4 ms·

I've thought about it, one part of what "shocked" me about it was the hubris inherent in the statement: "...someone I could save by argument.". As though those

I've thought about it, one part of what "shocked" me about it was the hubris inherent in the statement: "...someone I could save by argument.". As though those that cannot be "saved" are merely a passing fascination, not to be bothered with for fear of liability. I wasn't "shocked" by the way. However, I was largely responding to the tone- which I shouldn't have done. >"...most notably the ultrarich like the Zuckerbergs, would think it's not even worth their time to deal with 'crazy people'" I don't know the Zuckerbergs nor any other ultrarich people, so I suppose we'll have to take your word for it. > "Life is all about making compromises and finding the right balance. Looking out for yourself can be, and should be a part of the process when you're deciding to help out something." I mostly agree with this. I want to make it clear that I was responding to the attitude I saw in the comment (or at least what I perceived to be the attitude) that the mentally ill are objects of fascination until they expose you to civil liability. I think a bit more empathy is in order. > "I do think you should take a little bit of break. :) Be well, and take care!" Yeah, I think I'm done commenting on Hacker News. Take care, as well.

Anderkent 13y ago
>I've thought about it, one part of what "shocked" me about it was the hubris inherent in the statement: "...someone I could save by argument.". As though those that cannot be "saved" are merely a passing fascination, not to be bothered with for fear of liability. I read a completely different meaning from that statement. "not someone I could save _by argument_". I.e. no point arguing, even though there might be other ways to help them.
- tekromancr 13y ago
  "If someone has a false belief but is otherwise logical, for example someone with different political opinions that they merely haven't thought about, then it might make some sense to enter into a debate. After all, at least one of you must be wrong, otherwise you would agree. But in a situation where someone's false beliefs are a result of mental illness, delusions, no amount of arguing will bring their worldview to a place that could be considered consistent with what is commonly known about objective reality." At least, that's how that sentience unpacked into my brain.

Anderkent 13y ago

>I've thought about it, one part of what "shocked" me about it was the hubris inherent in the statement: "...someone I could save by argument.". As though those that cannot be "saved" are merely a passing fascination, not to be bothered with for fear of liability. I read a completely different meaning from that statement. "not someone I could save _by argument_". I.e. no point arguing, even though there might be other ways to help them.

tekromancr 13y ago
"If someone has a false belief but is otherwise logical, for example someone with different political opinions that they merely haven't thought about, then it might make some sense to enter into a debate. After all, at least one of you must be wrong, otherwise you would agree. But in a situation where someone's false beliefs are a result of mental illness, delusions, no amount of arguing will bring their worldview to a place that could be considered consistent with what is commonly known about objective reality." At least, that's how that sentience unpacked into my brain.