3 ms·

I think before seriously proposing a new law, you should think deeply and long about, at least: - how exactly the law will be phrased - how exactly the law wi

by inimino 10y ago

I think before seriously proposing a new law, you should think deeply and long about, at least: - how exactly the law will be phrased - how exactly the law will be enforced - what the penalties shall be - all the ways you can reasonably anticipate that the law may be misused, whether obvious or subtle After all that thinking is finished, do a review of the history of laws that are similar to the one that you have proposed and see where and when such laws have existed and how they have worked out in practice. If, after doing all of that, you still support your original proposal, I will be very much taken aback.

AdamSC1 10y ago
You put forth that a statement was a dangerous idea. When asked why you can't simply state that you believe things should be thought about "deeply and long". That is not a necessary and sufficient condition for things being a "rather dangerous idea." Let's look at your logic for a second: 1) From the get go you're off with a form of an appeal to a stone (argumentum ad lapidem.) You've suggest that a conclusion is absurd (or in this case dangerous) without any statements as to why or how. 2) You've got an irrelevant conclusion (Ignoratio elenchi) where in you've assumed prima facie that any proposal of a law that does not meet your list of criteria must ultimately be false regardless of its content. (Don't judge a book by its cover?) 3) When asked for why you've shifted the burden of proof (onus probandi) by instead of trying to state why you believe it is false, telling me that if I go research I will most likely change my position. 4) Finally you make an appeal to emotion (in the form of ab absurdo) in suggesting that your conclusion is so simply logical that you would be taken aback if after following your steps I don't believe the same as you. Thus belittling the original argument. None of this takes into account the fact that it is clear I was not proposing a full new law, nor that your steps would prevent there from being any origin point or idea from which a new law can be born. I readily welcome feedback on my thoughts, I think the ability to create a dialogue around ideas is crucial. We only grow and craft better ideas when we make mistakes and people point them out. My original statement on the law was brash and fully born from emotion, and in its simple one-sentence state it absolutely is filled with problematic generalizations. I welcome feedback on that, and am happy to dialogue about it. But, if you believe something to be wrong, or off, or dangerous then engage in an open dialogue about it. When society shuns away from discussions and usurps their idea as 'better' or 'right' with no substantiation because the other person is 'dumb' or 'wrong' or 'evil' or 'uneducated' that is when we reach an impasse where no one wants to listen to people who don't share their ideals. We polarize one another and that leads to animosity and distrust that drives a wedge further between us. You are right that a one-sentence law about publishing false information would be highly dangerous, but, if you're going to call people out about it online, at least state why you believe that and have an open discussion about it. We'll all be better off for it.
- inimino 10y ago
  You've made a category error. My indirect suggestion that one should think more deeply before proposing a law was not intended as an argument. It was intended to prompt you to think more deeply. Do not feel I am attacking you. I simply believe that you have experienced the "there oughtta be a law" emotional reflex to an unpleasant situation and that on further reflection you will realize that that actually won't work well.
- inimino 10y ago
  If you want to have an open dialogue about it, I have one question. What do you think the downsides of such a law would be?

by inimino 10y ago

AdamSC1 10y ago

You put forth that a statement was a dangerous idea. When asked why you can't simply state that you believe things should be thought about "deeply and long". That is not a necessary and sufficient condition for things being a "rather dangerous idea." Let's look at your logic for a second: 1) From the get go you're off with a form of an appeal to a stone (argumentum ad lapidem.) You've suggest that a conclusion is absurd (or in this case dangerous) without any statements as to why or how. 2) You've got an irrelevant conclusion (Ignoratio elenchi) where in you've assumed prima facie that any proposal of a law that does not meet your list of criteria must ultimately be false regardless of its content. (Don't judge a book by its cover?) 3) When asked for why you've shifted the burden of proof (onus probandi) by instead of trying to state why you believe it is false, telling me that if I go research I will most likely change my position. 4) Finally you make an appeal to emotion (in the form of ab absurdo) in suggesting that your conclusion is so simply logical that you would be taken aback if after following your steps I don't believe the same as you. Thus belittling the original argument. None of this takes into account the fact that it is clear I was not proposing a full new law, nor that your steps would prevent there from being any origin point or idea from which a new law can be born. I readily welcome feedback on my thoughts, I think the ability to create a dialogue around ideas is crucial. We only grow and craft better ideas when we make mistakes and people point them out. My original statement on the law was brash and fully born from emotion, and in its simple one-sentence state it absolutely is filled with problematic generalizations. I welcome feedback on that, and am happy to dialogue about it. But, if you believe something to be wrong, or off, or dangerous then engage in an open dialogue about it. When society shuns away from discussions and usurps their idea as 'better' or 'right' with no substantiation because the other person is 'dumb' or 'wrong' or 'evil' or 'uneducated' that is when we reach an impasse where no one wants to listen to people who don't share their ideals. We polarize one another and that leads to animosity and distrust that drives a wedge further between us. You are right that a one-sentence law about publishing false information would be highly dangerous, but, if you're going to call people out about it online, at least state why you believe that and have an open discussion about it. We'll all be better off for it.

inimino 10y ago
You've made a category error. My indirect suggestion that one should think more deeply before proposing a law was not intended as an argument. It was intended to prompt you to think more deeply. Do not feel I am attacking you. I simply believe that you have experienced the "there oughtta be a law" emotional reflex to an unpleasant situation and that on further reflection you will realize that that actually won't work well.
inimino 10y ago
If you want to have an open dialogue about it, I have one question. What do you think the downsides of such a law would be?