Monday, July 1, 2013

Trade-offs.

This guy wants to ban everything remotely dangerous.  It's simply not possible--life is dangerous.  If he wants everything completely safe in his world, I'd say we ought to oblige him so that he leaves the rest of us alone.

I can think of two ways to do this:

1. Fit him with a feeding tube, an oxygen tube, a catheter, and a colostomy bag, then wrap him in cotton wool from the eyeballs down and strap him to a hospital bed.  That way, his world is safe, and nothing can hurt him.

2. Fit him with a coffin, and inject him with a lethal cocktail.  Nothing can hurt him if he's dead.

2 comments:

  1. Oh, let's just ban crime.

    If we ban crime, then everyone's safe. No crime, no criminals. Gun owners can go do target practice or duck hunting instead of ever having to think about defending their home. People with big meat cleavers don't have to worry about them being used to do things other than chop up poultry.

    We ban crime, everyone benefits.

    (What? That's about as plausible as "banning" guns and knives making everyone safe....)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You didn't see that he wants to ban glass bottles as well? He wants to ban anything even remotely dangerous.

      Honestly, people would have to be banned. I can use anything I can lift as a weapon, should I have the need.

      Delete