Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_af | Hacker News Reader

> It doesn't change the very trivial fact that engaging in such behavior is a choice. Nor does it change the fact that virtually everyone has choices.

Quite the contrary, it does change it.

> As I said, even if you have kids, deciding whether you will feed them or let them starve (with all its consequences), is still a choice.

It's very hard to take you seriously after this.

> Arguments from extremes are not helping you.

This isn't about me or you; I don't need help. And you've just made an extreme argument which I quoted above.

By the way, it amazes me you consider the real world "an argument from extreme". I suppose from a very limited sample one might draw the same conclusion as you.

View on HN

> It's very hard to take you seriously after this.

I take it you've not encountered such folks? It must be nice to be shielded. As I said, your comments definitely give off "privileged" vibes.

I don't know your background, but spend some time in various countries - both wealthy and not. Both repressive and not. When people debate the virtues and vices of freedom, much of what we discussed in this thread come into play. The US is very much a country centered on freedom, and the reason many are in a bad state is precisely because the US gives them more freedom by letting them have these choices. Statistically, they will choose poorly, but the fact that their behavior is predictable via statistics doesn't negate the fact that they made those choices.

> I take it you've not encountered such folks? It must be nice to be shielded.

What are you even trying to argue here? "Not dying and not letting your kids die is a choice"? I mean, sure, in a bizarre alien logic kind of way, but as someone once told me: "you're not helping yourself by using extreme arguments".

If that's your main point, we can stop here. I won't argue with extraterrestrials or robots.

> I don't know your background, but spend some time in various countries

Exactly, you don't know my background, so don't lecture me. Your lecturing comes across as very condescending and, well, privileged.

> The US

I'm not from the US.

> Statistically, they will choose poorly, but the fact that their behavior is predictable via statistics doesn't negate the fact that they made those choices.

Non-sequitur.

> Exactly, you don't know my background, so don't lecture me. Your lecturing comes across as very condescending and, well, privileged.

1. I definitely am privileged.

2. Have you looked in a mirror?

3. You don't need to, as you yourself said: "And that's OK, clearly TFA is aimed at privileged people like us, not most people."

The only thing I have left to say is: Try not to confuse obligations with choices.

> I definitely am privileged

It shows! And condescending too, I'd add.

> The only thing I have left to say is: Try not to confuse obligations with choices.

That is meaningless, though doubtless it seems very deep to you.

Look, you made the bizarre argument people always have choices because feeding your kids is a choice. In whatever alien world you live in that might be a clever argument. Meanwhile, in the real world...

Abandoning your children is not an extreme example. It's a situation that anyone that knows poverty is familiar with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com