chucknbach
New member
Wish I could have an argument with someone. Living in a coal mining town, where every owns a gun. It just doesn't happen. We all hate Obama's logic.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
If it saves ONE life...
- Thread starter JohnKSa
- Start date
Wish I could have an argument with someone. Living in a coal mining town, where every owns a gun. It just doesn't happen. We all hate Obama's logic.
Why the statement:“We must do it my way if it saves even one life.” is the enemy of rational decision-making, how it cuts off constructive debate and how it attempts to vilify all who oppose the person making the statement.
That's just it: the other side is not interested in a logical debate, for they would lose as they have in the past, because logic is on our side.
We are getting railroaded by the uninformed masses, and it is happening because tens of millions have been convinced by our "education" system that we live in a "Democracy", that you can depend upon the government to give you everthing you might need, and that other people's property and rights can be taken because it is expedient to some popular "need".
These "needs' can be manufactured whenever necessary, with the help of an effective political machine and a compliant press ..... it has happened before and it always ends up the same: The State amasses power at the expense of the Individual..... "If it only saves one life ....." is an excuse to stop thinking .... and an excuse for the State to do anything it wants, to whoever it wants, whenever, just so long as they can whip up popular support.
A couple of other treatments of this general topic with slightly different twists.
This author calls it the "Fallacy of Infinite Value", and points out that life, while valuable, is not infinitely valuable as the "If it saves one life..." argument implies. Society makes daily decisions that weigh the cost of human life against various returns.
http://scruffylookingcatherder.com/?tag=/Infinite+Value
This author approaches the fallacy from the standpoint that while the "If it saves one life..." argument attempts to imply that human life is being weighed against something less valuable, it is very often true that a more careful analysis will demonstrate that there is actually a life vs. life balance that is not immediately obvious.
http://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/2013/01/fallacy-of-incommensurability/
For example, the argument that banning privately owned guns must be done if it saves one life, generally ignores the fact that privately owned guns are frequently used to save lives. In the final analysis, banning them could actually cost more lives than it saves.
This author calls it the "Fallacy of Infinite Value", and points out that life, while valuable, is not infinitely valuable as the "If it saves one life..." argument implies. Society makes daily decisions that weigh the cost of human life against various returns.
http://scruffylookingcatherder.com/?tag=/Infinite+Value
This author approaches the fallacy from the standpoint that while the "If it saves one life..." argument attempts to imply that human life is being weighed against something less valuable, it is very often true that a more careful analysis will demonstrate that there is actually a life vs. life balance that is not immediately obvious.
http://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/2013/01/fallacy-of-incommensurability/
For example, the argument that banning privately owned guns must be done if it saves one life, generally ignores the fact that privately owned guns are frequently used to save lives. In the final analysis, banning them could actually cost more lives than it saves.
Dragline45
New member
The argument itself makes me sick, and is probably the most Un-American thing to ever come out of a presidents mouth. Obama is basically saying if giving up your freedoms saves just one life it is worth it. Well, hate to break it to you buddy, but our country was founded by people GIVING their lives to protect our freedoms, and Obama wants to take them away with the stroke of a pen. Absolutely disgusting.
Justice06RR
New member
I feel the same way; its is a false "feel-good" statement that sounds nice at first, but really is not a logical idea.
What If it saves one child's life, but allows hundreds or thousands to be stripped of their freedoms and rights?
It goes along with the concept, punish the masses for the mistakes of the few.
what disgusted me the most was when Obama signed his EO's while surrounded by children he used to parade his (I will call it) "Anti-Rights" orders.
What If it saves one child's life, but allows hundreds or thousands to be stripped of their freedoms and rights?
It goes along with the concept, punish the masses for the mistakes of the few.
what disgusted me the most was when Obama signed his EO's while surrounded by children he used to parade his (I will call it) "Anti-Rights" orders.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Reading the first article linked by JohnSKa is also related, though certainly not identical, to one of the arguments that I have raised. I don't know if it has a proper title, but I think of it as the "value judgment" argument.
The anti-gun folks keep saying "if it saves only one life, X must be done!" One problem with this thinking is that it operates on the assumption that all lives are of equal value. I take the (politically unpopular) position that some lives are actually more valuable than others. I've been called out for saying that I don't really care about the statistics on "gun deaths." (as though those are really any more problematic than, say, "chisel deaths.") There's a reason that I'm not all that concerned about the numbers, though. I've made a value decision: I value the lives of my friends and family members more than I value the lives of methheads who kick in doors at 3 a.m. That is one of several reasons that I own firearms.
When I have time to illustrate this principle, I use what I call the Magical Gun Law example:
The anti-gun folks keep saying "if it saves only one life, X must be done!" One problem with this thinking is that it operates on the assumption that all lives are of equal value. I take the (politically unpopular) position that some lives are actually more valuable than others. I've been called out for saying that I don't really care about the statistics on "gun deaths." (as though those are really any more problematic than, say, "chisel deaths.") There's a reason that I'm not all that concerned about the numbers, though. I've made a value decision: I value the lives of my friends and family members more than I value the lives of methheads who kick in doors at 3 a.m. That is one of several reasons that I own firearms.
When I have time to illustrate this principle, I use what I call the Magical Gun Law example:
Assume, just for a moment, that Congress could pass a law that would magically eliminate all gun deaths in this country instantly, except for one. Now assume that the one gun death is your child. How would you vote?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
If you are interested in the psych world's scholarly literature's main book on exactly this type of stupid decision making
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Shows how the emotional outweighs the rational.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Shows how the emotional outweighs the rational.
silvrjeepr
New member
Stole your post spats. I like it.
Evan Thomas
New member
Politically unpopular, yes.Spats McGee said:The anti-gun folks keep saying "if it saves only one life, X must be done!" One problem with this thinking is that it operates on the assumption that all lives are of equal value. I take the (politically unpopular) position that some lives are actually more valuable than others.
Actuarially, not so much. The insurance industry (and the courts) do it all the time.
And this is where the whole thing breaks down. When you compare the cost of these measures with the value, in actuarial terms, of one child's life... it's absurd.
But I'm really, really careful in picking the people with whom I use this argument. Most hate it.
"Priceless" is one of my least favorite words.
Has anyone given much thought to the end game?
We have seen that gun bans don't have the desired effect. Assuming the worst and law abiding citizens are disarmed AND violence does not decrease, what comes next?
I don't think I will see it in my lifetime but people who really love the ability and freedom to do what you want when you want and to go anywhere you want without having to show your papers are going to have to remain vigilant.
Maybe I am paranoid but what I see is a move by some to have total control over others without the fear of armed pushback.
I would love to be left alone. It seems that far too many people just do not grasp that.
We have seen that gun bans don't have the desired effect. Assuming the worst and law abiding citizens are disarmed AND violence does not decrease, what comes next?
I don't think I will see it in my lifetime but people who really love the ability and freedom to do what you want when you want and to go anywhere you want without having to show your papers are going to have to remain vigilant.
Maybe I am paranoid but what I see is a move by some to have total control over others without the fear of armed pushback.
I would love to be left alone. It seems that far too many people just do not grasp that.
If it saves one life:
We should strongly restrict the fourth amendment. What is this BS about "unreasonable searches and seizures." Cops are good guys. Why do they need a judge and a warrant to search a possible drug dealers house?
We should strongly restrict the fifth amendment. What is this stuff about due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination protecting criminals for? this lets out tens of thousand of criminals to reap mayhem on the country.
We should strongly restrict the sixth amendment. Seriously you have nothing to fear from the government. Why do we need Trial by jury speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel. Why do murderers get this stuff? haven't enough children died?!?
why is that cruel and unusual since they may go onto kill someone?
We should strongly restrict the first amendment
Why allow people read Steven king novels about violent school vengeance fantasies being acted out?
How can Django be legal?
IE we can save HUNDREDS of thousands of lives by simply shredding the bill of rights. It was written it the days of muskets by a bunch of long dead guys. We have the internet now and "freedom of the press" was from the days of the hand printing press.
Who are these dangerous sick extremist groups like the ACLU defending criminals, pornographers and the speech rights of Nazis along with the video game industry? what is that about? After we get rid of the nuts hanging onto their "guns and bibles" we need to realize anyone sticking up for the first amendment must be "holding onto their internet and pr 0n."
We should strongly restrict the fourth amendment. What is this BS about "unreasonable searches and seizures." Cops are good guys. Why do they need a judge and a warrant to search a possible drug dealers house?
We should strongly restrict the fifth amendment. What is this stuff about due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination protecting criminals for? this lets out tens of thousand of criminals to reap mayhem on the country.
We should strongly restrict the sixth amendment. Seriously you have nothing to fear from the government. Why do we need Trial by jury speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel. Why do murderers get this stuff? haven't enough children died?!?
why is that cruel and unusual since they may go onto kill someone?
We should strongly restrict the first amendment
Why allow people read Steven king novels about violent school vengeance fantasies being acted out?
How can Django be legal?
IE we can save HUNDREDS of thousands of lives by simply shredding the bill of rights. It was written it the days of muskets by a bunch of long dead guys. We have the internet now and "freedom of the press" was from the days of the hand printing press.
Who are these dangerous sick extremist groups like the ACLU defending criminals, pornographers and the speech rights of Nazis along with the video game industry? what is that about? After we get rid of the nuts hanging onto their "guns and bibles" we need to realize anyone sticking up for the first amendment must be "holding onto their internet and pr 0n."
Like ""Do It For The Children"", ""If It Saves One Life"" is an equally ringing buzz phrase.Problem is that the Saving Of The One Life mentioned is nowhere documeted.
Additionally, in instances where gun control as usually presented, bans on one thing or another, registration, licensing, endless hoops for The Law Abiding to jump through, has been enacted, either legislatively or administratively, it just doesn't work, a plain fact that some seem unable/unwilling to grasp, one wonders why.
Additionally, in instances where gun control as usually presented, bans on one thing or another, registration, licensing, endless hoops for The Law Abiding to jump through, has been enacted, either legislatively or administratively, it just doesn't work, a plain fact that some seem unable/unwilling to grasp, one wonders why.