3 ms·

C’mon, there is a pretty big difference between this and sumptuary law, don’t try to equate them. A sumptuary law is on the consumer and this is on the producer

by yladiz 3y ago

C’mon, there is a pretty big difference between this and sumptuary law, don’t try to equate them. A sumptuary law is on the consumer and this is on the producer.

wyager 3y ago
When there are two parties to a transaction, it doesn't really matter which party you forbid from making the transaction. The effect is the same, which is all that really matters from an economic standpoint
- edmundsauto 3y ago
  Even if true, economics is only one part of the equation. When society discusses sex work, there is more support for penalizing the traffickers than the workers. This is because morals are an important dimension besides just economics. Similarly, when talking about waste, there is more depth than just thinking about the economic impact.
- Novosell 3y ago
  They're not forbiding any transactions here though, unless you considering yeeting stuff in the garbage a transaction.
378474r9r 3y ago
"You can't compare two things just because their outcomes are the same."
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  No, you cannot equate two things even if they lead to the same outcome
  - 378474r9r 3y ago
    If the outcomes are the same you can certainly equate the outcomes and if the intent is the same, such as to limit consumption, then you can certainly equate the intent as well. After the intent and the outcome I don't really see how the rest is anything but execution details.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      Execution details are salient. Outcomes are higher dimensioned than what you describe.
      - Teachez 3y ago
        There's no chance those words are intended to convey meaning. Is there?
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        These are not complicated words
    - defrost 3y ago
      The intent is to limit waste not consumption. There is a difference that you're not seeing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38538799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38538799
      - 378474r9r 3y ago
        You're arguing execution details. I don't think the original post was saying this was literally the same thing just that it effectively is. Your argument around intent is largely a reframing that serves to sidestep the obvious disparate impact angles on the matter. "The intent isn't to stifle consumption that's just a predictable consequence of our intent" is an extremely shallow rebuttal.

by yladiz 3y ago

C’mon, there is a pretty big difference between this and sumptuary law, don’t try to equate them. A sumptuary law is on the consumer and this is on the producer.

wyager 3y ago

When there are two parties to a transaction, it doesn't really matter which party you forbid from making the transaction. The effect is the same, which is all that really matters from an economic standpoint

edmundsauto 3y ago
Even if true, economics is only one part of the equation. When society discusses sex work, there is more support for penalizing the traffickers than the workers. This is because morals are an important dimension besides just economics. Similarly, when talking about waste, there is more depth than just thinking about the economic impact.
Novosell 3y ago
They're not forbiding any transactions here though, unless you considering yeeting stuff in the garbage a transaction.

378474r9r 3y ago

"You can't compare two things just because their outcomes are the same."

jncfhnb 3y ago
No, you cannot equate two things even if they lead to the same outcome
- 378474r9r 3y ago
  If the outcomes are the same you can certainly equate the outcomes and if the intent is the same, such as to limit consumption, then you can certainly equate the intent as well. After the intent and the outcome I don't really see how the rest is anything but execution details.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Execution details are salient. Outcomes are higher dimensioned than what you describe.
    - Teachez 3y ago
      There's no chance those words are intended to convey meaning. Is there?
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        These are not complicated words
  - defrost 3y ago
    The intent is to limit waste not consumption. There is a difference that you're not seeing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38538799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38538799
    - 378474r9r 3y ago
      You're arguing execution details. I don't think the original post was saying this was literally the same thing just that it effectively is. Your argument around intent is largely a reframing that serves to sidestep the obvious disparate impact angles on the matter. "The intent isn't to stifle consumption that's just a predictable consequence of our intent" is an extremely shallow rebuttal.