You try to make the argument here that just as a mask is a placebo, so is the 2nd amendment, based on the fact that gun owners don't run around every day shooting tyrants.
This is a false dichotomy.
A.) A mask is not like a gun... one is effective at it's intended purpose, and the other is not.
B.) Constraining your use of a thing (such as a firearm) does not render the thing intrinsically ineffective, like a placebo.
1.) A mask and a gun are not equal in effectiveness:
A.) A mask is completely ineffective in preventing viral transmission, it does nothing. That is the scientific data.
B.) A gun is quite effective at what it's intended to do. If you don't think a gun is effective, trying standing in front of one when it's being fired.
2.) If a mask is ineffective but a gun is effective, then only the mask has the ability to act as a placebo... as the definition of placebo requires intrinsic ineffectiveness.
A.) A thing which is effective at it's stated purpose cannot be a placebo, as the definition of placebo entails that something be wholly ineffective. A placebo must be intrinsically incapable of causing an effect. A placebo is used for control groups, in studies, BECAUSE it is intrinsically incapable of causing an effect.
B.) Whether or not you choose to use a thing has nothing to do with it's intrinsic effectiveness.
C.) Example #1: If I don't drive my car today, my car does not turn into a placebo. My car is still a car, and it's quite effective at it's intended purpose... it is wholly effective, and I'm able to choose how often I use it. Even if I never drive my car at all, it's still intrinsically effective at it's stated purpose.
D.) Example #2: If I have a mask, it is completely ineffective, whether I use it or not. The scientific data confirms it is intrinsically ineffective, incapable, of stopping viral transmission. It is intrinsically ineffective. On the other hand, cars and firearms are quite effective... they are still intrinsically effective at their stated purpose, even when we choose not to use them.
E.) Conclusion: My car never becomes a placebo when I choose not to use it, and neither does a firearm - both remain inherently effective at their at stated purposed.
3.) The means (such at the 2nd amendment) to own something effective (such as a firearm), simply does not fit the definition of a placebo.
A.) A placebo is something which is intrinsically ineffective.
B.) The 2nd amendment is the means to own something which is intrinsically effective.
C.) As proven above, the frequency with which we use a thing has nothing to do with it's intrinsic effectiveness... and thus has no bearing on a thing being a placebo.
It's gets tiresome to watch the ceaselessly browbeating of normal folks with endless gaslighting and illogical arguments.
Have a lovely day.
.
This is a false dichotomy.
A.) A mask is not like a gun... one is effective at it's intended purpose, and the other is not.
B.) Constraining your use of a thing (such as a firearm) does not render the thing intrinsically ineffective, like a placebo.
1.) A mask and a gun are not equal in effectiveness:
A.) A mask is completely ineffective in preventing viral transmission, it does nothing. That is the scientific data.
B.) A gun is quite effective at what it's intended to do. If you don't think a gun is effective, trying standing in front of one when it's being fired.
2.) If a mask is ineffective but a gun is effective, then only the mask has the ability to act as a placebo... as the definition of placebo requires intrinsic ineffectiveness.
A.) A thing which is effective at it's stated purpose cannot be a placebo, as the definition of placebo entails that something be wholly ineffective. A placebo must be intrinsically incapable of causing an effect. A placebo is used for control groups, in studies, BECAUSE it is intrinsically incapable of causing an effect.
B.) Whether or not you choose to use a thing has nothing to do with it's intrinsic effectiveness.
C.) Example #1: If I don't drive my car today, my car does not turn into a placebo. My car is still a car, and it's quite effective at it's intended purpose... it is wholly effective, and I'm able to choose how often I use it. Even if I never drive my car at all, it's still intrinsically effective at it's stated purpose.
D.) Example #2: If I have a mask, it is completely ineffective, whether I use it or not. The scientific data confirms it is intrinsically ineffective, incapable, of stopping viral transmission. It is intrinsically ineffective. On the other hand, cars and firearms are quite effective... they are still intrinsically effective at their stated purpose, even when we choose not to use them.
E.) Conclusion: My car never becomes a placebo when I choose not to use it, and neither does a firearm - both remain inherently effective at their at stated purposed.
3.) The means (such at the 2nd amendment) to own something effective (such as a firearm), simply does not fit the definition of a placebo.
A.) A placebo is something which is intrinsically ineffective.
B.) The 2nd amendment is the means to own something which is intrinsically effective.
C.) As proven above, the frequency with which we use a thing has nothing to do with it's intrinsic effectiveness... and thus has no bearing on a thing being a placebo.
It's gets tiresome to watch the ceaselessly browbeating of normal folks with endless gaslighting and illogical arguments.
Have a lovely day.
.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
