You could argue a similar thing about lawyers, that prosecutors and defense lawyers speak the same jargon and have more of a repeated game going than citizens they represent. And yet we have a system that mostly works.
Uh… what? If we stretch the definition of “lawyer” a bit to mean “anyone who carries out, enforces, or whose livelihood primarily depends on the law”—that is, we include government agents, cops, soldiers, and so on… yes they absolutely totally can? (In the same sense that anyone can drench their own house with gasoline and burn it down.) But maybe that’s only a weird tangent—although I’d argue that some of the power dynamics that fall out of that are likely disquietingly similar.
Why would we stretch the definition of lawyer in such a way? That’s not what the word “lawyer” means, either in the dictionary sense or in the sense of how people use the word. And even if you can come up with a reason to stretch it to include all those professions, what makes you think that’s what Eliezer was doing?
Uh… what? If we stretch the definition of “lawyer” a bit to mean “anyone who carries out, enforces, or whose livelihood primarily depends on the law”—that is, we include government agents, cops, soldiers, and so on… yes they absolutely totally can? (In the same sense that anyone can drench their own house with gasoline and burn it down.) But maybe that’s only a weird tangent—although I’d argue that some of the power dynamics that fall out of that are likely disquietingly similar.
Why would we stretch the definition of lawyer in such a way? That’s not what the word “lawyer” means, either in the dictionary sense or in the sense of how people use the word. And even if you can come up with a reason to stretch it to include all those professions, what makes you think that’s what Eliezer was doing?