Comment: In all honesty, I find the example about nukes ... suspect

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Logic (see in situ)

Cyril's picture

In all honesty, I find the example about nukes ... suspect

In all honesty, I find the example about nukes and whether the right to bear arms entitles (or not) people to have those as well ... rather silly, or even, suspect.

If it's not a bit of a stretch, I don't know what is.

I've seen it several times come up, not just in this thread, but others debating pro or against a little more or a little bit less, or none at all, gun control.

Aren't we adults? Can't we have intellectually honest arguments?

Analogy.

Let's say we're in a distinct thread regarding the sharing of best practices in family/fatherhood/motherhood/kids education.

At some point, the topic of teaching little kids about the use of knives comes up.

Some may be proponents or fierce opponents, all in a polite, civilized debate.

But what to think of the person (say, an opponent to knives in little kids' hands) putting it in parallel with the use of ... A CHAINSAW to cut his/her little chicken wings?

Getting to my point?

Back to gun control. Or rather, the right to bear arms. Any arms.

Can we be INTELLECTUALLY honest?

Who SERIOUSLY considers making the parallel with the private ownership of nukes by Joe Schmoe?

WHY THE HELL ON EARTH would ANY Joe Schmoe EVER even consider NEEDING one?

Getting to my point?

It's like the "impossible" in science. Scientists, the serious ones, anyway, are NEVER definitive about their own knowledge and limits thereof. Hence, that encompasses also their notion/what they allude to by "impossible" or "impossible per current knowledge", or "PRACTICALLY impossible".

Even the U.S. government KNOWS that the CURRENT science of the cryptographic schemes they use for encryption of future potential message of order to send a nuke over Iran (or whoever else enemies they have decided) is NOT 100% enemy-proof. They ONLY know, per current science, that it is PRACTICALLY impossible for any of today's enemies to gather enough computing power to break their codes in a timely, counter-offensive fashion.

So, what is it all about putting nukes as OVERKILL weapons to contemplate "bad" / gone postal people to have and use and kill children or innocents?

I don't like to think about it as an excuse of pushing hard a fallacious argument, but I'm a realist, and I can't seem to think of another hidden agenda.

On the other hand...

What about my last remark in this comment linked below, on the type of weapons and how the government gets them (with which money, to begin with), which aren't even nuke ... and yet, that I fail to see easily accessible to anybody yet ... A N Y W A Y ?

http://www.dailypaul.com/271003/whats-wrong-with-a-little-gu...

Wouldn't that be a little bit more on topic?

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius