You now appear to suggest that your analogy is sound at the moment of impact. It does seem obvious that at impact the bullet nor the driver have any control. I agree that:- “There will hardly be a SINGLE accident where the driver is not (effectively) SHRIEKING..... "S*T*O*P you B*GG*R!"”.But there are many accidents avoided by people braking, or swerving, but still no chance of a marksman breaking or swerving a bullet after pulling the trigger. I also agree that not many bullets have wheels and that is NOT a 'germane' difference. But I never said it was. I still agree that up to the point of setting off in a car or pulling the trigger of a gun, your analogy is sound. Before you do either you have to use your judgement of the probability of an accident. There are differences of what you have to consider, such as a marksman knows that his bullet will impact something, so he has to judge what will happen on impact, but the basic reasoning is similar enough for the analogy. After pulling the trigger or 'hitting the throttle' as you put it, the analogy fails. You still have control of the car. If something unpredicted happens you still have the opportunity to change the outcome by braking, turning or even pulling the trigger again and accelerating more. You have this opportunity right up to the point you lose control. But the marksman lost control the instant he pulled the trigger. I am also very aware that I am not in full control of events when driving. But I am, dependent on my own ability, in control of my car. I am also to some extent in control of events around me by observation and judgements, to help avoid such things as:- “sliding towards a car that has pulled-out stupidly from a side turning in a narrow road.” Whether you should or shouldn't drive quickly, or shoot into crowds, is a different argument. My post was about your statement:- “ I choose that analogy because it is simply UNBEATABLE in any argument where people are willing to be RATIONAL!” I still believe that it is rational to argue against the analogy for the reasons I have stated.
|
|