3 ms·

I imagine I would find it somewhat more difficult to justify having the most heavily locked door in the world - which, by reasonable context, is closer to analo

I imagine I would find it somewhat more difficult to justify having the most heavily locked door in the world - which, by reasonable context, is closer to analogy being drawn above.

Terr_ 12y ago
I disagree with the "context" you're trying to conjure up here. Petersellers' post is quite explicit, and directly equates paying for the construction/use of weapons to paying laborers to dig/re-fill holes in the ground. At no point did he say it was disproportionate to the nation's wealth (or dirt-supply.) Rather, his post argues it shouldn't happen at all.
- 6d0debc071 12y ago
  In a part of the discussion talking about the arms industry funnelling tax dollars back into the American economy. I don't find it particularly unlikely that someone might then equate, within that context, it to be effectively analogous to ditch digging and not bother to qualify their remark more fully. But, we can assume: 1. That Petersellers has grown to adulthood with a remarkably naive understanding of human nature. 2. Believes that the industrial and design capacities of modern nations are such that we could conjure effective weapons faster than a strike could be effectively delivered. 3. That they meant their statement in a somewhat more bound form. Since 1 & 2 seem either unlikely to be held, or to be held by a mind that hasn't been convinced by the other arguments / observations it would have come across to the contrary, the latter seems the most useful context to interpret their remarks in. The others would either be mistaken assumptions or remove the point of talking to them.
temujin 12y ago
By definition, somebody has to have a most heavily locked door in the world. In your analogy, it's clear to me that the US is better suited for that status than any of the other realistic candidates.
- 6d0debc071 12y ago
  Someone has to have killed the most children as well, but that's hardly a justification one would care to rely on in court. My point was not that no-one could justify an extreme of door locks but that I could not. If someone wants to try and justify an extreme of door locks, they're welcome to do so. But merely noting that we all do some thing, or that someone has to have done the most of it, is not such a justification even by analogy.

I imagine I would find it somewhat more difficult to justify having the most heavily locked door in the world - which, by reasonable context, is closer to analogy being drawn above.

Terr_ 12y ago

I disagree with the "context" you're trying to conjure up here. Petersellers' post is quite explicit, and directly equates paying for the construction/use of weapons to paying laborers to dig/re-fill holes in the ground. At no point did he say it was disproportionate to the nation's wealth (or dirt-supply.) Rather, his post argues it shouldn't happen at all.

6d0debc071 12y ago
In a part of the discussion talking about the arms industry funnelling tax dollars back into the American economy. I don't find it particularly unlikely that someone might then equate, within that context, it to be effectively analogous to ditch digging and not bother to qualify their remark more fully. But, we can assume: 1. That Petersellers has grown to adulthood with a remarkably naive understanding of human nature. 2. Believes that the industrial and design capacities of modern nations are such that we could conjure effective weapons faster than a strike could be effectively delivered. 3. That they meant their statement in a somewhat more bound form. Since 1 & 2 seem either unlikely to be held, or to be held by a mind that hasn't been convinced by the other arguments / observations it would have come across to the contrary, the latter seems the most useful context to interpret their remarks in. The others would either be mistaken assumptions or remove the point of talking to them.

temujin 12y ago

By definition, somebody has to have a most heavily locked door in the world. In your analogy, it's clear to me that the US is better suited for that status than any of the other realistic candidates.

6d0debc071 12y ago
Someone has to have killed the most children as well, but that's hardly a justification one would care to rely on in court. My point was not that no-one could justify an extreme of door locks but that I could not. If someone wants to try and justify an extreme of door locks, they're welcome to do so. But merely noting that we all do some thing, or that someone has to have done the most of it, is not such a justification even by analogy.