3 ms·

> It's not at all, what it was originally designed for is irrelevant, the question is what it's being used for. Then surely you should be able to demonstrate y

> It's not at all, what it was originally designed for is irrelevant, the question is what it's being used for. Then surely you should be able to demonstrate your point with some analogy other than "a smuggling tunnel." > These are all utterly aside the point. No, they are the point. This thread was about victim blaming. And you brought up asylum seekers, broadening the discussion to include whether legality should apply at all, or whether we should consider ethical use of a tool regardless of legality. I'm not bringing anything new up in this discussion, I'm only replying directly to points made. > Infrastructure that makes breaking the law easy is worse than one that does not. Even if that infrastructure primarily serves (or was created to serve, you choose) the purpose of smuggling, for example, asylum seekers? Your entire point in this comment seems to be "everything you bring up is irrelevant" which begs the question, why are we even having this discussion at all?

arcticbull 5y ago
> Then surely you should be able to demonstrate your point with some analogy other than "a smuggling tunnel." I don't feel I need to. I think it's pretty apt. > ...broadening the discussion to include whether legality should apply at all... I didn't do that, you did. I maintain legality is society's decision to make, and that infrastructure should serve society's goals. Infrastructure that makes it dead easy to undermine societies goals is not something I want to encourage. > Even if that infrastructure primarily serves (or was created to serve, you choose) the purpose of smuggling, for example, asylum seekers? This is why I suggested it was a tortured reading. Again, it only really matters what it's actually used for. Asylum seekers need not be smuggled through tunnels because it is lawful to apply for asylum at a port of entry. You show up and ask for it.

arcticbull 5y ago

> Then surely you should be able to demonstrate your point with some analogy other than "a smuggling tunnel." I don't feel I need to. I think it's pretty apt. > ...broadening the discussion to include whether legality should apply at all... I didn't do that, you did. I maintain legality is society's decision to make, and that infrastructure should serve society's goals. Infrastructure that makes it dead easy to undermine societies goals is not something I want to encourage. > Even if that infrastructure primarily serves (or was created to serve, you choose) the purpose of smuggling, for example, asylum seekers? This is why I suggested it was a tortured reading. Again, it only really matters what it's actually used for. Asylum seekers need not be smuggled through tunnels because it is lawful to apply for asylum at a port of entry. You show up and ask for it.