3 ms·

You're right. But I also do attempt to summarize the idea in the following paragraph. I hope you can judge from the sketch that it's a compelling argument. Afte

by yboris 4y ago

You're right. But I also do attempt to summarize the idea in the following paragraph. I hope you can judge from the sketch that it's a compelling argument. After all, given that putting someone in jail is just about the worst thing our government can do to a person, any person being put in jail deserves a good reason. And there is just none provided when someone is put in jail. This is why it's so hard to argue against the status quo - there is no argument to argue against.

tablespoon 4y ago
> You're right. But I also do attempt to summarize the idea in the following paragraph. I hope you can judge from the sketch that it's a compelling argument. Compelling doesn't mean correct. The impression I got of it was it's one that takes a small(ish) number of philosophical propositions and situational variables, comes up with some solution that's maximally consistent with those propositions, then insists that be applied rigorously to a real word (that's rather more complicated). I'm generally skeptical of that kind of stuff. That maximal consistency is extremely seductive, but the simplifications taken to get there are often oversimplifications, and seductiveness makes it tempting to avert your eyes from the problems and be satisfied.
- yboris 4y ago
  It's worth reading the book then ;) The author is a philosopher who is very careful about language and his arguments. He has written 2 other books on this topic (Drugs & Rights, and Ovecriminalization -- I read both and can recommend). One nice point he makes is that there is no definition of what a drug is either. If one says "a substance that affects how the brain functions" then coffee, alcohol, sugar, milk, and even water are drugs.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > One nice point he makes is that there is no definition of what a drug is either. If one says "a substance that affects how the brain functions" then coffee, alcohol, sugar, milk, and even water are drugs. Honestly, that sounds like nonsense. Not having some compact math-like definition for the category doesn't mean there's no definition for it.
    - yboris 4y ago
      Clearly the government doesn't have any -- it's just a matter of what's on a list. Sure we can say that the more a substance is addictive, the more we want to put it into the category of "drug"; the more it impairs someone, the more it fits in our vague sense of what "drug" means. The author isn't saying "look, no necessary or sufficient condition exists, therefore checkmate". Also, I hope you agree that the word "definition" means something akin to "a statement of the exact meaning of a word" - and the more vague a thing's category, the less we have a definition of it.

by yboris 4y ago

tablespoon 4y ago

> You're right. But I also do attempt to summarize the idea in the following paragraph. I hope you can judge from the sketch that it's a compelling argument. Compelling doesn't mean correct. The impression I got of it was it's one that takes a small(ish) number of philosophical propositions and situational variables, comes up with some solution that's maximally consistent with those propositions, then insists that be applied rigorously to a real word (that's rather more complicated). I'm generally skeptical of that kind of stuff. That maximal consistency is extremely seductive, but the simplifications taken to get there are often oversimplifications, and seductiveness makes it tempting to avert your eyes from the problems and be satisfied.

yboris 4y ago
It's worth reading the book then ;) The author is a philosopher who is very careful about language and his arguments. He has written 2 other books on this topic (Drugs & Rights, and Ovecriminalization -- I read both and can recommend). One nice point he makes is that there is no definition of what a drug is either. If one says "a substance that affects how the brain functions" then coffee, alcohol, sugar, milk, and even water are drugs.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > One nice point he makes is that there is no definition of what a drug is either. If one says "a substance that affects how the brain functions" then coffee, alcohol, sugar, milk, and even water are drugs. Honestly, that sounds like nonsense. Not having some compact math-like definition for the category doesn't mean there's no definition for it.
  - yboris 4y ago
    Clearly the government doesn't have any -- it's just a matter of what's on a list. Sure we can say that the more a substance is addictive, the more we want to put it into the category of "drug"; the more it impairs someone, the more it fits in our vague sense of what "drug" means. The author isn't saying "look, no necessary or sufficient condition exists, therefore checkmate". Also, I hope you agree that the word "definition" means something akin to "a statement of the exact meaning of a word" - and the more vague a thing's category, the less we have a definition of it.