rmanx Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 It's not a logical fallacy. We both know that your answer (and basically everybody else's too) to the "would you shoot a guy if it was guaranteed he'd shoot you too" is no. In someone else's words which are bit more eloquent than mine: "It is only a theory. It is not proven and cannot be proven. A theory may posit a causal relationship, for example, if one party does something, certain results will follow. In the case of nuclear deterrence theory, it is posited that if one party threatens to retaliate with nuclear weapons, the other side will not attack. That an attack has not occurred, however, does not prove that it was prevented by nuclear deterrence. That is, in logic, a false assumption of causality. In logic, one cannot prove a negative, that is, that doing something causes something else not to happen. That a nuclear attack has not happened may be a result of any number of other factors, or simply of exceptional good fortune. To attribute the absence of nuclear war to nuclear deterrence is to register a false positive, which imbues nuclear deterrence with a false sense of efficacy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 if you walk round with a gun like billy big bananas, threatening him with a gun, camping outside his house and stopping the milkman delivering his milk, dont be surprised if the guy in the house shoots you in the back one day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 It's not a logical fallacy. We both know that your answer (and basically everybody else's too) to the "would you shoot a guy if it was guaranteed he'd shoot you too" is no. In someone else's words which are bit more eloquent than mine: "It is only a theory. It is not proven and cannot be proven. A theory may posit a causal relationship, for example, if one party does something, certain results will follow. In the case of nuclear deterrence theory, it is posited that if one party threatens to retaliate with nuclear weapons, the other side will not attack. That an attack has not occurred, however, does not prove that it was prevented by nuclear deterrence. That is, in logic, a false assumption of causality. In logic, one cannot prove a negative, that is, that doing something causes something else not to happen. That a nuclear attack has not happened may be a result of any number of other factors, or simply of exceptional good fortune. To attribute the absence of nuclear war to nuclear deterrence is to register a false positive, which imbues nuclear deterrence with a false sense of efficacy." It may be more eloquent but it is no more convincing. It cannot be PROVEN that the deterrence has prevented an attack, but it is an overwhelmingly strong possibilty and a very reasonable assumption that it has done so and will continue to do so. I really hate that kind of faux intellectual twaddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 if you walk round with a gun like billy big bananas, threatening him with a gun, camping outside his house and stopping the milkman delivering his milk, dont be surprised if the guy in the house shoots you in the back one day But you aren't threatening anybody. You're saying leave me alone and you'll be just fine. And he won't be shooting you in the back as long as he knows he'll be getting vapourised as soon as he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 It's not a logical fallacy. We both know that your answer (and basically everybody else's too) to the "would you shoot a guy if it was guaranteed he'd shoot you too" is no. In someone else's words which are bit more eloquent than mine: "It is only a theory. It is not proven and cannot be proven. A theory may posit a causal relationship, for example, if one party does something, certain results will follow. In the case of nuclear deterrence theory, it is posited that if one party threatens to retaliate with nuclear weapons, the other side will not attack. That an attack has not occurred, however, does not prove that it was prevented by nuclear deterrence. That is, in logic, a false assumption of causality. In logic, one cannot prove a negative, that is, that doing something causes something else not to happen. That a nuclear attack has not happened may be a result of any number of other factors, or simply of exceptional good fortune. To attribute the absence of nuclear war to nuclear deterrence is to register a false positive, which imbues nuclear deterrence with a false sense of efficacy." Equally, the only way to prove your viewpoint is to get rid of our nuclear deterrent. And then if you turn out to be wrong, we're in a bit of a pickle aren't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 If he realises that the next phase is to subvert his children so that they start kicking off, not doing their homework and stuff until the point where they eject him from his home forcibly, then out of desperation he may think he has little to lose. Especially if in reality you dont care about his kids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Someone deluded like Kim Jong Un would. Only a matter of time before someone does it. Might not be in our lifetimes, but it'll happen. It's a good reason for globalisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 If he realises that the next phase is to subvert his children so that they start kicking off, not doing their homework and stuff until the point where they eject him from his home forcibly, then out of desperation he may think he has little to lose. Especially if in reality you dont care about his kids Sooner or later he'll be hammering frozen sausages into your lawn so that the foxes dig it up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Someone deluded like Kim Jong Un would. Only a matter of time before someone does it. Might not be in our lifetimes, but it'll happen. It's a good reason for globalisation. If you mean one global government and everyone lives in peace wherever they like, that will never happen. There is just too much to fight over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 . I really hate that kind of faux intellectual twaddle. In other words "it completely destroys your argument so I will insult it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 If he realises that the next phase is to subvert his children so that they start kicking off, not doing their homework and stuff until the point where they eject him from his home forcibly, then out of desperation he may think he has little to lose. Especially if in reality you dont care about his kids Well we were both using analogies but now you have moved it too far to be analogous to a nuclear armed state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 . I really hate that kind of faux intellectual twaddle. In other words "it completely destroys your argument so I will insult it". No it doesn't. It uses a lot of words to convey exactly the same flawed logic. Your earlier version was actually clearer in that you could see the flaw immediately rather than having to decode it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Equally, the only way to prove your viewpoint is to get rid of our nuclear deterrent. And then if you turn out to be wrong, we're in a bit of a pickle aren't we? Most counties without nukes haven't been attacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Equally, the only way to prove your viewpoint is to get rid of our nuclear deterrent. And then if you turn out to be wrong, we're in a bit of a pickle aren't we? Most counties without nukes haven't been attacked. I don't think Lancashire has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Equally, the only way to prove your viewpoint is to get rid of our nuclear deterrent. And then if you turn out to be wrong, we're in a bit of a pickle aren't we? Most counties without nukes haven't been attacked. Ahem. To be serious. NONE of those WITH nukes have been attacked. And many of those that don't have their own are covered to some extent in alliances with countries that do have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.