Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
No, this is basic probability and statistics. For example the probability of heads or tails given a random coin toss is 50%. The value of heads appearing compared to tails appearing is equal. If you own a 1,000,000 home and (for the sake of argument) the probability of it being destroyed in a fire is 1% in a given one year period, would you pay to insure the home and if so how much? In my view the true value of insuring the home is $10,000. I would pay that price or less. So, given the 99 to 1 odds of not having a fire and risking a $1,000,000 is a decision I would compare to taking the action to insure the $1,000,000 for $10,000. In both cases the "value" is the same even though the probability is 99 to 1.
|
OK. Except in this case, the war in Iraq, we're not talking about a house.
Even if we were talking about a house, the example is so irrelevant, so isolated from any other factors and, in general, absurd, that it doesn't really hold.
But, fuck it, let's take this house example.
Are you arguing that the alleged "risks" and threats that Saddam caused America, even if they were 1%(again, I'm typing this, and it makes no sense, but your example), were reason enough for going in there?
Damn it you make my head hurt. Please don't give me a "well, it's my reality" type answer. Please don't dodge it. Please try to explain it to me.