4 ms·

If the hazard is just me skulking about and punching you in the back of your head every time you let your guard down, you could strengthen yourself and make you

If the hazard is just me skulking about and punching you in the back of your head every time you let your guard down, you could strengthen yourself and make yourself immune by never going outside and always keeping your door locked and barring up your windows. How is that inherently preferable to the addressing the harm itself? By what principle do you conclude that we should prefer one over the other whenever possible?

imgabe 3y ago
Or we could have the government require that everyone wear a loudspeaker that constantly announces their presence so that nobody can sneak up on anyone. Citizens are required to purchase their own loudspeaker and anyone caught not wearing one will be fined or jailed. Is that what you prefer? On the other hand, if everyone around you was a black belt in jiu jitsu and you knew that there was a good chance that they’d break your arm if you tried to sneak up and punch them, you probably wouldn’t want to do that, would you?
- boomlinde 3y ago
  > Or we could have the government require that everyone wear a loudspeaker that constantly announces their presence so that nobody can sneak up on anyone. Citizens are required to purchase their own loudspeaker and anyone caught not wearing one will be fined or jailed. A much worse solution than e.g. jailing me. It's not everyone who is the problem, neither in my scenario nor in the case of a handful of gigantic social networks exploiting insecurities and addictive tendencies in children. > On the other hand, if everyone around you was a black belt in jiu jitsu and you knew that there was a good chance that they’d break your arm if you tried to sneak up and punch them, you probably wouldn’t want to do that, would you? Is that a better solution than jailing me? Seems we've ended up with three different potential solutions and your principle already isn't holding any water IMO. To bring us back to the problem at hand I can think of an analogous set of three solutions: 1. Make everyone announce their age when they use a social media website so that they know not to exploit children, which is kind of like making everyone wear a loudspeaker. 2. "Harden" the children, which is like teaching everyone jiu jitsu 3. Remove the profit incentive to exploitation of children or otherwise by banning ad funded social networks. This is like jailing the culprit.

imgabe 3y ago

Or we could have the government require that everyone wear a loudspeaker that constantly announces their presence so that nobody can sneak up on anyone. Citizens are required to purchase their own loudspeaker and anyone caught not wearing one will be fined or jailed. Is that what you prefer? On the other hand, if everyone around you was a black belt in jiu jitsu and you knew that there was a good chance that they’d break your arm if you tried to sneak up and punch them, you probably wouldn’t want to do that, would you?

boomlinde 3y ago
> Or we could have the government require that everyone wear a loudspeaker that constantly announces their presence so that nobody can sneak up on anyone. Citizens are required to purchase their own loudspeaker and anyone caught not wearing one will be fined or jailed. A much worse solution than e.g. jailing me. It's not everyone who is the problem, neither in my scenario nor in the case of a handful of gigantic social networks exploiting insecurities and addictive tendencies in children. > On the other hand, if everyone around you was a black belt in jiu jitsu and you knew that there was a good chance that they’d break your arm if you tried to sneak up and punch them, you probably wouldn’t want to do that, would you? Is that a better solution than jailing me? Seems we've ended up with three different potential solutions and your principle already isn't holding any water IMO. To bring us back to the problem at hand I can think of an analogous set of three solutions: 1. Make everyone announce their age when they use a social media website so that they know not to exploit children, which is kind of like making everyone wear a loudspeaker. 2. "Harden" the children, which is like teaching everyone jiu jitsu 3. Remove the profit incentive to exploitation of children or otherwise by banning ad funded social networks. This is like jailing the culprit.