5 ms·

Do you think the government should ban all harmful activities?

sneakernets 8y ago
Of course not, because "harmful" in your question isn't the same meaning as what the government uses. PS: Does that strawman smoke menthols?
- antidesitter 8y ago
  > Of course not, because "harmful" in your question isn't the same meaning as what the government uses. What's the definition "the government uses"? And why is it different from the one in the comment you're replying to? > PS: Does that strawman smoke menthols? ?
benj111 8y ago
Harmful isn't really binary, it's a spectrum. So I suppose A. Should govt ban any harmful activities? Yes some activities impose a wider cost on society, and are best dealt with at a societal level. B. Should govt ban all harmful activities? Probably not no. Everything is harmful in some way, shape or form. So unless you ban everything.....
- sneakernets 8y ago
  The issue with "harm" here is that there is an objective definition, but that question is being framed as a subjective definition being made objective in an attempt at a gotcha.
  - benj111 8y ago
    (Assuming you're disagreeing with the parents framing rather than me) Perhaps, but as the guidelines state "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Fool me once, and all that, and at the end of the day I expect reasonable answers to my imperfect questions, its unfair not to offer the same to others.
    - sneakernets 8y ago
      Unfortunately some people argue in bad faith without even knowing they do it.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        Like you did when you replied to my question.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    What's the "objective definition" you're referring to? And why do you claim my question is "being framed as a subjective definition being made objective"?
    - sneakernets 8y ago
      Objective harm is visible damage backed by reality. Subjective harm is mostly puritan nonsense. Unless you make distinctions, I don't think this argument can continue.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        > Objective harm is visible damage backed by reality. What makes you think I was referring to anything else?

Of course not, because "harmful" in your question isn't the same meaning as what the government uses. PS: Does that strawman smoke menthols?

antidesitter 8y ago
> Of course not, because "harmful" in your question isn't the same meaning as what the government uses. What's the definition "the government uses"? And why is it different from the one in the comment you're replying to? > PS: Does that strawman smoke menthols? ?

benj111 8y ago

Harmful isn't really binary, it's a spectrum. So I suppose A. Should govt ban any harmful activities? Yes some activities impose a wider cost on society, and are best dealt with at a societal level. B. Should govt ban all harmful activities? Probably not no. Everything is harmful in some way, shape or form. So unless you ban everything.....

sneakernets 8y ago
The issue with "harm" here is that there is an objective definition, but that question is being framed as a subjective definition being made objective in an attempt at a gotcha.
- benj111 8y ago
  (Assuming you're disagreeing with the parents framing rather than me) Perhaps, but as the guidelines state "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." Fool me once, and all that, and at the end of the day I expect reasonable answers to my imperfect questions, its unfair not to offer the same to others.
  - sneakernets 8y ago
    Unfortunately some people argue in bad faith without even knowing they do it.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      Like you did when you replied to my question.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  What's the "objective definition" you're referring to? And why do you claim my question is "being framed as a subjective definition being made objective"?
  - sneakernets 8y ago
    Objective harm is visible damage backed by reality. Subjective harm is mostly puritan nonsense. Unless you make distinctions, I don't think this argument can continue.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      > Objective harm is visible damage backed by reality. What makes you think I was referring to anything else?