I spoke imprecisely, if one wishes to point out that actual bad effects of planning law are more important for assessing its removal than good intent, that is not technically disagreeing with the premise, merely its relevance to the conclusion.
More precisely, you have significantly restricted dissenters’ ability to discuss relevant cruxes. If you feel that political discussion on that level is or should be taboo on LW then it is poor form to raise political arguments while forbidding political replies.
Based on what you’re saying, I think you’d like to argue “Planning law leads to bad outcomes on average, therefore arcologies avoiding planning law is good”. I think this is a good argument.
I spoke imprecisely, if one wishes to point out that actual bad effects of planning law are more important for assessing its removal than good intent, that is not technically disagreeing with the premise, merely its relevance to the conclusion.
More precisely, you have significantly restricted dissenters’ ability to discuss relevant cruxes. If you feel that political discussion on that level is or should be taboo on LW then it is poor form to raise political arguments while forbidding political replies.
Based on what you’re saying, I think you’d like to argue “Planning law leads to bad outcomes on average, therefore arcologies avoiding planning law is good”. I think this is a good argument.