[logicallee]

The reason I asked them to follow my train of thought is that I feared I wasn't expressing it clearly enough, which given you response and others', seems to be the case.

Basically, if you want to argue against a ban on Nike shoes, one of the worst arguments you can make is what you just said: that people will always track dirt into the house no matter what you do. (It's a bad argument that won't convince anyone.)

The reason that's a poor argument is that it's simply not true. There actually really are ways to keep people tracking dirt into the house - so if you want to argue against banning nikes by citing a false fact (the false fact that it's inevitable that dirt will be tracked in), you've weakened your argument.

Let's take an example: suppose someone wanted to ban shoelaces, because it's possible to tie up a pilot with them. This is a super easy ban to argue against! It's a terrible ban! But the worst argument you can make is "People will always tie up the pilot and copilot, and banning shoelaces won't stop this." Terrible argument that doesn't achieve the result: convincing someone that the ban is stupid. (The argument is terrible because it's not true. For example, locking the cabin door might easily prevent someone from tying up the captain and copilot: therefore it is simply false to say that people will always tie up the pilot and copilot.)

If you don't think it's a poor, ineffective, argument that won't convince anyone, then go do a field report: go find someone that agrees with the policy (I don't), and convince them using this weak argument that doesn't work. Go ahead! The argument is a bad one that doesn't work, won't convince anyone, and I have no idea why you're defending it. In essence, it's a logical fallacy, like arguing that -2 < 3 because if you square both sides you get 4 and 9 respectively. The reason it's a bad argument is that it would also work to prove -2 > 1 which is false.

I've used your own example with the Nike sneakers, so I hope you'll try to at least see my point of view. To make it explicit: some fitness centers (gyms) ban outside shoes. If they were to institute a policy that you can't enter the changing room if you're wearing Nikes, only formal dress shoes, then it is a weak and ineffective way to argue against this policy to write "But people will wear their outside shoes no matter what you do". Because this is false. (For example, having to show your gym shoes upon entry might be sufficient to keep anyone from working out in their outdoor shoes.)

I've worked with your example and I hope you can see the distinction I am making. I'm trying to help refine arguments to something that works. I hate this stupid ban as much as everyone else here and want it argued against effectively. Thanks.

[roninb]

Just as a heads up, this board is often extremely logical. So using the argument "You won't win people over" around here, being filled with people who care much more about being technically (read: the best kind of) correct, is probably going to not get you very far (if anywhere, at all).

That said, I think you're missing the point most others are making, which is that your argument is missing the point others are trying to make, "where there's a will, there's a way" or perhaps more aptly, "prohibition doesn't work" as we've seen countless times through history.

edit: I also think at the heart of what everyone else is getting at is perhaps anger at the fact that while they feel their argument is perfectly logical ("prohibition doesn't work"), they know, like you, that it's not very convincing (again, look to history, we've had a 4 decade war on drugs after several failed prohibitions throughout our country's history that did all of nothing for stopping revenue streams and usage of prohibited substances).

[pavel_lishin]

> But the worst argument you can make is "People will always tie up the pilot and copilot, and banning shoelaces won't stop this."

Nobody ever, ever made that argument. The argument was that people will always try to strangle the pilot. People will always have dirt on their shoes. There is a way to keep my carpet clean, but banning Nikes won't do it.

You will never get the percentage of people who want to commit terrible acts to zero, so at a certain point, you hit the point of diminishing returns so hard that it not only gets you literally zero gain, it can actually start to increase your risk.

[logicallee]

Okay, in your own words please rephrase what the OP meant with "at some point we are going to have to realise that terrorists are always going to want to target aircraft and just live with it".

What does "just live with it" mean, to you? I don't have to just live with the fact that there is probably at least 1 cannibal in the world (out of 7 billion people), today, who would probably love to cook and eat me (or eat me raw).

So the literal reading (about living with the fact that there are people "wanting to") doesn't make any sense. It's not an actual statement. So what does "and just live with it" mean, to you?

[pavel_lishin]

> Okay, in your own words please rephrase

I have, several times. I think I've explained this well enough in the past, and I'm not sure rephrasing it will do any good, so this is my last attempt:

    The selective laptop ban makes no sense
    and is not statistically likely to decrease
    the chances of an airplane being bombed.

> I don't have to just live with the fact that there is probably at least 1 cannibal in the world (out of 7 billion people), today, who would probably love to cook and eat me (or eat me raw).

I mean, you do. There are absolutely cannibals in the world, certainly more than one, and they would absolutely not turn up their nose at the idea of eating you.

So how do you live with it?

The answer is, by realizing that there are safeguards in place already to largely prevent this from happening.

There is no need to ban passengers boarding at Jacksons International Airport from bringing plastic cutlery and napkins along with them, despite the fact that they could conceivably use them to eat you. Such a ban would be at best a complete waste of time, money and manpower, and would be pretty racist at worst.

[logicallee]

That rephrasing has zero to do with learning to live with airplanes being bombed. Zero.

We're done talking about OP, and we're now just talking about your ideas, which I don't disagree with. So we're not disagreed about anything.