3 ms·

This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling a

This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling anything by giving them money. > People who will take what they can't get by other means are not fit to live in society How revolutionary, did you come up with that all by yourself? We are looking for solutions. "They're bad people" isn't a solution. You CAN systemically discourage theft and other crimes. However, you don't do that by simply demonizing those people. If anything, that actually causes MORE crime because you put already impoverished people into even more dire circumstances. This is why "tough on crime" simply doesn't work.

fluoridation 2y ago
>This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling anything by giving them money. I don't think it's not fair, I think it's a non sequitur. If I give money to someone who I know will use the money to buy drugs, I'm enabling them, because I know that they will buy drugs. If I don't give them money I'm not indirectly responsible for crimes they commit to get money, because I don't know if they will commit crimes. It's not a given, it's a decision they make. If we go by your logic then crime is not punishable, because no one is responsible for their decisions; we're all just flesh automata animated by neurotransmitters. I am no more responsible for the decisions I make than a drug addict on withdrawal, a starving man, a horny rapist, or a bloodthirsty psychopath. All of us are equally enslaved to the physics of our brains. >"They're bad people" isn't a solution. Did I say they're bad people, or did I say they're not fit to live in society? Did I exclude the possibility of reformation? Hm...
- consteval 2y ago
  > because I don't know if they will commit crimes. It's not a given, it's a decision they make This ALSO applies to drugs. You don't know if they'll use drugs, you just assume. And it's a fair assumption. Symmetrically, you can't claim you don't know they'll turn to crime to fuel their addiction. It should be a fairly straight forward conclusion. It's a matter of cause and effect. Your own personal moral code is irrelevant. We know, whether we want it to be this way or not, that it's extremely difficult for drug addicts to stop using, particularly those with zero resources like the homeless. It's just the reality, and we have to live and operate within that framework. Because any other framework is make believe. > because no one is responsible for their decisions; we're all just flesh automata animated by neurotransmitters I'm not claiming this, you're doing the typical thing where you take my argument to the furthest extreme and then claim that is actually my argument, so it's easier to disprove. The truth is choice is tricky. It's not binary, it's continuous. There's infinite levels of influence we have in each and every aspect of our lives, even the smallest ones. I can choose to, for example, not brush my teeth this morning. Would it be easier, or harder, to choose to not do heroin, provided I'm an addict? You know the answer. My main argument is that you're not an enabler by giving them money because ultimately your influence is minimal. You're also not an enabler by NOT giving them money. Their "choice" (loose) to use drugs is due to societal, biological, and economic factors, which you cannot control. If you simply do not provide them money, even if everyone did this, you would not rid the world of drug addiction. In addition, you have to understand there's a reason these people do drugs. They live very hard lives. It's pretty easy for us in comparison. I can't blame them for craving an escape from the reality they live in. It's hard to look to the future you can build when you have no present.
  - fluoridation 2y ago
    >You don't know if they'll use drugs, you just assume. It was an assumption posed by then original commenter. "IF I know they'll use the money on drugs, THEN all the more reason to give it to them." That they'll commit crimes if they can't get the money is an additional assumption that needs to be justified. >you're doing the typical thing where you take my argument to the furthest extreme and then claim that is actually my argument No, what I'm doing is taking your argument and following it to its necessary implications. You say "X", I say "X implies Y, do you also hold Y?" Well, do you? If I'm causing a crime to happen by not giving money to a drug addict, because he is not in control of his actions, then it follows that no crime has a perpetrator, because no one is truly in control of their actions. Crime is merely a consequence of a complex system that has interactions beyond anyone's control. Therefore it's wrong to punish criminals beyond merely preventing them from doing crime, because ultimately they have no more control over it than a rock following its trajectory after it's been thrown. They've just been unlucky enough to be born into the life path of a criminal, instead of that of a law-abiding citizen. So, is that what you think? Maybe you do, I don't know. Most people seem to feel uncomfortable thinking about themselves and other people in these terms.

fluoridation 2y ago

>This is harsh, I'm merely using your own logic and definition of "enabling". If you don't think that's fair, then you must agree with me - you're not enabling anything by giving them money. I don't think it's not fair, I think it's a non sequitur. If I give money to someone who I know will use the money to buy drugs, I'm enabling them, because I know that they will buy drugs. If I don't give them money I'm not indirectly responsible for crimes they commit to get money, because I don't know if they will commit crimes. It's not a given, it's a decision they make. If we go by your logic then crime is not punishable, because no one is responsible for their decisions; we're all just flesh automata animated by neurotransmitters. I am no more responsible for the decisions I make than a drug addict on withdrawal, a starving man, a horny rapist, or a bloodthirsty psychopath. All of us are equally enslaved to the physics of our brains. >"They're bad people" isn't a solution. Did I say they're bad people, or did I say they're not fit to live in society? Did I exclude the possibility of reformation? Hm...

consteval 2y ago
> because I don't know if they will commit crimes. It's not a given, it's a decision they make This ALSO applies to drugs. You don't know if they'll use drugs, you just assume. And it's a fair assumption. Symmetrically, you can't claim you don't know they'll turn to crime to fuel their addiction. It should be a fairly straight forward conclusion. It's a matter of cause and effect. Your own personal moral code is irrelevant. We know, whether we want it to be this way or not, that it's extremely difficult for drug addicts to stop using, particularly those with zero resources like the homeless. It's just the reality, and we have to live and operate within that framework. Because any other framework is make believe. > because no one is responsible for their decisions; we're all just flesh automata animated by neurotransmitters I'm not claiming this, you're doing the typical thing where you take my argument to the furthest extreme and then claim that is actually my argument, so it's easier to disprove. The truth is choice is tricky. It's not binary, it's continuous. There's infinite levels of influence we have in each and every aspect of our lives, even the smallest ones. I can choose to, for example, not brush my teeth this morning. Would it be easier, or harder, to choose to not do heroin, provided I'm an addict? You know the answer. My main argument is that you're not an enabler by giving them money because ultimately your influence is minimal. You're also not an enabler by NOT giving them money. Their "choice" (loose) to use drugs is due to societal, biological, and economic factors, which you cannot control. If you simply do not provide them money, even if everyone did this, you would not rid the world of drug addiction. In addition, you have to understand there's a reason these people do drugs. They live very hard lives. It's pretty easy for us in comparison. I can't blame them for craving an escape from the reality they live in. It's hard to look to the future you can build when you have no present.
- fluoridation 2y ago
  >You don't know if they'll use drugs, you just assume. It was an assumption posed by then original commenter. "IF I know they'll use the money on drugs, THEN all the more reason to give it to them." That they'll commit crimes if they can't get the money is an additional assumption that needs to be justified. >you're doing the typical thing where you take my argument to the furthest extreme and then claim that is actually my argument No, what I'm doing is taking your argument and following it to its necessary implications. You say "X", I say "X implies Y, do you also hold Y?" Well, do you? If I'm causing a crime to happen by not giving money to a drug addict, because he is not in control of his actions, then it follows that no crime has a perpetrator, because no one is truly in control of their actions. Crime is merely a consequence of a complex system that has interactions beyond anyone's control. Therefore it's wrong to punish criminals beyond merely preventing them from doing crime, because ultimately they have no more control over it than a rock following its trajectory after it's been thrown. They've just been unlucky enough to be born into the life path of a criminal, instead of that of a law-abiding citizen. So, is that what you think? Maybe you do, I don't know. Most people seem to feel uncomfortable thinking about themselves and other people in these terms.