= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Douglas_Knight comments on (Virtual) Employment Open Thread - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (276)
Care, yes, but I think most people here would make themselves worse off by "checking laws" than not. Phrases like "technically legal" suggest that you have wildly false beliefs about the men with guns.
ETA: this was not clear. I do not mean anything specific about police, nootropics, or lockpicks. I just think "technically legal" is an odd phrase, perhaps a category error, and suggests wrong beliefs about what law is. The emphasis should not be on the law, but on the people who enforce it (as in the good phrase "will arouse suspicion").
Hm? I'm thinking about selling things via an internet store, and the worst I can imagine happening is being asked to take down the site. Which is still pretty bad. What am I missing?
Sorry, I shouldn't have made that so personal.
I'm just saying that "technically legal" is not a useful category. You made it clear that you don't think it provides protection, which is the main point. It might provide indignation, which is a double-edged sword. What "will arouse suspicion" is a useful category. "Wrong intent" is not a good category because they can't see your intent.