Is this some new definition of unequivocal I was previously unaware of?
“Federal Drug Possession Penalties (21 USC §844) www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/844.htm
Persons convicted of illegally possessing any controlled substance face penalties of up to 1 year in prison
and a minimum fine of $1,000, or both.”
“It shall be unlawful for any person to be found loitering, concealed or sleeping at night, or other inappropriate time, in, or about any public building or private premises not such person’s own, under suspicious circumstances, and not being able to give a satisfactory account thereof.” = an example of texas law
Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?
The OP mentioned being homeless, being a drug addict, and being poor. It’s not illegal to be a drug addict, either. Oddly enough you’ll find a lot of people put in prison for it, if they buy drugs illegally and if they’re caught and if it’s worth enough to the prosecutor and if they’re convicted or if they accept a plea bargain. You’re okay with those ‘ifs’ in your definition, but not the chain below…why?
You’re right that if I was an absolute stickler I could even challenge this part of the post. Technically a drug addict could exit the country, do drugs, and reenter the country and because they neither bought nor possessed drugs in the USA, they could indeed be a drug addict, and it wouldn’t be illegal. The reason I’m not taking that stance is because I do allow for some logical leaps that realistically a drug addict isn’t going to do that. There are limits to that allowance of thought. Your view seems to all many many more logical leaps yet still feel its not too far a departure. We clearly differ in this.
Thats A LOT of “if” to make your statement true, but you’re passing it off as it’s always the case.
I mean, yeah, that’s kinda how it works. Not all bank robbers go to prison either, you know?
All bank robbers are breaking the law. Thats the difference. Being poor isn’t breaking a law.
The point is that this only happens to poor people and it only happens because they’re poor and it’s wrong that it happens. The point is not every poor person goes to prison.
Using your logic from above, all poor people would be breaking some law by being poor, yet just lucky enough to escape capture or detection. Thats why that line of thinking falls apart.
I mean, no; you’re arguing against something no one said (again), but I guess I can address that now, too.
I raised the question of why the OP (and by proxy you) were voicing the message. It was my assumption that you wanted to change minds from one point to another.
I don’t care about changing the minds of someone neutral on the subject, either. If someone manages to read something like this, find out what’s happening, and somehow not think that’s wrong, I don’t think any words are going to change their mind.
Let me clarify. I used the word “neutral” before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to “no opinion”. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?
Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?
I suppose in the way that neither of the things you listed are the definition of being a drug addict or homeless. I’m glad you made this point though, because it furthers mine…being poor isn’t specifically in the law, just like being a drug addict and being homeless aren’t.
It’s circumstances that result from being a drug addict, being homeless, and being poor that they criminalize, because for some reason that seems to fool some people into thinking it’s okay to do it.
Maybe I haven’t articulated this well enough for you to see it yet. Maybe someone else can do it better:
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
Sure, he was French, but he was right.
You’re right that if I was an absolute stickler I could even challenge this part of the post. Technically a drug addict could exit the country, do drugs, and reenter the country and because they neither bought nor possessed drugs in the USA, they could indeed be a drug addict, and it wouldn’t be illegal. The reason I’m not taking that stance is because I do allow for some logical leaps that realistically a drug addict isn’t going to do that. There are limits to that allowance of thought. Your view seems to all many many more logical leaps yet still feel its not too far a departure. We clearly differ in this.
We definitely differ; I don’t see why it’s hard for you to see that the circumstances that arise from being a drug addict or homeless or poor shouldn’t be a reason for imprisoning someone. It’s really hard for me to understand why you can’t see the obvious similarity just because there’s a few more steps.
All bank robbers are breaking the law. Thats the difference. Being poor isn’t breaking a law.
Ah that’s fair, I’m overstepping into hyperbole.
Using your logic from above, all poor people would be breaking some law by being poor, yet just lucky enough to escape capture or detection. Thats why that line of thinking falls apart.
Yeah this is on me for the hyperbole with bank robbers, but I’m definitely not trying to say that all poor people have this happen to. Again, the point is that it only happens to poor people and it shouldn’t.
I raised the question of why the OP (and by proxy you) were voicing the message. It was my assumption that you wanted to change minds from one point to another.
No worries, we all make mistakes (see me above with the hyperbole).
Let me clarify. I used the word “neutral” before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to “no opinion”. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?
Here I think the OP and I differ, actually. The OP probably does want that. I’m more of the mind that if you haven’t figured this out and aren’t on board yet, I’m not the right person to help you get there. The OP might be, though.
Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?
I suppose in the way that neither of the things you listed are the definition of being a drug addict or homeless. I’m glad you made this point though, because it furthers mine…being poor isn’t specifically in the law, just like being a drug addict and being homeless aren’t.
It’s circumstances that result from being a drug addict, being homeless, and being poor that they criminalize, because for some reason that seems to fool some people into thinking it’s okay to do it.
I addressed that in my post immediately prior to this one. One or maybe two logical leaps I find mostly acceptable (as each leap lowers likelihood or confidence). Blindly accepting infinite logical leaps drives us right into “slippery slope fallacy” territory. As I said on this before, I’m not accusing you of “slippery slope” here yet, but you’re well on your way and not too far off.
Maybe I haven’t articulated this well enough for you to see it yet. Maybe someone else can do it better:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
Sure, he was French, but he was right.
We’re in agreement on homelessness, but again, you’re making logical leaps to try and tie, in this case theft, to simply the state of being poor illegal. Are you moving your claim that we have an epidemic of people in jail for stealing basic foodstuffs?
We definitely differ; I don’t see why it’s hard for you to see that the circumstances that arise from being a drug addict or homeless or poor shouldn’t be a reason for imprisoning someone. It’s really hard for me to understand why you can’t see the obvious similarity just because there’s a few more steps.
You’re moving the goalposts here. This has always been a discussion of “illegal vs legal”. You’re now moving the argument to “the circumstances that arise” from these conditions. You’re welcome to take that stance, but thats a different discussion. However, the OP post didn’t say that. I understand why it didn’t. It doesn’t hit as hard rhetorically, and the poster was trying for eloquence. They were largely successful if partially inaccurate.
Let me clarify. I used the word “neutral” before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to “no opinion”. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?
Here I think the OP and I differ, actually. The OP probably does want that. I’m more of the mind that if you haven’t figured this out and aren’t on board yet, I’m not the right person to help you get there. The OP might be, though.
I appreciate your candor and respect your position. Its also helpful to understand you and the OP post are going in different directions with your goals. With this understanding I don’t think I have any more argument with you in defense of the OP Post. You are taking a decidedly different position from the OP post. You’re perfectly free to do so, and do so with whatever language and goal you have in mind.
I appreciate you taking the time to share you position. I think your goal is a good one even if I disagree with the slight nuance of the message or the means.
“Federal Drug Possession Penalties (21 USC §844) www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/844.htm Persons convicted of illegally possessing any controlled substance face penalties of up to 1 year in prison and a minimum fine of $1,000, or both.”
“It shall be unlawful for any person to be found loitering, concealed or sleeping at night, or other inappropriate time, in, or about any public building or private premises not such person’s own, under suspicious circumstances, and not being able to give a satisfactory account thereof.” = an example of texas law
Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?
You’re right that if I was an absolute stickler I could even challenge this part of the post. Technically a drug addict could exit the country, do drugs, and reenter the country and because they neither bought nor possessed drugs in the USA, they could indeed be a drug addict, and it wouldn’t be illegal. The reason I’m not taking that stance is because I do allow for some logical leaps that realistically a drug addict isn’t going to do that. There are limits to that allowance of thought. Your view seems to all many many more logical leaps yet still feel its not too far a departure. We clearly differ in this.
All bank robbers are breaking the law. Thats the difference. Being poor isn’t breaking a law.
Using your logic from above, all poor people would be breaking some law by being poor, yet just lucky enough to escape capture or detection. Thats why that line of thinking falls apart.
I raised the question of why the OP (and by proxy you) were voicing the message. It was my assumption that you wanted to change minds from one point to another.
Let me clarify. I used the word “neutral” before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to “no opinion”. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?
I suppose in the way that neither of the things you listed are the definition of being a drug addict or homeless. I’m glad you made this point though, because it furthers mine…being poor isn’t specifically in the law, just like being a drug addict and being homeless aren’t.
It’s circumstances that result from being a drug addict, being homeless, and being poor that they criminalize, because for some reason that seems to fool some people into thinking it’s okay to do it.
Maybe I haven’t articulated this well enough for you to see it yet. Maybe someone else can do it better:
Sure, he was French, but he was right.
We definitely differ; I don’t see why it’s hard for you to see that the circumstances that arise from being a drug addict or homeless or poor shouldn’t be a reason for imprisoning someone. It’s really hard for me to understand why you can’t see the obvious similarity just because there’s a few more steps.
Ah that’s fair, I’m overstepping into hyperbole.
Yeah this is on me for the hyperbole with bank robbers, but I’m definitely not trying to say that all poor people have this happen to. Again, the point is that it only happens to poor people and it shouldn’t.
No worries, we all make mistakes (see me above with the hyperbole).
Here I think the OP and I differ, actually. The OP probably does want that. I’m more of the mind that if you haven’t figured this out and aren’t on board yet, I’m not the right person to help you get there. The OP might be, though.
I addressed that in my post immediately prior to this one. One or maybe two logical leaps I find mostly acceptable (as each leap lowers likelihood or confidence). Blindly accepting infinite logical leaps drives us right into “slippery slope fallacy” territory. As I said on this before, I’m not accusing you of “slippery slope” here yet, but you’re well on your way and not too far off.
We’re in agreement on homelessness, but again, you’re making logical leaps to try and tie, in this case theft, to simply the state of being poor illegal. Are you moving your claim that we have an epidemic of people in jail for stealing basic foodstuffs?
You’re moving the goalposts here. This has always been a discussion of “illegal vs legal”. You’re now moving the argument to “the circumstances that arise” from these conditions. You’re welcome to take that stance, but thats a different discussion. However, the OP post didn’t say that. I understand why it didn’t. It doesn’t hit as hard rhetorically, and the poster was trying for eloquence. They were largely successful if partially inaccurate.
I appreciate your candor and respect your position. Its also helpful to understand you and the OP post are going in different directions with your goals. With this understanding I don’t think I have any more argument with you in defense of the OP Post. You are taking a decidedly different position from the OP post. You’re perfectly free to do so, and do so with whatever language and goal you have in mind.
I appreciate you taking the time to share you position. I think your goal is a good one even if I disagree with the slight nuance of the message or the means.