I should probably elaborate on what this means:
This is a term I’ve devised for the mentality, mostly found in right-wing politics, in which the existence of one person abusing a thing in ways that cause very little harm is proof that that thing should be banned.
You see it in the assertion that boat people are the biggest threat to Australian security, even though the 15,800 refugees to arrive in the past year are outnumbered approximately 2000 to 1 and 85% of them are legitimate refugees anyway according to the UN.
You see it in the idea that the (fictitious) existence of “welfare scroungers” in the US means that the entire welfare system should be shut down and screw the people who are dependent on it to scratch a precarious living.
Oddly enough, usually the main field you don’t see it in is gun rights, in which the people who misuse them – usually in ways that cost multiple lives – are brushed under the carpet and dismissed as fringe nutjobs so that the people speaking can keep their firearms. Weird. You’d think that consistency would at least obligate them to apply this to everything – people text while driving? Ban both cars and mobile phones! That kind of thing.
All I will say is that “it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent be punished”.
– OSM out
(Worse than WBTC will come eventually! I just think I’ve been trapped in the Valve-Time Continuum.)