While there 's a significant amount of people incapable of understanding things (half the population is below the average IQ after all

), there is also a very significant amount of people who can understand but simply lack the information and guidance to.
Yes. And some can understand it but don't want to because they want to have an excuse. And so on. My point was "some people" believe certain things because of fallacious logic.
Why? How about asking for some water instead?
Suppose a drug addict injures you on the street to rob you to get his dose. He needs it, his body and mind tell him so. Is his action justified by his need to survive?
Suppose a guy is in a car chased by gangsters who want to kill him. He takes a fast turn and on the middle of the road is an old lady. If he stops, he 'll probably end up dead. He runs over the old lady to escape. Is his action justified by his need to survive?
Obviously the examples can get more elaborate, but I think you get my point
Yes. I agree with you. My point was to emphasize the relativity of morality/immorality and the fact choices are not always based on them but on more stringent forces within us - like survival, addiction, etc.
That 's a limiting belief you have and it is wrong (unless you coerce someone to act). Why do you presume you should get to decide what other people 's decisions should be? Why do you think someone hasn't got the right to treat himself with lies (I 'll lose 200 pounds by taking a pill 3 times a day for 2 weeks) instead of taking action (sweat)? And if he wants to, why would it be moral to deny him what he chooses to buy?
This is one thing I absolutely don't agree with. First off, I want to make it clear that I don't think I or anybody should decide on behalf of somebody else. However, when you are being fed tampered evidence, lies, half-truths, emphasis on certain benefits and leaving out negatives, etc. then a person's decision is not made using accurate information and logic. Hence his decision making process is rigged.
If I'm selling you an X and I tell you it will take care of 5 problems you have and emphasize on how cool that is going to be and all that you might very likely want it. If I also tell you there's a 30% chance to get cancer from it, have your testicles fall off and grow hair in your palms you might take a different decision.
Is not about choices you have is about me feeding you certain information and leaving other out, knowing the complete information, understanding the effects and seeing in perspective (as opposed to you). In other words, manipulating you into having a behavior that benefits me while potentially hurting you. If I don't shoot you in the head but I tell you to walk on a certain path knowing there are gangsters there who will likely kill you, and I do this knowingly, then it is the same fucking thing. On top of that there's the authority effect that amplifies everything.
Kids are diagnosed with ADD/ADHD and similar syndromes, are being made to think (and their parents too) that there's something wrong with them, when in fact there's something wrong with the system (see Stefan's video on mental diseases and drugs). But the system will not agree to such a claim or allow doubt to be cast on it, hence it twists everything into "the kid is sick". The entire chain in the system is being fed bullshit - from pharma, doctors, educators all the way to the parents and the kid itself. Every component (doctors, edu, etc) in the chain assumes this aberration as a fact - actually as the ONLY fact/possible way - and then not only uses it in its own logic but propagates it, wrongly educating other components of the chain - downstream or sideways.
You have a young child. You can tell him if he jumps off a cliff he's going to have an amazing time, he's going to feel the wind in his face, get an adrenalin rush, feel awesome, etc. It's all true! Do you do that? No. Because you know the full story - he's going to die at the end. As a matter of fact, I'd say a good measure of morality is to ask yourself "would I do this to my child?".
I can go on this aspect alone for an entire day and maybe tens of pages.
There is no fault. People desire whatever they want to desire and others provide.
While I agree with your 2nd sentence above - no evil in the demand-offer system by default - I do not agree with an absolute generalization of it. When somebody knowingly tampers and sculpts information to achieve a certain benefit while hurting somebody else, that is not ok IMO. There's nothing wrong with the system itself. The problem is with people who are willing to twist it and game it and hurt others for a benefit. And what is truly sad for me is the fact they do this despite the fact the win-win system works. In fact it works far better. What it doesn't work for however is tickling one's ego and allowing him to gain control and have an effect on somebody else.
Doesn't this contradict everything you said above? If G is serving third-party Ads, does it vet each and every one to see if their provide what each every individual person "really" (i.e. according to someone else 's design) need?
I said "You do that by charging money while providing REAL value.". You pulled it out of the context a bit, but I do get your more subtle point and I will address it:
If I have a groceries store, and I sell groceries to you, and next day you die because they were poisoned, it is not me who is the criminal (considering I didn't knew they're poisoned) but whoever poisoned the groceries. Google veting ads would mean Google has to be the police of ads. I don't mean that or think there's a benefit in that. What I'm saying is when you KNOWINGLY manipulate somebody against his interest or well being.
I can dislike and be disappointed by people and society for being dumb enough to not see the shit they're being fed and they end up propagating but I can not accuse them or even be upset on them because they are victims as well.
Hope I managed to make myself clear. Any more questions, fire away! You know I luv arguing with you

:dancing: