Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 92. (Read 105875 times)

You apparently wish to claim that merely possessing a nuclear bomb is an overt threat while possessing a gun is not. Yet, for every argument you give regarding nuclear bombs, the same applies to guns. If I shoot someone with a shotgun and you are in close proximity, you could be killed as well. Yet, simply possessing a gun isn't an overt threat. If I am putting you in immediate danger then you have the right to stop me. Simply possessing a nuclear bomb does not do so. Yes, if I were going to use it and you were in close enough proximity, you would have the right to stop me, regardless if you were the intended target or not. However, until I show some intent to use it, you have no right to do anything.

Now you are being deliberately dense so I will give a dense answer.  

If you point a gun at me, I have to kill you.  I grew up with guns and there are no circumstances under which anyone can ever point a loaded weapon at me.

Lets assume we live 100 miles apart:

If you shoot your wife, does it damage me physically?  No.

If you shoot your wife, is my property damaged? No.

If you use a nuke after your wife cheats on you, does it damage me physically?  Maybe - its down to luck.

If you use a nuke after your wife cheats on you, is my property damaged? Maybe - its down to luck.

Question: if you knew the answers before asking the question, and you agree with the answers, why are you asking the question?  There are no prizes for having a high post count.

 

I could just as easily get drunk and use a gun on you. You're not giving a convincing argument for why nuclear bombs shouldn't be privately owned but guns should.

I don't care who you use it on.   Even if I am a mile away and you have no idea whether or not I exist, I die if you use that bomb.  Even if its a drunken accident, I and my family die.   If I am going to be killed by it, I have to protect myself.

You agree with that don't you?  

The fallacy is in equating my pointing a gun at you with a nuclear bomb being on my property. A gun pointing at you indicates intent to use it on you, that's why you are within your rights to defend yourself. A nuclear bomb on my property doesn't indicate my intent to use it on you.

Why are you editing my posts to make silly points?

If you point a gun at me, you are dead.  There is no need for me to wait and see if you are going to pull the trigger or not.  If you have a nuke on your property, you are dead.  There is no need for me to wait and see if you are going to press the red button.  I have to kill you.  I have no choice because you may kill my children as well as me.

Sadly, the chance of my getting from my house to yours in less time that it takes for you to press a button means that I can't take the chance.  So you cannot try to obtain a nuke without my having to assume I am in danger of you killing me and mine.  So if you want a nuke, I have to kill you before you get it.  Once you have it, its game over and I am dead.

Luckily, we have a system in place that means I don't have to employ detectives all over the world looking for potential buyers of nukes and assassins all over the world to kill them before they kill me.  Its called the Non Proliferation Treaty.  We have a working system and unless you have something better, it won't change.

Of course you already know this.  You already agree with it.  As I have asked 2 or 3 times now, why are you asking me to repeat stuff we both agree on?  

So owning a gun doesn't endanger your life but owning a nuclear bomb does? Are you immune to bullets or something?

If anyone is doing anything that endangers my life, I have the right to stop them.  If you really believe that I have some wishy washy "turn the other cheek" duty, you are not a libertarian.

The thing is you don't believe that.  So why are you posting it?

Then you must want to ban guns, knives and heavy objects too?

Please be rational.  I can't help the fact that human nature is flawed and the killing is hard wired into us.  However, I can help with people doing something that endangers my life.

Again, you know this and agree with it as a matter of fact.  Surely you can argue your case instead of repeating stuff we both know. 

Funny thing is, he justifies possession of a nuke in a shed because we all have knives in our kitchen drawers. Then he goes on to say that you would sign a contract if you wanted to keep a nuke.

So does that mean we all sign a contract to keep a knife in our kitchen drawer? I suspect not - which clearly shows that he is aware that their is a difference between the two - which renders his comparison null.

So you don't care that people will die, you just care if it's a lot of people? That goes against what you said earlier about having a right to live. Unless you are Superman, I'm pretty sure bullets kill you just as much as explosions do.

Again you are comparing a shooting rampage, which is sad but inevitable, with a nuclear explosion.  Its a false comparison.  Shooting only kills a few people.  It stops when someone else with a gun arrives.  A nuclear explosion kills millions if done in a city (I live in a city).  It doesn't stop if someone else comes along with a nuke; that may double the effect.  And the land itself is poisoned.  

You already know all this.  Why are you asking me to repeat it?  Surely repeating what we both know to be true is wasting time.  Make an argument for your position please.

The infrastructure didn't exist until it did, of course; same as the government, motivation and the history behind all of it. What's to say in a "Libertopia" a similar scenario or provision couldn't come about?

I wasn't referring to suicide. I was referring to the fact that people go on shooting rampages all the time. I figured that much was obvious but for some reason it wasn't...

I'd rather fall off a twenty foot cliff than a thousand foot cliff. But you don't see me actively seeking out either scenario, do you?

Ummm, probably because of the infrastructure in place, the history behind the motivation, etc. I'm not advocating nukes, here. But given a choice, I'd rather see nukes in the hands of the US government than some rogue individual who lives in his parents' basement.

Fred; people committing suicide don't advertise the fact.  Suicide is often a spur of the moment thing where a guy finds out the missus is cheating and kills her and then himself.  While thats sad for all involved, I see no reason why a million people in the same town should die as well.

The existing system works.  You want to replace it.  Offer something better.  In this context, better means less likely to result in nuclear detonations.

My ideology is not to deny individuals their right to life or security in their property. Au contraire, I consider any suicidal person whose intent it is to take out innocents, as wrong and unjustified. I don't appreciate your connotation that I don't respect property and life. You make absurd conclusions, false dichotomies, logical fallacies, and you abound in ad hominem and straw man arguments. It doesn't help your cause/ideology at all.

If a person is suicidal and intends to use a nuclear bomb and take everybody with him, that's more than sufficient threat; enough for me to attempt to stop him, regardless of how he acquired said nuke.

Besides, how is it that if any person who of sound mind (intent) and body, and wanted to possess a nuke, any different than anybody else you have chosen to possess/regulate said nuke? Why are your people any better at tending to a nuke than he is?

You elevate yourself or your government upon a very high pedestal, and yet your government is still comprised of people who have similar characteristics as any other man, except in your case, they have privilege via force and everybody else does not. Privilege does not make a better man; it merely gives him a title no one else can claim.

The title of 'nuke protector/destroyer' changes nothing inherent in the person.

You are not a libertarian.  You want to enforce an ideology that will deny people the right to life and the right to security in their own property.  Call yourself something else that takes into account that you want people to die for your ideology.