Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo
...That would mean that movies/books/television/music and pretty much anything else that can influence stupid people to do stupid things are dangerous and should be done away with. Right? Because that's exactly what you're saying...
|
There's your straw-man. I merely raised an analogy to contradict your point; I didn't state that I thought nuclear weapons should or should not be possessed by everybody (as far as I can see). I attacked your point; I didn't give mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miburo
Elaborate.
|
Actually, on further thought that line of reasoning seems to have been based on a misinterpretation.
Time to finish this in a hurry, as I shall be off soon.
Okay, look. For your justification (that religion is permissible because it can be theoretically benign) to suffice, it must always be the case that something that can be theoretically benign is permissible, right?
Basically, you're saying (the point I'm contesting) that A (in this case religion) is a B (in this case something permissible) because A is a C (in this case something not necessarily harmful). That is:
Premise: A is a C
Conclusion: A is a B
But this requires another premise to be certain: that anything that is a C is also a B. Thus:
Premise: A is a C
Premise: All Cs are Bs
Conclusion: A is a B
If we substitute in everyone having nuclear weapons, we get the conclusion that as everybody having nuclear weapons is not necessarily harmful, it is permissible.
I'm not saying that books/music/etc. shouldn't be condoned because of this principle; I'm just saying that when we extend your principle, you contradict your position that not everybody should have nuclear weapons. I suggest you use a different principle to decide whether something is permissible, one that accommodates books and music but not nuclear weapons.
I'm off for now. 'night.