4 ms·

By exposing complete and utter ignorance about the neurobiological mechanisms behind motivation and addiction, you've evinced a "stupid" opinion. When, in your

By exposing complete and utter ignorance about the neurobiological mechanisms behind motivation and addiction, you've evinced a "stupid" opinion. When, in your own time, your ignorance leads you to make "stupid" decisions, I hope there's a safety net in place to protect you and people who depend on you. I also hope there's a support network to help people you mislead with your idiotic parenting, should you breed, which at the moment I hope you choose to defer. In the meantime enjoy congratulating yourself for accomplishments you almost certainly didn't earn purely in virtue of your perceived "intellectual superiority" while denigrating others for mistakes we could have helped them avoid. Your lack of compassion does not withstand rational scrutiny. I sincerely hope that as you gain experience in the world you continue to reflect on your relationship with other human beings, and that in your own way you develop a deeper and less idiotic understanding of others.

avazhi 2y ago
[flagged]
- jknoepfler 2y ago
  "You can't fix stupid" doesn't entail that you shouldn't regulate activities with potentially catastrophic consequences for families. It entails the opposite. We can, and should mitigate the harm to individuals and families that stems from said "stupidity" through... precisely... regulation. Go to a GA meeting some time. People who develop crippling gambling addictions are exposed to gambling precisely through going to a casino "as a gag to throw away expendable income," the same way most alcoholics are exposed to alcohol through casual, healthy drinking. No one walks into a casino thinking "let's throw my life and the financial security of my family away," and the proclivity for such is not readily predictable with any meaningful precision at present. The inference to draw from this is that we should reduce harm through regulation, not double down on the damage we're causing and writing off the resulting, predictable damage as immaterial because the "people were stupid." Like... what is your actual goal? Increasing human misery? Creating a society in which people predictably suffer from the predictable, catastrophic consequences of unregulated enterprise? (This isn't even touching the blanket categorization of everyone who develops a crippling addiction as "stupid," which doesn't withstand even superficial scrutiny. What's the point of that blanket demonization?) The medicalization of the underlying problem should push you towards an epidemiological perspective on the problem, not a thin, incoherent moralizing knee-jerk. Like... "you can't fix stupid" - sure, my grandmother was scammed while declining into (heretofore undiagnosed) dementia. Is the inference to draw "she's stupid, let's permit unfettered exploitation of people?" No, it's let's keep financial fraud illegal, prosecute the scammers, take some steps to help grandma prevent a repeat, and behave like sane, compassionate individuals.
  - avazhi 2y ago
    You and I will never agree on this. I do not share your empathy, either in its scope or its depth. It’s that simple. You think it’s the State’s job to protect certain people, whereas I would prefer that those people didn’t exist. While I wouldn’t necessarily promulgate any State proactively getting rid of its dumbest citizens (such as what the Nazis tried doing with Aktion T4), I do think the state should in many cases stay fully hands off and let natural selection do its thing. There’s no real debate to be had about that because neither of us are going to compromise on our views. G’day.
- creata 2y ago
  This is the dumbest comment I've read in a long time. And there's no shortage of dumb comments on this site.

avazhi 2y ago

[flagged]

jknoepfler 2y ago
"You can't fix stupid" doesn't entail that you shouldn't regulate activities with potentially catastrophic consequences for families. It entails the opposite. We can, and should mitigate the harm to individuals and families that stems from said "stupidity" through... precisely... regulation. Go to a GA meeting some time. People who develop crippling gambling addictions are exposed to gambling precisely through going to a casino "as a gag to throw away expendable income," the same way most alcoholics are exposed to alcohol through casual, healthy drinking. No one walks into a casino thinking "let's throw my life and the financial security of my family away," and the proclivity for such is not readily predictable with any meaningful precision at present. The inference to draw from this is that we should reduce harm through regulation, not double down on the damage we're causing and writing off the resulting, predictable damage as immaterial because the "people were stupid." Like... what is your actual goal? Increasing human misery? Creating a society in which people predictably suffer from the predictable, catastrophic consequences of unregulated enterprise? (This isn't even touching the blanket categorization of everyone who develops a crippling addiction as "stupid," which doesn't withstand even superficial scrutiny. What's the point of that blanket demonization?) The medicalization of the underlying problem should push you towards an epidemiological perspective on the problem, not a thin, incoherent moralizing knee-jerk. Like... "you can't fix stupid" - sure, my grandmother was scammed while declining into (heretofore undiagnosed) dementia. Is the inference to draw "she's stupid, let's permit unfettered exploitation of people?" No, it's let's keep financial fraud illegal, prosecute the scammers, take some steps to help grandma prevent a repeat, and behave like sane, compassionate individuals.
- avazhi 2y ago
  You and I will never agree on this. I do not share your empathy, either in its scope or its depth. It’s that simple. You think it’s the State’s job to protect certain people, whereas I would prefer that those people didn’t exist. While I wouldn’t necessarily promulgate any State proactively getting rid of its dumbest citizens (such as what the Nazis tried doing with Aktion T4), I do think the state should in many cases stay fully hands off and let natural selection do its thing. There’s no real debate to be had about that because neither of us are going to compromise on our views. G’day.
creata 2y ago
This is the dumbest comment I've read in a long time. And there's no shortage of dumb comments on this site.