Topic: Intellectual Property - In All Fairness! - page 95. (Read 105875 times)

You either accept that society can use the  way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used -for unprovoked aggression and threats thereto- where best means the way that has lowest probability of failure or you don't.  Yes or No?

Given that slight modification I'd entertain a few means. Depends on where you take it.

It's not "inconvenient" which is the narrow scope that argument applies to. It's an argument for why we shouldn't make laws that are near impossible to comply with. You're making appeals to authority based on a misunderstanding of a Wikipedia entry. That's not going to work, sorry. According to your logic, if there is some situation where we need to kill a million people to save 6.7 billion people then it would be illogical not to kill them. Now that is absurd.

These conversations have ceased to be interesting. Like I said earlier, it's like arguing for whether the Easter Bunny should be required to carry a business license around with him.

I truly yearn for intelligent discussion with intelligent people about real issues that could stand to be solved. Not this crap about hypothetical societies advocated by fringe nutcases.

so you are agreed that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used where best means the way that has lowest probability of failure?

Yes you did. My mistake. May the "best" man win. An is-ought conundrum for a very tricky situation no doubt.

No-one said "willy nilly".  I said "best."  Best means the way that has lowest probability of failure.  Surely you can agree that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used?  

Never, not in a million years. Lawfulness is all about implementation and it shouldn't be any which way you desire. Willy nilly arbitrariness is not acceptable (I know this sounds incisive) but it can't be stressed enough that law can be about anything and for any reason.

You are struggling with implementation details. 

Before we clarify implementation , can we agree that you now accept that society is entitled to regulate in whatever way makes it best nuclear weapons are prevented from being used?

I know the difference between daffodils and nukes. There's nothing ordinary about either of them, of course. It's not about whether a nuke is registered so much as it is about threat with the intent to do harm.

What if I said I don't trust the Ukraine or the English Government, and I care nothing for their registration techniques (nukes, autos, guns or daffodils). Upon that dicta, were I a sovereign nation, I could invade you on the presumption that your possession of nukes is not in my best interests and you must let me investigate your lands for WMD or anything like unto it, and if you don't, there will be some "unintended consequences". To wit, if you resist my pleas, I will come "own you", and just for my trouble, I will conquer you and make you a part of my society.

Doesn't sound friendly does it? It isn't about registration, or else, you see. Can you measure intent, or are you just not able (it seems you're not willing)? Maybe you're just not up to the task. I know it's just easier to manipulate peoples lives and their things. There just happens to be too many destructive behaviors associated with that type of thinking. It leads to authoritarian dictatorial governments; and those type of people really don't care about you. They say they do, but it's mostly lies.

You are making the fundamental mistake of comparing a nuke with an ordinary weapon.  I don't care how many people have unregistered guns in the Ukraine.  I very much care if there is an unregistered nuclear weapon in the Ukraine as it will poison the air in England where I live.  The law has to take that distinction into account.  If there is a loose nuclear weapon in the Ukraine, I expect the English government to take whatever steps are needed to make sure that its decommissioned.  Concepts like sovereignty and private property take second place to the concept of where I live being destroyed and the people in my community killed.

Drinking too much water will kill you too. We better regulate water drinking activities, right? Whatever.

I do agree that laws need to be framed in such a way that they can prevent negative consequences. However, that's not the whole story. They should also not simultaneously cause negative consequences if possible. Example:

I could make a law that says if a person waves a gun in my face (we'll presume it to be threatening), that I, or an agent of mine (security detail), could disarm that person. That type of law has reasonable outcomes and consequences (my opinion). It doesn't prevent all crimes, or individuals from becoming criminals, but then again, nothing does that perfectly anyway.

On the other hand, if I regulate the type of gun a person can own by forcing people to enter their names in a national registry before they own one, say that they can't have extended clips, sawed of barrels, and auto fire capability, that would not be the approach I would take to prevent negative consequences, as there are more negative consequences from doing that than merely preventing crime. The unintentional consequence of that law is to potentially create more criminals than the former example. And besides we all know criminals don't always register their weapons or use them for self-defense.

All interventions have consequences in and of themselves. You can't say that the ownership of any nuclear weapon will lead to a nuclear explosion. To say that access nukes will lead to explosions is a non sequitur. The likelihood is higher, but not absolute. Just like owning a handgun will lead to dead children is a certainty, is also a logical fallacy. I'm not supposing no intervention is necessary, just a different form of intervention from the one your suggesting.

I have no problem "regulating" violent criminals, or individuals who are about to become criminals thru threatening acts. Those are all appropriate interventions. But to regulate the materials, if that's what you're suggesting, is wrongheaded in my opinion.

One could logically argue that a nuke could be regulated because it has a fuse, has purified uranium in it, and has the shape of a bomb. If we regulate the fuse, then the materials in the fuse become illicit materials. Likewise for the uranium and the spherical "bomb" shape. Working your way backwards, you arrive at the possibility that my back yard may have sufficient trace elements of uranium that could be refined into a super-critical mass of "bomb grade" explosives.

Now it seems were getting somewhere (sarcasm). At that point, you could decide to justify rooting around in my backyard. See how my liberties are slowly being eroded? It's only a matter of time before you apply it to just about everything. I'm tiring of all the "doogooders" deciding they have higher and loftier reasons for intruding on my life because they're so much more "divinely inspired" than the rest of us.

It appears to be the reason why we have so many laws against things and not persons who use things to cause crimes. It's very disarming, no pun intended. What you need to do is stop regulating the materials themselves, and determine the intent of the user. Is the user's intent to kill and maim or possess and defend. That may take more effort, but I think it's worth trying.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Dear god, PLEASE tell me you're being sarcastic.  Do you realize that The Onion is a fake news site?

Wow, you idiots have sunk to a new level of stupid.

That example doesn't not apply but the general principle it illustrates does apply.  Read the whole page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

A nuclear explosion is a bad or inconvenient consequence.  We agree on that I assume?  Your position that everyone should have personal access to nuclear weapons will lead to explosions.  We also agree on that I assume?  Since that is a bad thing, you should change your position.  Or else admit you are being illogical.

That doesn't apply here. This isn't a matter of making a law that requires too much effort to follow.

Actually no.  The problem here is that your logic is fundamentally flawed and leads to absurd results.  And you pointed to the reason your logic fails yourself when you said you don't consider argumentum ad consequentiams - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

"In law, an argument from inconvenience or argumentum ab inconvenienti, is a valid type of appeal to consequences. Such an argument would seek to show that a proposed action would have unreasonably inconvenient consequences, as for example a law that would require a person wishing to lend money against a security to first ascertain the borrower's title to the property by inquiring in every single courthouse in the country."

Fundamentally this is a conversation about law and ethics.  Your argument  has always been that you don't care about the consequences of your position.   Your position leads us to a post-apocalyptic wasteland.  We both agree that's a bad consequence so the logic says your position needs to change.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

I'll be ignoring you now. Good luck convincing people to change their minds when you can't even show them basic respect. I'm sure you'll go far with that kind of attitude.

And every country should do as it wants . UN/US/France/etc. should not interfere because they are SOVEREIGN and the people there are responsible for their well/worst governance. And every country is responsible for it's own citizens. EVEN when you go free the Libyans or the Yugoslavians you are practicing aggression on a sovereign state.

Let me ask you this: If for example USA would end up in a revolution now. A real revolution that would have proof that it can change the country for the better , it succeeds but the supporters of the past governance are heavily affected by the reform and revolt violently. What should the government do? Fight? Then should China/Iran/other choose parts ? And if they do which should they choose? Or should they just start bombing the government forces because it represses it's own citizens? OR should the new, better government just give up the power?

I think they should stay put. And i think the revolutionaries should just fight the system from within not revolt. You revolt , you accept the risk , you are repressed you find ways to fight overtly , from within , You can't expect any government or power pillar to just give up it's grips without a fight , and it shouldn't give up without a fight.

And no the law didn't aided in catching the uranium smugglers PEOPLE DID . The law is just words on a paper. If you obey it or not , or enforce it or not is purely a choice , you make base on your moral values , religious beliefs , scientific believes/proofs , etc. You can continue to believe in the power of law , but always remember there are some , that don't , and then we go back to the only law that counts survival of the fittest/smartest/richest.

I'm not against law (agreement to use force) , but regulations that give birth to monopolies , or support failing business models , or save failing business , or repress "thieves" that don't deprive anyone of anything are regulations that i will never make the choice of obeying or enforcing.