mike4ty4

9 ms·

1.
by mike4ty4 3y ago
Another thing. The problem is addiction, so why not more directly target that? Much like with added sugar. We should not put people for years in jail then call them a permanent risk to kids no matter where they actually are after, simply
2.
by mike4ty4 3y ago
This is a good/interesting way to look at it ... add up the total misery level instead of pretending that in either case "the misery" has stopped because you deliberately exclude one or the other miseries from the accountin
3.
by mike4ty4 3y ago
So what if you remove the vat of cocaine water by just removing the vat instead of by permanently crippling the other "rats" with 40,000 life-long collateral penalties after a jail where they could easily have been killed inside o
4.
by mike4ty4 3y ago
What if we make treatment basically consist of some sort of genetic or other biotechnological intervention that essentially tweaks the vulnerability? Can't be worse than a jail + thousands of never-terminating under any circumstance co
5.
by mike4ty4 3y ago
The trick is to not assume that "feeding" it will solve it but to create alternative actions, doing research to do so while enduring the destruction patiently for as long as that takes.
6.
by mike4ty4 3y ago
What if we make it not simple, but "simply" exclude just one solution - lifetime punishment (prison + 40,000 collateral consequences, life imprisonment, or a death penalty) - directed against the persons with the problem, from t
7.
by mike4ty4 3y ago
Yep, exactly - get rid of the alternative methods and leave no method and then that's a problem.
8.
by mike4ty4 3y ago
However, even if there is, why does that mean the answer needs to be the _specific_ extraordinarily-severe-by-nature method of criminal punishment? It seems the article, again, was basically suggesting the problem was there is no sort of in
9.
by mike4ty4 3y ago
This seems like a big part of the issue: > state-funded nongovernmental organizations that have largely taken over responding to the people with addiction seem less concerned with treatment than affirming that lifetime drug use should be
10.
by mike4ty4 3y ago
This is a big valid point here - absolutely none of us (myself included) have presented any real evidence. So it's all just circlejerking.
11.
by mike4ty4 3y ago
Spend more of your hard earned cash to do the upkeep. YOU suffer a little more for it and I'm all down for that happening to you because we gotta spread the burden around given it's going to be there, period.
12.
by mike4ty4 3y ago
If you say they are just self-destroying and "want to create suicide" and "don't want to help those who don't want help" then why not both not help AND not punish at the same time, and just let "nature&quo
13.
by mike4ty4 4y ago
> people seem to fall back to some sort of centralized system like a scientific committee or centralized AI. Maybe we should try to figure out how to create an AI "idea generator" that can probe idea space more freely and see i
14.
by mike4ty4 4y ago
Profit motives aren't inherently the problem; the problem is what is justified or not in pursuing them - in particular, how their pursuit comes to clash with morally-valued interests such as human and non-human suffering. E.g. in _my_
15.
by mike4ty4 4y ago
Conservatives using Marx! The IRONY!
16.
by mike4ty4 4y ago
Ultimately what we need is not a "victory" over anyone, but rather something where 100% of everyone's need (food, water, shelter, and medical care) are met barring purely random accidents.
17.
by mike4ty4 4y ago
An important question that needs asking is what happens if we run into a situation where that "slowness" of democracy gets more people killed and only a well-paced solution with some cadence to it could do the job (not "super
18.
by mike4ty4 10y ago
Does this mean you're saying you need _bigger_ muscles specifically to get bigger brains?
19.
by mike4ty4 10y ago
The real problem is we have mechanized so much. Granted, machines can let us do so many things that would be utterly impossible without them, but the problem is we've allowed them to _substitute_ our natural labor and not to just _exte
20.
by mike4ty4 10y ago
It seems you are interpreting what is said in black and white terms. He (she?) said that personality is _neither_ completely _fixed_ _nor_ completely _mutable_. Things are not either/XOR. The same goes with IQ. I don't think any a
21.
by mike4ty4 10y ago
However here you're using a pathological condition (depression) to make a judgment about a normal one (introversion). That is not necessarily reasonable. Introversion doesn't have to imply asocial; but rather just that the person
22.
by mike4ty4 10y ago
Well if that's the case, then whether we will undergo a personality change is not necessarily entirely in our control, because we may not develop the passion for the labor of personality change. It just might not "strike".
23.
by mike4ty4 10y ago
The $6m question is, is willpower itself limited by genetics? What happens then, if the ability to exert the hard effort to change the personality is itself genetically limited?
24.
by mike4ty4 10y ago
Why should "introversion" be changed or punished, necessarily? Developing intellect is something to be encouraged, but I don't understand the anti-introversion bias in your post. And I suspect that the genetics does also set