From: Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Date: Tue Jun 01 1999 - 20:12:25 MDT
Date sent: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 18:27:29 -0700
From: Cynthia <cyn386@flash.net>
To: extropians@extropy.com
Subject: Re: Dangerously Irresponsible
Send reply to: extropians@extropy.com
> > > If someone is DANGEROUSLY IRRESPONSIBLE, why are they walking around
> > > unsupervised? Shouldn't they be in some kind of institution? Or at
> > > the very least, have a baby sitter?
> > >
> >
> > A good question with no easy answer; it is nevertheless true that
> > many such people are not only walking around, but doing so legally
> > armed;
>
> Yes, and they are driving while drunk, driving while stupid, spreading
> aids, beating people up, and conceiving children they aren't even
> interested in taking care of. And you seem to think that if only we made
> sure that they didn't have a gun (how?) that we would somehow all be much
> safer.
>
We would be safer, and safer still if everyone had to blow through a
breatylyzer tube to start their car, had to be incarcerated for life for
knowingly spreading aids, and have any wages and inheritances
garnished to pay for their wild-oat progeny. But I'm not arguing in
favor of those things, although they may or may not be ideas worth
considering. I AM, however, making the point that just because
there are other risks in the world is no reason to not act to
reasonably minimize the one under discussion. Arguing against A
by pointing to Y has been a logical fallacy since Aristotle, and I
doubt if you are going to resuscitate the validity of such an error at
this late date.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:55 MST