3 ms·

I can't agree that if you can detect illegal activity you invariably will act against it efficiently, one of the examples from the top of my head is the Amazon

by badosu 10y ago

I can't agree that if you can detect illegal activity you invariably will act against it efficiently, one of the examples from the top of my head is the Amazon Deforestation. You're conflating a simple statement that presents factual information to a mindset. One in fact can use that information to try influencing people to be scared™. However that is not always the case, and people can for example offer an alternative. The case in point is not that I agree or not with the passing of the law, but that passing it may have unintended consequences, so that you need to account for that. The analogy was intended to be used as a context for a debate against decision makers using factual data, the fact that it's mining or liquor does not make difference. It was devised to counter-attack your understanding that just by warning of something bad if you do something else you're being defeatist. > Some people might see it as sort of a defeatist stance to take. Is it harder to detect illegal mine or to regulate all mining? Since you're assuming something implicit in our discussion maybe you can answer the question yourself.

thatcat 9y ago
Op didnt state a fact, he made a somewhat cynical prediction, based on his belief that restriction of pollution generating activity leads to more pollution. Its only true if no one enforces the law, which can be easily done in this case. That is as clearly as i can explain why that seemed defeatist imho which I thought explained the downvotes. I'm not trying to make implicit assumptions, that question was rhetorical and answered in the next sentence.
- badosu 9y ago
  > I'm not trying to make implicit assumptions, that question was rhetorical and answered in the next sentence. Ok, so I'll guess you are assuming it is easy to detect and punish irregular mining then. I agree and understand your point as how the increased propensity for illegal mining can be combated. I think it was not exactly cynical, and that's coming from someone who supports El Salvador's action. We need clarification of all possible issues to understand how to act on them, but I guess at this point it's a difference on how each one of us took the statement. That was a good discussion though.

by badosu 10y ago

thatcat 9y ago

Op didnt state a fact, he made a somewhat cynical prediction, based on his belief that restriction of pollution generating activity leads to more pollution. Its only true if no one enforces the law, which can be easily done in this case. That is as clearly as i can explain why that seemed defeatist imho which I thought explained the downvotes. I'm not trying to make implicit assumptions, that question was rhetorical and answered in the next sentence.

badosu 9y ago
> I'm not trying to make implicit assumptions, that question was rhetorical and answered in the next sentence. Ok, so I'll guess you are assuming it is easy to detect and punish irregular mining then. I agree and understand your point as how the increased propensity for illegal mining can be combated. I think it was not exactly cynical, and that's coming from someone who supports El Salvador's action. We need clarification of all possible issues to understand how to act on them, but I guess at this point it's a difference on how each one of us took the statement. That was a good discussion though.