Arma Borealis uses the unfair rhetorical device of logic applied to facts to argue for subway control for New York City. He has a particularly compelling argument for limiting subway car capacity to no more than seven riders who have passed a background check.
Oh wait? You mean, there are downsides or costs to such a policy that outweigh the benefit of saving a life? You do understand that if you are opposed to halting or severly restricting all subway service, you are a cold, uncaring evil Nazi who hates the children, right?
Well, if it’s for the children, …
UPDATE–Mayor Bloomberg was unavailable for comment.
A reader from Western Maryland writes:
A thought occurred to me while catching up on my daily reading. With all the rhetoric over gun control being spewed out and the constant claim that “if it saves just one life”, then why not throw it back in their face with abortion. If it will save just one life, shouldn’t abortion be overturned. Fifty-five million lives have been murdered in 40 years vs how many from guns. We can even treat Planned Parenthood like high capacity clips, or better yet, like McDonald’s use to advertise on their signs, “Over 50 million served.”
I can hear the argument from the left stating that it’s just tissue matter and doesn’t really count, but why is it considered as such when in the animal kingdom it’s not? How many babies have been aborted during the third trimester and didn’t Obama support such procedures. Again, if just one life is saved? Just saying …
Jonah Goldberg has a column over at NRO that touches on the “if it saves just one life” fallacy often used to support gun control and other nanny state meddling in our lives. He cites the example of the FDA bureaucrat who had a 100 percent success rate in avoiding the approval of an unsafe drug by refusing to approve any drugs for four years.
If something saves one life, it may also cost many more. But that’s math. And using math is an unfair rhetorical device according to many on the left.