3 ms·
"Choice" is very much alive in your examples. We seem to be in an open fight against negative reinforcement. To say "policing is the consequence of bad behavi
by Digory 6y ago
"Choice" is very much alive in your examples.
We seem to be in an open fight against negative reinforcement. To say "policing is the consequence of bad behavior," or "You should go to jail for dealing weed" or even "We shouldn't cancel services or people too hastily" is to pick a fight.
- quirkot 6y agoIf arguing online has taught me anything, it's that you don't need to win a fight to persuade bystanders of your righteousness
- Jochim 6y agoI don't think those points really link together. 1) This argument is about negative reinforcement argument. Specifically how increasing levels of it haven't fixed the problems that lead to high crime in those neighbourhoods in the first place and in some cases has made those neighbourhoods more dangerous. We already know tough on crime policies don't work. It's why we don't chop off the hands of thieves. It's why states with the death penalty still have plenty of murders. 2) The argument isn't against negative reinforcement it's that marijuana shouldn't be illegal in the first place. 3) Implies the people you're arguing against are in favour of at least some negative reinforcement.