In other words, (a) false promise to people by the sophism that harms are declining (they aren’t),(b) false promise of disambiguation of physical from net harms? So what if physical harm declines while net harm increases, for no other reason than physical harm is less profitable?
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-21 15:37:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197539469001461760
Reply addressees: @Steve_Adema @sapinker
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1197538985259806720
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Steve_Adema @sapinker I know law and philosophy are my specialization but I would think that was pretty hard for you to say with an outside voice. Ergo: why is violence a ‘bad’? And why make the claim in the first place if not to claim harms are declining (they aren’t).
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1197538985259806720
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@Steve_Adema @sapinker I know law and philosophy are my specialization but I would think that was pretty hard for you to say with an outside voice. Ergo: why is violence a ‘bad’? And why make the claim in the first place if not to claim harms are declining (they aren’t).
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1197538985259806720
Leave a Reply