In saying that humans—collectively—think that nuclear weapon proliferation is a good thing, I don’t mean that we are happy about the fact that our governments stockpile nuclear weapons, or that we aren’t concerned about the possible consequences. Those would be absurd claims. What I mean is that, we choose to stockpile nuclear weapons, and we have rejected the alternative course of action—not stockpiling them. Some might suggest that, if that is my point, I should claim that we consider the proliferation of nuclear weapons a lesser evil, not a good thing. Would someone making that suggestion have any problem with my claiming that humanity has decided that it’s a good IDEA to use nuclear weapons as a military deterent, and that it would be a bad IDEA to not do so? I doubt it. Maybe I’m using the English language incorrectly? I don’t see any difference between thinking that nuclear weapons proliferation is a good idea, and thinking that nuclear weapons proliferation is a good thing. If it’s a good idea, why isn’t it a good thing? If it might serve to prevent a nuclear war, why isn’t it a good thing? Sure, we don’t like doing it, but neither do I like going to the dentist. I still think that going to the dentist is a good thing, though.
Anyway, I take back my assertion that humans think that nuclear weapons proliferation is a good thing, and also any implication that we think that letting children starve is desirable. Instead, I will claim that humans—collectively—think that nuclear weapon proliferation IS A GOOD IDEA and not stockpiling nuclear weapons is A BAD IDEA… and that humans are often willing to spend their money on multi-million-dollar mansions and yachts instead of putting that money towards feeding the starving children of the world. Does this wording change alter the point that I’m trying to make? I don’t think so, but maybe I’m wrong about that.
In saying that humans—collectively—think that nuclear weapon proliferation is a good thing, I don’t mean that we are happy about the fact that our governments stockpile nuclear weapons, or that we aren’t concerned about the possible consequences. Those would be absurd claims. What I mean is that, we choose to stockpile nuclear weapons, and we have rejected the alternative course of action—not stockpiling them. Some might suggest that, if that is my point, I should claim that we consider the proliferation of nuclear weapons a lesser evil, not a good thing. Would someone making that suggestion have any problem with my claiming that humanity has decided that it’s a good IDEA to use nuclear weapons as a military deterent, and that it would be a bad IDEA to not do so? I doubt it. Maybe I’m using the English language incorrectly? I don’t see any difference between thinking that nuclear weapons proliferation is a good idea, and thinking that nuclear weapons proliferation is a good thing. If it’s a good idea, why isn’t it a good thing? If it might serve to prevent a nuclear war, why isn’t it a good thing? Sure, we don’t like doing it, but neither do I like going to the dentist. I still think that going to the dentist is a good thing, though.
Anyway, I take back my assertion that humans think that nuclear weapons proliferation is a good thing, and also any implication that we think that letting children starve is desirable. Instead, I will claim that humans—collectively—think that nuclear weapon proliferation IS A GOOD IDEA and not stockpiling nuclear weapons is A BAD IDEA… and that humans are often willing to spend their money on multi-million-dollar mansions and yachts instead of putting that money towards feeding the starving children of the world. Does this wording change alter the point that I’m trying to make? I don’t think so, but maybe I’m wrong about that.