It's like when vegans try to stop you in the grocery store for eating meat, which they say is murder.
It's actually not murder. That's just an emotional value they choose to assign, and I'm not going to jail for my hamburger.
They might tell me that "it's legal isn't a counterargument," but actually, it is.
The comment made claims that something that's illegal should be legal because some people using it understand things through it.
That doesn't really make sense to me. Pick any gross crime, then claim the criminal is using that crime to understand things. It's pretty easy to do this through burglary stories about assembling evidence, or vigilantism stories.
Should that suddenly be legal, due to their motivation? I don't think so, personally.
The law also doesn't.
Nobody looking at this situation has even started from first principles and said "why is unregulated gambling illegal?"
It's actually not very hard to answer that, and the rest falls neatly into place from there.
The difference here is that this is a category argument, that is to say it's an argument about what is, whereas the argument about legality is about what should be. Arguments about what is vs arguments about what ought to be are very different things.
Additionally, murder generally has a component of crime associated with it, this is why other forms of killing that are government sanctioned also generally don't fall into this category (e.g. killing during war and government sanctioned executions are generally not murder). The legal status is a fairly decent argument that it belongs in a different category, unless you want to invoke natural law.
But, we should note, that the harvesting of meat is currently legal is a terrible counter argument to an argument that it should be illegal. The current legal status of something is immaterial to an argument about what it should be. If it were a good counter argument, we'd never be able to criminalize anything and we'd never be able to legalize anything that was currently illegal. This is, I suppose, fine if you consider every law to be timelessly perfect, and the system of laws to be complete and never need changing. However, I've never met anyone who believes such a thing.
> Should that suddenly be legal, due to their motivation? I don't think so, personally.
You find the argument, personally, unconvincing. That's fine, and a perfectly legitimate position to take. I also assume it's the majority position within society. But, it doesn't make current conditions relevant to a conversations about how they ought to be.
Yes, that is the nature of legality, and not actually a problem in any way.
Let's try to simplify this without hiding behind any half-correctly used thesaurus words, shall we?
1) It's illegal for a reason
2) Things don't stop being illegal just because someone wants them
.
> the harvesting of meat is currently legal is a terrible counter argument to an argument that it should be illegal
You seem to spend a lot of time presuming that someone needs a counterargument.
You haven't made a successful argument yet, and even if you did, it doesn't hold any kind of weight.
When someone explains to you why they aren't very interested in what you said, and your response is "that isn't a valid counter-argument," the net result is that they still won't be very interested in what you said, and the illegal thing remains illegal.
If you want to talk about category arguments, start here: why do you feel that commentary on social media is inherently deserving of weight, and at what point does your failure to garner interest take precedence over whatever your position may be?
.
> You find the argument, personally, unconvincing.
Literally all of society does. This gets discovered every day by someone who really, really wants to explain why the law shouldn't apply to them.
Tassles on the admiralty flag, and all of that.
.
> But, it doesn't make current conditions relevant to a conversations about how they ought to be.
I'm not sure why you believe your statements on your opinions of what "ought" to be should bear weight on what is nationally legal.
Nope. I even said explicitly that just finding an argument unconvincing was enough.
> When someone explains to you why they aren't very interested in what you said, and your response is "that isn't a valid counter-argument," the net result is that they still won't be very interested in what you said, and the illegal thing remains illegal.
Ahh, I see the misunderstanding here. You think I want betting on political events to be legal. I don't particularly care that much about that issue. Though I do tend to lean towards legal by default (pretty sure this is standard liberal policy), you can have this one if you feel particularly strong about it. I want weird internet nerds (decent percentage on this site) to have higher quality arguments.
> why do you feel that commentary on social media is inherently deserving of weight
I don't. Arguing with people on the internet is an entertaining pass-time.
> I'm not sure why you believe your statements on your opinions of what "ought" to be should bear weight on what is nationally legal.
I haven't made any arguments about what should or should not be legal yet. Also the is/ought divide isn't a thing I'm inventing here, it's an old problem defined by Hume (convenience link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem )
No.
.
> Arguing with people on the internet is an entertaining pass-time.
Not for me.
Do you not live in the US? I'm not sure why you would be confused about this. It seems like a silly thing to be confused by.
> Literally all of society does.
This is false.
> why do you feel that commentary on social media is inherently deserving of weight, and at what point does your failure to garner interest take precedence over whatever your position may be?
It was made by humans who have inherent worth which I take to be self-evident? And it did garner the interest I was hoping for - I got answers from kinder people than you who explained things to me in easily understood sentences that I found no flaw with. Ctrl+F "thank". Actually even the idea of garnering interest as the important thing seems kind of suspect to me. That small interaction got the least interest out of all that I've said - yet is the one I'm most glad to have made. I would not be greatly saddened if the only interaction I had was with that single post.
I would like to stop interacting with you, because you announced to a third party that I thought they were subhuman over a lower case letter, and won't stop telling me about your religion
Please stop canvassing me now
For more on why this I find this to be bad reasoning by analogy see things of this nature:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/#ForCri...
When the argument moves to the appeal to the law it is also fallacious, for there is not one law, but many. That law is different in different places: in this case in particular it is not the case that the law is universally against betting markets. There are places where it is legal. Moreover the law changes over time. Even in our locational context when you vary time you will find that there were periods in which betting markets were not illegal.
Even beyond that the law regularly allows nuance when it encounters interaction with political concerns: to kill for your country in war is legal, but to do the same outside that political contest is not. To enforce justice in the context of law enforcement is not legal except by those who are appointed. Yet to do so unappointed is not. In democracies since every person is appointed to be a part of the political body such that they vote to influence policies they all have a mandate that allows them to engage in politics - this supersedes the usual laws for much the same reason that a policeman because he has a mandate as a policeman has the right to do things that would be illegal for non-policeman to do.
I want to point out something that seems worthy of attention to me to hopefully reduce your confidence in the strength of the argument. When the argument you advanced says things like this:
> Nobody looking at this situation has even started from first principles and said "why is unregulated gambling illegal?"
The argument did not build up to them. It is not justifying them. They are non-sequiturs. It reads as if it thinks the reasoning is very strong and obviously correct such that it comes across as quite dismissive, but just because an argument contains a word like convincing doesn't mean the structure has the property of being convincing.
To stress how tortured the arguments analogy is - there are gross crimes for which it is legal on the basis that they are used to understand things. What is called homocide when it kills someone outside medical research and what is called the crime of animal cruelty when it is done outside medical research is not equivalent when it is done in the context of medical research.
Admittedly this is not an argument against regulation, but then - I never said it should be unregulated - I asked why we allow the oppression of political discussion in this circumstance.
That the argument includes things like "nobody looking at this situation has even started from first principles" and asked obvious questions does not convince me of the position that the argument asks me to take on. It convinces me that people ought to ask those questions instead of assuming the answers. Except - it doesn't truly do even that, because I consider the claim that no one has ever asked the obvious questions to be a false premise.
I've already said this once in this thread. Stephen Bond says it better than I can: https://laurencetennant.com/bonds/bdksucks.html
When you quoted someone else you replaced their words with words they did not say, but intentionally lower-cased an "I" as if to imply they were both stupid and also subhuman. I found this really disgusting. Why did you do that? And why did you laugh at them for words they didn't speak? I call this to your attention, because you in other places comment about how polite you are being. The level of politeness you have shown is not very high. I generally expect young children to exceed it and would be disappointed with them if they failed to do so.
I would like to stop interacting with you, because you announced to a third party that I thought they were subhuman over a lower case letter, and won't stop telling me about your religion
Please stop canvassing me now
