| Let’s say I make stoves, and I become aware that somebody could maliciously alter the stove to turn it into an IED. Realizing this, I make some changes to make the stove harder to turn into an IED. Is the argument really, “Are you aware that malicious actors can just go out and buy explosives, so there’s no point in making it difficult to turn a stove into an explosive device?” Or maybe I make a device for the home. I work hard to secure it against malicious actors. Is anybody going to say, “Don’t bother, most people have insecure light bulbs in their home, so there’s no point securing this WiFi speaker you’re selling?” I. Think. Not. It’s always a good idea to reduce the threat area. Security for most people is not a simple binary “secure or not.” --- Also, what’s with the phrase “domestic abuse activists?” Is that supposed to be some kind of slur? I’m baffled, it adds nothing to your argument, and in fact it hints at some kind of cultural bias on your part, which is irrelevant to the soundness of your reasoning. All in all, my advice is to drop language like this unless you are specifically trying to make an argument about social activism. Sprinkling arguments with emotional devices like this subtracts from your message, it doesn’t add to it. |