
but the theory is that if everyone has power a sort of stable equilibrium is reached by individuals protecting themselves and each other. It doesn't necessarily matter that the equilibrium has more shootings than the state-controlled society, because the principle of freedom also has intrinsic value, which is difficult to quantify.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:22, Reply)

then you need data, right? Otherwise it is guesswork.
My example was over-simplified, but there is lots of crime data that could be analysed and debated rather than just people appealing to emotion.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:29, Reply)

it's not the data that justifies the values. it's the values that give relevance to the data.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:31, Reply)

as appealing to someone's emotions and not even trying to get statistics to back up your case?
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:39, Reply)

only two people with some ideological common ground can have a meaningful discussion of statistics. If one person values freedom more than life, how can you sway them by saying that their policies would result in loss of life?
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:43, Reply)

then it all becomes a matter of "faith" which is impossible and pointless to argue with as there is no language to do so.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
edit: obviously you can argue logically without data, though it helps to have some data. However, you can't argue logically if it is "emotions all the way".
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:48, Reply)

that's about right.
Our values don't come from reasoning, they come from the society we wish to fit into.
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 16:51, Reply)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime
( , Fri 20 Jul 2012, 17:26, Reply)