Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 86. (Read 105875 times)

Just so you know, you lost this argument a long time ago. You know it. We know it. You can continue to put up a show if you want, be we all know that when you go to bed at night, you're well aware that your arguments have failed.

Then you admit that unrestricted nukes guarantees they are used and that millions or more are killed... And you're still ok with it. Cool. That's a totally logical position.

Are you saying that a tanker truck full of gasoline driving next to you isn't just as destructive as a bomb? That's a rhetorical question. We both know that it is. That blows your argument out of the water.

I won't refute anything provided sufficient evidence or logic. Obviously the Oklahoma City bombing happened. I'm not disputing that fact. The intent of McVeigh and Nichols was improperly acted upon retrospectively. Bad things happen. That will likely never change as long as violent individuals exist. I also never suggested that observation will always result in meaningful data, although I agree with that statment anyways, at least in this case. The observation did in fact yield meaningful data, just not helpful intervention.

There's nothing wrong with my arguments and they're as sound as ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

Read what they did and notice that the majority of them had no criminal records until jailed for kidnapping, pulling the victims teeth out with pliers and torturing them to death.  Their only weakness was being members of the UVF which regards the existence of Catholics as a thread to the liberty of Britons everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Volunteer_Force

The UVF still exists.  It kills a few people every year.  It is a secret army, totally illegal and has over 1000 members, again mostly with clean criminal records apart from those in jail for attacks on Catholics.

These are the people who will be first to buy nukes.  They have the money and they have the targets.  They are not "nutcases" - if you are allowing free access to nuclear weapons, you are arming them.

As you probably guessed, I come from the community they prey on.  We have our hard men as well who regularly kill people and the PSNI can't do a thing as no-one dares talk.  I met the guy who planted a bomb in Chelsea Barracks.  I know he would have used a nuke if that was the order he was given.

Fred, I don't know why you are arguing that we have to wait for the detonator to be pressed.  If these guys have nukes, they have them for the purpose of killing lots of people.  In the 1970's they were interned because they were killing so many people the courts could not keep up.  In your system, that wouldn't be an issue would it?  One suicidal volunteer and a loud bang and the Catholic area they hate is vaporised.  The blessed volunteer goes straight to heaven and lives forever in murals.

And yes, you have said you don't care so I don't think you care.  Feel free to tell me otherwise but do so with a system that doesn't involve sitting around twiddling our thumbs while we wait for mass murder.

The correct answer is: you can't really measure the intent of people before it's too late. If we could, we wouldn't have incidents like the Oklahoma City bombing. I think you'll find it hard to refute that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. But you're free to try, if you want. Assuming that you accept that the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, then you'll probably have to accept that the intent of McVeigh and Nichols was not properly measured beforehand, disproving your suggestion that observations will always yield meaningful data before it's too late.

Your arguments are falling flat on their face, but that was obvious to most of us anyway. Do you care to attempt to refute the points in the above paragraph?

Bingo!  You can defend yourself because a gun pointing at you, even if you don't ask without asking if its loaded.  The guy may be drunk and playing some silly game but you can defend yourself.  You don't have to say "Excuse me, is this a threat that entitled me to use violence, sir?"

The exact same logic applies to a nuke.

BTW, if your car with Semtex, you may not intend to use it as a bomb but you are a threat.  Lets agree to compare like with like.

You know all this - you asked a variant of the same question days ago and got the same answer.  I'm increasing puzzled as to why you are making this case - are you just messing about seeing how long people answer you ?  

No not dodging, just trying to make a point. If you don't know something exists because you haven't experienced it yet, there's nothing to do about it. You don't even know what it is. I use the sun example because we all know the sun exists by indirect observation.

In the situation where you have 'nutcases', as you call them, they tend to interact with their environment. This interaction can be observed indirectly. To wit, I just observe their behaviors and notice things about how they (re)act in certain circumstances. If their behavior becomes violently inclined, I should probably prepare to defend myself. Once it's determined that you or I believe their actions rise to the level of imminent threat, we intervene, but not until then; and then we deal with all of the consequences that follow.

But then you knew that. Maybe you're just worried I don't care, or I'm another one of your 'nutcases' laying in wait. Still concerned?

Are you dodging the question because your whole premise is starting to feel shaky? Answer my question: How do you measure intent of some individual that you have never met, nor even know exists?

No, it's not. Even if the gun is unloaded and they are pointing it at you, if you don't know it's unloaded you can still defend yourself with violence. You don't have to ask if it's loaded. The key issue is the threat, not the risk of danger. We drive around bombs all day. My car could explode at any time and kill you if you are next to it. Is that a threat? No.

Riddles eh? Okay, two can play this game. How do you know the sun is hot unless you can touch it?

You're moving goalposts. You asked for alternatives to "might makes right".

Tell me how you measure intent of some individual that you have never met, nor even know exists?

I would say that I'm entirely opposed to the idea that Tim, Terry, the Anthrax mailer and other malcontents whose intent is to cause harm, should have any kind of weapon, much less a nuclear weapon. There, did that sufficiently answer your question?

Answer the above question.

Ah, so you do know that that guy's views will remind others here of you.

Tell me, Mr. "I can't think things through", if you don't advocate violence, then why do you advocate that others should be able to have nuclear bombs in their garage? Other people, like Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, the Unabomber, and other such malcontents, such as the Anthrax mailer.