So says, Fobert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Here’s the Pit thread on the same subject:
Osama bin Laden vs. hog producers. Who’s more dangerous??
Do you have some reason for starting another one here ?
That’s clearly a stupid, incorrect and offensive thing to say.
And the debate is…?
Not so fast, jjimm. Apparently, our own Sweet Willy thinks that the statement isn’t incorrect at all. :rolleyes:
Check out the thread that Squink linked to.
Oh Lord. I see what you mean. Deary me.
Nice to see him providing some cites though.
Doesn’t this depend partially on how you frame the discussion?
Framework 1: They are more deliberately evil/nasty/harmful, and therefore are “worse”. That runs up against the sheer brutality of OBL and what he’d like to do. It’s also the argument against which every discussion of terrorism in any fashion comes into; OBL has become the new “godwin”.
Framework 2: Due to relative reactions to the different phenomena, they can cause more absolute harm than terrorism has or is likely to (owing to the greater focus on stopping terrorism vs. dealing with the fallout of hog farming). This doesn’t presuppose a moral aspect of being deliberately "good or “evil” (whether they exist or not), but a strictly utilitarian examination of ability to cause harm. This, IMO, is more understandable. OBL is an evil, scary SOB, but theoretically people can and do cause more direct harm. Maybe not in such concentrated numbers and maybe with not as much malice-aforethought, but it’s possible and perhaps even likely. This argument is valid enough. It can be argued against, but history did not begin and end with the bombing of the WTC.