Comment on Soft politics by delusionalHamster
Harm can be quantified, surveyed, measured and arranged into neat little piecharts.
People don't agree about a lot of things. Some [who?] might argue that the world is flat, but that doesn't mean it's a reasonable position, when we have plenty of evidence of the world's ellipsoidness.
People don't agree about a lot of things. Some [who?] might argue that the world is flat, but that doesn't mean it's a reasonable position, when we have plenty of evidence of the world's ellipsoidness.
"Harm can be quantified, surveyed, measured and arranged into neat little piecharts. "
Please tell me precisely how much harm, as an integer, that eating a piece of cheese does. It isn't that simple.
"People don't agree about a lot of things. Some [who?] might argue that the world is flat, but that doesn't mean it's a reasonable position, when we have plenty of evidence of the world's ellipsoidness."
Ever studied solipism? Reasonable is a point of view, a perspective, an opinion. It's not as simple as 'it has evidence' or 'no it doesn't' in ethical theory. Philosophy doesn't have the black and white truth that science portrays.
Please tell me precisely how much harm, as an integer, that eating a piece of cheese does. It isn't that simple.
"People don't agree about a lot of things. Some [who?] might argue that the world is flat, but that doesn't mean it's a reasonable position, when we have plenty of evidence of the world's ellipsoidness."
Ever studied solipism? Reasonable is a point of view, a perspective, an opinion. It's not as simple as 'it has evidence' or 'no it doesn't' in ethical theory. Philosophy doesn't have the black and white truth that science portrays.
Well, that depends. What type of cheese? Casu marzu is pretty damn iffy if you ask me.
Anyway, cheese is actually a good example. It's addictive (contains high levels of casomorphins), has health concerns (contains fat, raises cholesterol) and is not a necessity for humans. So why is cheese still legal?
Because we can evaluate the harm that criminalization of cheese would cause, and compare it to the current harms of legal cheese, and we can make a decision that it would be more harmful for society as a whole to outlaw cheese. Cheese is so popular, that outlawing it would produce a huge outrage, it would drive cheese manufacture and sale to the black market, and this would eliminate all quality control and hurt the economy. These are quantifiable effects. They can be measured.
But cheese doesn't have the demonized stigma that prostitution or drugs have, so it's easier for people to think about cheese rationally.
Anyway, cheese is actually a good example. It's addictive (contains high levels of casomorphins), has health concerns (contains fat, raises cholesterol) and is not a necessity for humans. So why is cheese still legal?
Because we can evaluate the harm that criminalization of cheese would cause, and compare it to the current harms of legal cheese, and we can make a decision that it would be more harmful for society as a whole to outlaw cheese. Cheese is so popular, that outlawing it would produce a huge outrage, it would drive cheese manufacture and sale to the black market, and this would eliminate all quality control and hurt the economy. These are quantifiable effects. They can be measured.
But cheese doesn't have the demonized stigma that prostitution or drugs have, so it's easier for people to think about cheese rationally.
"Anyway, cheese is actually a good example. It's addictive (contains high levels of casomorphins), has health concerns (contains fat, raises cholesterol) and is not a necessity for humans. So why is cheese still legal?"
And yet, addictiveness is not always a bad thing. Consider sugar, very addictive, and yet necessary to life. So where is the fine grey line between two addictive and not addictive enough? And where is it prosecutable in law? What is the center, and what is the range?
"Cheese is so popular, that outlawing it would produce a huge outrage, it would drive cheese manufacture and sale to the black market, and this would eliminate all quality control and hurt the economy."
And yet, with enough enforcement, you could stop the black market. And thus, the hurt on the economy would be minimal.
"But cheese doesn't have the demonized stigma that prostitution or drugs have, so it's easier for people to think about cheese rationally."
I'd agree it doesn't have the demonized stigma, but that doesn't relate at all to rational thought.
And yet, addictiveness is not always a bad thing. Consider sugar, very addictive, and yet necessary to life. So where is the fine grey line between two addictive and not addictive enough? And where is it prosecutable in law? What is the center, and what is the range?
"Cheese is so popular, that outlawing it would produce a huge outrage, it would drive cheese manufacture and sale to the black market, and this would eliminate all quality control and hurt the economy."
And yet, with enough enforcement, you could stop the black market. And thus, the hurt on the economy would be minimal.
"But cheese doesn't have the demonized stigma that prostitution or drugs have, so it's easier for people to think about cheese rationally."
I'd agree it doesn't have the demonized stigma, but that doesn't relate at all to rational thought.
I know addictiveness is not always a bad thing, that's sort of the point. Opioids are addictive as fuck but without them a lot of people suffering from pain would be suffering a hell of a lot worse.
Stopping the black market - no you couldn't. That's just baloney. I mean theoretically I guess if you started a totalitarian regime where every aspect of people's life were controlled 100% of the time it might, theoretically, be possible... but even then it's doubtful, just look at soviet union. In fact, that's exactly the kind of fallacious thinking that fuels the war on drugs, the idea that if we just pour enough money to enforcement, if we just make punishments harsh enough, fight hard enough, then somehow we can make people not want to use drugs anymore. Thing is, it just doesn't work that way. It's just human nature.
And demonized stigma does relate to rational thought in an inverse way. Demonizing things solicits emotional knee-jerk responses which makes it harder to think about them rationally.
Stopping the black market - no you couldn't. That's just baloney. I mean theoretically I guess if you started a totalitarian regime where every aspect of people's life were controlled 100% of the time it might, theoretically, be possible... but even then it's doubtful, just look at soviet union. In fact, that's exactly the kind of fallacious thinking that fuels the war on drugs, the idea that if we just pour enough money to enforcement, if we just make punishments harsh enough, fight hard enough, then somehow we can make people not want to use drugs anymore. Thing is, it just doesn't work that way. It's just human nature.
And demonized stigma does relate to rational thought in an inverse way. Demonizing things solicits emotional knee-jerk responses which makes it harder to think about them rationally.
"I know addictiveness is not always a bad thing, that's sort of the point. Opioids are addictive as fuck but without them a lot of people suffering from pain would be suffering a hell of a lot worse."
Ah, but they can be bad. And they can not be bad. And most important of all, you can't measure how bad they are because it largely depends on the circumstance. Opioids save some people from suffering, but would cause large problems for other people.
"Stopping the black market - no you couldn't. That's just baloney. I mean theoretically I guess if you started a totalitarian regime where every aspect of people's life were controlled 100% of the time it might, theoretically, be possible..."
Precisely. A totalitarian regime could stop it.
"but even then it's doubtful, just look at soviet union."
Not a good analogy. A better one would be North Korea.
"In fact, that's exactly the kind of fallacious thinking that fuels the war on drugs, the idea that if we just pour enough money to enforcement, if we just make punishments harsh enough, fight hard enough, then somehow we can make people not want to use drugs anymore."
Ah, but are you sure it isn't effective? Tell, me, why has using drugs become less popular since the 1970s? I don't support a totalitarian regime, but I am sure punishment has been somewhat effective indeed.
"Thing is, it just doesn't work that way. It's just human nature."
There are a lot of things which are human nature which we don't allow.
"And demonized stigma does relate to rational thought in an inverse way. Demonizing things solicits emotional knee-jerk responses which makes it harder to think about them rationally."
What makes a knee-jerk irrational? If you are about to be bitten by a snake, I'm sure hope you have that knee-jerk reaction.
Ah, but they can be bad. And they can not be bad. And most important of all, you can't measure how bad they are because it largely depends on the circumstance. Opioids save some people from suffering, but would cause large problems for other people.
"Stopping the black market - no you couldn't. That's just baloney. I mean theoretically I guess if you started a totalitarian regime where every aspect of people's life were controlled 100% of the time it might, theoretically, be possible..."
Precisely. A totalitarian regime could stop it.
"but even then it's doubtful, just look at soviet union."
Not a good analogy. A better one would be North Korea.
"In fact, that's exactly the kind of fallacious thinking that fuels the war on drugs, the idea that if we just pour enough money to enforcement, if we just make punishments harsh enough, fight hard enough, then somehow we can make people not want to use drugs anymore."
Ah, but are you sure it isn't effective? Tell, me, why has using drugs become less popular since the 1970s? I don't support a totalitarian regime, but I am sure punishment has been somewhat effective indeed.
"Thing is, it just doesn't work that way. It's just human nature."
There are a lot of things which are human nature which we don't allow.
"And demonized stigma does relate to rational thought in an inverse way. Demonizing things solicits emotional knee-jerk responses which makes it harder to think about them rationally."
What makes a knee-jerk irrational? If you are about to be bitten by a snake, I'm sure hope you have that knee-jerk reaction.
Ah, but they can be bad. And they can not be bad. And most important of all, you can't measure how bad they are because it largely depends on the circumstance. Opioids save some people from suffering, but would cause large problems for other people.
Uh, yeah so? That was the point.
Precisely. A totalitarian regime could stop it.
No it couldn't.
Not a good analogy. A better one would be North Korea.
Firstly that's not an analogy, that's an example. Secondly, you're naïve if you think there's no black market in North Korea.
In fact, a 5 second google search is enough to prove you wrong: [link]
Ah, but are you sure it isn't effective? Tell, me, why has using drugs become less popular since the 1970s? I don't support a totalitarian regime, but I am sure punishment has been somewhat effective indeed.
And what statistic do you have to show for that? I don't think that is true at all. You are begging the question.
Punishment doesn't work because drug addiction is a disease. People won't stop getting cancer if you make getting cancer illegal. People don't stop getting depressed if you make being depressed illegal.
Addiction aside, it's in human nature to want to use intoxicating substances and that is never going to change. The whole idea that it's possible to somehow end all drug use is simply absurd.
There are a lot of things which are human nature which we don't allow.
That's a good point but totally irrelevant. Again it's a question of which approach is less harmful overall. We can see that most of the harmfull effects to society from drug use are direct consequences of the criminalization of those drugs, so ending the criminalization makes sense. It should be treated as a social/health issue rather than a criminal one. Punishing the users makes no sense at all. And mild drugs should be fully legal.
What makes a knee-jerk irrational? If you are about to be bitten by a snake, I'm sure hope you have that knee-jerk reaction.
Come on, now you're just reaching.
Uh, yeah so? That was the point.
Precisely. A totalitarian regime could stop it.
No it couldn't.
Not a good analogy. A better one would be North Korea.
Firstly that's not an analogy, that's an example. Secondly, you're naïve if you think there's no black market in North Korea.
In fact, a 5 second google search is enough to prove you wrong: [link]
Ah, but are you sure it isn't effective? Tell, me, why has using drugs become less popular since the 1970s? I don't support a totalitarian regime, but I am sure punishment has been somewhat effective indeed.
And what statistic do you have to show for that? I don't think that is true at all. You are begging the question.
Punishment doesn't work because drug addiction is a disease. People won't stop getting cancer if you make getting cancer illegal. People don't stop getting depressed if you make being depressed illegal.
Addiction aside, it's in human nature to want to use intoxicating substances and that is never going to change. The whole idea that it's possible to somehow end all drug use is simply absurd.
There are a lot of things which are human nature which we don't allow.
That's a good point but totally irrelevant. Again it's a question of which approach is less harmful overall. We can see that most of the harmfull effects to society from drug use are direct consequences of the criminalization of those drugs, so ending the criminalization makes sense. It should be treated as a social/health issue rather than a criminal one. Punishing the users makes no sense at all. And mild drugs should be fully legal.
What makes a knee-jerk irrational? If you are about to be bitten by a snake, I'm sure hope you have that knee-jerk reaction.
Come on, now you're just reaching.