Its ok because its the 21st centuary logical fallacy

This vacuous reason was proffered by someone seeking to establish a certain perspective.  It appears to me to be the inverse of the fallacy of tradition, that is, 'we have always done it this way therefore this way is the best.' i.e. proof from tradition. Its also akin to a common practice fallacy, 'this is the accepted way therefore this way is the best'.  Often common consensus is a good thing, we seek counsel for example, but it cannot be used as a proof in itself.  Consensus can still be wrong.

We often hear the above arguments when someone is trying to provide substantiation for a practice that was formerly deemed objectionable. Its almost like the appeal to novelty argument in which it is assumed that because something is new it is therefore good.  In many cases it may be true, however there are instances when old really is gold.  Ask anyone who owns a 1950's Les Paul guitar and whether they would trade it for a new one.

The acceptance of this fallacy has arisen because of becoming accustomed to technological advance and the idea that all technological progress is beneficial.  This is clearly not the case.  Technological advancements in sonar for example have led to over fishing with entire fishing stocks being almost depleted to the point of no return. All that technology has in this instance managed to facilitate is greed.

Conditioning has taken place through common culture and media into projecting moralities as being progress when in fact they have been practised for thousands of years.  So when someone says, 'its ok its the 21st century, its all good', kindly ask them to check their variations.  Logic shall be made to triumph for as in chess as in life, logical fallacies do not last very long on the chessboard.

Yeah, true. Darn worthless greed. : ( Why fix those old practices if they where never broken? In fact one could bring up worthy points of the old ways of doing almost everything as better. Not the 'batter' as in nostalgia. Better in economy, psychical health, but among all the most important, human interaction. Face to face kind.

Actually CM the problem appears to me is that we have not adopted a holistic approach.  We are just so myopic.  We chop down a tree and we destroy an entire community, it needs to be sustainable.  But yeah we are in great danger of leading virtual lives.

Oh, then what would you describe our current approach? That's a sad truth. Yeah, seems as if though many are ignoring such an obvious, disastrous, future.

CM what do yo think about the Florida school shooting and some of the arguments that have been proffered?  It really made me think because some commentators were saying, 'you cannot blame the weapon'.  If we reduce this argument to absurdity, ok what if the assailant entered school with a pea shooter and a bag full of peas then its clear that the weapon of choice had at least something to do with the tragedy.  But even here we need to be careful because its clear that the weapon itself did not cause the tragedy although its design certainly made it more efficient as a killing machine.  I really don't know what the solution is to be honest.

Well, the shooting that took place at that High School, in Parkland, was horrible, and the decisions of those law makers are also horrible in how they represented their lack of caring and understanding. A true solution for this problem, does not come from a law, it come's from the change of the individuals of this country. For it seems people here have forgotten to act morally, and with that a conscience has been lost. In odder to get such prevented is to reinstate with everyone the common values of being a good person.

Agreed, but how to change people on the inside, they gotta want to change?

I would just like to say from a mere logistical perspective arming teachers is an EPIC FAIL.  A real bad idea. If an assailant enters a building and is known to the staff the last thing a teacher is going to expect is an attack and will be taken by surprise.  All it will do is make teachers a first target.  My gawd who thought that up, how long did they spend, its so blatantly stupid that it begs belief.  Conclusion, deductive logic severely lacking, more chess lessons need to be ordered.