Anarchism: What happens to the bombs?

[John_James]

@Rorschach

if that means explaining why a billionaire would almost certainly not plunder an isolated town in Utah for his own glee, so be it. And anything which can give more robustness to an argument is a plus. You learn how to think outside of the box a little more when presented with abstract situations.

Maybe…but

a) If your goal is “winning people over” I think time is much more effectively spent with people who are actually thinking individuals seeking truth. (See the threads under “Argumentation & spreading the word” here). There are far too many ripe minds out there to be wasting time with people who have no interest in actually thinking or internalizing ideas that are new to them.

b) You may be challenged with “abstract situations” but that doesn’t necessarily make them useful. And that doesn’t mean that’s what we’re dealing with here. Again, what is the point in debating a scenario that is dependent upon a prequisite that would virtually never happen? Hypotheticals are useful in extrapolating principles, but there isn’t any principle under debate here. The OP has no interest in discussing the deontological (or even economic) merits of any proposed philosophy. All he’s been harping on for almost the entire thread is a “what if elephants could fly” scenario, and expecting some kind of “this is how we’ll create nirvana” response.

That’s part of why I think there’s an advantage to answering these questions: you can defend them in the future even if they are silly, and there is less of an excuse for the person asking the question not to accept your position. But asserting any certainty that their situation is implausible will make you seem (to the inquisitor) doctrinaire and narrow-minded.

You even admitted yourself that you required specific details before you could even begin to venture an answer. All I did was ask for similar details as to how exactly all the resources necessary for such a scenario to exist would be redily available for even the average person, let alone almost everyone.

I don’t see how there is any difference between what I require and what you require.

The fact that he can’t offer an answer to my (and gotlucky, and kakugo, and possibly others) question, speaks to the implausibility. I don’t have to bring it up. Again, you said it yourself…you need to know what assumptions he’s making. That determines the nature of your answer. That’s all I’m asking for. If that makes me “narrow-minded”, then I don’t see what I can hope to gain from engaging such a person.

You allege that I would garner some kind of skill, or develop some counter-argument that could use in the future against a similar or same nonsense proposition. My point is, if I am faced with nonsense, now or in the future, and the person perpetrating it has no interest in logic or reason, then I will find someone more active-minded to interact with…or I’ll find something better to do. Again, if my goal is “winning people over”, there are way too many ripe fruit out there to be wasting my time trying to rejuvenate a rotten apple.

I think if he wants a serious answer to this specific question, he’d be best off specializing in knowledge of nuclear bombs and maybe even terrorism on his own. Plenty of knowledge available if you’re just willing to search for it. But before potentially wasting all of that time, think about how serious the question itself is in the first place.

Isn’t that almost exactly what I said, only with different words?