This analogy is terrible. Did you even try? The danger of ISIS is not immediate, no. But neither is homelessness, starvation, litter and so on. You're making false equivocations by assuming that no other problems can be addressed before X & Y are taken care of. That's not how things work. All of these things are bad. All of them deserve attention. In the case of ISIS this problem is occurring in an extremely volatile and unstable portion of the world, with said portion of the world being economically vital not just to America but the entirity of the developed & developing world.
This is true. But in my defense, you've yet to even try and see reason. So I figured I'd try it. I mean, eventually you'll have to figure out how ridiculous you are. Right?
You don't see the immediate danger of world starvation and preventable diseases or global warming? Ok well let me educate you. For starters I would have thought you'd agree that millions of deaths every year is an immediate danger considering you're worried about the deaths of a few thousand on a good year for ISIS. But if that's not enough then consider the economic losses that occur as a result of preventable diseases and starvation; they are immense and they cost the world greatly. Letting preventable diseases spreads also mean that they have a higher chance of evolving into a new strain thus leading to a more resilient disease which isn't affected by the current treatments. It also is more likely to evolve other traits such as finding a new vector which could lead to a massive pandemic in theory. Finally, global warming presents a current and serious danger as it causes shifts in rainfall which can increase the incidence of large hurricanes, lead to more droughts in already dry areas, and cause the destruction of various ecological habitats which can have a profound impact on local communities. The impact on rainfall alone, although its only partly connected to global warming, has basically forced California to use up almost all of its underground water resonators, and once thats gone a massive agricultural industry will be gone. Sorry but a few ISIS shootings simply aren't even remotely as important to address. If you'd like me to provide some references for this I will, but i think its fairly common knowledge that most people would agree with.
You also didn't understand the main point of the analogy--the gun shot is more serious and presents a more dangerous/significant problem whereas the small cancerous growth is something which doesn't have even remotely close to the same impact. The analogy wasn't even necessarily about the immediate impact of the gun shot, just about the seriousness of the gun shot with respect to the small cancer which can be dealt with when they're are fewer pressing concerns. The point is that you should address the most pressing and significant issues first. But no, i didn't try that much, because I didn't need to--its an obvious point that you should have been able to understand easily. And i've debunked that argument several times now on this thread.
You're making false equivocations by assuming that no other problems can be addressed before X & Y are taken care of.
Actually I never made that claim. Don't strawman my position. My point isn't that we ignore ISIS entirely; we monitor the situation and just that we let Iran, Russia, Isreal, and Assad handle it since they're relatively close. They'll be able to significantly inhibit ISIS in the area. Instead the United States can focus on more pressing concerns that really aren't getting enough focus and resources that they should have. I mean it would also be extremely false to say that all problems can be addressed equally simultaneously. Resources and attention get devoted to some but not all things and adding another thing to focus on reduces the amount of attention and resources that could otherwise have been diverted.
Also where is your argument that we should be dealing with African dictators and warlords and all the other riff raff of the world? Why aren't you demanding that we go in everywhere simultaneously and become the world's ultimate police? I mean Mexican or Colombian drug cartels have done significantly more damage over the ages especially considering the number of drugs they've imported into the US. Is it maybe because, like me, you recognize that you can't possibly devote all your resources everywhere? You have to pick a limited number of things you can address, and you pick those by finding out which ones have the most negative impact. I mean then your argument has to be that ISIS is a more pressing concern than say, global warming. I'm willing to entertain those arguments but so far i haven't seen anything like it--just excuses that ISIS might become more dangerous in the distant future. Well what about big dangerous problems now?
This is true. But in my defense, you've yet to even try and see reason. So I figured I'd try it. I mean, eventually you'll have to figure out how ridiculous you are. Right?
Wow i've yet to see reason? What a bizarre fallacy, but a truly incredible piece of rhetoric, although id hardly call that fallacy a defense. Nonetheless its futile assertion since you misrepresented the analogy and then proposed an assertion that ISIS is supposedly EXTREMELY (IN BOLD ZOMG) volatile. I don't accept your assertion here. Where is your evidence? So what if ISIS is volatile anyways? They've been volatile for a while now and its only led to a few shootings. If assad, Iran, Isreal, and Russia formed a coalition they could turn that entire area that ISIS supposedly owns to dust if it actually got seriously dangerous. About the only way they'd become seriously dangerous is if they had a nuclear or biological weapon, but considering they have difficulties with IEDs thats not likely. I mean they've already attacked everyone in sight pretty much so its not like its a building up to explode.
