2 ms·

> By this logic, the primary basis on which we make decisions is whatever provides a personal advantage. I think you’re approaching my comment in a very unchar

> By this logic, the primary basis on which we make decisions is whatever provides a personal advantage. I think you’re approaching my comment in a very uncharitable way. I said I can support legislation that contradicts my personal behavior, not that I always do. I’m not saying I always act selfishly. I’m saying it’s possible (as in, not strictly speaking a fallacy) to act individually selfishly while also voting for legislation that is unselfish. > At least in the US, this misses the critical fact that the government’s function is to represent the will of the people; not impose their will upon the people That’s not what I’m saying at all? Are you sure you’re not just reading what you want to read in my statement? I’m saying I would support legislation (as in, I would vote for candidates that campaigned on this) that would limit the use of single use plastic. I’m not saying “the government should force this even if people don’t want it”. I’m saying “we should all collectively decide we want to ban single use plastic.” I don’t know how you interpreted the comment otherwise.

haswell 3y ago
Sorry, I think I must have really misinterpreted/misunderstood the comment. I’ll see if I can explain why I interpreted it that way because I’d like to understand what you mean. > > 2. Legislation won’t happen until enough people care enough to demand it > I can demand legislation to encourage/require behavior that I myself won’t practice in absence of said legislation. Can you clarify the point you’re making here or state it in a different way? I interpreted this to mean that you were endorsing the position that “I’ll support the legislation, but I’m not gonna change until everyone has to because I’d be at a disadvantage”. The goalie analogy reinforced this especially re: disadvantage. I agree that my interpretation sounds uncharitable, but I’m struggling to find the charitable interpretation. If you’re raising a pure hypothetical, i.e. “this is something that humans can technically do”, I don’t disagree, but I’m struggling to understand the relevance in that case, and would genuinely like to understand. > I’m saying “we should all collectively decide we want to ban single use plastic.” I don’t know how you interpreted the comment otherwise. For some reason, this is definitely not what I took away from the parent comment, and wouldn’t have responded the way I did if that’s what I thought you were trying to say.
- ninkendo 3y ago
  My point is that I support legislation that would ban single use plastic, but I don’t necessarily avoid single use plastic in my daily life. This “pattern” shouldn’t be assumed to extend to every facet of my life: I don’t make all my decisions this way. > It’s an unsustainable mindset that would regularly encourage unethical/immoral but otherwise legal actions. This was the unnecessary bit for me. You don’t need to invoke a slippery slope here, I’m not saying I make all my decisions this way. To get more specific about this issue, I don’t bother avoiding single use plastic because doing so is damned near impossible, and I’ve given up trying. See sibling comments about Halloween/etc which articulate the difficulty better than I can. What I do understand is that if we enacted laws [0] which ban single use plastic at the supply side, this problem would largely disappear on the demand side… suddenly I’d go to the store and Halloween candy would be sold by the bag and I could give trick or treaters scoops of it, etc. Thus, my point is that I do a selfish thing (buy Halloween candy that uses single use plastic) but would support legislation that would ban this, specifically because it would make it easier for me to do the right thing. The goalie analogy is imperfect because it invokes “disadvantage” in the argument, but that’s not really relevant to the point, so I admit the analogy isn’t great. But the larger point it speaks to is this: Just because I act a certain way individually doesn’t mean I wouldn’t support broader action (ie. legislation) that would make me act a different way. Because my decisions aren’t made in a vacuum, they’re made in context of my broader environment, like for instance what kind of candy packaging actually exists at the store. [0] by voting, indirectly through representatives, so please don’t invoke the “but government is supposed to by the people, not control the people” argument either, because it’s not relevant here. “Supporting legislation” means “I, a citizen, would consent to this and I hope others do too.”

haswell 3y ago

Sorry, I think I must have really misinterpreted/misunderstood the comment. I’ll see if I can explain why I interpreted it that way because I’d like to understand what you mean. > > 2. Legislation won’t happen until enough people care enough to demand it > I can demand legislation to encourage/require behavior that I myself won’t practice in absence of said legislation. Can you clarify the point you’re making here or state it in a different way? I interpreted this to mean that you were endorsing the position that “I’ll support the legislation, but I’m not gonna change until everyone has to because I’d be at a disadvantage”. The goalie analogy reinforced this especially re: disadvantage. I agree that my interpretation sounds uncharitable, but I’m struggling to find the charitable interpretation. If you’re raising a pure hypothetical, i.e. “this is something that humans can technically do”, I don’t disagree, but I’m struggling to understand the relevance in that case, and would genuinely like to understand. > I’m saying “we should all collectively decide we want to ban single use plastic.” I don’t know how you interpreted the comment otherwise. For some reason, this is definitely not what I took away from the parent comment, and wouldn’t have responded the way I did if that’s what I thought you were trying to say.

ninkendo 3y ago
My point is that I support legislation that would ban single use plastic, but I don’t necessarily avoid single use plastic in my daily life. This “pattern” shouldn’t be assumed to extend to every facet of my life: I don’t make all my decisions this way. > It’s an unsustainable mindset that would regularly encourage unethical/immoral but otherwise legal actions. This was the unnecessary bit for me. You don’t need to invoke a slippery slope here, I’m not saying I make all my decisions this way. To get more specific about this issue, I don’t bother avoiding single use plastic because doing so is damned near impossible, and I’ve given up trying. See sibling comments about Halloween/etc which articulate the difficulty better than I can. What I do understand is that if we enacted laws [0] which ban single use plastic at the supply side, this problem would largely disappear on the demand side… suddenly I’d go to the store and Halloween candy would be sold by the bag and I could give trick or treaters scoops of it, etc. Thus, my point is that I do a selfish thing (buy Halloween candy that uses single use plastic) but would support legislation that would ban this, specifically because it would make it easier for me to do the right thing. The goalie analogy is imperfect because it invokes “disadvantage” in the argument, but that’s not really relevant to the point, so I admit the analogy isn’t great. But the larger point it speaks to is this: Just because I act a certain way individually doesn’t mean I wouldn’t support broader action (ie. legislation) that would make me act a different way. Because my decisions aren’t made in a vacuum, they’re made in context of my broader environment, like for instance what kind of candy packaging actually exists at the store. [0] by voting, indirectly through representatives, so please don’t invoke the “but government is supposed to by the people, not control the people” argument either, because it’s not relevant here. “Supporting legislation” means “I, a citizen, would consent to this and I hope others do too.”