This isn’t a strong argument. The idea of establishing rights is that doing so is worth the attendant responsibilities. The tradeoff is baked right into the nature of the concept. It’s like saying: allowing someone to live places restrictions upon those they impact over time.
-
-
-
How can you be sure that owning guns is worth the attendant responsibilities though? Surely the US's inordinate gun crime figures suggest they are not?
- 20 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
His case isn’t convincing at all IMHO, and his philosophy is some of the worst I’ve ever read, precisely for this reason. He arbitrarily focuses upon the symptoms of existence itself and then concludes, unconvincingly, life’s not worth it while backing off suicide with cowardice.
-
I actually wrote a very long rebuttal to his work along these lines, so I'm kinda with you on this. But I do think that his concept of asymmetry is deceptively convincing, in that we are tempted to approach this topic by erroneously attributing desires to non-existent beings.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You can’t realistically move it back. Too much violence is required, and it would destabilize the situation beyond tolerable risk thresholds. Triggering insurrection due to school shootings is like grounding all airplanes due to a few crashes. Emotional salience doesn’t scale.
-
There are ways gun control can be achieved without triggering insurrection. But it would have to be gradual, and consist of such things as slowly limiting the sale of parts & ammunition for outlawed gun types. The fact that support for gun control is increasing shows it can work.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.