04 February 2006
They’re not comparable (probably)

In a posting from sometime ago and almost in passing Clive Davis reminds us of a fairly common argument:

How long was it before I overheard the standard comment that, you know, more Americans die on the roads in a year than perished in the towers? How long? A day or two. That’s all.

I find that line of reasoning so irritating.  But I don’t know why.  I am sure it’s a fallacy, a real whopper, but I can’t demolish it.  The only thing I can think of is that the comparison being made is between something that was intended by human being ie the result of human wickedness and something that was the result of human error which is entirely normal.  But I am not happy.  I am missing something here.

PermalinkFeedback (1)Default


  1. Is it the fact that the Towers are held to be especially awful because of the number of dead, but if that’s the case, why isn’t the road toll awful?

    Posted by Dave on 23 February 2006 at 01:56am

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.