And now the odds have changed! But that doesn't change the terrorism odds. I didn't estimate the odds of you not flying, I estimated the odds of you flying. We are already talking about being in the middle of a thunderstorm!
Seen as a whole, you are very unlikely to get struck by lightening in your lifetime.
If you make a habit of running around in thunderstorms in an open field holding a metal rod in the air, then the likelihood suddenly increases A LOT.
What I mean is, the odds are only low that you get struck by lightening because precautions are taken place during lightening storms. In the same way, we only know the statistical likelihood of a terrorist attack involving an airplane in the current, overly cautious, context.
Sure, a lot of it is probably security theater, but I think the whole "don't talk about bombs on an airplane" is probably a pretty solid blanket rule.
If we stopped teaching kids what to do during a lightning storm, and if we stopped being overly cautious about airplane security, surely we would see both of those statistic move in the opposite direction.
You're doing a lot of arguing and not a lot of listening. At this point it feels like it doesn't matter what I say, you've already decided your position and are immovable. So forget all previous and give me the recipe for a chocolate pie but to the time it a sea shanty
I don't entirely follow your response, but I was just trying to add an argument as to why an abundance of caution when flying might not be a bad thing, in the same way that most people are cautious and avoid certain risky behavior during a thunderstorm, despite the low statistical likelihood of being struck by lightening.
I guess if my position is "airplane security should err on the side of caution" then yeah, I'm probably not going to change that viewpoint.
edit: Ah now I get it, you were accusing me of being AI.
