3 ms·

Almost everything is a choice. The difference is that sometimes you're making a rational one and sometimes you only think you're making a rational one and to ou

by kbenson 4mo ago

Almost everything is a choice. The difference is that sometimes you're making a rational one and sometimes you only think you're making a rational one and to outsiders and in retrospect it obviously wasn't the best choice, or event a good choice. There are two aspects to the type of question that was asked. How do you prevent people from ha I g to make choices which are rational and good for their options but still really bad overall, and how do you convinve/educate people about available options they weren't aware of so they don't make outright bad choices when better ones are available that they are unaware of. There are many possible answers to "why did you take off to the west and ride trains and sleep in parks and steak to feed yourself", but most of them aren't "well I just felt like leaving my entirely stable, loving and supportive friends and family." What to an outsider seems like a poor choice to a specific person imight seem like the decision that saved their life, even in retrospect.

shrubby 4mo ago
Well said here. We don't have a honest discussion about the progression of addiction so the choices are not visible, until later. The first beer is the most critical choice, yet it's made for us (in 99% of the cases) by our peers. So is it a choice really? We're routine (addiction) prone herd animals and as long as we pretend otherwise (free will and the likes) we're stuck in repeating this.
- moi2388 4mo ago
  Why is the first beer the most critical choice? Why isn’t the last beer the most critical one, for example?
  - TylerE 4mo ago
    Without the first beer there is no last beer.
    - shrubby 4mo ago
      This. In a healthy society there would be no need for intoxicants with so severe harms (BBC list for substances by harm is a good reference) and thus no exposure for a addictive substance. Now the norm decides that, almost without exceptions, we must all be exposed.
      - hnlmorg 4mo ago
        What’s healthy isn’t complete abstinence, it’s moderation. This is true of coffee, sugar, alcohol, social gatherings, work, play, and everything else in life.
        TylerE 4mo ago
        That is true of some things, but the modern evidence is quite clear on the healthiest amount of alcohol being zero.
        hnlmorg 4mo ago
        You've completely missed the point. People don't drink alcohol because it's healthy. Just like people don't eat cake because it's healthy, nor drink coffee because it's healthy. They do it because the unhealthy effects are desirable. Which is why moderation is the key. There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone enjoying a drink. But there is with people who need to drink. And that's just as true for sugar addition and caffeine addition too. Now I'm not suggesting that the negative effects of all vices are equal, because clearly they're not. But suggesting that total abstinence is the answer completely misses the point of why people enjoy a drink to begin with. You're setting an unreal expectation that will never work with society. Just like telling people that they shouldn't ever eat cake or drink coffee would be an unrealistic demand on society. We already have a mountain of evidence that prove the removal of said vice without solving the underlying problem only drives people will just switch to something else. Often that "something else" can be much much worse. So it's far better to give people outlets but ensure there is support to ensure they descend into dependence (and the vast majority of people do consume in moderation).
  - shrubby 4mo ago
    And the substance abuse is a progressive lying disease so once we figure out "this has gone too far" the threshold for abuse has been crossed a long time ago in most cases. First the close ones see the problem and the individual in question is the last to see it. Thus a lying disease.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 4mo ago
    When the train hits you, it isn’t the caboose that kills you.
somenameforme 4mo ago
I don't think humans are so straight forward. We have an instinctive nature to rebel that's not going anywhere, and we're all just so absurdly different, so what works for one person or family, may fail spectacularly for another. My opinion is that all you can do is be honest about things. DARE, for instance, ended up resulting in more kids trying drugs after all was said and done. It relied heavily on exaggeration and misleading statements - a lot like contemporary politics. And once people realized some of what was said was lies, the entire foundation fell apart and it all became seen as a joke. So for instance I'll happily tell my kids that marijuana is enjoyable and relatively harmless in and of itself, yet you end up smelling bad, it ruins motivation, hurts your short-term memory, gives you the munchies, and is just generally is self-escapism, like most drugs. Gotta work on my exact pitch there, but that's the spirit of the point - honesty. They will make plenty of bad decisions in life, but I'd rather that with each one they see I was right, rather than see that I was lying or exaggerating - driving them further away from everything else I taught them.
_heimdall 4mo ago
This question jumps past the more fundamental question of whether policymakers, and the government in general, should prevent people from making their own choices. Education is a very different story which ends with letting people make their own decisions after (hopefully) having more information about realistic outcomes. I don't personally want a government preventing me from making my own choices. That line is blurry for sure, like if my decision directly negatively impacts someone else for example. But if packing up and riding the rails or sleeping in parks primarily impacts only me, the government shouldn't be able to stop me because they "know" its the wrong choice.
- bko 4mo ago
  > This question jumps past the more fundamental question of whether policymakers, and the government in general, should prevent people from making their own choices. When your choices include terrorizing businesses and being a public nuisance to everyone else, then yes, government should prevent people from making those choices.
  - _heimdall 4mo ago
    We already have laws for theft and similar crimes. You don't need a government creating more rules preventing entire categories of choices from being made, especially if they already can't enforce the laws on the books.
    - ndcnncbf 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
        I don't see how you are saying anything different. You seem to agree that punishment and violence is the primary tool of American government, and then you want to use it to control more choices. Call me cynical, but I expect that's how it will be approached. Theft and vagrancy is already a crime. Maybe it was the punk music that led to those so let's criminalize that as well.
bko 4mo ago
> you only think you're making a rational one and to outsiders and in retrospect In retrospect? It's really not hard to determine before the fact that petty crime is not a road to good things. We have ways to prevent people from going down this path. It's called enforcement. He was more or less allowed to steal and sleep in the parks. If there was strict enforcement, this wouldn't have been a medium term viable option. Doesn't have to be throw the person in prison for the rest of their life, but either accept help, go through the criminal justice system or figure out another way to contribute to society in a positive way. It sounds like the author at any point could have found some kind of employment, but chose this because it was viable. And society wasn't doing him any favors by looking the other way
- adolph 4mo ago
  Enforcement is right of boom, essentially a safety net for the negative external affects of a person having already made a series of choices that resulted in an enforceable outcome. My impression from the thread is a query to identify the things that can prevent an enforceable outcome in the first place. While one might say strict enforcement would discourage particular behavior choices. I would not disagree and add that suppression of behaviors is not as effective as replacement of behaviors.

by kbenson 4mo ago

shrubby 4mo ago

Well said here. We don't have a honest discussion about the progression of addiction so the choices are not visible, until later. The first beer is the most critical choice, yet it's made for us (in 99% of the cases) by our peers. So is it a choice really? We're routine (addiction) prone herd animals and as long as we pretend otherwise (free will and the likes) we're stuck in repeating this.

moi2388 4mo ago
Why is the first beer the most critical choice? Why isn’t the last beer the most critical one, for example?
- TylerE 4mo ago
  Without the first beer there is no last beer.
  - shrubby 4mo ago
    This. In a healthy society there would be no need for intoxicants with so severe harms (BBC list for substances by harm is a good reference) and thus no exposure for a addictive substance. Now the norm decides that, almost without exceptions, we must all be exposed.
    - hnlmorg 4mo ago
      What’s healthy isn’t complete abstinence, it’s moderation. This is true of coffee, sugar, alcohol, social gatherings, work, play, and everything else in life.
      - TylerE 4mo ago
        That is true of some things, but the modern evidence is quite clear on the healthiest amount of alcohol being zero.
        hnlmorg 4mo ago
        You've completely missed the point. People don't drink alcohol because it's healthy. Just like people don't eat cake because it's healthy, nor drink coffee because it's healthy. They do it because the unhealthy effects are desirable. Which is why moderation is the key. There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone enjoying a drink. But there is with people who need to drink. And that's just as true for sugar addition and caffeine addition too. Now I'm not suggesting that the negative effects of all vices are equal, because clearly they're not. But suggesting that total abstinence is the answer completely misses the point of why people enjoy a drink to begin with. You're setting an unreal expectation that will never work with society. Just like telling people that they shouldn't ever eat cake or drink coffee would be an unrealistic demand on society. We already have a mountain of evidence that prove the removal of said vice without solving the underlying problem only drives people will just switch to something else. Often that "something else" can be much much worse. So it's far better to give people outlets but ensure there is support to ensure they descend into dependence (and the vast majority of people do consume in moderation).
- shrubby 4mo ago
  And the substance abuse is a progressive lying disease so once we figure out "this has gone too far" the threshold for abuse has been crossed a long time ago in most cases. First the close ones see the problem and the individual in question is the last to see it. Thus a lying disease.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4mo ago
  When the train hits you, it isn’t the caboose that kills you.

somenameforme 4mo ago

I don't think humans are so straight forward. We have an instinctive nature to rebel that's not going anywhere, and we're all just so absurdly different, so what works for one person or family, may fail spectacularly for another. My opinion is that all you can do is be honest about things. DARE, for instance, ended up resulting in more kids trying drugs after all was said and done. It relied heavily on exaggeration and misleading statements - a lot like contemporary politics. And once people realized some of what was said was lies, the entire foundation fell apart and it all became seen as a joke. So for instance I'll happily tell my kids that marijuana is enjoyable and relatively harmless in and of itself, yet you end up smelling bad, it ruins motivation, hurts your short-term memory, gives you the munchies, and is just generally is self-escapism, like most drugs. Gotta work on my exact pitch there, but that's the spirit of the point - honesty. They will make plenty of bad decisions in life, but I'd rather that with each one they see I was right, rather than see that I was lying or exaggerating - driving them further away from everything else I taught them.

_heimdall 4mo ago

This question jumps past the more fundamental question of whether policymakers, and the government in general, should prevent people from making their own choices. Education is a very different story which ends with letting people make their own decisions after (hopefully) having more information about realistic outcomes. I don't personally want a government preventing me from making my own choices. That line is blurry for sure, like if my decision directly negatively impacts someone else for example. But if packing up and riding the rails or sleeping in parks primarily impacts only me, the government shouldn't be able to stop me because they "know" its the wrong choice.

bko 4mo ago
> This question jumps past the more fundamental question of whether policymakers, and the government in general, should prevent people from making their own choices. When your choices include terrorizing businesses and being a public nuisance to everyone else, then yes, government should prevent people from making those choices.
- _heimdall 4mo ago
  We already have laws for theft and similar crimes. You don't need a government creating more rules preventing entire categories of choices from being made, especially if they already can't enforce the laws on the books.
  - ndcnncbf 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - s1artibartfast 4mo ago
      I don't see how you are saying anything different. You seem to agree that punishment and violence is the primary tool of American government, and then you want to use it to control more choices. Call me cynical, but I expect that's how it will be approached. Theft and vagrancy is already a crime. Maybe it was the punk music that led to those so let's criminalize that as well.

bko 4mo ago

> you only think you're making a rational one and to outsiders and in retrospect In retrospect? It's really not hard to determine before the fact that petty crime is not a road to good things. We have ways to prevent people from going down this path. It's called enforcement. He was more or less allowed to steal and sleep in the parks. If there was strict enforcement, this wouldn't have been a medium term viable option. Doesn't have to be throw the person in prison for the rest of their life, but either accept help, go through the criminal justice system or figure out another way to contribute to society in a positive way. It sounds like the author at any point could have found some kind of employment, but chose this because it was viable. And society wasn't doing him any favors by looking the other way

adolph 4mo ago
Enforcement is right of boom, essentially a safety net for the negative external affects of a person having already made a series of choices that resulted in an enforceable outcome. My impression from the thread is a query to identify the things that can prevent an enforceable outcome in the first place. While one might say strict enforcement would discourage particular behavior choices. I would not disagree and add that suppression of behaviors is not as effective as replacement of behaviors.