I wasn’t referring to Biden’s ritual genuflection before the Second Amendment.
The point is that this line: “But as the president said, even if what we do only saves one life, it makes sense” constitutes dumbassery. It’s not a Democratic fallacy, it’s not a Republican fallacy. It’s just a fallacy, pure and simple. The object is to shut down debate. Who besides a wretch who fails to value human life could argue with it?
It’s false that it’s never true that “if it saves one life, it makes sense.” Because, sometimes it does make sense. Biden is not saying “it makes sense, regardless of any other circumstances.”
That’s just because you’re as fucking stupid and delusional as he is.
Good post Drew. Trouble is, the vast majority of the affected audience will never see it.
[underline added]
No, it’s not ever about ‘additional revenue’, but purely about the cost, especially including ‘Opportunity Cost’ (including for the ‘eeevil corporate money-grubbers). If it costs US society a million bucks to save one child’s life, that’s only about 1/3 of a cent per person, so rather cheap. But if that same million could have been spent on something that would have saved 1000 childrens’ lives, then it’s an unethical stance to say that “saving that one child’s life is worth the cost”. You’re trading 1000 kids’ lives to save the one.
That is what’s so perniciously evil about “if it saves one life, it’s worth it” thinking. It’s almost always ignoring the opportunity cost, such as the ‘unintended negative consequences’ of the action.
Yes, he’s a fucking jerk, an incredibly fucking idiot jerk. But he confines that jerkishness to the “Pit”. Where it’s allowed. He’s limited to his appropriate forum. He isn’t something to obsess over. Come to our dark side. He doesn’t have cookies. We do.
There are atheists who aren’t total jackasses about it. And our cookies are better. Come to the dark side.
Personally, I think we should draft every American citizen. It is clearly constitutional, and conveniently gets rid of most of those pesky “rights” that don’t apply to military personnel.
I look forward to ordering millions to their certain deaths. Um, so that others might be saved, of course.
And this is somehow analogous to what Biden said?
Really? Wow. That’s got to be one of the dumbest things I’ve seen in awhile.
So you think it is “truth” that anyone who is pro-gun ownership also must not care about human life?
If you look sideways and squint.
Hell, draft the non-citizens, too. Why not?
Second Hand Smoke kills 50000 innocents a year, mostly children and the elderly. We can ban smoking, and by doing so save about TEN times the number of innocents murdered with handguns, and something like 100 times those killed with “assault weapons”.
And, do it without even stepping on a corner of the Bill of Rights.
Let us not save “just one life” let us save *FIFTY Thousand lives. *
Surely that depends on what the “one thing” is? Being a regular blood donor may only save one life. Does that make it a fallacy that donating blood is worthwhile? I can see you making an argument if that’s the only rationale behind a choice and there are other, valid, reasons against said choice. I fail to see that being the case here.
Okay. We can do that, and semiautomatic weapons too. There are just so many things gun strokers want to ban these days! It’s pretty surprising.
The point is, those who want to ban guns say it is to save all the lives that would otherwise be killed by the small percentage of guns using in things like Sandy Hook. If what they are really interested in is saving lives, then they should be on about things like smoking but they aren’t. There are many reasons why this is, but I think the number one reason is that an individual child dying from second hand smoke isn’t as newsworthy as a bunch of children dying at one time.
If people would quit letting the media think for them, things would go much better.
Well, if there wasn’t that pesky Bill of Rights in the way…:rolleyes:
If you could calculate the number of hours saved (Yes!! The subway serves a million people a day and saves them many hours in total) divided by the number of hours in an average person’s life, you could come up with a rough equivalent.
In keeping with the intelligence level of the OP, how about the Catch 22 solution to the gun problem?
Also assume it’s insane to want a gun. Therefor everyone who wants to buy a gun should be stopped from doing so.
If you don’t want a gun, you’re sane and therefor could buy one. But you won’t.
Problem solved.
Jackie Mason suggested, in the Penn & Teller segment on gun control (on YouTube) that legs should be banned, because people have been kicked to death, as should hands (so a Gentile doesn’t hit a Jew smaller than him).
This is my first post in the Pit. Adios and thanks!
Unfortunately unworkable. So far educational methods are working better than prohibition would.
Which is another place your analogy fails; the gun fetishists would hardly support a nationwide anti-gun campaign in analogy to the anti-tobacco campaign.
No; they want to stop guns from killing people all the time, not just in such rare massacres.
Not bad, not bad. Now, explain how I can buy eggs for seven cents and sell them for five cents and make a profit. 