Are laws there as a deterrent or to set a code of punishments?
Been thinking about this as I am still seeing put up silly little pictures on Facebook about how more gun laws won't deter criminals.
For me personally, they are more about the punishment and the lines in the sand we have that will determine when you are given that punishment.
It's just not a strawman. It's not even an argument. It was a question.
Do you know any question which is not an argument?
For instance: "What are you getting at?"
An argument is a series of sentences, one of which is supposed to be proved by the others.
Maybe you know too much. Asking questions always argues something, because it starts from the insight that something is questionable. I do not suppose that what any given question argues could be deduced from what is implied in questioning, but you could say briefly that a question always argues that something is or that it is not.
I see what you mean. One could argue in a Socratic way, for instance. And in that case one could be said to have an argument. But this is a very specific case, and the argument that one has could not be the question itself. The question could only serve as one part. Socrates proves nothing by just asking "What is virtue?"
To say that asking questions "always" argues something would be to have such expansive definitions of 'question' and 'argument' that the terms would be rendered meaningless. I'll grant that questions usually carry assumptions about existences. Such as "Can I use your bathroom?" assumes the existence of a bathroom. But it would be quite a stretch to say one is arguing for the existence of a bathroom: that they wish to prove its existence. Assumptions are not arguments. There is not aim in an assumption alone to prove anything, though assumptions along with other assumptions can be used to prove something else. Regarding assumptions of existences, a question that asks whether a thing exists or not does not even assume the existence of the thing. "Is there a bathroom here?" The question is simpy requesting information. So, here is an example that demonstrates that you'll have to narrow the scope of your argument. Questions can cleraly serve as premises to expand an argument, but these questions must be limited to only questions that aim to ensnare an interloctor(Socratic) and those that are rhetorical (psuedo-question: veiled statements). But even these are not in isolation arguments. They must either support a conclusion or imply a conclusion.
Funny you should bring this up--Meno, so far as I remember, not Socrates, asks this. He says: Socrates, are you telling me you do not know what virtue is?--Socrates agrees he indeed does not know, nor has he ever met anyone who did.
I believe Meno means to prove by his question that Socrates is inferior to Gorgias. Meno begins the dialogue, his first question is, can virtue be taught?--presumably, he means to prove that it is, that Gorgias teaches it. Of course, that has massive political implications...
As for the thing I was saying about questions, I have to face the facts--you are right. In my experience, people don't assume things for no reason. The reason is the aim for which you are looking. But then so much of human affairs revolves around using the bathroom that that obscures the deeper implications of asking questions & what it says about thinking.
Well, I suppose it's settled then.
Could you explain the political implications of the Meno? (I have nothing to prove. I'm curious about your interpretation.)
You need to do more thinking if you're not implying anything. At any rate, I am not sure I have got much thinking to offer. What are the consequences for political life if a man can teach virtue? I can tell you this much, the first answer Meno gives is: The virtue of a man is to run the city well, help his friends & harm his enemies.
But can a virtuous man act unjustly? What is justice, (circular here and back to the original question).
Simply questioning the implications of another's argument does not amount to a strawman. If unattactive implications are validly drawn from an argument, it still wouldn't be a strawman to present those valid and unattactive implications--no matter how obstinately one may wish to deny them. If it has been shown that Socrates is mortal, given that all men are, you could not simply cry "strawman!" when it is contended that the previous argument implies that you are mortal as well, even if you really, really wished you weren't.
I would personally like to see the question answered. I don't believe anyone in their right mind would agree that civilians ought to be allowed tanks. But I don't think this restriction can be justfied in terms of natural rights alone. I think one would have to appeal to social conventions and perhaps utility. But this would flip the argument: now where do we draw the line on restrictions? For if we are willing to countenence the restriction of tanks for the greater good of the aggregate, then the same appeal ought to apply a fortiori to hand guns.
No, civilians should not be allowed tanks, many cannot even drive their cars with any degree of skill.
If by "natural rights" you mean Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness then these are not 'natural rights' as they are endowed by our creator (an super-natural being) so these are 'super-natural' rights as in being above and beyond nature. As to social conventions, whose conventions are you holding to? Not mine if you are willing to take away my firearms, nor do you hold to my idea of utility, when I hunt and protect my family with those same firearms. I will agree that you don't need, ok some people may need, a 100 round clip in your rifle when hunting. I will also agree that just as we require training to drive a vehicle we should require training to carry a firearm (even a rifle) as well as a license, which would show proof of that training. However, taking firearms from citizens in the face of the 2nd Amendment is unConstitutional (as the Constitution is currently written).