|
millzy


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
|
the case of the two masks (thought experiment).
#23362431 - 06/20/16 12:12 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
i've been mulling over a thought experiment and wanted to test it out. this thought experiment is entirely my design, so feedback is welcome on how it can be improved to expose the problem better if i don't quite reach the ground with this go.
my hypothesis is that critics of the proposed assault rifle ban have contradictory moral intuitions. to give my take on the issue, the heart of the problem seems to be the way the rifles are marketed. assault rifles are marketed for the purpose of killing; therefore they are attractive to people who wish to carry out mass murders. the vast majority of assault rifles are purchased and owned by law abiding citizens. but because of their attractiveness to some of our most vicious criminals, are we morally obligated to ban them, even if doing so does little to prevent any future tragedies? the following case is an attempt to recreate moral dilemmas along similar lines in areas where personal liberty, consumerism and serious harms intersect. i call it the case of the two masks.
before we begin, for the sake of the experiment, let's assume that moral value exists. everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but relativists and other skeptics of morality are probably not going to have much to contribute to the conversation. let's also assume that my take on the issue above is accurate with respect to marketing and the proposed ban on assault rifles. otherwise the conversation will just derail into a debate about other aspects of the ban that the experiment does not cover. if you'd care to discuss those other aspects, please start your own thread and do that there.
so now that i've explained my hypothesis as well as the rules, let's begin the experiment by taking a look at the masks themselves.
mask 1 suppose there is a mask of a fictional character's face that is widely recognized and beloved by children all over the world. sales of the mask are so high that the mask itself becomes a cultural icon. a company acquires the rights to replicate the mask and chooses to sell it in sex shops as a prop for kink play, calling it the 'pedophile mask', marketed to adults who wish to act out child molestation fantasies in the bedroom. actual pedophiles find out about the mask and routinely use it to lure and molest children. even though a vast majority of its users are consenting adults who do no harm, is selling the 'pedophile mask' morally permissible in light of it being used in routinely committing serious crimes against children? be sure to explain your reasoning in providing your answer.
mask 2 now suppose a company acquires the patent for a 'suicide mask' that allows for a hose and breather to be attached to a jug filled with a mixture of deadly (but pleasant) inhalants, marketed to terminally ill patients seeking to euthanize themselves. the mask sells very well but routinely falls into the wrong hands. even though plans for home made masks of this type exist, and the mask sold in stores provides relief to many who rightfully deserve to die on their own terms, are we morally justified in permitting the sale of a product that allows its consumers to easily kill themselves, including those who mistakenly wish to die? be sure to explain your reasoning in providing your answer.
now explain your take on the proposed assault rifle ban in terms of its moral justification as well as your reasoning.
if you've read this far, thanks for reading! if i get enough replies, i'll provide my answers and reasoning as well.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
Edited by millzy (06/20/16 12:34 AM)
|
Jokeshopbeard
Humble Student

Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: millzy]
#23362506 - 06/20/16 12:43 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Nice to see you in PS&P millzy!!
Interesting thought experiment. I'm too tired and brainfucked after night shift right now to add anything constructive but will give it some thought and reply proper asap.
-------------------- Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not. --Jac O'keeffe
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: Jokeshopbeard]
#23362890 - 06/20/16 05:35 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Interestingly the proposed masks and profit schemes do resolve moral complicity - but it is unrelated.
The fundamental premise with gun rights is more about habit and identity issues than something as abstract as morality:
The gun rights activists identify as a group, and this group is under attack at all times, while the right to bear arms is their shield, their only shield, their last defense.
No matter how insane this seems to us, it is extremism and it is here.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
millzy


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: redgreenvines] 1
#23363635 - 06/20/16 11:53 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: Interestingly the proposed masks and profit schemes do resolve moral complicity - but it is unrelated.
The fundamental premise with gun rights is more about habit and identity issues than something as abstract as morality:
The gun rights activists identify as a group, and this group is under attack at all times, while the right to bear arms is their shield, their only shield, their last defense.
No matter how insane this seems to us, it is extremism and it is here.
right. so as i mentioned, if you disagree with my take on the issue or would like to discuss a different angle of it, please start your own thread for those purposes. thank you.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: millzy]
#23363870 - 06/20/16 01:35 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Mask 1 doesn't even make sense. What would be the point in banning the "pedophile mask" when the regular kids mask is exactly the same? I assume this is an attempt to make it analogous with this part of your post: "even if doing so does little to prevent any future tragedies?" However, the situation isn't analogous, because an assault rifle ban would ban all assault rifles. There is no copy of an assault rifle that is marketed differently than the original assault rifle. Maybe you're trying to draw a parallel with the black market situation with assault rifles, but that doesn't work. The analogous situation would be a ban on all masks of that character which would produce a mask black market.
As for mask 2, the situations are also not analogous. The mask falling into the wrong hands leads only to someone committing suicide as opposed to killing other people in the case of assault rifles. This would lead to a debate on the morality of suicide. No one is going to have a debate on the morality of murder.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: millzy]
#23363875 - 06/20/16 01:37 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Regarding mask one, I don't believe the sale of the mask would affect pedophilia in practice. I.e., I don't think acts of pedophilia would increase simply because of the popular mask; those who would use the mask to lure children would have any number of avenues to lure them without it, and would probably do so if there is a low enough threshold for them to commit heinous acts anyway. I feel it would be morally permissible to sell this mask.
Regarding mask two, I would have to say that such a thing must be illegal. Too many depressed teenagers, losers, temporarily delusional types, depressives would make a rash decision to use it. In practice, obviously, we find no such product on the market for precisely that reason. A plausible alternative could be clinics for euthanasia along the lines of Kevorkian, which would be much safer and much more effective in weeding out those who are impulsive and who should not die. I believe it would be morally impermissible to sell this mask.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
millzy


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: clock_of_omens]
#23363915 - 06/20/16 01:56 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
@ divided and clock:
there are two possibilities here: either i've poorly designed the experiment or you're focusing on details that are unimportant.
to restate the purpose of the experiment, i've attempted to create scenarios in which personal liberty, consumerism and serious harms intersect.
in the scenario of mask 1, we have the right of sexual expression, consumerism i.e. the 'pedophile mask' and the risk of people using the mask to commit crimes against children.
in the scenario of mask 2, we have the right to be euthanized, consumerism i.e. the 'suicide mask' and the risk of people who mistakenly wish to die using it.
in the scenario of the assault rifle ban, we have the right to defend ourselves, our families, property etc., consumerism i.e. assault rifles and the risk of people using them to commit mass murders. while the proposed ban would ban all assault rifles, the public would still have access to other types of weaponry, hence why banning assault rifles may not have an impact on preventing mass shootings.
but prevention isn't the issue here as much as the morality on which we base the sale of certain products. are certain products morally permissible to sell, even if banning their sale would not necessarily prevent the harms that selling them creates because people would find other ways to do them?
and while the harms in each scenario are obviously not the same - murder is neither pederasty nor unjustified suicide - the structure of each scenario is the same: personal liberty, consumerism, and the harms that are implicit with the consumption of the product.
does that make more sense now? or do i need to make further adjustments?
and again, i'm not trying to have an argument here. this is a thought experiment. it's a game. if you don't want to play the game that's cool.
Edited by millzy (06/20/16 02:02 PM)
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: millzy]
#23363927 - 06/20/16 02:01 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I guess it just depends on how analogous you want the situations to be. I assumed that your goal was for people to think about the morality of the mask situations and for that to shed light on the assault weapons situation, but the details change the moral implications.
|
millzy


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: clock_of_omens]
#23363929 - 06/20/16 02:02 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
sorry clock, i've edited my reply a few times.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
millzy


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: DividedQuantum]
#23363936 - 06/20/16 02:08 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Regarding mask one, I don't believe the sale of the mask would affect pedophilia in practice. I.e., I don't think acts of pedophilia would increase simply because of the popular mask; those who would use the mask to lure children would have any number of avenues to lure them without it, and would probably do so if there is a low enough threshold for them to commit heinous acts anyway. I feel it would be morally permissible to sell this mask.
Regarding mask two, I would have to say that such a thing must be illegal. Too many depressed teenagers, losers, temporarily delusional types, depressives would make a rash decision to use it. In practice, obviously, we find no such product on the market for precisely that reason. A plausible alternative could be clinics for euthanasia along the lines of Kevorkian, which would be much safer and much more effective in weeding out those who are impulsive and who should not die. I believe it would be morally impermissible to sell this mask.
i'm putting you down as saying that only mask 2 is morally objectionable, but if you read my reply above you can change your answers in case i've clarified things for you.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
Edited by millzy (06/20/16 02:09 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: millzy] 2
#23363979 - 06/20/16 02:34 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Given your clarification, and purely in terms of this thought experiment, I would say that both masks are morally objectionable purely on the basis of cause and effect. If either one can be used in the way you've described, I would say it is wrong to facilitate the negative consequences in a strictly moral sense. It is a form of enabling, imo. The same logic applies in the notion of Blackstone's formulation, which states that it's right for ten guilty men to walk free if it means one innocent man can be saved. In the case of your thought experiment, this translates to: if outlawing the masks can save just one person, or a few, do it.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: millzy]
#23363997 - 06/20/16 02:43 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Alright, I'll just answer the questions then. Regarding mask 1, it's morally fine to sell the masks because not doing so would have absolutely zero impact. Any would be pedo could just buy the original mask just as easily, or probably even more easily since it would be sold at toy stores which I assume are much more numerous than sex shops. Not selling the masks would result in no harm reduction.
Mask 2 has other considerations. The type of harm is completely different, and the type of harm affects moral judgements. In the assault weapons case and mask 1, the harm factor is pretty similar although murder is arguably more morally wrong than molestation, but that is beside the point since banning mask 1 would result in no harm reduction as I said. In the case of mask 2, the harm is supposedly undesirable suicide. Who gets to decide what suicide is undesirable? In your last post, you claim the personal liberty involved is the "right to be euthanized". What constitutes euthanasia? Only in the case of terminal illness? If that is the case, why is the mask being sold for general consumption in the first place? The moral argument in this situation is really about who is morally permitted to commit suicide.
The assault weapons situation is different because the personal liberty is actually legitimate and constitutionally protected. It's conceivable that banning assault weapons would lead to a reduction in harm, unlike mask 1, so that would have to be taken into account. The harm involved is much greater than in mask 2, so that would also have to be taken into account.
This is what I mean when I say the details change the moral implications.
|
millzy


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: clock_of_omens]
#23364326 - 06/20/16 04:39 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
for starters, thank you for the feedback. i appreciate your input.
but i'm beginning to see what i've done wrong: i haven't properly framed the experiment. you guys are still giving answers that speak to harm reduction. while wishing to reduce harms is tied up in some sort of moral theory, i think it's fair to say that policies like the assault rifle ban are not even there to reduce the harms that they speak to. in the case of assault rifles, murderers will just find other weapons; in the case of the 'pedophile mask', pedophiles would just find other methods; and in the case of the 'suicide mask', people intent on unjustly taking their lives would surely find a way to do that with or without any store bought product that makes it easier. i believe the policies in all three cases serve a deeper purpose.
clocks - with respect to your point about "who is morally permitted to commit suicide", i think that's a worthy discussion to have, but it's beside the point of the experiment. i'm working off of the assumption that if suicide in some cases is morally justified (euthanasia, a soldier sacrificing himself or herself for his or her squadron in war etc.) it follows that there are cases in which suicide is mistakenly committed and therefore morally unjustified. i restricted the mask to euthanasia - defined as the right to die in the face of terminal illness - because it seems to be the least controversial aspect of the right to die debate. again, i'm not trying to debate the right to die but rather examine the issue of liberty, consumerism, serious harms, how they intersect and what we ought to do about it by playing a game. now, if you reject my assumption about euthanasia, then you simply aren't capable of playing the game. better luck next time.
going back to my original point, we don't seem to be talking about harm reduction. at least not directly.
i think it's fair to say that policies - at least good policies - are all based in some sort of moral code. admittedly, we may have additional policies that serve to deter or reduce the occurrence of crimes, but i'm speaking purely in terms of what happens when someone is caught doing X (replace 'X' for any serious crime). why? because we hold moral beliefs about X. and while we have policies that serve to punish and deter crimes (with some policies achieving both and some only one of the two - murder and sex crime policies seem mostly punitive rather than preventative), it also seems that we have policies that simply uphold our moral code. the assault rifle ban seems to be this type of policy. assault rifles are banned because they (albeit inadvertently) promote murder, and murder is wrong.
in the case of the masks, banning the sale of either mask would not seem to provide any deterrence or punishment, but because we believe molesting children and unjustly committing suicide is wrong, the masks should not be sold. likewise, the assault rifle ban should be allowed on similar grounds.
that's my answer and reasoning by the way. if you believe any of those three things are morally permissible, your intuitions are inconsistent because in all three cases the sale of the products should be banned in support of (at the very least) upholding our moral code. i'm not going to go as far to say that i'm absolutely right, but that is my opinion at this point.
it's the details that seem to trip people up. one lady i pitched this experiment to said she thought the 'pedophile mask' should be banned because it perpetuates harm to others, but was totally cool with people mistakenly killing themselves. how does an unjust suicide not harm others?
Edited by millzy (06/20/16 04:52 PM)
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: millzy]
#23364460 - 06/20/16 05:22 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The assault rifle ban would most assuredly be instituted in order to reduce harm. It may or may not in actuality reduce harm, but the purpose of advocating the ban is obviously to reduce harm. No one wants to ban assault rifles because of some abstract thought that they can be used to murder and murder is wrong. If that is the argument, then obviously the same could be said of a lot of other stuff. It's not simply about that though; it's about harm reduction. The same can be said of your scenarios. The point in considering a ban would be harm reduction, not some ridiculously simple moral theory based on "ban this because it can be used for x and x is wrong".
Quote:
that's my answer and reasoning by the way. if you believe any of those three things are morally permissible, your intuitions are inconsistent because in all three cases the sale of the products should be banned in support of (at the very least) upholding our moral code. i'm not going to go as far to say that i'm absolutely right, but that is my opinion at this point.
This conclusion you are reaching is built in to all the restrictions and assumptions you are posing for your thought experiment. You are basically begging the question. You are assuming that these bans would be for no other reason than to uphold a moral code and that the reasoning behind upholding a moral code in this way is "this thing can be used for x and x is bad". There is no reason to make that assumption. You are excluding consideration of all details that are obviously relevant and boiling it down so that someone has to reach your conclusion.
|
millzy


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: clock_of_omens]
#23364604 - 06/20/16 06:12 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
i'm not saying that the ban isn't trying to reduce harm, but because it does so little to achieve that, reducing harm is not its primary justification. all policies, or at least good policies, feature some sort of moral basis. many policies do more than uphold morality, but some simply do just that. i believe that the assault rifle ban mostly enforces our moral standards.
and i would be begging the question if i was making an argument. i designed an experiment. obviously, i have a hypothesis, one i explained up front: i believe people have inconsistent moral intuitions when it comes to the assault rifle ban. i set out to create scenarios that would demonstrate that hypothesis to be true. that isn't begging the question; that's testing my hypothesis.
and yes, i ignored details which were irrelevant to the experiment. again, we're not arguing here; we're playing a game. a game in which we're trying to focus on one aspect of a very complicated issue. in order to conduct my experiment, i have to make assumptions and ignore a few things in order to get to the aspect of the issue i'm trying to examine.
this is why i rarely come in here by the way. it's not that i dislike philosophy. i'm actually a couple of semesters away from earning a philosophy degree. it might be fair to say that philosophy is my passion, maybe even my calling. but you guys rarely want to play by the rules. most of the time i spend here is spent trying to work around that. it's exhausting. if class was like this then i'd be doing other things with my life.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: millzy] 1
#23364703 - 06/20/16 06:52 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Well your rules make the exercise pointless. Your thought experiment sheds no light on real world issues or reasoning because in the real world, moral considerations are more complicated than what you are presenting as a legitimate way to think about your scenarios. You claim to be trying to test a hypothesis you have about people's "moral intuitions", but moral judgments are based on the whole picture, not the simplified picture you are painting of your scenarios. You claim we are playing a game wherein we are considering one small aspect of a complicated issue, but my counter-claim is that it isn't really a legitimate aspect of the issue. No one is arguing that assault weapons should be banned simply because they can be used to murder and murder is wrong. I'm not arguing with you about the issue, I'm pointing out problems I see with your thought experiment. I am saying that your experiment doesn't actually demonstrate your hypothesis because the rules you place on how we can view the scenarios makes them not applicable to moral reasoning regarding the real world issue of the assault rifle ban. I'm not not playing by the rules, I just think your rules are bogus.
I'm well aware of your impending philosophy degree, you have brought it up in arguments with me a couple times and I've seen you bring it up to others as well. I don't know what you think you are accomplishing every time you do so. I disagree philosophically with the premises of your thought experiment. I minored in philosophy. Does that make my disagreements more legitimate to you?
Quote:
i'm not saying that the ban isn't trying to reduce harm, but because it does so little to achieve that, reducing harm is not its primary justification
There is no assault weapons ban, so how exactly do you know that it "does so little" to reduce harm? As of right now, it is only a proposal and the justification for the proposal is nothing more than the justification people give for proposing it. No one gives the justification "assault rifles lead to murder and murder is wrong". Therefore that is not the justification. If assault rifles were banned and they did in fact significantly reduce harm, that would be actual justification for the ban itself. If it didn't reduce harm, "assault rifles lead to murder and murder is bad" would not be a legitimate justification for the ban because that is asinine reasoning.
|
millzy


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: clock_of_omens]
#23364785 - 06/20/16 07:20 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
i would say that moral judgments are rarely made in light of the whole picture. take the gun control argument. for many it's all about gun rights; for others it's all about public safety. or how about abortion? for many it's all about the right to life; for others it's all about the right to choose. what you're saying seems completely false on the outset.
Quote:
No one is arguing that assault weapons should be banned simply because they can be used to murder and murder is wrong.
i'm not saying - nor have i ever said - that the ban is in place for any one reason. i'm just trying to examine the one reason i think is most important with respect to this particular policy. if you weren't so caught up in trying to derail my efforts, perhaps you would have picked up on that. you're just trying to "win" while i'm trying to have a conversation.
and i'm glad you know about my degree. that's cool that you have a philosophy minor. i'm not bragging about my education, just explaining my reasons for not coming here that often. it's hard to do philosophy in a place with little charity and no civility. and like anyone else, including myself, your opinions are only as good as their content. i do appreciate your feedback, but in this case, your disagreement seems baseless.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
Edited by millzy (06/20/16 07:22 PM)
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: millzy]
#23364817 - 06/20/16 07:35 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i would say that moral judgments are rarely made in light of the whole picture.
I thought about that after I posted it, and you're right, many times people only focus on certain aspects of an issue, but that's the problem. If you are going to make a moral judgement then you should look at the whole picture. That's precisely what your rules are saying we shouldn't do. Also, your examples don't really demonstrate your assertion that people don't look at the whole issue. You just presented two examples where people come to different conclusions. Two people could easily examine the whole issue around gun control or abortion and come to opposite conclusions based on their interpretations.
Quote:
i'm not saying - nor have i ever said - that the ban is in place for any one reason. i'm just trying to examine the one reason i think is most important with respect to this particular policy.
Once again the ban isn't in place, so there aren't reasons it's in place. And I'm just trying to say that the one reason you think is most important with respect to this particular policy isn't important at all because no one is giving it as a reason for proposing the ban.
Quote:
you're just trying to "win" while i'm trying to have a conversation.
Nah, I came in conversing about the problems I see with your experiment. You either fail to understand those problems or are ignoring them.
Quote:
i do appreciate your feedback, but in this case, your disagreement seems baseless.
It's not.
|
millzy


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: millzy]
#23364820 - 06/20/16 07:35 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
we had a federal assault rifle ban in place for ten years. it was not renewed in '04, but states like connecticut and new york have had bans on the rifles; today the SCOTUS upheld a lower court's denial of an appeal to connecticut's ban.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
Edited by millzy (06/20/16 07:45 PM)
|
millzy


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 12,404
|
Re: the case of the two masks (thought experiment). [Re: clock_of_omens]
#23364848 - 06/20/16 07:43 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
clock_of_omens said: I thought about that after I posted it, and you're right, many times people only focus on certain aspects of an issue, but that's the problem. If you are going to make a moral judgement then you should look at the whole picture. That's precisely what your rules are saying we shouldn't do. Also, your examples don't really demonstrate your assertion that people don't look at the whole issue. You just presented two examples where people come to different conclusions. Two people could easily examine the whole issue around gun control or abortion and come to opposite conclusions based on their interpretations.
you have a good point here about how people should consider all sides of an issue before deciding on it. i agree. 1000%. but that's your assertion, not mine. my assertion is about the nature of the policy itself. it's not about people; it's about rules and what ends they serve. your criticism is so far removed from what i'm trying to look at that it's meaningless.
Quote:
Once again the ban isn't in place, so there aren't reasons it's in place. And I'm just trying to say that the one reason you think is most important with respect to this particular policy isn't important at all because no one is giving it as a reason for proposing the ban.
well we do have bans on the weapons i'm referring to. so my experiment would have at least a modicum of relevance because of that. see my previous post.
Quote:
Nah, I came in conversing about the problems I see with your experiment. You either fail to understand those problems or are ignoring them.
i don't think you understand what i'm going for. that might be my fault though. i should've done a better job of explaining everything up front.
-------------------- I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger
|
|