3 ms·

The logic is good but implies you MUST go for it. I can’t imagine he’s so stupid as to not see that. Crossing the rubicon means you can’t go back. I am reminde

The logic is good but implies you MUST go for it. I can’t imagine he’s so stupid as to not see that. Crossing the rubicon means you can’t go back. I am reminded of the story: Chen Sheng was an officer serving the Qin Dynasty, famous for their draconian punishments. He was supposed to lead his army to a rendezvous point, but he got delayed by heavy rains and it became clear he was going to arrive late. Chen turns to his friend Wu Guang and asks “What’s the penalty for being late?” “Death,” says Wu. “And what’s the penalty for rebellion?” “Death,” says Wu. “Well then…” says Chen Sheng. And thus began the famous Dazexiang Uprising, which caused thousands of deaths and helped usher in a period of instability and chaos that resulted in the fall of the Qin Dynasty three years later.

mhb 3y ago
And that's why we don't have the death penalty for shoplifting.
- AbrahamParangi 3y ago
  Probably the strongest argument against the death penalty in general.
  - mhb 3y ago
    Not really. It's the same argument for making any punishment proportional to the crime.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Not really Really. It's a threshold problem. If the penalty for shoplifting is death, and the penalty for a massacre is death, a good number of sociopathic shoplifters will gamble for freedom via massacre. (It's rational.) It's why dictatorships consistently flame out. If there is no peaceful transition of power, losing power means death. That incentivises a dictator on the edge to take risks that otherwise make no sense because even a minute chance of success is worth it. In the context of a Russian revolution, this animates concerns around our species' first nuclear civil war.
- phist_mcgee 3y ago
  Or the death penalty for sexual crimes. It only leads to an escalation of violence by the perpetrator knowing that there is no way out.
lamontcg 3y ago
> I can’t imagine he’s so stupid as to not see that. To repeat myself from another comment: haven't we hadn't enough examples of smart people being stupid lately?

mhb 3y ago

And that's why we don't have the death penalty for shoplifting.

AbrahamParangi 3y ago
Probably the strongest argument against the death penalty in general.
- mhb 3y ago
  Not really. It's the same argument for making any punishment proportional to the crime.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Not really Really. It's a threshold problem. If the penalty for shoplifting is death, and the penalty for a massacre is death, a good number of sociopathic shoplifters will gamble for freedom via massacre. (It's rational.) It's why dictatorships consistently flame out. If there is no peaceful transition of power, losing power means death. That incentivises a dictator on the edge to take risks that otherwise make no sense because even a minute chance of success is worth it. In the context of a Russian revolution, this animates concerns around our species' first nuclear civil war.
phist_mcgee 3y ago
Or the death penalty for sexual crimes. It only leads to an escalation of violence by the perpetrator knowing that there is no way out.

lamontcg 3y ago

> I can’t imagine he’s so stupid as to not see that. To repeat myself from another comment: haven't we hadn't enough examples of smart people being stupid lately?