Peanuts are more dangerous than terrorists, says idiot

Peanuts Kill More Americans Than Terrorists

a_couple_of_nuts.jpgTerrorism isn’t as dangerous as they tell us, says a Paul Joseph Watson on a site called Prison Planet:

The menace of global terrorism has been labeled the greatest threat to western civilization since communism and yet swimming pools, peanuts and lost deer kill more Americans every single year. Why are our governments facilitating the terrorist’s agenda by hyping a peril that simply doesn’t exist?

The number of Americans killed as a result of international terrorism since the 1960’s gives us a benchmark from which we can correctly identify and target other dire dangers to our very way of life.

– Allergic reactions to peanuts
– Accident causing deer
– Lightning strikes

That’s correct – all of the above have killed an equal number of Americans since 1960 as terrorism. One could even categorize M&M’s, lost deer and the weather as an “axis of evil arming to threaten the peace of the world,” as George Bush famously once said.

Now, Murdoc is all for rational discussion of the facts. And I don’t argue that terrorism has killed more Americans since the 1960s than peanuts. Without looking it up, I’m perfectly willing to take Mr. Watson’s statement as fact.

But he really seems to be missing the point that not only is the potential for terrorist attacks to suddenly and instantly kill many thousands of times more Americans a very real one, but that it is the stated goal of the terrorists themselves. They are trying to kill us.

Is Mr. Watson suggesting that peanuts, deer, and lighting are plotting to kill us and that the number of American killed by those causes could potentially skyrocket in one-tenth of a second if the peanuts get their way?

911_inconsequential.jpg“Inconsequential”

In case you think I’m mis-stating Mr. Watson’s position on the terrorist threat, he says that the Department of Homeland Security is

driving forward an agenda that could not alone be fueled by relatively minor, rare and inconsequential attacks that take few human lives in comparison to the real dangers that we face every day – mundane things like car accidents, cancer and heart disease.

“Inconsequential”. He said that the terrorist attacks we’ve seen since the 1960s are “inconsequential”.

I don’t know anything about the site or the article’s author, and I don’t know that I’m going to bother learning. Why is Murdoc linking to this drivel? To make sure that we don’t forget that there are very stupid people out there who we cannot just dismiss. Many war critics who claim to want what’s best for America want no such thing and we cannot forget it.

Comments

  1. So if someone put a bullet in this Paul Joseph Watson loser, as long as you didn’t make a habit of it, as long as you didn’t kill as many people as peanut alergies, for instance, it would be ok.

  2. I’m concerned that some day peanuts are going to get nukes, then they will be MUCH more dangerous than terrorists (unless they get nukes as well, of course).

  3. ‘I’m concerned that some day peanuts are going to get nukes, then they will be MUCH more dangerous than terrorists (unless they get nukes as well, of course).’ Worse case scenario kevin: What if Terrorists get Nuclear Peanuts?

  4. Getting slightly more serious.. I think there are a couple of fallacies here. One of them is ‘because there is another problem which I think is more serious, we shouldn’t be at all worried about ‘. To show how ridiculous it is, how about this: more people die in car accidents than in plane accidents each year, so let’s shut down the FAA. Let’s face it, we collectively can address many problems, so that doesn’t mean we have to drop everything to solve a particular one or two. The second fallacy is that ‘because more people die of than , we can easily save more people by addressing than .’ Maybe true, maybe not. It’s not obvious, though. The question is, how much money and effort do you need to spend to avoid deaths from each cause? Just because more people die of x than y, doesn’t mean it’s easier to save people from x necessarily. The third fallacy is the one that you’ve already mentioned – that just because terrorists haven’t killed millions of people yet, doesn’t mean they won’t unless we stop them. Let’s face it, terrorist attacks are getting worse over time. That’s why we have to stop them. Lastly, the whole point of terrorism is not necessarily to kill, but rather to terrorize. He doesn’t take into account the effect they have on morale, or the economy, or anything else. And finally they also serve to radicalize others, which is an indirect problem for us too. So basically, he forgot to turn his brain on before opening his mouth (or operating his keyboard). Which is pretty common these days, unfortunately.

  5. The real thing that this author misses is the fact that we take steps everyday to minimize risks and death from peanuts, weather, car accidents, and heart disease. (kids cant bring peanut butter to school, we have weathermen on tv, airbags in cars, etc) Therefore its only reasonable that we also take steps to minimize the risks and death from terrorist action as well. (by killing the terrorists first for example) That sort of deflates his whole arguement I thinkg.

  6. Yea yea, blah blah ‘but that it is the stated goal of the terrorists themselves. They are trying to kill us’ But what about you showing that clip of the star wars xmas special? How many did special kill?

  7. Well, I died a little inside when I saw it… ;) Perhaps we can use the ‘linear-no-threshold’ hypothesis, and say that if 1% of me died watching that Star Wars Christmas Special, and 1000 people have watched it on Murdoc’s site, then it’s responsible for 10 deaths. As Mark Twain said, with science, ‘one gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact’.

  8. I think that many people, both conservative and liberal, try to spin events in way that makes them look good. Conservatives and liberals are both crazy in the same way. For example, conservatives always seem to think some tiny, poor country is somehow going to invade us- and it always involves some ‘madman’ dictator. This allows them to look good as they are ‘defending our freedoms.’ On the other hand liberals like to emphasize things like health insurance as more important, so they can look good. It is mainly about making yourself look important and have social status, more so than looking at the actual facts and deciding what is most important for the country- there are only a rare few who really can do this. It is a shame more people can’t open their eyes and see their own party’s shortcomings, they are so obvious.

  9. Hm, I don’t recall anyone claiming that some crazy dictator is going to invade the US. Attack, sure. Perhaps for terror value, perhaps to harm it financially, perhaps out of some sense of revenge. But nobody’s been talking about an invasion since the end of the Cold War… I agree that there are some people who behave like that, though.. I just think the specific example is not a good one. Maybe someone has said something looney like that, but if so I’d be curious who and when.