3 ms·
Serious question: how can you possibly fairly characterize any action to restrict a phenomenon as being anything by 'anti' that phenomenon?
by zethraeus 13y ago
Serious question: how can you possibly fairly characterize any action to restrict a phenomenon as being anything by 'anti' that phenomenon?
- sirkneeland 13y agoTypo detected: did you mean "as being anything but 'anti' that phenomenon"?
- sirkneeland 13y agoAssuming that typo, I will suggest some possible ways in which restricting a phenomenon (let's say in this case "restricting" is taken to mean "advocating legislative means to restrict something)... A) Alcohol. Let's suppose I say that "people under 18|21 should not be allowed to purchase alcohol." This technically counts as restricting alcohol but it doesn't mean I am anti-alcohol. It just means I think that below a certain age threshold, the balance of costs/benefits for alcohol availability land in the negative. B) Patent laws. If I support laws restricting the ability of patent trolls to be their trolly selves, it doesn't mean I am opposed to patents as a whole. If anything I could value patents so much that I don't want this edge case of software patent trolling to fester and undermine the public's confidence in the patent system as a whole. Of course you are right that in many (if not most) cases, an attempt to restrict a phenomenon is just a more politically feasible step towards a total ban by someone who is 'anti'-that phenomenon. But it is at least logically possible for one to restrict [X] while not being wholly anti-[X] For the record I am 100% in favor of marriage equality and have been that way since I was old enough to hold my own opinions.