It’s still outlawing in the sense of outlawing certain chess moves, and in the sense of law thinking.
Where in the post did you explain or give contextual clues for someone to infer that you meant “outlaw” in this sense? You used “outlaw” three times in that post, and it seems like every usage is consistent with the “outlaw = ban” interpretation. Don’t you think that absent some kind of explanation or clue, “outlaw = ban” is a relatively natural interpretation compared to the more esoteric “in the sense of outlawing certain chess moves, and in the sense of law thinking”?
Aside from that, I’m afraid maybe I haven’t bought into some of the background philosophical assumptions you’re using, and “what kind of move in the game it is to say that X is bad” does not seem highly relevant/salient to me. I (re)read the “law thinking” post you linked but it doesn’t seem to help much to bridge the inferential gap.
The way I’m thinking about it is that if someone says “saying X is bad for reasons Y”, then I (as either the person saying X or as an onlooker) should try to figure out whether Y changes my estimate of whether cost-benefit favors continuing to say X, and the VOI of debating that, and proceed accordingly. (Probably not by doing an explicit calculation but rather just checking what my intuition says after considering Y.)
Why does it matter “what kind of move in the game” it is? (Obviously “it’s bad to say X” isn’t a logical argument against X being true. So what? If people are making the error of thinking that it is a logical argument against X being true, that seems really easy to fix. Yes it’s an attempt to change the topic, but again so what? It seems that I should still try to figure out whether/how Y changes my cost-benefit estimates.)
Where in the post did you explain or give contextual clues for someone to infer that you meant “outlaw” in this sense? You used “outlaw” three times in that post, and it seems like every usage is consistent with the “outlaw = ban” interpretation. Don’t you think that absent some kind of explanation or clue, “outlaw = ban” is a relatively natural interpretation compared to the more esoteric “in the sense of outlawing certain chess moves, and in the sense of law thinking”?
Aside from that, I’m afraid maybe I haven’t bought into some of the background philosophical assumptions you’re using, and “what kind of move in the game it is to say that X is bad” does not seem highly relevant/salient to me. I (re)read the “law thinking” post you linked but it doesn’t seem to help much to bridge the inferential gap.
The way I’m thinking about it is that if someone says “saying X is bad for reasons Y”, then I (as either the person saying X or as an onlooker) should try to figure out whether Y changes my estimate of whether cost-benefit favors continuing to say X, and the VOI of debating that, and proceed accordingly. (Probably not by doing an explicit calculation but rather just checking what my intuition says after considering Y.)
Why does it matter “what kind of move in the game” it is? (Obviously “it’s bad to say X” isn’t a logical argument against X being true. So what? If people are making the error of thinking that it is a logical argument against X being true, that seems really easy to fix. Yes it’s an attempt to change the topic, but again so what? It seems that I should still try to figure out whether/how Y changes my cost-benefit estimates.)