“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” she said, laughing. “I probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”
“If somebody breaks into my house, they’re getting shot,” she said, laughing. “I probably should not have said that. My staff will deal with that later.”
Well the catch is everything can be broken down to some emotional response. Most would argue wanting to be alive to be somewhat objective.
That’s still the motivation for both sides. I’m not so much commenting on which one is right or wrong as pointing out that the logic won’t be effective at changing minds because the exact same argument can justify either side.
There was more to the argument above but then it was weakened by “don’t be ruled by fear, fear this other outcome instead”. IMO, it would have been better worded as, “if you fear x, consider whether you should fear y more instead” (or something like that, I’m not the most eloquent).
The first version is not only contradictory but also full of contempt. There’s an implied “what you’re doing is stupid, but what I’m doing isn’t”, which is fine for people who already agree that the other option is stupid, but can put those who don’t already agree on the defensive.