6 ms·
You can argue the correctness of the ban, but saying that because there is worse problem X we shouldn't try and solve less-bad problem Y doesn't make any sense.
by mejari 10y ago
You can argue the correctness of the ban, but saying that because there is worse problem X we shouldn't try and solve less-bad problem Y doesn't make any sense.
- cgriswald 10y agoTo use your terminology, he is saying worse problem X was solved with less costly means that are considered effective and pointing out problem Y could have been solved with equal or lesser cost but was instead treated as if it was worse than problem X and solved at greater cost.
- mejari 10y agoSorry, I don't see anywhere in their comment where they talk about the cost or efficacy of solving any problems. They mention other problems that have regulations, but not whether they are effective or cost-efficient.
- cgriswald 10y agoIt seems implied to me that he considers the regulation effective. His argument requires it. The cost is also implied: a wholesale ban has a steeper cost than the other, less onerous methods of regulation. My comment was merely meant as an explication of his comment since your interpretation of his comment seems unsupported and bizarre. He stated clearly "We need government," but feels a wholesale ban is overkill in this case because for more dangerous things, we don't ban them outright.