4 ms·

rpearl never claimed that it wasn't limiting free choice. rpearl claimed the intention wasn't to limit free choice. Intent and actual outcome are two completel

by Buge 9y ago

rpearl never claimed that it wasn't limiting free choice. rpearl claimed the intention wasn't to limit free choice. Intent and actual outcome are two completely different things.

disiplus 9y ago
it's still limiting if you define it to broadly. if i defined a law that said every owner of a home will be punished if somebody in that home smoked weed or did drugs. and airbnb is gone, and so on.
- Buge 9y ago
  Neither I nor rpearl claimed it wasn't limiting. The intent was to protect people who are being harmed against their will (held in sex slavery against their will). Of course the actual effect of the law is different than the intent. The actual effect is limiting.
  - kcanini 9y ago
    Do you think the actual intent is closer the stated intent, or to the actual results? We're talking about seasoned politicians, not naive dreamers.
    - noxToken 9y ago
      The actual intent probably is closer to the stated intent. The actual results just don't matter to them.
tajen 9y ago
Intent and actual outcome are completely different things until you manage a country. Then you gotta be 1000% goddam sure you’re coercing others for the good reasons, and your responsibility can’t be levied for an “Oops I did it again”.
Bartweiss 9y ago
Broadly speaking, I agree. But at a certain point, it's reasonable to start objecting that an outcome was so obvious that people claiming they didn't intend it are either dishonest or incompetent, and in either case unfit to make the decision. In this case, I suspect the answer is a little of each - a lot of anti-trafficking campaigns are run by people who openly oppose voluntary sex work, and also Congress is grossly incompetent at knowing which technology laws will limit free choice. Given all that - I agree that it's worth knowing whether this was intended, but I worry "not our intent" becomes a shield for Congress to hide behind when they do things with horrible outcomes they were warned about well in advance.
threatofrain 9y ago
I feel like one is taken for a fool's ride if you lead discussion on legislation based on legislative intent, rather than function. Where does one find the purpose of voter literacy laws? Or California's Proposition 8? Based on the overt statements of individual legislators?

by Buge 9y ago

rpearl never claimed that it wasn't limiting free choice. rpearl claimed the intention wasn't to limit free choice. Intent and actual outcome are two completely different things.

disiplus 9y ago

it's still limiting if you define it to broadly. if i defined a law that said every owner of a home will be punished if somebody in that home smoked weed or did drugs. and airbnb is gone, and so on.

Buge 9y ago
Neither I nor rpearl claimed it wasn't limiting. The intent was to protect people who are being harmed against their will (held in sex slavery against their will). Of course the actual effect of the law is different than the intent. The actual effect is limiting.
- kcanini 9y ago
  Do you think the actual intent is closer the stated intent, or to the actual results? We're talking about seasoned politicians, not naive dreamers.
  - noxToken 9y ago
    The actual intent probably is closer to the stated intent. The actual results just don't matter to them.

tajen 9y ago

Intent and actual outcome are completely different things until you manage a country. Then you gotta be 1000% goddam sure you’re coercing others for the good reasons, and your responsibility can’t be levied for an “Oops I did it again”.

Bartweiss 9y ago

Broadly speaking, I agree. But at a certain point, it's reasonable to start objecting that an outcome was so obvious that people claiming they didn't intend it are either dishonest or incompetent, and in either case unfit to make the decision. In this case, I suspect the answer is a little of each - a lot of anti-trafficking campaigns are run by people who openly oppose voluntary sex work, and also Congress is grossly incompetent at knowing which technology laws will limit free choice. Given all that - I agree that it's worth knowing whether this was intended, but I worry "not our intent" becomes a shield for Congress to hide behind when they do things with horrible outcomes they were warned about well in advance.

threatofrain 9y ago

I feel like one is taken for a fool's ride if you lead discussion on legislation based on legislative intent, rather than function. Where does one find the purpose of voter literacy laws? Or California's Proposition 8? Based on the overt statements of individual legislators?