4 ms·

There might be many who can, but those who can't and/or will fall for the even most stupids scam will be multiple more.

omginternets 10y ago
Adding to your point, the thing that is often overlooked is that those people who are unable to exercise informed judgement are also a huge burden on society as a whole. The ailments resulting from their "stupidity" means: - they're not as economically active - they're dependent on healthcare, driving premiums upwards and placing undue burden on medicaid - many have minors and other people who are unable to make informed decisions in their care, etc. I'm troubled by the "us vs them" mentality that seems to pervade the superficially-reasonable position of "let the consumer decide". Nobody wants a nanny-state, but a free-for-all isn't good for anyone, either.
- finid 10y ago
  Adding to your point, the thing that is often overlooked is that those people who are unable to exercise informed judgement are also a huge burden on society as a whole. Hmm, that, and the rest of your comment, seems to be suggesting that those people are expendable. That society is better of without them.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    How on earth did you get that impression? The point is that letting people make bad decisions is not "just" bad for them -- it's bad for society as a whole.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Nobody said they were expendable, just that their low intelligence* and the resulting poor choices cost the smarter people a fortune (because of our moral and legal obligation to take care of them despite the entirely predictable nature of their morbidity). If you're not willing to acknowledge that fact then you've abandoned reality for ideology and are engaged in politics instead of science. * which term I am using as a catch-all for everything from cognitive ability to critical thought skills to quality of information sources, rather than as a proxy for IQ.
gregmac 10y ago
Example: See "anti-vax" movement.

Adding to your point, the thing that is often overlooked is that those people who are unable to exercise informed judgement are also a huge burden on society as a whole. The ailments resulting from their "stupidity" means: - they're not as economically active - they're dependent on healthcare, driving premiums upwards and placing undue burden on medicaid - many have minors and other people who are unable to make informed decisions in their care, etc. I'm troubled by the "us vs them" mentality that seems to pervade the superficially-reasonable position of "let the consumer decide". Nobody wants a nanny-state, but a free-for-all isn't good for anyone, either.

finid 10y ago
Adding to your point, the thing that is often overlooked is that those people who are unable to exercise informed judgement are also a huge burden on society as a whole. Hmm, that, and the rest of your comment, seems to be suggesting that those people are expendable. That society is better of without them.
- omginternets 10y ago
  How on earth did you get that impression? The point is that letting people make bad decisions is not "just" bad for them -- it's bad for society as a whole.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Nobody said they were expendable, just that their low intelligence* and the resulting poor choices cost the smarter people a fortune (because of our moral and legal obligation to take care of them despite the entirely predictable nature of their morbidity). If you're not willing to acknowledge that fact then you've abandoned reality for ideology and are engaged in politics instead of science. * which term I am using as a catch-all for everything from cognitive ability to critical thought skills to quality of information sources, rather than as a proxy for IQ.

gregmac 10y ago

Example: See "anti-vax" movement.