I'm generally sympathetic to that line when applied to eg hate crime laws: "beating/killing people is already illegal, why this extra law?"
-
-
Show this thread
-
I haven't seen a serious defense from that direction, but I haven't looked real hard either. So I dunno what to think now.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I read the article when you linked it. My take was that it highlights a difference in philosophy of government more than anything else.
-
Position A (yours): laws reflect ideals and reasonable discretion of LEO/DA is needed to account for real situations
-
Position B (theirs): laws are tools and ought to be drafted to reflect pragmatic concerns of enforcement and administration
-
the stated objective of this law was specifically to prevent people lying/concealing their status for fear of prosecution
-
I'm not necessarily defending the law/policy, just hope that my take on it adds some coherence for you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
lol ur trying 2 express nuance on twitter lmao
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.