I'm talking about people who attribute everyone else's motives to "fear." Why can't someone decide that a certain policy is a good and rational solution to a real and existing problem? Why do some people feel the need to condemn that decision as being made out of fear?
The kind of people I am talking about are the ones that say that I am wrong for supporting actions against terrorists because I am motivated by some amorphous, uncaused "fear," implying that if I weren't afraid, then I wouldn't support these actions. Truthfully, the chances that I will be caught in a terrorist attack are quite slim. However, I don't deny they exist, nor do I deny their motives.
I hate that disparaging phrase "led by fear," as if there is nothing at all anyone should be concerned about. It doesn't mean that I am being led by some blind, irrational fear. It means that that I see a real and credible danger that needs to be addressed.
2006-09-13
12:50:04
·
5 answers
·
asked by
BrianthePigEatingInfidel
4
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
If you step out of the way of a speeding bus, does that mean you are just "being led by fear"? Or does it mean you are reacting to something real?
The problem with many stupid people on here is that they confuse the words 'fear' and 'danger.' Simply responding to reality does not mean that someone is just afraid. It means they are applying an appropriate response to real-world conditions.
2006-09-13
12:52:07 ·
update #1
And no one is using "fear." If the president quotes things from bin Laden, he is trying to convince me that his responses are appropriate. That's not trying to scare me, because I am not scared.
2006-09-13
12:54:26 ·
update #2