[ae-mod] Re: "Target hardening" RE: [SCA-AE] ANNOUNCE: Background check FAQ

[Monica Cellio]

> Actually, I believe that the logical equivalent to this statement
> would be, "If we can save one person from dying in an automobile
> accident, then testing drivers is worth it."  

I was not drawing an analogy between background checks and driving;
I was specifically criticizing the argument form "if X can help
even _one_ person, it is worth it".  That argument is always invalid
on its own.  You have to talk about the harm side of the equation
too.  You might decide that the harm is minimal, or less minimal
but still worse than the alternative, but to not address it is all
is a logical failing.  If you grant the "if X can help even one
person..." argument, then you must also accept as valid other
arguments following that form.  I posted one that would be ridiculous
to accept.

What we do is important; so is why and how we do it.  This message
is about process and logic, not about background checks.

She'erah