Hacker News Reader

Comment by reddytowns | Hacker News Reader

This really rubs me the wrong way. It's society's tolerance of this sort of thing which causes suffering. In a sane society, this man who provides no value to society wouldn't be fed, and washed and otherwise cared for at the expense of everyone else.

If he didn't get so many benefits which allow him to be that way, he would have no choice but to get up and fix his own problems.

Instead, the man had to suffer for years, and have dangerous surgery performed on him, which even though successful, didn't ultimately leave him unharmed (people with gastric bypass surgery have plenty of side effects to deal with, being unable to process food properly).

Ridicule and disdain would maybe have saved him from his life of misery. Even if he did end up suiciding, it would save others who may be tempted to fall into the same situation as he did.

View on HN

We detached this flagged subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13865861.

You're getting downvoted for your comment on ridicule and disdain. If you read the article, this is one of the reasons Paul gained so much weight - the ridicule and rejection. So I'm not so sure that's the answer. However, you are on point about society's tolerance and enablement. You rarely see this type of thing in non-welfare states.

Most are uncomfortable talking about this because we're humans and have compassion. On the surface, it seems like a mean spirited thing to suggest that tolerance and social programs have unintended consequences and are detrimental to the recipients. An example is how welfare has often become a surrogate for a two parent household.

I think most would agree that obesity and (generally) single parent households are damaging to both individuals and society as a whole. How do we find a balance that doesn't allow folks to fall through the cracks, but also doesn't encourage behavior that takes a toll on human beings or compromise the sustainability of social safety nets?

As I said in the other thread, I think that family should play a bigger role in charity of a relative. If the person receiving care has to face those giving it, it'd be better for both parties.

In countries in Asia, there is a much lower social safety net, but IMO family, friends, and neighbors have a far greater bond then they do in the USA (naming the two places I have experience with).

If I could choose I'd have a charity system which is paid for in greater proportion by the people related to the beneficiary than everyone else. Your brother can't find a job? We tax you more to pay for him.

Although, I don't think society would accept this idea.

Works only for people in well functioning families.

Nothing is perfect. Better let a few fall than many suffer. I don't think letting this man get this way is a success for our society in preventing suffering.

Ridicule and disdain would likely have caused more pain, which he would have tried to escape from - with food.

The article already mentioned tabloids and I'm sure having no companionship were already negative feedback mechanisms.

As an example, people will downvote you for your comment, but that will not change your views.

Being punished shouldn't change one's views. One's behavior, though, usually does change.

Besides which, I don't hold magic internet points to have very much value. Neither should you (I assume you do, since you imply losing "karma" is punishment.)

Good point, I guess I do care how people on the internet react to my comments

You are making a whole lot of assumptions there with really nothing to back it up. At best you come off as uninformed, but frankly you just sound cruel.

It's not cruel to think of other people's lives besides of this broken individual. I'm not suggesting taking the money and putting it in my pocket, just distributing it more rationally, so it can do the most good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com