3 ms·
> is the starting point and everyone seems to ignore it and to immediately jump to strawman arguments about the feasibility of absolute enforceability. That d
by ByteJockey 6y ago
> is the starting point and everyone seems to ignore it and to immediately jump to strawman arguments about the feasibility of absolute enforceability.
That does seem like the natural progression (save for the strawman part).
Have desire to do something -> evaluate feasibility -> if it's feasible do it.
Perhaps that's not as standard of a flow as I originally thought. That would actually explain a number of laws on the books now that I think about it.
- mytailorisrich 6y agoNote the word 'absolute'. The 'argument' seems to be that there is not point enforcing the law because it is not feasible to enforce it absolutely. This logic is obviously fallacious as is reducing enforcement to absolute enforcement. I also find it disappointing that I was flagged for pointing this out. Strawman arguments are very common. Sometimes they are not used consciously but it is useful to call a cat a cat.
- ByteJockey 6y ago> The 'argument' seems to be that there is not point enforcing the law because it is not feasible to enforce it absolutely. My argument was more that it is stupid and undermines the credibility of the government to pass laws that it cannot enforce. It's that they were passed in the first place that bothers me personally. I'm not holding anything against someone whose job it it to enforce the law having to enforce a stupid law. We already saw this with the pirate bay, you can't block information. In fact, the harder you try, the funnier it is for people to find ways around it.