|
 |
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 16:57:30 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> > Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a
>> > totalitarian regime.
>
>> It is if you go out, grab them, stick them with a needle and pump
>> something in them that they only have your word on being good for them.
>
> You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.
>
> Or rather, you know what it means, but you are using it in the
> completely wrong way just to attack some idea. Same thing as, for
> example, people calling the occupy wallstreet protesters "anarchists"
> (even though the movement couldn't possibly be more the opposite of
> anarchy.)
>
> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
> Which makes absolutely no sense.
Your logic here is "the ends justify the means". That's a pretty
dangerous ideology, and has been used to justify a /lot/ of pretty bad
behaviour over the years.
So I'll ask the question: Do you believe that "the ends justify the
means" is always a good argument? Under what circumstances would you say
that it's a bad argument (assuming the "ends" are always intended to be
good - since you're talking about intent, whether the ends in hindsight
are good or not is irrelevant; you can't predict the ends will always be
good, so we have to go with the "predicted outcome", not the "actual
outcome")?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
