No, I thought the difference was fairly obvious- police largely work after the fact. Your proposal is based on Minority Report logic.dte I think u forgot to reply to my post…
Throw enough grey around, and you can justify anything, including genocide. I don't see a desire to drive toward objective thought and logical analysis as a bad thing, but I'm not surprised that people that want to do things "just cuz I know what's best for the world" would scoff at the approach.If it's not black or white, DTE can't perceive it.
Throw enough grey around, and you can justify anything, including genocide. I don't see a desire to drive toward objective thought and logical analysis as a bad thing, but I'm not surprised that people that want to do things "just cuz I know what's best for the world" would scoff at the approach.
No, I thought the difference was fairly obvious- police largely work after the fact. Your proposal is based on Minority Report logic.
I showed the folly of your logic. I used simple and extreme examples, which as you know will sacrifice specificity in return for the simplicity, but you use that same technique and have clearly stated in the past that you're amenable to it. Corwin even pointed out to you that my approach was correct. I'm sorry if the logical slap in the face was uncomfortable, but I did make an effort not to rub your nose in it. You've already determined that you're right, so logic doesn't really enter into it for you any more. To blame me for that just shows how sorry your logic must be. If you're good with that, then more power to ya, but I don't see much basis for insulting me over it.You're right about logic being useful - so when do you start applying logic instead of polar opposite extremes to every point you want to counter?
So you're saying that your totally irrational criminal (your claim, not mine) might make a rational judgment based on the risk associated with a situation? Yes or no will do fine.Are you kidding ?
What's the point of having police and guards protect public areas ? What about police patrols ? What about police escorts ? You really think it's only in case something happens ?
They all act as deterrents. They're not just there to wait for something to happen.
They're there so that nothing does happen.
I showed the folly of your logic. I used simple examples, which as you know will sacrifice specificity in return for the simplicity, but you use that same technique and have clearly stated in the past that you're amenable to it. Corwin even pointed out to you that my approach was correct. I'm sorry if the logical slap in the face was uncomfortable, but I did make an effort not to rub your nose in it. You've already determined that you're right, so logic doesn't really enter into it for you any more. To blame me for that just shows how sorry your logic must be. If you're good with that, then more power to ya, but I don't see much basis for insulting me over it.
So you're saying that your totally irrational criminal (your claim, not mine) might make a rational judgment based on the risk associated with a situation? Yes or no will do fine.
Yes, for the cinema guy who went and found 10 machine guns to shoot up the cinema, it would not have stopped him as it was a premeditated thing. He took his sweet time to collect machine guns and rifles. So that's again an entirely different story and people who do that will (probably) not be stopped by more restrictive gun control.
Not to worry, I'm not taking it personal at all. I'm certainly not above a snipe or three myself. I just find it rather pointless when it is easily demonstrated to be baseless, and it tends to feed the monkeys if ya know what I mean.I don't mean to insult you. I'm just being blunt about what you're doing - because that leaves less room for misinterpretation. There's nothing personal about it, and you should know better about me by now.
As mentioned earlier, I try to drive toward the objective. Any opinion based on objective facts has more merit than one based on subjective fuzziness. That's simply undeniable. Objective facts are, by their very nature, stark and extreme, so yes, I very much prefer to deal in extremes if that's how you wish to view it. Beyond that, I highly value consistency- the application of solutions based on objective fact toward different problems. Obviously, I'm not so stupid as to believe that solutions can be cut-n-paste'd across every problem in the world, but a "good" solution to any problem should be able to serve as a starting point for many other problems IF that solution is based on objective facts. If you can't manage that, it not only leaves you empty-handed on the current problem, but it should call into question just how "good" your first solution is. It's when you base everything on subjective mumbo jumbo that you're locked into treating every single problem as something completely unique that requires a completely unique solution from the ground up. Building everything from scratch is needlessly time consuming and significantly increases the risk of error. The more subjectivity you allow into the discussion, the more limited your solution becomes--not only do you have the differences problem-to-problem, but you add differences viewer-to-viewer. Why do that? How can that possibly be a preferred approach?You really do tend to think in extremes - and you're constantly overlooking the middleground covering ~99% of reality. It's fine to use extremes if the subject is within that ~1% of reality that deals exclusively with them - but as implied that's almost never the case.
I notice that you didn't answer the question, Pladio. I suppose the bind was simply too obvious. If you say "yes", then you undercut your own argument about criminals being irrational. If you say "no", then you undercut your own argument about potential victims being armed not being a deterrent. You'll note that either way, you shoot another hole in a logical structure that already looks like swiss cheese.
If your argument is so weak that you're unable to answer a simple question in any fashion without undercutting and/or contradicting yourself, what does that say? It says that I don't think right. Gotcha.
If you're content standing on a pile of crap that can't even hold up to a single prod without falling in on itself, you're welcome to it. I'm not sure how your choice to be foolish somehow defines me as extreme, but send me my membership card.Uhm, no. It means your question is trying to simplify a problem that isn't so simple.
If you're content standing on a pile of crap that can't even hold up to a single prod without falling in on itself, you're welcome to it. I'm not sure how your choice to be foolish somehow defines me as extreme, but send me my membership card.