6 ms·

> we currently still trust people to do the right thing Except it's been shown time and time again that people can't be trusted to do the right thing.

by apta 7y ago

sneak 7y ago
I don’t think this is a universal truth. It can be trusted that a small percentage of people will be selfish or indifferent, even in the light of warnings; while that always means >0, I don’t think that such a thing can be said to apply to “people” in general.
- apta 7y ago
  I think it is. Look at alcohol for example. Governments that permit alcohol consumption "trust" that people will "drink responsibly". However, just look at the disasters that alcohol has brought about, from drunk driving, to being the cause of many rape and homicide crimes, to health issues for drinkers, to breaking apart families, etc.
  - sneak 7y ago
    Many, many more people drink alcohol responsibly than those who cause problems with it. I am not sure that "a minority of people, given freedom, do harmful things with it" is a good reason to broadly take away freedoms from people in general. There are many other good examples, like driving, over-the-counter medications, and firearms, for example. The fact that 56,000 people each year in the US end up in an ER because of acetaminophen overdose is not a good reason to ban Tylenol from being sold.
    - apta 7y ago
      > Many, many more people drink alcohol responsibly than those who cause problems with it. The argument is that those who do cause issues cause them in a disproportionate manner that it makes total sense to ban it outright. It is 100% the logical thing to do. The Tylenol argument doesn't make sense because it is a medicine that can have good come out of it. Alcohol is dangerous, and it mainly exists for companies to profit hugely from it (it's sufficient to watch the lewd ads around alcohol to know what's going on).
      - sneak 7y ago
        > Alcohol is dangerous, and it mainly exists for companies to profit hugely from it I think you will find that human manufacture and consumption of alcohol predates the idea of companies. You seem to be letting your personal biases about it affect your beliefs, for example: > It is 100% the logical thing to do. This is not some logical, objective fact, but is actually your opinion. It's fine to have the opinion that it should be banned; to present it as "the logical thing" is another.
        apta 7y ago
        > I think you will find that human manufacture and consumption of alcohol predates the idea of companies. I know it does. However, we know better now, and there is no logical reason to consume it. In fact, the risks to consumption are much higher now. People operate heavy machinery, drive cars, own guns, have "college parties", etc. And we routinely see the disasters that happen because of it. Large alcohol companies, however, are pushing for consumption purely for monetary aspects. Who cares about the negative effects on society as long as they're pocketing all the profit? It's logical to ban it precisely because of all the negative things that come out of it, and almost no positives. The negatives strictly outweigh the positives, and hence the logical thing to do is do ban it. Don't we make the same argument about vaccines? Their positives far outweigh their negatives, so we require them. It's just the other way around here.
        sneak 7y ago
        > The negatives strictly outweigh the positives, and hence the logical thing to do is do ban it. This is opinion, not fact, and to use terms like “strictly” and “logical” is to attempt to pass off your own subjective personal opinion as objective, impersonal mathematical fact. Don’t do that. It’s intellectually dishonest. For most people, alcohol’s benefits far outweighs its harms. I’m sorry that you have had such negative experiences with it to be biased in this way.

> we currently still trust people to do the right thing Except it's been shown time and time again that people can't be trusted to do the right thing.

by apta 7y ago

> we currently still trust people to do the right thing Except it's been shown time and time again that people can't be trusted to do the right thing.

sneak 7y ago

I don’t think this is a universal truth. It can be trusted that a small percentage of people will be selfish or indifferent, even in the light of warnings; while that always means >0, I don’t think that such a thing can be said to apply to “people” in general.

apta 7y ago
I think it is. Look at alcohol for example. Governments that permit alcohol consumption "trust" that people will "drink responsibly". However, just look at the disasters that alcohol has brought about, from drunk driving, to being the cause of many rape and homicide crimes, to health issues for drinkers, to breaking apart families, etc.
- sneak 7y ago
  Many, many more people drink alcohol responsibly than those who cause problems with it. I am not sure that "a minority of people, given freedom, do harmful things with it" is a good reason to broadly take away freedoms from people in general. There are many other good examples, like driving, over-the-counter medications, and firearms, for example. The fact that 56,000 people each year in the US end up in an ER because of acetaminophen overdose is not a good reason to ban Tylenol from being sold.
  - apta 7y ago
    > Many, many more people drink alcohol responsibly than those who cause problems with it. The argument is that those who do cause issues cause them in a disproportionate manner that it makes total sense to ban it outright. It is 100% the logical thing to do. The Tylenol argument doesn't make sense because it is a medicine that can have good come out of it. Alcohol is dangerous, and it mainly exists for companies to profit hugely from it (it's sufficient to watch the lewd ads around alcohol to know what's going on).
    - sneak 7y ago
      > Alcohol is dangerous, and it mainly exists for companies to profit hugely from it I think you will find that human manufacture and consumption of alcohol predates the idea of companies. You seem to be letting your personal biases about it affect your beliefs, for example: > It is 100% the logical thing to do. This is not some logical, objective fact, but is actually your opinion. It's fine to have the opinion that it should be banned; to present it as "the logical thing" is another.
      - apta 7y ago
        > I think you will find that human manufacture and consumption of alcohol predates the idea of companies. I know it does. However, we know better now, and there is no logical reason to consume it. In fact, the risks to consumption are much higher now. People operate heavy machinery, drive cars, own guns, have "college parties", etc. And we routinely see the disasters that happen because of it. Large alcohol companies, however, are pushing for consumption purely for monetary aspects. Who cares about the negative effects on society as long as they're pocketing all the profit? It's logical to ban it precisely because of all the negative things that come out of it, and almost no positives. The negatives strictly outweigh the positives, and hence the logical thing to do is do ban it. Don't we make the same argument about vaccines? Their positives far outweigh their negatives, so we require them. It's just the other way around here.
        sneak 7y ago
        > The negatives strictly outweigh the positives, and hence the logical thing to do is do ban it. This is opinion, not fact, and to use terms like “strictly” and “logical” is to attempt to pass off your own subjective personal opinion as objective, impersonal mathematical fact. Don’t do that. It’s intellectually dishonest. For most people, alcohol’s benefits far outweighs its harms. I’m sorry that you have had such negative experiences with it to be biased in this way.