And yes you have implied multiple times that trying to stop terrorism is a complete waste and that terrorism isn't a big deal. Yes and that remains correct. most obvious time is in the quote below.Just throwing money on healthcare won't automatically make it better as quality isn't necessarily judged by funding, I didn't say just throw money, I said using the funding to advance far more dangerous problems would be a far more useful utilization of that funding.  just look at Cuba,they spend ridiculously much less than healthcare than the US yet they have one of the best healthcare systems in the world. And their medical research is basically non-existent.

 

"Not really, wasting time on terrorism just distracts and underfunds areas that badly need that funding to prevent orders of magnitude more deaths than terrorism."~Milton 2017

 

 

"Whatever they want to try. Maybe more airbags in better places, maybe fixing seatbelts so they don't irritate breasts and cause the seatbelt to be worn incorrectly by a good number of women."

 

Aren't those the choices of the vehicular manufacturer? Not necessarily, no. Even if it's developed by the government it'll be available to manufacturers.

 

 

Milton did to be fair to him walk back slightly on the cutting of anti-terrorism as he would maybe (keyword being maybe as he ain't even sure on that) be fine with monitoring for WMDs. I didn't need to back it up, I just clarified almost immediately so you two wouldn't keep making up quotations so often. However general anti-terrorism? Useless stuff apparently. In return for allowing us to start getting bombed whenever terrorists feel like it he wants money to be spent towards...Saving far more lives than terrorism takes, yes. One kills way more people and the other is terrorism.

 

 

... I knew you didn't have the slightest idea. The government does not manufacture cars (though there have been exceptions) to start with and if the government were to implement such things... it'd not cost the state a penny. They would merely need to pass a law stating that cars would have to be fitted with such things and there we go, job done. No what you're even referring to here.

 

Are you now going to pout and say you don't need to say nothing when it comes to what to spent on this car accident prevention? Let us see. 

 

 

Loaded question? Excuse me. He straight up has posted in the thread admitting to this lunacy. It ain't "loaded" if I am representing the whole thing accurately.  You guys calling something insane or psychotic are easily ignored since neither of you have any education of significance in those areas they're very easily ignored.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean naturally doing nothing to solve or prevent mass murder is kinda....stupid

Edited by Vincent de Beer

"If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin

 

"Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith

 

We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again healthcare receives 3.2 trillion dollars in funding.The counterterrorism funding is laughably small compared to healthcare funding.Why not just cut down on it instead?

Edited by Vincent de Beer

"If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin

 

"Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith

 

We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin

 

"Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith

 

We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, no. I know you can bloody read my quote box with your comment in it which is what my mocking of your garbage refers to. You're playing extra stupid because what you said is so insanely stupid that perhaps the shame receptors are kicking in. What you said can be DONE AT ZERO COST and do not require gutting anti-terrorism which saves lives and stops disorder from breaking out.

 

You want to stop anti-terrorism and can't even note what the money should go towards in car accident prevention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you're including everyone in the country's purchases and stuff too. Then it makes sense. If it were just the government which is what it sounded like it'd be more or less impossible to spend that much. In any event that doesn't go to help fund research so it's useless for comparison.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, no. I know you can bloody read my quote box with your comment in it which is what my mocking of your garbage refers to. Don't be ashamed to be a practitioner of this thing you find so appalling. Really, making up positions and assigning them to people to then argue about is probably your only option at this point. You're playing extra stupid because what you said is so insanely stupid that perhaps the shame receptors are kicking in. What you said can be DONE AT ZERO COST and do not require gutting anti-terrorism which saves lives and stops disorder from breaking out. It costs plenty and we can easily use the money from our overspending on anti-terrorism.

 

You want to stop anti-terrorism and can't even note what the money should go towards in car accident prevention. I'm not one of the specialists who'd be receiving the money to fund their ideas. Did you think I was a secret automobile safety engineer or something?

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you're including everyone in the country's purchases and stuff too. Then it makes sense. If it were just the government which is what it sounded like it'd be more or less impossible to spend that much. In any event that doesn't go to help fund research so it's useless for comparison.

Ok

"If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin

 

"Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith

 

We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different air bags and seat belts you said. The government can sign a law for specifics like that at no cost and then the car makers pay for it. Zero cost. Let me say again, zero cost. The examples you provided come at zero cost so require the cutting of zero to implement. Do you have a single thing you can actually list that costs something anywhere close to the anti-terrorism cost? You can't. I often give people a chance but I know with you that you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.