6 ms·

Not sure this argument is as powerful as you think it is. Is the frequent shitting in the streets actually the result of more human shit being created, or is i

by CPLX 3y ago

Not sure this argument is as powerful as you think it is. Is the frequent shitting in the streets actually the result of more human shit being created, or is it just surfacing a quantity of feces that already existed but was being routed into bathrooms or other private areas?

catlifeonmars 3y ago
Not making any particular argument. However, I don’t find this particularly convincing: > Is the frequent shitting in the streets actually the result of more human shit being created, or is it just surfacing a quantity of feces that already existed but was being routed into bathrooms or other private areas? In this hypothetical shituation (I’m very sorry - I couldn’t resist), it would be very useful to answer that research question as it would serve to reveal more about both the problem and the solution.
- CPLX 3y ago
  Yeah I don’t think so. The point of the comment is to point out that putting human misery into people’s faces isn’t a value-neutral decision. I don’t want to see trauma surgery or graphic sex on the way to the park with my kids either, though I am of course fine with both existing in the world.
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
    > The point of the comment is to point out that putting human misery into people’s faces isn’t a value-neutral decision. That would be an arguable point, but you certainly didn't make that with your shit analogy. If you'd care to provide any evidence for that point whatsoever, I'd be happy to address that evidence, but you haven't provided any evidence for that point to even argue against. The shit analogy isn't evidence because the problems of putting shit in the streets aren't cause by its visibility, they're caused (mostly) by bacteria. > I don’t want to see trauma surgery or graphic sex on the way to the park with my kids either, though I am of course fine with both existing in the world. Again with the argument from analogy being fallacious. You likely won't see open air drug markets on the way to the park with your kids unless you already lived in a neighborhood where your children were already going to be exposed to drug use. These open air drug markets aren't opening in the Hamptons, they're opening in areas where the drug crisis was already pervasive.
    - CPLX 3y ago
      Is that an argument? Because the open air drug markets exist in places that had drug use in them they are OK? How does B follow from A? The point is that open air drug markets full of human misery, and usually unsanitary and violent conditions, are bad, and we should not tolerate them as part of our society. It’s a sort of obvious mainstream view that everyone most likely shares outside of this sort of bizzare too-online culture that has developed. My comment is just pointing out that having them in places where people are trying to live normal lives and raise children is bad. The fact that this kind of thing will exist anyways isn’t a counter-argument any more than the argument that porn will always exist and is legal means it has to be allowed on billboards.
      - kerkeslager 3y ago
        > Is that an argument? Because the open air drug markets exist in places that had drug use in them they are OK? How does B follow from A? > The point is that open air drug markets full of human misery, and usually unsanitary and violent conditions, are bad, and we should not tolerate them as part of our society. Anywhere drug addiction is pervasive is full of human misery, unsanitary, and violent conditions. "Not tolerating" isn't a solution. The concrete solution you're actually proposing is prohibition, which not only doesn't solve the problem, but makes the problem worse. It makes it harder to provide sanitation solutions such as needle exchanges, and it makes it harder to provide solutions to violence such as security presence. > My comment is just pointing out that having them in places where people are trying to live normal lives and raise children is bad. And no one disagrees with that. The problem is, prohibition just means that people trying to live normal lives and raise children now live in a neighborhood with more violence and more unsanitary conditions that is less visible and harder to avoid. Your "solution" is not solving the sanitation or violence problems in any way, it's making both worse. If anything, concentrating drug sales into specific areas makes the problems more avoidable for parents, because they know exactly where the problems are and can avoid those areas. And, if you're concerned about children, surely you'd support programs to help families with children move away from violent and unsanitary areas. I'd certainly support that. That seems like it would actually solve the problem, unlike anything you've proposed. > The fact that this kind of thing will exist anyways isn’t a counter-argument any more than the argument that porn will always exist and is legal means it has to be allowed on billboards. It's tiring to continuously explain to you the differences between the analogies you keep proposing and the discussion at hand. Analogies still aren't a valid argument. Please make an effort to talk about the actual situation we're talking about, instead of bringing in various unrelated situations. The difference in this case is that removing porn from billboards doesn't make the problems of porn worse, while making drugs illegal does make the problems of drugs worse.
kerkeslager 3y ago
I've come to believe arguments from analogy are pretty much inherently fallacious. The pretty obvious difference is that routing shit into a bathroom makes a real, negative difference in the suffering caused by shit. Routing drug dealing into open air drug markets makes a real, positive difference, because you can police public markets to prevent violence in a way you can't police private areas, and you can provide services such as clean needles and rehab outreaches where they are most likely to reach people who need them. Such markets tend to arise in places where drug use was already rampant--i.e. they aren't creating new suffering. The only similarity your analogy is addressing is the visibility of the problems. In your analogy, you're making the problem more visible by removing the solution, which obviously has negative effects that don't apply to drug legalization, because drug legalization is removing a big part of the problem rather than removing the solution.
- CPLX 3y ago
  > I've come to believe arguments from analogy are pretty much inherently fallacious. Good luck with that. Pretty much all arguments are by analogy. That's how you determine if a generalized rule applies to a specific instance.
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
    > Good luck with that. Pretty much all arguments are by analogy. I've made at least half a dozen arguments in this thread and not a single argument I've made in this argument is by analogy. In fact, the very argument you are making currently isn't by analogy. > That's how you determine if a generalized rule applies to a specific instance. That is an extraordinarily poor heuristic. If you have enough information to make a rule for a specific instance, why not just make a rule to apply to that specific situation? Why even bother trying to apply a generalized rule? I mean, you can say literally anything with analogies. Here, I'll offer my first argument by analogy: Drug prohibition is like letting churches handle child abuse: it allows harm to children to continue by hiding the harm. Why do you want to keep harming children? /s
    - 3y ago

by CPLX 3y ago

catlifeonmars 3y ago

Not making any particular argument. However, I don’t find this particularly convincing: > Is the frequent shitting in the streets actually the result of more human shit being created, or is it just surfacing a quantity of feces that already existed but was being routed into bathrooms or other private areas? In this hypothetical shituation (I’m very sorry - I couldn’t resist), it would be very useful to answer that research question as it would serve to reveal more about both the problem and the solution.

CPLX 3y ago
Yeah I don’t think so. The point of the comment is to point out that putting human misery into people’s faces isn’t a value-neutral decision. I don’t want to see trauma surgery or graphic sex on the way to the park with my kids either, though I am of course fine with both existing in the world.
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  > The point of the comment is to point out that putting human misery into people’s faces isn’t a value-neutral decision. That would be an arguable point, but you certainly didn't make that with your shit analogy. If you'd care to provide any evidence for that point whatsoever, I'd be happy to address that evidence, but you haven't provided any evidence for that point to even argue against. The shit analogy isn't evidence because the problems of putting shit in the streets aren't cause by its visibility, they're caused (mostly) by bacteria. > I don’t want to see trauma surgery or graphic sex on the way to the park with my kids either, though I am of course fine with both existing in the world. Again with the argument from analogy being fallacious. You likely won't see open air drug markets on the way to the park with your kids unless you already lived in a neighborhood where your children were already going to be exposed to drug use. These open air drug markets aren't opening in the Hamptons, they're opening in areas where the drug crisis was already pervasive.
  - CPLX 3y ago
    Is that an argument? Because the open air drug markets exist in places that had drug use in them they are OK? How does B follow from A? The point is that open air drug markets full of human misery, and usually unsanitary and violent conditions, are bad, and we should not tolerate them as part of our society. It’s a sort of obvious mainstream view that everyone most likely shares outside of this sort of bizzare too-online culture that has developed. My comment is just pointing out that having them in places where people are trying to live normal lives and raise children is bad. The fact that this kind of thing will exist anyways isn’t a counter-argument any more than the argument that porn will always exist and is legal means it has to be allowed on billboards.
    - kerkeslager 3y ago
      > Is that an argument? Because the open air drug markets exist in places that had drug use in them they are OK? How does B follow from A? > The point is that open air drug markets full of human misery, and usually unsanitary and violent conditions, are bad, and we should not tolerate them as part of our society. Anywhere drug addiction is pervasive is full of human misery, unsanitary, and violent conditions. "Not tolerating" isn't a solution. The concrete solution you're actually proposing is prohibition, which not only doesn't solve the problem, but makes the problem worse. It makes it harder to provide sanitation solutions such as needle exchanges, and it makes it harder to provide solutions to violence such as security presence. > My comment is just pointing out that having them in places where people are trying to live normal lives and raise children is bad. And no one disagrees with that. The problem is, prohibition just means that people trying to live normal lives and raise children now live in a neighborhood with more violence and more unsanitary conditions that is less visible and harder to avoid. Your "solution" is not solving the sanitation or violence problems in any way, it's making both worse. If anything, concentrating drug sales into specific areas makes the problems more avoidable for parents, because they know exactly where the problems are and can avoid those areas. And, if you're concerned about children, surely you'd support programs to help families with children move away from violent and unsanitary areas. I'd certainly support that. That seems like it would actually solve the problem, unlike anything you've proposed. > The fact that this kind of thing will exist anyways isn’t a counter-argument any more than the argument that porn will always exist and is legal means it has to be allowed on billboards. It's tiring to continuously explain to you the differences between the analogies you keep proposing and the discussion at hand. Analogies still aren't a valid argument. Please make an effort to talk about the actual situation we're talking about, instead of bringing in various unrelated situations. The difference in this case is that removing porn from billboards doesn't make the problems of porn worse, while making drugs illegal does make the problems of drugs worse.

kerkeslager 3y ago

I've come to believe arguments from analogy are pretty much inherently fallacious. The pretty obvious difference is that routing shit into a bathroom makes a real, negative difference in the suffering caused by shit. Routing drug dealing into open air drug markets makes a real, positive difference, because you can police public markets to prevent violence in a way you can't police private areas, and you can provide services such as clean needles and rehab outreaches where they are most likely to reach people who need them. Such markets tend to arise in places where drug use was already rampant--i.e. they aren't creating new suffering. The only similarity your analogy is addressing is the visibility of the problems. In your analogy, you're making the problem more visible by removing the solution, which obviously has negative effects that don't apply to drug legalization, because drug legalization is removing a big part of the problem rather than removing the solution.

CPLX 3y ago
> I've come to believe arguments from analogy are pretty much inherently fallacious. Good luck with that. Pretty much all arguments are by analogy. That's how you determine if a generalized rule applies to a specific instance.
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  > Good luck with that. Pretty much all arguments are by analogy. I've made at least half a dozen arguments in this thread and not a single argument I've made in this argument is by analogy. In fact, the very argument you are making currently isn't by analogy. > That's how you determine if a generalized rule applies to a specific instance. That is an extraordinarily poor heuristic. If you have enough information to make a rule for a specific instance, why not just make a rule to apply to that specific situation? Why even bother trying to apply a generalized rule? I mean, you can say literally anything with analogies. Here, I'll offer my first argument by analogy: Drug prohibition is like letting churches handle child abuse: it allows harm to children to continue by hiding the harm. Why do you want to keep harming children? /s
  - 3y ago