3 ms·

You seem to be objecting to both the tone and the actual meaning of the word. Since I stand by the meaning, perhaps there is a better way to express it. But if

You seem to be objecting to both the tone and the actual meaning of the word. Since I stand by the meaning, perhaps there is a better way to express it. But if you still disagree with the meaning, perhaps you could elaborate. A phrase I've seen on HN is "thought terminating cliché". Would that be a better way to express my opinion, by calling it that?

torstenvl 5y ago
You are interpreting the phrase specifically in a way as to make it a tautology, rather than responding to the "strongest plausible interpretation" as required by the site guidelines. Currently both anti-social and pro-social individuals possess firearms. If possession of firearms is criminalized, those who tend toward pro-sociality will give them up disproportionately. Such a policy would therefore tilt the balance of power toward those with anti-social inclinations. This is a bad outcome.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  I didn't mean to express that the outcome was good or bad. And I don't take a position on whether the authorities are grouped with the "anti-social" crowd. Some people would say they are. Purely for the sake of discussion, I presumed the conceit that there is a "justice system" which is "pro-social". In that context, it seems clear to me that criminalizing things is a very useful tool. If you reject the premise, you might be perfectly correct, yet I would still expect people to be addressing those who believe there is a "justice system". Surely all sensible anarchists can imagine believing in "law and order", and assume that a random person probably does? Even if one doesn't believe there is a justice system, one might believe there could be. I automatically assume anyone who wants to discuss topics like crime and justice believes in the concepts. The judgement "obtuse" comes with the sense I have that the context is otherwise violated.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

torstenvl 5y ago

You are interpreting the phrase specifically in a way as to make it a tautology, rather than responding to the "strongest plausible interpretation" as required by the site guidelines. Currently both anti-social and pro-social individuals possess firearms. If possession of firearms is criminalized, those who tend toward pro-sociality will give them up disproportionately. Such a policy would therefore tilt the balance of power toward those with anti-social inclinations. This is a bad outcome.

perl4ever 5y ago
I didn't mean to express that the outcome was good or bad. And I don't take a position on whether the authorities are grouped with the "anti-social" crowd. Some people would say they are. Purely for the sake of discussion, I presumed the conceit that there is a "justice system" which is "pro-social". In that context, it seems clear to me that criminalizing things is a very useful tool. If you reject the premise, you might be perfectly correct, yet I would still expect people to be addressing those who believe there is a "justice system". Surely all sensible anarchists can imagine believing in "law and order", and assume that a random person probably does? Even if one doesn't believe there is a justice system, one might believe there could be. I automatically assume anyone who wants to discuss topics like crime and justice believes in the concepts. The judgement "obtuse" comes with the sense I have that the context is otherwise violated.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]