> When one side of the argument is based in real-world impacts, and the other side has nothing but an appeal to existing rules, it's a pretty good indication that the rules need changing.
One side is based on a "claimed" real-world impact. Its somewhat plausible but ultimately isn't backed by real evidence.
Sure but if the argument is in the realm of real-world impact, at least then it can be debated and the evidence weighed.
Maybe this "harm reduction" argument here is full of it, I don't know. All I'm saying is: if one side uses as their only argument "because I said so," then there is no real debate.
One side is based on a "claimed" real-world impact. Its somewhat plausible but ultimately isn't backed by real evidence.