[johnchristopher]

> > Can't say that I have.

> Then I recommend you spend more time around people. Grown men have been convicted of throwing acid in an ex-girlfriend's face because "if I can't have you, no-one can."

You come up with a stupid analogy based on children behavior and now you invoke people throwing acid ?

This is nickelodeon level debate here.

> It doesn't prove your point because no country today is facing imminent extinction. Rationality changes when desperation comes into play.

You are making the extraordinary (and quite childish considering you started with an analogy based on children behavior) claim that a country would nuke another one to go and settle there, it's up to you to prove it. So far, in the real world, no one has used nukes like that.

I'd follow the argument but if a guy would throw acid and was in position to throw a nuke over a country they were denied access to it's most likely plausible they have the means and resources to get into this country in a more discrete and safe way (safe as in: he's in a country that wasn't nuked).

[scott_w]

> You come up with a stupid analogy based on children behavior and now you invoke people throwing acid ?

It’s called an analogy. Given we’re talking about nuclear war, it’s not an insane analogy.

> claim that a country would nuke another one to go and settle there, it's up to you to prove it.

I never said they’d try to settle the wasteland. I think you’re struggling to understand the analogy.

[johnchristopher]

> > You come up with a stupid analogy based on children behavior and now you invoke people throwing acid ?

> It’s called an analogy. Given we’re talking about nuclear war, it’s not an insane analogy.

It looks more like a slippery slope bias to me. You can "prove" any dangers with that analogy but it's running against what history and reality have shown us so far.

> > claim that a country would nuke another one to go and settle there, it's up to you to prove it.

> I never said they’d try to settle the wasteland. I think you’re struggling to understand the analogy.

True, true, somehow the "threaten to" stayed in the keyboard. I still stand by the fact that this analogy doesn't scale to the real world.

[scott_w]

> It looks more like a slippery slope bias to me.

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

I’m simply making a point that humans don’t always behave reasonably in a way that would achieve their stated goals. I tried to use an analogy to make this easier but you seem confused. I could have replaced “acid” with “murder.” Would that have helped?

[johnchristopher]

> > It looks more like a slippery slope bias to me.

> I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Sorry, I reread the definition from the bias list and it's not the good one. Read the whole line, it's too small an illustration to fit a bigger picture:

> It looks more like a slippery slope bias to me. You can "prove" any dangers with that analogy but it's running against what history and reality have shown us so far.

> I’m simply making a point that humans don’t always behave reasonably in a way that would achieve their stated goals.

This, I agree with. But:

> I tried to use an analogy to make this easier but you seem confused. I could have replaced “acid” with “murder.” Would that have helped?

No. I understand your analogy but it happens that I disagree with how it is an argument in favor of your opinion (which I also disagree with but that's for another paragraph).

If anything, I think it undermines your position because it reduces the many more complex steps leading to nuking another country to a petty and cruel behavior from one individual. The analogy doesn't explain the reality behind a potential revengeful nuclear strike (geopolitical moves leading to that decision, climate disasters, consequences stemming from the reaction of other nations, etc.). All it is saying is "there are humans who would do crazy things so it follows that we are always at risks from one human doing the most crazy thing like nuking another country" but nuking another country, for the sake of the argument, requires more than one human (no matter how petty he is) and so far it hasn't been done yet (unlike people throwing acid at exes, which breaks the analogy). This is skewing proportions ("this analogy doesn't scale").

I'd rather we discuss the likelihood of such an event happening based on real world data and information, not using illustrations.

To follow on the analogy: unlike the guy with the acid bottle, the guy with the nuke has certainly the means to hop on a plane and buy his way into NZ rather than nuking it.

Of course we can always make the argument "but what if someone crazy comes and do the crazy thing" but how likely is it ? Adding "but what if he's under a lot of pressure ?!", that's still a what if scenario that would be better validated through real world examples/data than an analogy boiling down to "there are crazy people" or the single argument "people don't always act rationally so anything is possible. Well, duh.

On analogies, I like this blog post: http://itdept4life.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-analogies-suck.h...

[scott_w]

> To follow on the analogy: unlike the guy with the acid bottle, the guy with the nuke has certainly the means to hop on a plane and buy his way into NZ rather than nuking it.

That assumes money matters any more. It’s not unreasonable that we go past that point, leading to the irrational scenarios.

It’s hard to apply regular probabilities to this, since we’re discussing a situation where the best option for all humans is to get to New Zealand! We have no frame of reference for this scenario.

[anigbrowl]

claim that a country would nuke another one to go and settle there

You have misunderstood the entire argument. Perhaps instead of calling other people stupid you should review your own reading comprehension.

[johnchristopher]

I never called anybody stupid, I called the analogies and the arguments stupid.