Re: Dangerously Irresponsible

Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Tue, 1 Jun 1999 21:12:25 -0500 

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.