4 ms·

Do you think criminals care about the laws? Do you disagree with what I've said, or are you trying to be fallacious here and imply that because I don't have a s

Do you think criminals care about the laws? Do you disagree with what I've said, or are you trying to be fallacious here and imply that because I don't have a solution, it somehow renders my claim wrong and makes criminals care about the laws? Additionally, I did not claim that a society shouldn't have laws. It's a broad subject, if you want to gain some knowledge, perhaps you could start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Z82avLO14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Z82avLO14 https://mises.org/library/society-without-state https://mises.org/library/society-without-state https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state https://mises.org/library/lessons-young-economist https://mises.org/library/lessons-young-economist [...]

cjslep 8y ago
You're intelligent and rational. I hope you hold me with the same regard. However, the tone, structure of your arguments (namely, lots of wide assertions with scant evidence), and combative reactions is getting in the way of the points you are trying to make. It makes no matter if a view is the correct (for a certain definition of correct) one if one cannot communicate it effectively. My prior response was a very human one, equally as intellectually worthless as to the non-sequitor it is in reply to. By definition criminals don't follow laws. It's a circular kind of logic. Hence, trying to claim I am fallacious for highlighting this kind of lack of intellectual rigor I find insulting (Edit: Providing sources without commentary and telling me to "get informed" does not make a compelling argument). That I am expected to resolve this circular logic in a way that suits you is ideological entrapment that allows you to weasel out by playing the "I didn't claim that" card which I find boring and lazy and not an argument at all. Hence me trying to immediately resolve the ambiguity and move onto more productive areas of discussion by directly challenging the circular logic, and your predictable response trying to play said "I am being straw-manned". I prefer moving forward together, but cannot do it alone. I need your input. I am sure you have great ideas but please consider working on your delivery.
- GyYZTfWBfQw 8y ago
  > However, the tone, structure of your arguments (namely, lots of wide assertions with scant evidence), and combative reactions is getting in the way of the points you are trying to make. It makes no matter if a view is the correct (for a certain definition of correct) one if one cannot communicate it effectively. Emphasis on tone, and I do get that. People don't like my tone, and they don't like being told they are at fault and that they are doing a terrible job at being parents. By "effectively", you mean by sugarcoating the message I'm trying to convey? Look, my point was that prohibition, when there are other alternatives that doesn't involve depriving other people of something, won't make you any less responsible for your child. Look at some of the responses to my comments regarding that, it's fascinating to think that some of these people may really be parents. > By definition criminals don't follow laws. It's a circular kind of logic. My problem is that people are too keen on regulating and prohibiting anything in the name of safety and whatnot and do actually believe it's going to be effective. It's not. Let's say you - a law-abiding citizen - need a "good reason" which is determined by the court to carry a knife, and good reason does not include self-defense, and it excludes any knives that would be actually effective against perpetrators with a knife, for example. Now, by definition a criminal doesn't care about this law, and you have no ways of defending yourself. How is this legislation (prohibition) in favor of the law-abiding citizen? It straight out deprives said citizen from the means of defending themselves. In addition to that, pepper sprays are also illegal. How are you supposed to defend yourself by other than running away (not doable in many scenarios), not going outside and assuming they won't break into your house, or hiring bodyguards when you can't afford it? Just put yourself in a scenario. You are a law-abiding citizen and you live in London. I hope you agree that there are many areas that are not exactly safe. Do you like the fact that you are unable to defend yourself without breaking the law? Prohibition is not exactly on your side, is it? What do you think? Sources: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms For some fun: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 or the full response at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203615 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203615.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

cjslep 8y ago

You're intelligent and rational. I hope you hold me with the same regard. However, the tone, structure of your arguments (namely, lots of wide assertions with scant evidence), and combative reactions is getting in the way of the points you are trying to make. It makes no matter if a view is the correct (for a certain definition of correct) one if one cannot communicate it effectively. My prior response was a very human one, equally as intellectually worthless as to the non-sequitor it is in reply to. By definition criminals don't follow laws. It's a circular kind of logic. Hence, trying to claim I am fallacious for highlighting this kind of lack of intellectual rigor I find insulting (Edit: Providing sources without commentary and telling me to "get informed" does not make a compelling argument). That I am expected to resolve this circular logic in a way that suits you is ideological entrapment that allows you to weasel out by playing the "I didn't claim that" card which I find boring and lazy and not an argument at all. Hence me trying to immediately resolve the ambiguity and move onto more productive areas of discussion by directly challenging the circular logic, and your predictable response trying to play said "I am being straw-manned". I prefer moving forward together, but cannot do it alone. I need your input. I am sure you have great ideas but please consider working on your delivery.

GyYZTfWBfQw 8y ago
> However, the tone, structure of your arguments (namely, lots of wide assertions with scant evidence), and combative reactions is getting in the way of the points you are trying to make. It makes no matter if a view is the correct (for a certain definition of correct) one if one cannot communicate it effectively. Emphasis on tone, and I do get that. People don't like my tone, and they don't like being told they are at fault and that they are doing a terrible job at being parents. By "effectively", you mean by sugarcoating the message I'm trying to convey? Look, my point was that prohibition, when there are other alternatives that doesn't involve depriving other people of something, won't make you any less responsible for your child. Look at some of the responses to my comments regarding that, it's fascinating to think that some of these people may really be parents. > By definition criminals don't follow laws. It's a circular kind of logic. My problem is that people are too keen on regulating and prohibiting anything in the name of safety and whatnot and do actually believe it's going to be effective. It's not. Let's say you - a law-abiding citizen - need a "good reason" which is determined by the court to carry a knife, and good reason does not include self-defense, and it excludes any knives that would be actually effective against perpetrators with a knife, for example. Now, by definition a criminal doesn't care about this law, and you have no ways of defending yourself. How is this legislation (prohibition) in favor of the law-abiding citizen? It straight out deprives said citizen from the means of defending themselves. In addition to that, pepper sprays are also illegal. How are you supposed to defend yourself by other than running away (not doable in many scenarios), not going outside and assuming they won't break into your house, or hiring bodyguards when you can't afford it? Just put yourself in a scenario. You are a law-abiding citizen and you live in London. I hope you agree that there are many areas that are not exactly safe. Do you like the fact that you are unable to defend yourself without breaking the law? Prohibition is not exactly on your side, is it? What do you think? Sources: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/firearms For some fun: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/127 or the full response at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203615 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/203615.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]