This is a really bad way to do statistical inference. I don't want to go into the n number of ways this is wrong. But, Let me point out another factor that gets ignored in these pointless and wrong bean counting exercises: People are up in arms against terrorism not due to the perceived probability being higher. It is because deaths due to terrorism are wrongful deaths while most others are not.
It is because deaths due to terrorism are wrongful deaths while most others are not.
In 2011, 9,878 people died in drunk driving crashes - one every 53 minutes. Is that not considered wrongful death in your mind? That's twice as many people in one year dying from wrongful death than terrorism has killed in 148 years. If we were treating this wrongful death as seriously as we did terrorism, we'd require breathalyzer starters on every single car. Hell, we'd probably bring back prohibition.
Let's not forget the roughly 15,000 people murdered each year in the US (which number does not, as far as I know, count drunk driving fatalities). If those don't count as "wrongful death" then nothing does. But nobody cares, because it's a continuous drip instead of a single big event, and because it mostly happens to poor people and minorities.
Proper inference should consider all available data not just historical data.
Just waving around numbers is not correct reasoning from first principles!
Correct and proper inference should include present threats, beliefs and intentions of relevant groups. Do you account for that?
Just because an axe-wielding madman has not committed any
murders in the past, you would not let him be on his own.
Just an instant before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, nobody in that city had been killed by an atom bomb. You would probably stare at the bomb dropping on your head waving around stats saying the bomb is not a threat to your existence.
"The past never repeats itself precisely; otherwise, historians would be rolling in riches."
- James Gipson, Clipper Fund
Your comment is a one-way attack on sanity. It would take me a lot of effort to show where you went wrong. It takes you only a bit of effort to be wrong.
Instead of insulting me, care to rebut my arguments?
This is hilarious. I know you feel offended that I have shown that one drive a huge plane through the holes in your reasoning, but you don't respond with a barrage of "fallacies." Sigh.
