4 ms·

+ - Society is now expected to be your babysitter. If your actions have negative consequences, they should have been forbidden and prevented.

msla 3y ago
We're doing a lot less of "society as babysitter" now. The ability of people to be open about being gay, trans, non-religious, Jewish, mixed-race, and left-handed are all examples of society no longer caring about things it once pried into deeply.
AlecSchueler 3y ago
At what time in the past was this less true than now?
otikik 3y ago
As long as it only affects you, I think you should do whatever you want. But you are conflating "society" with "individual" here. If a lot of people smoke, then a lot of them develop respiratory (and other) problems. So a lot more people need treatment, which could have gone to other patients. At that point it is no longer an individial situation which affects only you, it's a societal problem. Societies which don't address their problems eventually fade out. It's not babysitting, it's self-defense.
- koolba 3y ago
  > If a lot of people smoke, then a lot of them develop respiratory (and other) problems. So a lot more people need treatment, which could have gone to other patients. At that point it is no longer an individial situation which affects only you, it's a societal problem. Societies which don't address their problems eventually fade out. By that same logic we should be locking down juice boxes, donuts, and bacon to prevent heart disease and diabetes. At some point it’s definitely babysitting and we’re well beyond it.
  - spion 3y ago
    Maybe we should. Its costing us over a trillion now and costs have gone up 10 times in the past 50 years.
  - dghughes 3y ago
    Reverse your logic and remove all rules applied now; no seat belts for cars I mean take them out not just give the option to use or not. No regulation of alcohol use any age anywhere any time. No rules for smoking any age any time anywhere. And so on. Pretty soon it would be a mess for everyone.
    - koolba 3y ago
      > Reverse your logic and remove all rules applied now; no seat belts for cars I mean take them out not just give the option to use or not. That’s a pretty dumb example. People clearly want safety features in cars. Seatbelts existed well before they were mandated. They shouldn’t be mandated but people should wear them anyway. > No regulation of alcohol use any age anywhere any time. I’m fine with that too. If someone is drunk and belligerent there’s plenty of other reasons to arrest them. But having a beer in the park is banned because you’re worried about a bunch of winos? > No rules for smoking any age any time anywhere. And so on. Pretty soon it would be a mess for everyone. Having restrictions for children is orthogonal. That’s us as a society deciding that children are not capable of making informed decisions. We’re not with them 24/7 so we as a society set rules for what we allow them to do when we are not around. On that topic, I think it’s fine for a parent to give alcohol to their child. That’s the parents decision. But that doesn’t mean I think we should have 10 year olds buying 40’s.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > we should be locking down juice boxes, donuts, and bacon to prevent heart disease and diabetes. I agree. We should. > At some point it’s definitely babysitting and we’re well beyond it. Lol. There is a constant, well-funded psychological warfare to make everyone pick up as many of these harmful and addictive consumption habits as they can. As I'm writing this, and as you are reading this there are teams of people paid by corporate interest working hard to figure out how the best it is to make all of us addicted to sugary drinks in the name of profit. This is completely legal, and even a "respectable" profession. Pushing back against all these forces ever so slightly is now babysitting?
- RajT88 3y ago
  Societal level engineering is about adding friction to things which are unhealthy. There's a lot of debate on whether we should do this, but for sure it has lots of examples of working. QED: If you want to smoke yourself to death, you can. But the government wants to add some friction to that so it's not the default case for smokers. Taxes, awareness campaigns and (god forbid!) putting some limits on what cigarette companies can add to cigarettes.

msla 3y ago

We're doing a lot less of "society as babysitter" now. The ability of people to be open about being gay, trans, non-religious, Jewish, mixed-race, and left-handed are all examples of society no longer caring about things it once pried into deeply.

AlecSchueler 3y ago

At what time in the past was this less true than now?

otikik 3y ago

As long as it only affects you, I think you should do whatever you want. But you are conflating "society" with "individual" here. If a lot of people smoke, then a lot of them develop respiratory (and other) problems. So a lot more people need treatment, which could have gone to other patients. At that point it is no longer an individial situation which affects only you, it's a societal problem. Societies which don't address their problems eventually fade out. It's not babysitting, it's self-defense.

koolba 3y ago
> If a lot of people smoke, then a lot of them develop respiratory (and other) problems. So a lot more people need treatment, which could have gone to other patients. At that point it is no longer an individial situation which affects only you, it's a societal problem. Societies which don't address their problems eventually fade out. By that same logic we should be locking down juice boxes, donuts, and bacon to prevent heart disease and diabetes. At some point it’s definitely babysitting and we’re well beyond it.
- spion 3y ago
  Maybe we should. Its costing us over a trillion now and costs have gone up 10 times in the past 50 years.
- dghughes 3y ago
  Reverse your logic and remove all rules applied now; no seat belts for cars I mean take them out not just give the option to use or not. No regulation of alcohol use any age anywhere any time. No rules for smoking any age any time anywhere. And so on. Pretty soon it would be a mess for everyone.
  - koolba 3y ago
    > Reverse your logic and remove all rules applied now; no seat belts for cars I mean take them out not just give the option to use or not. That’s a pretty dumb example. People clearly want safety features in cars. Seatbelts existed well before they were mandated. They shouldn’t be mandated but people should wear them anyway. > No regulation of alcohol use any age anywhere any time. I’m fine with that too. If someone is drunk and belligerent there’s plenty of other reasons to arrest them. But having a beer in the park is banned because you’re worried about a bunch of winos? > No rules for smoking any age any time anywhere. And so on. Pretty soon it would be a mess for everyone. Having restrictions for children is orthogonal. That’s us as a society deciding that children are not capable of making informed decisions. We’re not with them 24/7 so we as a society set rules for what we allow them to do when we are not around. On that topic, I think it’s fine for a parent to give alcohol to their child. That’s the parents decision. But that doesn’t mean I think we should have 10 year olds buying 40’s.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > we should be locking down juice boxes, donuts, and bacon to prevent heart disease and diabetes. I agree. We should. > At some point it’s definitely babysitting and we’re well beyond it. Lol. There is a constant, well-funded psychological warfare to make everyone pick up as many of these harmful and addictive consumption habits as they can. As I'm writing this, and as you are reading this there are teams of people paid by corporate interest working hard to figure out how the best it is to make all of us addicted to sugary drinks in the name of profit. This is completely legal, and even a "respectable" profession. Pushing back against all these forces ever so slightly is now babysitting?
RajT88 3y ago
Societal level engineering is about adding friction to things which are unhealthy. There's a lot of debate on whether we should do this, but for sure it has lots of examples of working. QED: If you want to smoke yourself to death, you can. But the government wants to add some friction to that so it's not the default case for smokers. Taxes, awareness campaigns and (god forbid!) putting some limits on what cigarette companies can add to cigarettes.