4 ms·

I guess I'm a sadist and a troll, I have no problem punishing ignorance when there should be none. I set standards for myself, and I don't think it's unfair to

I guess I'm a sadist and a troll, I have no problem punishing ignorance when there should be none. I set standards for myself, and I don't think it's unfair to expect a similar level of standards for other people, sometimes the standards aren't even high, say complaining about not being taught how to do taxes yet you're 20 years old and never held a job. My state of mind there is what the hell have you been doing for the last 20 years? I don't think taxes are difficult, in fact the fillable forms themselves literally tell you what to do, and for the vast majority of people, your taxes are no more complicated than putting the same numbers from your W2 form directly into your 1040. At some point, there has to be no coddling and babying for people. My opinion is that coddling should stop generally around 10 - 14, and consequences should become gradually harsher by the time you are legally declared an adult, in my country this is 18, but my opinion would be the same if we somehow drop that down to 16. I also believe in the idea that people are not robots. If you live your life that way, I feel explicit contempt for you, and I do generally think your life is rather pointless. Some things are truly intuitive, like not putting flammable objects on top of your stove. I also have no problem feeling contempt for people who do dangerous things, and then die, because they force people to clean up after them. Unfortunately, my sadism these days only goes as far as rejecting job applications, doing write ups, and in the end being a part of the firing process. Though, sometimes I am able to suspend which leads to a firing within the next 2 weeks which I guess is good enough.

Ekaros 4y ago
And on the other side. I don't see that society should reward or even fix the bad decisions people make. All of the information is available and has been for long time. So why should society pay things like student loans of people who chose themselves non marketable degree? Enough information is out there and can be found to make many relevant decisions.
- xpe 4y ago
  First, baked into your reasoning is an assumption of strong rationality and plenty of information. Even if levels are acceptable on average, an informed person will recognize there is considerable variation. No rational person can blame an individual for not knowing something due to circumstances beyond their control. Not every qualified student in subject X has a parent / education / life experience that will give them an upbringing and background knowledge that will give them a good preparation for asking questions and preparing for industry Y. This realization quickly dispenses with any notion of people as perfect rational decision makers. It also dispenses with blaming or punishing people who don't have such advantages. It should also reduce the "halo" effect of prestigious schools and workplaces. Since luck and circumstances play such a high role in, say, admissions to top universities, people should act accordingly and stop elevating themselves. People make mistakes-- this is statistically inevitable. Making harsher laws, reducing the safety net, and making insurance policies extremely strict to reduce moral hazard would make people more cautious and responsible, so the argument goes. But that argument often gets taken as dogma, and it not checked against reality. In my view, consistent with philosophers such as John Rawls, optimizing for strictness is rarely the best technique to build a good society.
KarlKemp 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mcphage 4y ago
> At some point, there has to be no coddling and babying for people. My opinion is that coddling should stop generally around 10 - 14, and consequences should become gradually harsher by the time you are legally declared an adult Interestingly, I have a very similar attitude—except it’s about your behaviors, instead of about ignorance.
xpe 4y ago
> At some point, there has to be no coddling and babying for people. My opinion is that coddling should stop generally around 10 - 14, and consequences should become gradually harsher by the time you are legally declared an adult, in my country this is 18, but my opinion would be the same if we somehow drop that down to 16. Hopefully you don't view yourself as qualified to make this judgement. Even if I agreed with your ethics, which I do not, I would not agree with your judgements. Here's why: You don't know enough to do it fairly. For example, it takes considerable effort for the U.S. justice system to gather (an imperfect subset of) information to make such (flawed) assessments. No offense. Thank you for laying out your point of view.
- latency-guy2 4y ago
  > You don't know enough to do it fairly. You don't know if I would do it fairly, you mean. But let's go in on your assumption. What is 'fairness'? From whose perspective are you making the judgement of 'fairness'? Would the man who you are convicting to life in prison after he murdered 20 people feel your fairness? What if he denies that what you are doing is 'fair', does you definition change then? What happens if you do care about consensus, but you know enough to discount this particular case, which other opinions do you discount? Because it sure won't be the last one I could care less about the U.S. justice system, society has plenty of tools to punish individuals, and I have no problem using them.
  - xpe 4y ago
    My personal ideas of fairness are based on moral reasoning and scientific understanding. To state that more precisely, the criteria for this fairness being useful is the degree to which it is consistent with moral reasoning and scientific understanding. In a democracy, I think of fairness as the general underlying ethical ideas implied by the set of laws. As such, this idea of fairness will seem inconsistent in some ways, because it is the result of various laws and court precedents established over time. Individuals in any society have varying ideas of fairness of course. How they express and act on them varies considerably with the form of government they live in.
  - xpe 4y ago
xpe 4y ago
> I also believe in the idea that people are not robots. If you live your life that way, I feel explicit contempt for you, and I do generally think your life is rather pointless. There are plenty of people who... 1. view human behavior as largely (but not completely) shaped by historical events; or 2. don't believe in traditional ideas of free will and still find meaning in their lives. I'd encourage you to challenge your beliefs here. Do you want to feel contempt? This contempt is one kind of judgment. Why are you confident that you know enough to make such a harsh judgment? I find it interesting that what you've written is quite opposite of secular Buddhism. There's a great story from Buddhism about hate. I'll adapt it. Let's say you hate that an alcoholic drunk driver killed a family of four. What exactly do you hate? If the drunk driver had a habit of driving drunk, it was not a one-off. You should also hate all previous drunk drivings that didn't kill anyone. So you might hate the fact that such a bad habit took root? What history drove the alcoholism? What if it was parental abuse? Genetics? But what about all of the people who knew about the alcoholic and his drunk driving? Why did they not intervene? Why is alcoholism so prevalent? Why don't lawmakers do more about it? My point is that if you connect the hate to its causes, you will find it impossible to situate it on just one person. I suppose you could hate all of the contributing factors. But how many of the contributing factors have volition? My conclusion is that most common ideas of hate (a) are not well thought out and (b) don't really help us solve problems. Perhaps there is only a fine line between hate and a burning desire to improve something in the world. The latter can be done without holding people in contempt. It can be hard, but it is worth it.

Ekaros 4y ago

And on the other side. I don't see that society should reward or even fix the bad decisions people make. All of the information is available and has been for long time. So why should society pay things like student loans of people who chose themselves non marketable degree? Enough information is out there and can be found to make many relevant decisions.

xpe 4y ago
First, baked into your reasoning is an assumption of strong rationality and plenty of information. Even if levels are acceptable on average, an informed person will recognize there is considerable variation. No rational person can blame an individual for not knowing something due to circumstances beyond their control. Not every qualified student in subject X has a parent / education / life experience that will give them an upbringing and background knowledge that will give them a good preparation for asking questions and preparing for industry Y. This realization quickly dispenses with any notion of people as perfect rational decision makers. It also dispenses with blaming or punishing people who don't have such advantages. It should also reduce the "halo" effect of prestigious schools and workplaces. Since luck and circumstances play such a high role in, say, admissions to top universities, people should act accordingly and stop elevating themselves. People make mistakes-- this is statistically inevitable. Making harsher laws, reducing the safety net, and making insurance policies extremely strict to reduce moral hazard would make people more cautious and responsible, so the argument goes. But that argument often gets taken as dogma, and it not checked against reality. In my view, consistent with philosophers such as John Rawls, optimizing for strictness is rarely the best technique to build a good society.

KarlKemp 4y ago

[flagged]

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mcphage 4y ago

> At some point, there has to be no coddling and babying for people. My opinion is that coddling should stop generally around 10 - 14, and consequences should become gradually harsher by the time you are legally declared an adult Interestingly, I have a very similar attitude—except it’s about your behaviors, instead of about ignorance.

xpe 4y ago

> At some point, there has to be no coddling and babying for people. My opinion is that coddling should stop generally around 10 - 14, and consequences should become gradually harsher by the time you are legally declared an adult, in my country this is 18, but my opinion would be the same if we somehow drop that down to 16. Hopefully you don't view yourself as qualified to make this judgement. Even if I agreed with your ethics, which I do not, I would not agree with your judgements. Here's why: You don't know enough to do it fairly. For example, it takes considerable effort for the U.S. justice system to gather (an imperfect subset of) information to make such (flawed) assessments. No offense. Thank you for laying out your point of view.

latency-guy2 4y ago
> You don't know enough to do it fairly. You don't know if I would do it fairly, you mean. But let's go in on your assumption. What is 'fairness'? From whose perspective are you making the judgement of 'fairness'? Would the man who you are convicting to life in prison after he murdered 20 people feel your fairness? What if he denies that what you are doing is 'fair', does you definition change then? What happens if you do care about consensus, but you know enough to discount this particular case, which other opinions do you discount? Because it sure won't be the last one I could care less about the U.S. justice system, society has plenty of tools to punish individuals, and I have no problem using them.
- xpe 4y ago
  My personal ideas of fairness are based on moral reasoning and scientific understanding. To state that more precisely, the criteria for this fairness being useful is the degree to which it is consistent with moral reasoning and scientific understanding. In a democracy, I think of fairness as the general underlying ethical ideas implied by the set of laws. As such, this idea of fairness will seem inconsistent in some ways, because it is the result of various laws and court precedents established over time. Individuals in any society have varying ideas of fairness of course. How they express and act on them varies considerably with the form of government they live in.
- xpe 4y ago

xpe 4y ago

> I also believe in the idea that people are not robots. If you live your life that way, I feel explicit contempt for you, and I do generally think your life is rather pointless. There are plenty of people who... 1. view human behavior as largely (but not completely) shaped by historical events; or 2. don't believe in traditional ideas of free will and still find meaning in their lives. I'd encourage you to challenge your beliefs here. Do you want to feel contempt? This contempt is one kind of judgment. Why are you confident that you know enough to make such a harsh judgment? I find it interesting that what you've written is quite opposite of secular Buddhism. There's a great story from Buddhism about hate. I'll adapt it. Let's say you hate that an alcoholic drunk driver killed a family of four. What exactly do you hate? If the drunk driver had a habit of driving drunk, it was not a one-off. You should also hate all previous drunk drivings that didn't kill anyone. So you might hate the fact that such a bad habit took root? What history drove the alcoholism? What if it was parental abuse? Genetics? But what about all of the people who knew about the alcoholic and his drunk driving? Why did they not intervene? Why is alcoholism so prevalent? Why don't lawmakers do more about it? My point is that if you connect the hate to its causes, you will find it impossible to situate it on just one person. I suppose you could hate all of the contributing factors. But how many of the contributing factors have volition? My conclusion is that most common ideas of hate (a) are not well thought out and (b) don't really help us solve problems. Perhaps there is only a fine line between hate and a burning desire to improve something in the world. The latter can be done without holding people in contempt. It can be hard, but it is worth it.