I think we also would disagree on the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.
> for present problems, ie the practical side
I see your point here, but we can't lose sight of the big picture. Compromising in the short term, no matter how many people it might help, seems like a bad idea to me.
I believe universal justice exists. I believe you can quantify justice. I think at the end of the day you and I are both right, and both wrong. We hold utterly different perspectives on life, choice, and freedom. These may be irreconcilable. For example, I genuinely believe depression can be cured by "not being depressed".
Edit:
What if I want to live my life paycheck to paycheck? What if none of what you just described about freedom from the emotional stress of finances matters to me? What right do you have to force me to make the "right" choices and be financially responsible? Why shouldn't I be allowed to hurt myself?
Nothing you've said here is wrong. The enquirer doesn't meet the minimum standards of journalism, they are a blackmail rag. I think this could actually be proven with empirical data.
There's a difference between a correction to a flawed article and attempted blackmail though... One is an accident that can occurre in the course of good journalism, the other is something else entirely.
There is no such thing as "financial freedom". Financial freedom is a concept that arises from personal beliefs and practices.
There is only one universal freedom, the freedom of chioce. I think this is more important than any 21st century pay day lending problem. We need to preserve free choice not just for our generation/set of problems, but for all time.
Edit:
Don't confuse living a long, healthy, happy life with freedom. They could not be more different.
> What do you about children born over the quota? Fine their families?
The way that our government/legal system is currently structured means every child born is likely to impose a cost on the general population/environment. So a fine doesn't seem entirely unfair.
Edit:
Also, for the record, I'm more a fan of providing incentives for those who don't have kids. Verses penalizing those who do.
> climate change + population growth will stress humans on the continent and increase environmental destruction
I find it interesting that population growth is discussed so little in the context of climate change. It seems like simple incentives/restrictions could be imposed to reduce birth rates. This would have a major impact on both climate change, and the depletion of the planets resources.
> We're just burying our heads in the sand about the reality of it.
As a US citizen, what can we really do. I realize our country shares responsibility for climate change, but isn't a major problem here also poaching? To really solve this, wouldn't Africa have to step up and crack down locally on industry damaging the environment, and poaching?
I don't think anyone is burring their heads in the sand, we just have no power to change things here or abroad. Half of our country still thinks climate change is a hoax...
> This is one of the things that turns me off Hacker News, an overly strong bias in defense of white men.
Really? I feel the exact opposite. HN is full of articles like this, singling out white men, and claiming they are somehow either toxic or the beneficiaries of privilege.
I detest gender/identity politics, and don't think claims should be leveled against an entire group based on unrelated physical traits. This is the only reason I jump to defend "white men". If an article was posted making the same claims about another race/gender I would mount the same defense. However, those kinds of articles never show up here, because the are more obviously racist.
> Why is it that Asian people are earning 2x more than white people yet article is focusing on "white men"?
Because pay discrimination is actually skill discrimination, but we're all ideologues and have to ignore information to keep our fragile narratives intact.
Edit:
It's my understanding the wage gap has been thoroughly debunked. It's core premise relies on a univariate analysis of lifetime earnings that has no real analytical value. Although, in some instances, pay discrimination may still exist. It's isolated, and completely illegal.
This is the problem with using the government to enforce any kind of grey aria social issue. We all have different definitions for sexual deviants, or reasonable drug use, etc...
I'm sure the above comment has some sort of religious background, and genuinely believes people on those subs are deviants.
> means a few sexual deviants get what's coming to them, who cares
Yeah, I too hate people who make different life choices than me. We should round all the gun owning, drug using, sex having deviants up, and put them in camps or something. Wouldn't the world be a better place if my vision for society was enforced by the government? /s
Seriously though, when did authoritarianism make such a strong comeback?
Edit:
The fact that people think they have a right to tell me what I put in my body, or how I use it, absolutely blows my mind. And then they wonder, "why are you so concerned about gun rights?". You, you are why I am concerned about gun rights.
What term can we use to refer to skin color and facial features if race means cultural differences? Also isn't what you're talking about culture not race?
Edit:
I'm going to jump off on a tangent here, but this is something that really bothers me. Clearly to most people race refers to skin color and facial features. Just like to most people gender refers to biological sex. If you want to refer to the non-physical aspects of race, use the term culture, then there will be no confusion. If you wan't to refer to the non-physical aspects of gender, use the term gender identity or gender role.
> The problem is they are stealing from people with abilities, smarts, and resources.
To be fair, these sorts of people tend to be wealthy.
I think the real lesson is don't steal in the public eye. Theranos had so much press surrounding their rise, and fall. It was inevitable the SEC would get involved.
> There’s a certain American standard of middle-class normality. [...] A school that has as few black students as possible without making the white middle class feel too guilty.
Was this meant to be sarcastic? I feel like most of the article was serious, but the author can't possibly be asserting that this is somehow part of the typical middle class "dream"?
Edit:
I feel like I've seen this a lot lately, controversial points/jabs being tossed in the middle of unrelated arguments. My personal feelings on the authors statement aside, it seems like an ineffective form of persuasion to make an argument which many people may agree with, then pollute it with random additional politics, without any real qualification or explanation.
Sure, the EU has essentially asserted in law that you own your data. That doesn't really make it true though.
I don't even think the EU was really addressing the moral/ethical nature of data with that law, politicians just wanted a way to remove defamatory content from the internet so they could regain control of their public image.
Just because something makes it into law doesn't mean it's reasonable/accurate/moral/just. In fact, I would argue most laws are created based on a groups narrow desire to achieve an immediate effect in the current society. Few laws are created with genuine exploration of larger implications on society/morality, and even fewer laws are created in the context of rights/what the government can/cant't control.
You've brought up a lot of seemingly good points, but I feel you've conflated a lot of things here.
First, I think we need to shift the discussion back to the first world. That was what the article was written about. Third world issues are outside the scope of the discussion. At least in the context of the comment you are replying to. Success is going to mean something different when you're country literally doesn't have food. No one is arguing starving children in Bangladesh should be able to be the next CEO of Google.
Second, I think you overestimate the extent to which issues like, "mom doing drugs" effect the general population in the first world. I would argue that the majority of unsuccessful people in the first world have not been effected by anything worse than the standard issues which arise from being raised in an impoverished/educationally lacking family environment.
This is inaccurate, or at the very least, incomplete. Mainly I take issue with the use of the word, "determine".
Randomness plays a huge role in the direction of a persons life, there is no denying this. However, a persons trajectory in life is only influenced by this. It's also very much influenced by choice. More importantly, there is ample evidence to suggest that choices can dramatically reduce the influence of randomness.
In my mind the equation is something like this:
(choices)/(randomness)=(chance of success)
Where (randomness) is a constant, and (choices) increases with good directed choices and decreases with bad or indiscriminate choices.
I think we also would disagree on the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.
> for present problems, ie the practical side
I see your point here, but we can't lose sight of the big picture. Compromising in the short term, no matter how many people it might help, seems like a bad idea to me.