Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

On the flipside, the more decent people have guns the less chance they have of being killed by the violent ones. You can't be absolute and categorically claim that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths. It depends on who's got them and what they use them for.As an example -and since you mentioned nuclear weapons- it's now generally accepted that the Mutually Assured Destruction paradigm between the US and the USSR resulted in less people being killed than they would have if one of the two sides didn't have a strong nuclear arsenal. Weapons proliferation and a level nuclear playing field actually saved human lives. Like I said, it depends on what they want them for. If your country was next on the list to be invaded by the US wouldn't you just wish you had nuclear weapons?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

...??..sorry you lost me there... If MAD works as a deterrent noone will be invading anyone, as this will result in their Assured Destruction (M.A.D, get it?). That's what happened with the Cold War. err...not quite. We're considering a level playing field scenario, i.e. each side has enough weaponry to guarantee the destruction of the other. If one side -in a fit of madness- attacks, then both sides get destroyed. A rationally-thinking side wouldn't attack since survival instinct is always stronger than the predatory instinct. It worked for half a century between USA-USSR. It's factual evidence that weapons equality or superiority *can and does act as a deterrent against assault*, which is the point of contention here.If you want further evidence ask yourself: why does Israel continue to exist as a nation while totally surrounded by hostile countries?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

You see cost, I see benefit. Both getting shot is a better result for society than just the victim getting shot. Yet I've already shown you how two military blocks with aggressive, expansionist policies ended up with *more* guns but *fewer* deaths for nearly half a century. What ifs don't really matter. The fact remains that for nearly half a century the USA and USSR didn't attack each other for fear of their own survival. Just like a rationally-thinking burgalr won't enter a house if they know their life to be at risk by doing so. so what? would you have rather had the USA nuclear arsenal destroyed, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths by the USSR invasion of central Europe so that you can feel a little safer today? I assume then, by extension, that if an armed intruder entered your house you'd rush to fight them off with a...butter knive? ...washing up liquid? ....anything but a gun, right?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

what?! you mean you don't see the benefit of killing someone like that or this one? or even these ones? Wow.....you obviously just don't give a shit about their victims! ..and I thought you valued human life. Not just any human being. Some specific human beings yes absolutely. Same principle still applies. Irrelevant. ....??...that doesn't even make sense! The point is that it illustrates that armed deterrent *does* work. Like I've been claiming all along. As I've mentioned in a previous post burglary rate in the US is half that in the UK. Correlation? maybe, maybe not. Yes we do. Invasion plans had already been drawn. Thousands of people would have been killed. errrr.....yes......that's the whole point.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

wow...! that's quite a strawman you've built for yourself there mate! Just because I value individual liberty, including one's right to protect oneself, one's family and one's property in the manner which one considers the most effective and less risky I have to be labelled as a gung-ho, one-dimensional republican cowboy.But yeah, whatever rocks your boat, that horse you're on is mighty high partner, you make sure you don't fall of it now, d'ya hear?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Why? Speaking of which (Hitler not Godwin), if you had a chance to kill him before he came to power I presume that you wouldn't do it, as you value human life so strongly. Yes, it would have prevented the death of 20 million people but what matters is that you shouldn't compromise your moral principles. I mean people die all the time, but your ethical system...well.. once it's broken it's hard to fix isn't it? Morality uber alles! You're a very nice man. Yeah, sometimes I cry into my muesli too! I meant that this sentence didn't make any semantic sense at all. All this morality must be interfering with your grammar skills. Yes, given the right circumstances! What do you think the plans are for? Unfortunately we don't all share your virtue and lofty principles, I'm humbled to admit.P.S: Do you think I'll go to hell?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Nowhere in this thread, or anywhere else, I've advocated indiscriminately shooting people or killing all criminals or whatever else you made me out to stand for. I realise that black & white caricatures are easy to counter and dismiss but show some integrity.Anyhow, my ethics are based on libertarian principles: in a nutshell, people should be free to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't cause un-conscented harm to others. Individuals should have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference from other individuals or the state. Solid property rights should be a crucial part of recognising individual liberty. The only proper use of enforcement/coercion should be to protect individual liberty and nothing more. One person's individual liberty cannot be used as an excuse to compromise or violate another person's individual liberty.Now if you apply those principles to our specific scenario you'll hopefully understand where I stand: noone should have the right to violate my individual liberty by invading my home. The right to defend my family and property -and by extension my liberty- from harm, without endangering it, should be paramount. The intruder's individual liberty to invade my home cannot be used as an excuse or cannot take precedence over my own and my family's.I hope that's now clearer.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

No, because that would violate other people's rights and liberties. See my reply to Rahvin in Message 79.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

How so? Please explain! Yes, but not by violating the rights of other people who haven't interfered with yours.Nice selective-quoting BTW.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

*blink!* (...sorry Rrhain!)You did not just say that, did you? You didn't really claim that hypothetical questions are irrelevant because they don't affect reality, did you?Here's what West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 defines as a hypothetical question:

quote:

---

A mixture of assumed or established facts and circumstances, developed in the form of a coherent and specific situation, which is presented to an expert witness at a trial to elicit his or her opinion.

---

And here's what Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court: An Empirical Approach, Lawrence S. Wrightsman says on the matter

quote:

---

even 20 years ago hypothetical questions were recognised as a "way of life in today's Court", queries that every conscientious advocate must expect. Justices relish hypotheticals.

---

So as you can see, as long as they're relevant and non-distracting, they are a valid debating technique and widely used within the Justice system. They're good enough for an expert witness at a trial but they're not good enough for you! My oh my, what high standards you must have! No, you....confused individual,you...the question wasn't posed to pass judgement on the reality of what Hitler did, it was posed trying to elicit Huntard's opinion and -hopefully- expose his hypocrisy. Which is extremely relevant to the argument. Maybe next time google up 'debating methods' before making silly and ignorant comments on this board.Edited by Legend, : emphasis

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Not even if this life threatens to take yours? I dismissed your "What If" because it had nothing to do with the point I made about nuclear weapon proliferation acting as an effective deterrent. Your counter was (Message 64) : "What if Chroustjev (or Kennedy) had gone insane and launched the weapons?"If my point is that "something happened that supports my position", your saying "what if it hadn't happened?" adds nothing to the debate. It's distracting, irrelevant and circular reasoning. That's why I dismissed it.I, on the other hand, am trying to explore how deeply and genuinely you value human life by asking "Would you have killed Hitler if you had the chance?"well...?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I already answered this in my previous post (I'm catching up with the backlog). Here's what I said:I dismissed your "What If" because it had nothing to do with the point I made about nuclear weapon proliferation acting as an effective deterrent. Your counter was (Message 64) : "What if Chroustjev (or Kennedy) had gone insane and launched the weapons?"If my point is that "something happened that supports my position", your saying "what if it hadn't happened?" adds nothing to the debate. It's distracting, irrelevant and circular reasoning. That's why I dismissed it.I, on the other hand, am trying to explore how deeply and genuinely you value human life by asking "Would you have killed Hitler if you had the chance?"

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

But the only surefire, definite, 100% way of stopping him would be to kill him. Would you do it or would you rather take a chance with 20 million lives so that you can preserve your morality?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Is that it..? Is that the best you could come up with? Surely, out of all the ways to counter my argument there had to be a better one than latching on to the usage of the word 'paramount'!so when Barrack Obama tells Israel that its security should be 'paramount' he means that it should be above the security of the USA, in fact above anything else in the world, right? Because 'paramount' is always used in the absolute sense, in your mind.Maybe you should be looking up the meaning of the word context instead.That's the second silly and ignorant post you made in a row. Any chance of a hat-trick?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Hitler isn't. Huntard's readiness to hold his own moral values higher than other people's lives is. Hitler is as distracting as someone's inability to counter the argument which mentions him. In your case, quite a lot. Wow, you made up your own definition! Let's see what the rest of the world says: Using English :

quote:

---

A hypothetical question is one asked out of interest, as the answer will have no effect on the situation.

---

In Law :

quote:

---

A question, based on assumptions rather than facts, directed to an expert witness intended to elicit an opinion.

---

In Business :

quote:

---

Imaginary situation based on certain proven or assumed facts, and formulated to arrive at a generalized answer applicable in most such situations.

---

(Applause)You did it! The crowd goes wild!! (/Applause)

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"