That’s as dumbs as the saying “there can’t be a 100$ bill on the ground because if there was it’d have been picked up.”

It's not at all like that?

Claiming that a system's purpose is something it consistently fails to do is absurd. Intentions don't matter, outcomes matter.

This is a pretty basic systems theorist argument, to be honest...

▲

therealdrag0 4 hours ago | parent [-]

A systems purpose depends on its creator. Creators regularly fail to produce intended results. It’s absurd to say an unintended result is the intended result

	▲	ahhhhnoooo 5 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> It’s absurd to say an unintended result is the intended result I didn't say that. I said the unintended results are the purpose of a system, not the intent.
	▲	kennywinker 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		How long is it ok to produce “unintended” results without changing anything, before you can say that’s now an expected part of the system? Because i think that’s the issue. It’s not that the US has a goal to criminalize poverty - the constitution doesn’t say anything about that - but since it’s been that way for so long it seems the system is unwilling to do what needs to be done to prevent that. It’s part of the expected behavior of the system.