Sorry, I hit “post” before prematurly. If we are going straight off of fantasical things outside of a void let’s jump back to robots again. But this time, to use a Futurama term, let’s call them Killbots. The design is different, I don’t expect them to behave the same.
look, what do you think my challenge was about? she was critiquing our use of terminology, justice, morality etc. i was trying to explain i have a very specific meaning for these terms that differs from the conventional usage she is most comfortable with.
im not assuming (least not in this thread) the content of what the robot will think up, but what is it you would call his project, of making an inquiry. what is he inquiring into, think of a word for it? (hint: i’ve got one)
Ha! I think it’s high time for some libertarian vampire-fiction. Voluntaracula.
Whoops, I’m a boob. I just wasted everyones time. I completley missed the point of the argument. I think I completley skipped a page and some key points made by both you and her, my apologies.
I just finished reading this. Interesting article. I don’t think the graph is an absolute standard though, and I don’t know if Block was trying saying it was. It seemed more like an analogy to help the discourse. His basing of weapons within the paradigm of self-defense seems to be a helpful orientation.
Are there any worthwhile rebuttals to the self-defense argument of Blocks that his paper covers here?
For one, using geography as context, which I highly agree geography adds much, a bazooka could possibly be banned from a city. I’m sure other arguments of context could be made as to why they would be ok for instance: A war is happening, the city is full of innocents, but enemy tanks are rolling ever closer. Bazooka is needed in the city to stop them in their tracks, hopefully innocents not partaking in self-defense have evacuated, so, the city is no longer full of innocents and thus more context has been added to explain when it is ok to have bazooka’s in the city.
Woah! Where does the “city” get the authority to ban anything?
Did you read the article? It would help so I don’t have to type it all here. It is a short read.
First of all, whether one can or cannot own a weapon is not dependent on whether one can use it in a purely defensive manner. It is dependent on whether someone else can own one. I disagree with the premise of the whole article.
Second of all, the article is fairly lengthy. I consider a short article to be 2 pages or less.
Lastly, you did not answer my original question. Where does the city get the authority to ban anything?
Well, I don’t think he meant a city can ban a bazooka within a certain context. For instance, a self-defense agency is patrolling in the city again depending on how violent the city conditions are currently, but let’s say it’s a fairly just city with little to no crime. Why would the self-defense agency patrolling need a bazooka for? Of course they could carry it around, but once they use it then innocents are killed. Now the self-defense agency patrol unit (depending on how far the collaboration of supporting this bazooka to be used goes) becomes the criminals instead of seeking justice. That’s the context of article. It’s not the banning of the bazooka in total. It’s the repercussions for using a bazooka in a city for self-defense. I guess this is why I was looking for somebody who had read (or not) the article to muse through what Block had said.
The article does point out why nukes are unlawful though in a certain context outside of possible meteor or alien use in space, but to use on earth it is harmful to innocents even if used as self-defense so he makes the case that nuclear weapons couldn’t even be used and are a threat to innocents to even have.
By the way, Block never said Bazooka’s need to be banned in a city. I said that and maybe it was too strong a word to use for what I’m really talking about.
Seems like a really long article to get to that point. I think most people would agree that killing innocent people in self-defense is wrong.
I read that part. Again, whether or not one can own a weapon is dependant on whether or not someone else can own it, not how much damage it could do.
Nuclear weapons are not owned by individuals, not because they cannot get them (I am sure Bill Gates could get one if he really wanted to). It is because individuals do not want them. They are really expensive and dangerous. Dangerous not just because of the material, but because then you become a target for owning one.
Yes, long article, but professors are to write articles. That’s usually part of the deal being a professor. They need to write a certain amount of articles (usually this is the case set-up by the university). So I’m not really going to get into the article’s length. I liked it, you didn’t - value preference.[:)]
Outside of aliens invading or meteors possibly blown up before they reach the earth, no need for nuclear weapons. They wouldn’t harm innocents if blown up in space, but why have one otherwise? It’s not a self-defense weapon is what Block was arguing. I think Block’s main premise of the article was how self-defense orientation helps provide a view as to which weapons are actually self-defense type weapons compared to others that initiate physical coercion.
It really wasn’t a difficult article as you surely have surmise.[:)]
Sure there is. To keep those that have them from attacking you. Why do you think there has not been a war between nations that have nuclear weapons? Why do you think the U.S. only attacks nations that do not have nuclear weapons? Again, I disagree with his premise.
You don’t think if someone invented a small weapon with the force of a nuclear weapon, that was safe and fairly inexpensive, that most people would buy it?
I’m afraid that the rationale for ‘banning’ certain weapons has no rational basis whatsoever behind it.
In any moderately advanced industrial society, the creation of so called weapons of mass destruction is trivial. Just learn some basic chemistry, buy some cheap raw materials and get your hands dirty.
The ‘argument’ that some weapons can be banned because they are not ‘defensive’ weapons is extremely weak.
That’s probably true as well, although it doesn’t sound like a long-term solution/good idea.
What is not a long term solution/good idea? Nations owning nuclear weapons? I think it is going to happen eventually, regardless of what anyone wants. And it may result in a nuclear holocaust. But who knows? For now, it seems to have brought much peace to the earth. And I think it will continue to do so.
Armed peace.
Yes, for the time being it may be working. But again, it does not mean it’s a good solution.
Is there any other kind?
A good solution to what? Nations going to war? It seems to be the only one that has worked in history so far.
Ah yes. Amazing. It has worked…and it will work until the time it will stop working.
The argument is against nuclear weapons. Not against some people can have them and some people can’t. I’m not talking about a bias stance.
I’m not talking about “if we can”. If you can build it, then you can have it. A sound understanding of physics will do the trick. If I jump off a particular cliff I have in mind, then I will die. I didn’t say there isn’t free-will.
And of course in a world where nuclear weapons are present they might be a deterrence. But my argument is, when a country or individual has them it is not for self-defense because the consequence of a nuclear weapon going off does not only kill the enemy it kills innocents too. And whoever set it off therefore murders. Call it a cruel world if you want or not.