4 ms·
This is an incorrect way of understanding phenomena. You're essentially claiming that things are the same so long as certain elements of them intersect, regardl
by natalyarostova 7y ago
This is an incorrect way of understanding phenomena. You're essentially claiming that things are the same so long as certain elements of them intersect, regardless of the magnitude. Therefore we cannot distinguish between them.
- kodablah 7y agoI disagree they are claiming they are the same. They are instead claiming that these personal vices are not different enough to treat so different. It becomes difficult to discuss general vice freedoms when comparisons always devolve to complaints about the comparison meaning exact equality. This is especially true when it is in response to emotionally charged comments that are used to buttress the original argument.
- SkyBelow 7y agoI purpose the argument that our similarity function is ill equipped to differentiate those intersections in a meaningful way. I think this matters because it calls into question if our differential treatment is really, or is solely, based off of the results of the similarity function. For example, while we can attempt to justify our reaction to weed by the harms it does, in light of the harms alcohol does and the treatment it gets, one wouldn't be wrong to wonder if our treatment of weed was tied to some other factor that we aren't willing to admit.