4 ms·

If violence worked, the drug war would be over because people would not take drugs. .. and there would be no crime and police would have only one encounter wit

If violence worked, the drug war would be over because people would not take drugs. .. and there would be no crime and police would have only one encounter with each person. Clearly this isn’t true, so it suggests there was an alternative to violence that could have been applied in your youth.

barry-cotter 8y ago
Drugs are much more expensive and more difficult to procure than they would be if they were legal, so reducing consumption. On that basis the drug war clearly works. If violence is unnecessary and there’s always an alternative why are all states fundamentally enforced and maintained by violence?
random314 8y ago
You receive the special hacker news award for shittiest extrapolation - 2019.
- georgebarnett 8y ago
  If violence worked as a strategy, then it would work better the more of it was applied. Instead, what we see is that the more violence applied, the worse the outcome in the long run. This indicates it’s not a solution.
  - random314 8y ago
    Clearly, you are no mathematician.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    > If violence worked as a strategy, then it would work better the more of it was applied. I am generally opposed to violence, but...that really doesn't make sense. It's not generally true that, if <foo> fixes something, 10*<foo> fixes it 10 times better.
  - scarejunba 8y ago
    This is astonishingly illogical. > If violence worked as a strategy, then it would work better the more of it was applied. This does not follow at all. This whole argument is total bullshit. It may end up being the right answer for parenting (don't use violence against your kids) but the reasoning is astonishing. Every single one of the statements is false and only the conclusion is true. What a masterpiece!
    - georgebarnett 8y ago
      Ok, you’re right. (I’m reminded how difficult it is to make full arguments over text. Rather than flog a dead horse, I’ll just accept that I’m not able to make my point clearly enough.)
  - geomark 8y ago
    Just yesterday I was reading a list of logical fallacies, and between this comment and your previous one I think you've hit at least 3 or 4 of them.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
      That logical fallacy list is required reading here, it's practically a holy text.
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    If taking Tylenol worked as a strategy to reduce pain, it would work better the more of it was applied. Instead, what we see is the more Tylenol taken, the worse the outcome in the long run (taking the whole bottle will destroy your liver...)
- dri_ft 8y ago
  And it's only January!
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
tigershark 8y ago
So do you think that if from today all the crimes were depenalised there would be no whatsoever increase in thefts, assaults, murders and all the other crimes? I think that instead we would see a massive increase.
- jstanley 8y ago
  I don't think there would be a very big increase. Most people just don't want to steal, assault, murder, etc. because of their own morality, not because of the law.
  - lazyasciiart 8y ago
    That only means there wouldn't be a massive increase in the number of perpetrators. I expect that the set of people who aren't morally against it would be willing to do it more often if the risks went down.
    - jstanley 8y ago
      > > > I think that instead we would see a massive increase. > > I don't think there would be a very big increase. > That only means there wouldn't be a massive increase [...] Agreed.
  - adwn 8y ago
    > Most people just don't want to steal, assault, murder, etc. because of their own morality, not because of the law. I strongly disagree. Many (but not all!) people would be more likely to steal – given an opportunity – if they were absolutely sure they wouldn't face any negative consequences. Similarly, a lot more people would punch someone in the face if they insulted them or cut in line, when they would be absolutely sure that the other person wouldn't punch back. That doesn't mean that most people are inherently evil, just that they're non-perfect, flawed human beings. Social pressure and the justice system keeps them in line, not their morality.
Retra 8y ago
Just because something causes pain does not mean it is violent. Violence requires significantly elevated risk of injury or damage.

barry-cotter 8y ago

Drugs are much more expensive and more difficult to procure than they would be if they were legal, so reducing consumption. On that basis the drug war clearly works. If violence is unnecessary and there’s always an alternative why are all states fundamentally enforced and maintained by violence?

random314 8y ago

You receive the special hacker news award for shittiest extrapolation - 2019.

georgebarnett 8y ago
If violence worked as a strategy, then it would work better the more of it was applied. Instead, what we see is that the more violence applied, the worse the outcome in the long run. This indicates it’s not a solution.
- random314 8y ago
  Clearly, you are no mathematician.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  > If violence worked as a strategy, then it would work better the more of it was applied. I am generally opposed to violence, but...that really doesn't make sense. It's not generally true that, if <foo> fixes something, 10*<foo> fixes it 10 times better.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  This is astonishingly illogical. > If violence worked as a strategy, then it would work better the more of it was applied. This does not follow at all. This whole argument is total bullshit. It may end up being the right answer for parenting (don't use violence against your kids) but the reasoning is astonishing. Every single one of the statements is false and only the conclusion is true. What a masterpiece!
  - georgebarnett 8y ago
    Ok, you’re right. (I’m reminded how difficult it is to make full arguments over text. Rather than flog a dead horse, I’ll just accept that I’m not able to make my point clearly enough.)
- geomark 8y ago
  Just yesterday I was reading a list of logical fallacies, and between this comment and your previous one I think you've hit at least 3 or 4 of them.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
    That logical fallacy list is required reading here, it's practically a holy text.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  If taking Tylenol worked as a strategy to reduce pain, it would work better the more of it was applied. Instead, what we see is the more Tylenol taken, the worse the outcome in the long run (taking the whole bottle will destroy your liver...)
dri_ft 8y ago
And it's only January!

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tigershark 8y ago

So do you think that if from today all the crimes were depenalised there would be no whatsoever increase in thefts, assaults, murders and all the other crimes? I think that instead we would see a massive increase.

jstanley 8y ago
I don't think there would be a very big increase. Most people just don't want to steal, assault, murder, etc. because of their own morality, not because of the law.
- lazyasciiart 8y ago
  That only means there wouldn't be a massive increase in the number of perpetrators. I expect that the set of people who aren't morally against it would be willing to do it more often if the risks went down.
  - jstanley 8y ago
    > > > I think that instead we would see a massive increase. > > I don't think there would be a very big increase. > That only means there wouldn't be a massive increase [...] Agreed.
- adwn 8y ago
  > Most people just don't want to steal, assault, murder, etc. because of their own morality, not because of the law. I strongly disagree. Many (but not all!) people would be more likely to steal – given an opportunity – if they were absolutely sure they wouldn't face any negative consequences. Similarly, a lot more people would punch someone in the face if they insulted them or cut in line, when they would be absolutely sure that the other person wouldn't punch back. That doesn't mean that most people are inherently evil, just that they're non-perfect, flawed human beings. Social pressure and the justice system keeps them in line, not their morality.

Retra 8y ago

Just because something causes pain does not mean it is violent. Violence requires significantly elevated risk of injury or damage.