Banning of Buckyballs by the CPSC

Quote from 124nic8 : You don't like my questions? Too bad.

You don't like me pointing out how ridiculous they are? Too bad

Quote : In order to be relevant, the compared items have to be analogous in every way, not just partially analogous.

That's your opinion.

Quote : Just like the ridiculous analogy of banning cars to banning guns.

In a nod to Caesar Beccaria, you would propose banning fire because it burns.

Your position is what's ridiculous, not including your strawman questions.
Your entire BS position relies on your opinion that people don't need guns as much as they need cars. so the deaths from cars are acceptable casualties, while deaths from guns are not.
If you ask me what I'd rather have a gun or a car, but I couldn't have both, I'd choose a gun.
IMO being able to save my life is much more important than being able to drive.
Just because you think a car is more of a "necessary utility" doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.
Also, just because you use how much of a "necessary utility" something is as your graph for when casualties are acceptable or not doesn't mean everyone will agree with you and or where you line up your threshold.

Quote : Cars have orders of magnitude more utility compared to the harm they cause compared to guns. To prove this, we need only look at the magnitude of the usage: the vast majority of citizens use cars almost every day for their intended purpose.

Millions of people use their guns every day in the same way people "use" smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.
But again, who cares, you can decide not to buy a gun and or not buy buckyballs, that's your choice, but I'll be dammed if you're going to prevent me from making my own choice.

Quote : It is therefore dishonest to present analogies that are not analogous in very important ways, hoping the reader will ignore or not recognize the important differences. Unless of course, the presenter is truly ignorant of those differences.

It's dishonest for you to make strawman arguments via questions instead of just making your own argument.

Unless of course you're truly ignorant of why it's a strawman argument disguised as a question.

Quote : In any case, it is not a strawman to point out that presented analogies are not analogous.

But that's not what you did.
You presented it as if that was the posters position, instead of just presenting it as you argument and then let them respond.
Your ridiculous questions are really just seriously flawed forms of debate.

Quote from thikthird : well the nature of precedent is that it precedes other decisions. let something become precedent first before we deal with how that still-as-yet-hypothetical precedent affects subsequent decisions? or is there no room for practicality?

You sound hilariously like an Ayn Rand Villain. I'm sure that you'll take that as a compliment.

Quote from Xygonn : You sound hilariously like an Ayn Rand Villain. I'm sure that you'll take that as a compliment.

while i take it as a compliment that i would be considered villainous in her eyes, sounding like one, with her elementary skill at writing dialogue, is rather insulting.

Quote from Favrerox : I agree with you; but do you have actual numbers that show cars v. guns? I'm just thinking about how many guns are carried daily by LEOs, Military, CCW'ers, Hunters, etc. Maybe it's not near the number of cars used everyday, but what is it?

Considering that vitually all of those gun carriers that you mention also drive cars everyday and relatively few actually use their guns everyday, I think it would be obvious to the objective observer that cars have orders of magnitude more utility vs. the harm they cause.

But of course biased observers might disagree, and I really don't care enough to hunt down numbers.

Quote from Xygonn : Ok, well normalize then take a ratio: Buckyballs=0 Deaths per X sold Skateboards=42 deaths per Y sold (0/X)/(42/Y)=0 Buckyballs are 100% safer than skateboards in terms of fatalities. Whew, I didn't even need real sales units because buckyballs have only cause "near" deaths. Likewise they are 100% safer than balloons for the same reason. To be fair we should probably be using (2N+1)/(2T) types of numbers because of the zero fatalities. So, I admit to lack of rigor.

If you're well aware that Y >> X, why do you pretend otherwise?

Frankly I'm not even sure what the point is here since no one is discussing actual danger vs utility or not of this item, so it's yet another "hey guys let's hate on the gubermint for this new thing they did" thread.

Quote from hsjpatman : You don't like me pointing out how ridiculous they are? Too bad

Don't mind at all; it just makes you look silly.

Quote : That's your opinion.

It's not just my opinion that flawed analogies are designed to mislead and therefore not relevant.

Quote : In a nod to Caesar Beccaria, you would propose banning fire because it burns.

No, I have not and would not. Silly again.

Quote : Your position is what's ridiculous, not including your strawman questions.

It's not a strawman to premise a question based on the implications of a flawed analogy.

Quote : Your entire BS position relies on your opinion that people don't need guns as much as they need cars. so the deaths from cars are acceptable casualties, while deaths from guns are not.

If you had a valid argument you would not need to resort to ad hominems. Shows you know you don't.

Just look at the amount spent on cars vs. the amount spent on guns and you'll see how much more the American public values cars.

Quote : If you ask me what I'd rather have a gun or a car, but I couldn't have both, I'd choose a gun. IMO being able to save my life is much more important than being able to drive. Just because you think a car is more of a "necessary utility" doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.

And yet by you're own admission, you've never needed a gun for actual self-defense.

I just don't believe you'd actually choose to be without a car, esp in LA area.

Quote : Also, just because you use how much of a "necessary utility" something is as your graph for when casualties are acceptable or not doesn't mean everyone will agree with you and or where you line up your threshold.

Only gun addicts will disagree.

Quote : Millions of people use their guns every day in the same way people "use" smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.

Which is to say: not at all. Many more millions who have cars don't even have a gun.

Quote : But again, who cares, you can decide not to buy a gun and or not buy buckyballs, that's your choice, but I'll be dammed if you're going to prevent me from making my own choice.

Yes, you will be damned cause I don't have that power and in fact never said I would ban either.

Quote : It's dishonest for you to make strawman arguments via questions instead of just making your own argument. Unless of course you're truly ignorant of why it's a strawman argument disguised as a question.

I understand why you believe that, but your beliefs don't make it reality.

Quote : But that's not what you did. You presented it as if that was the posters position, instead of just presenting it as you argument and then let them respond. Your ridiculous questions are really just seriously flawed forms of debate.

When a poster presents a flawed analogy, it is perfectly legitimate to ask a question based on the implications of that analogy by treating it as if it were not flawed.

In this case, the poster presented analogies which were cases of high utility items and tried to suggest they were comparable to a toy of purely entertainment value. All I did with my question is point out that they are not comparable. You don't like the form? Too bad.

But I've given up on convincing libertarian ideologues who cannot understand the utility of a utilitarian analysis of regulation. Regulation bad! Right?

Quote from 124nic8 : Don't mind at all; it just makes you look silly.

Every time you post those ridiculous strawman questions, you're the only one that looks silly, whether I point them out or not does not change that.

Quote : It's not just my opinion that flawed analogies are designed to mislead and therefore not relevant.

No, it's your opinion that it was a flawed analogy.

Quote : No, I have not and would not. Silly again.

Guns have a legitimate use yet you would ban them because they can kill.
IMO, it's pretty much equal to banning fire because it burns.

Quote : It's not a strawman to premise a question based on the implications of a flawed analogy.

It's a strawman with a question mark attached to the end.
Take off the question mark and it's a strawman just the same minus the question mark.
You think you're being cute but most people see what you're doing.
It's a shame you think you're being witty when you do it.

Quote : If you had a valid argument you would not need to resort to ad hominems. Shows you know you don't.

As you like to say, "only in your imagination."

Quote : Just look at the amount spent on cars vs. the amount spent on guns and you'll see how much more the American public values cars.

So now you want to compare the usefulness based on money spent.
Some people drive $500 beaters and some drive $100,000 + cars.
Same goes with guns.
You can buy a $100 gun or a $10,000 gun.
Value changes nothing in this argument.

Quote : And yet by you're own admission, you've never needed a gun for actual self-defense.

Actually, the one time I did need it, I didn't have it and a friend of mine almost died in the hospital from stab wounds that punctured his lungs.
But it's doesn't matter anyways, this argument from you has always been flawed.
One doesn't need to actually go through a life threatening ordeal to need a gun much like one doesn't need to have gone through a house fire to need fire extinguishers and or smoke detectors.

Quote : I just don't believe you'd actually choose to be without a car, esp in LA area.

You don't have to believe me but that's what I would chose if I had to.
But it really doesn't matter anyhow.
Guns have a legitimate use, so in the same way you believe the deaths caused by cars are acceptable, so are the deaths caused by guns.

Quote : Only gun addicts will disagree.

Again, "only in your imagination"
Your characterization of gun proponents as addicts is not cute or witty.
It sounds just as stupid as it would to call someone who uses a smoke detector an addict, or someone that wears a seatbelt an addict.

Quote : Which is to say: not at all. Many more millions who have cars don't even have a gun.

Well good for them.

Quote : Yes, you will be damned cause I don't have that power and in fact never said I would ban either.

So your ridiculous strawman question to the OP is just you playing devils advocate.
Because it sure seemed like you were suggesting they should be banned because they don't have the same necesarry utitlity as the other things he mentioned.
If you weren't implying that then your strawmwn is even more ridiculous than previously thought.

Quote : I understand why you believe that, but your beliefs don't make it reality.

Likewise.

Quote : When a poster presents a flawed analogy, it is perfectly legitimate to ask a question based on the implications of that analogy by treating it as if it were not flawed. In this case, the poster presented analogies which were cases of high utility items and tried to suggest they were comparable to a toy of purely entertainment value. All I did with my question is point out that they are not comparable. You don't like the form? Too bad. But I've given up on convincing libertarian ideologues who cannot understand the utility of a utilitarian analysis of regulation. Regulation bad! Right?

Asking questions which are just strawman disguised as questions is not perfectly legitimate.
I've seen you do this countless time before and it isn't any more legitimate now than it was then.

In this case, you presented a fallacious argument.
All I did with my post is point out that your argument is flawed.
You don't like what I did? Too bad.

Quote from agent00f : Just a note these numbers need to be normalize against product volume to be meaningful.

Quote from Xygonn : Ok, well normalize then take a ratio: Buckyballs=0 Deaths per X sold Skateboards=42 deaths per Y sold (0/X)/(42/Y)=0 Buckyballs are 100% safer than skateboards in terms of fatalities. Whew, I didn't even need real sales units because buckyballs have only cause "near" deaths. Likewise they are 100% safer than balloons for the same reason. To be fair we should probably be using (2N+1)/(2T) types of numbers because of the zero fatalities. So, I admit to lack of rigor.

The level of vitriol is remarkable. Let's try facts:

1) These things are, in fact, toys. They serve no valid useful purpose beyond entertainment.

2) These things are, in fact, dangerous to children.

They are, therefore, a dangerous toy. Before I make any more statements, I'll just stop with those two facts and see what reaction a simple statement of facts gets here in the Podium.

Quote from Rebound : The level of vitriol is remarkable. Let's try facts: 1) These things are, in fact, toys. They serve no valid useful purpose beyond entertainment. 2) These things are, in fact, dangerous to children. They are, therefore, a dangerous toy. Before I make any more statements, I'll just stop with those two facts and see what reaction a simple statement of facts gets here in the Podium.

BUT, GUBERMINT!!!!

I would agree there's a certain appeal to have a convenient scapegoat where we can blame all of life's troubles, whether real or imaginary, on this nebulous abstract entity. Much like the devil, we would enter some new era of freedom from sin if humanity were to rid of His impure machinations.

The same sermon calls out to all True believers today as it did in times past. It's appeal lies in its simplicity and panacean qualities, the puritan idea that problems don't lie in nuances but singular evil: if only we did this, we would be cured.

Quote from Rebound : The level of vitriol is remarkable. Let's try facts: 1) These things are, in fact, toys. They serve no valid useful purpose beyond entertainment. 2) These things are, in fact, dangerous to children. They are, therefore, a dangerous toy. Before I make any more statements, I'll just stop with those two facts and see what reaction a simple statement of facts gets here in the Podium.

Probably the same type of reaction as the simple fact that these toys have yet to cause a single death.

Any/everything can be "dangerous" to a child. Where do you draw the line as to what level of "dangerousness" should be prohibited by the govt?

Quote from smegalicious : Probably the same type of reaction as the simple fact that these toys have yet to cause a single death. Any/everything can be "dangerous" to a child. Where do you draw the line as to what level of "dangerousness" should be prohibited by the govt?

A line might not be trivial to draw but that doesn't mean folks should quite and engage in the trivial behavior of blaming those trying to do it.

Quote from hsjpatman : Every time you post those ridiculous strawman questions, you're the only one that looks silly, whether I point them out or not does not change that.

As I said, not a strawman. The premise of my question was that the poster thought his analogies were valid comparisons. Comparing items of high utility to toys, is not valid because the high utility completely changes the tradeoff between usefulness and harm.

How about if we compare banning guns to banning a dangerous toy? Which are you going to choose?

Quote : No, it's your opinion that it was a flawed analogy.

No, it is logical that things of much greater utility are not analogous to toys of purely entertainment value. See above.

Quote : Guns have a legitimate use yet you would ban them because they can kill. IMO, it's pretty much equal to banning fire because it burns.

If you think I've ever said guns should be banned, you're wrong.

Quote : It's a strawman with a question mark attached to the end. Take off the question mark and it's a strawman just the same minus the question mark. You think you're being cute but most people see what you're doing. It's a shame you think you're being witty when you do it.

It's a much greater shame that you believe you know what I think when I haven't stated that.

Quote : As you like to say, "only in your imagination."

So why do you feel the need to resort to vacuous ad hominems?

Quote : So now you want to compare the usefulness based on money spent. Some people drive $500 beaters and some drive $100,000 + cars. Same goes with guns. You can buy a $100 gun or a $10,000 gun. Value changes nothing in this argument.

I was referring to the total amout spent on cars vs. guns. The American public would not spend a huge multiple of what is spent on guns if they were not of hugely greater utility.

Quote : Actually, the one time I did need it, I didn't have it and a friend of mine almost died in the hospital from stab wounds that punctured his lungs. But it's doesn't matter anyways, this argument from you has always been flawed. One doesn't need to actually go through a life threatening ordeal to need a gun much like one doesn't need to have gone through a house fire to need fire extinguishers and or smoke detectors. You don't have to believe me but that's what I would chose if I had to. But it really doesn't matter anyhow.

That's not what you said before. Your sudden change of position is suspiciously convenient.
But no matter, if you use your car every day, it makes no sense to give it up for a gun you almost never need.

Quote : Guns have a legitimate use, so in the same way you believe the deaths caused by cars are acceptable, so are the deaths caused by guns.

It's not the same for the vast majority of the American public who use their cars every day but almost never fire a gun.

Quote : Again, "only in your imagination" Your characterization of gun proponents as addicts is not cute or witty. It sounds just as stupid as it would to call someone who uses a smoke detector an addict, or someone that wears a seatbelt an addict.

Not the same at all. Guns give one a sense of power which can be highly addictive to some people. The same cannot be said of smoke detectors or seatbelts. But you know that and are just being disingenuous, right?

Quote : So your ridiculous strawman question to the OP is just you playing devils advocate. Because it sure seemed like you were suggesting they should be banned because they don't have the same necesarry utitlity as the other things he mentioned. If you weren't implying that then your strawmwn is even more ridiculous than previously thought.

My whole argument here was destroying the flawed analogies of another poster. I never said anything about the anything being banned.

Just shows how closely you pay attention before departing on the train to rantville.

Quote : Asking questions which are just strawman disguised as questions is not perfectly legitimate. I've seen you do this countless time before and it isn't any more legitimate now than it was then. In this case, you presented a fallacious argument. All I did with my post is point out that your argument is flawed. You don't like what I did? Too bad.

I've explained why my question was not a strawman. The premise was implied by the flawed analogy.

You disagree that the analogies were flawed? I don't really care, cause most anyone else will see that they were not relevant due to the huge disparity in utility of the examples given, compared to a toy. You get the last word.

Quote from Rebound : The level of vitriol is remarkable. Let's try facts: 1) These things are, in fact, toys. They serve no valid useful purpose beyond entertainment. 2) These things are, in fact, dangerous to children. They are, therefore, a dangerous toy. Before I make any more statements, I'll just stop with those two facts and see what reaction a simple statement of facts gets here in the Podium.

What reaction were you expecting?

I am somewhat at a loss for how this is relevant beyond the implication that anything these two "facts" could apply to should be banned. Surely this is not your point?