jazzc
Elite Member
- Jan 27, 2009
- 2,964
- 14,717
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.
Taking a decision involves the process of sorting out good information from bad. People historically solve this with reputation networks.
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.
Buy a box of some common prescription drug, read the description with the tiny letters that describe the possible abysmal side effects (most of them will have a ton of). Is your doctor immoral for prescribing it to you without reading you the list?
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.
I agree that the ADHD story is mostly a huge scam as it has unfolded.
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?".
Replace the child with an adult, and the blame is on the person who chose to jump.
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.
There is a subtle point here. Not disclosing negative information and breach of contract (I don't mean this as a formal contract) is a different thing. If you sell me a car for example, we agree that the thing should work as expected for a minimum of X years. Failing to fulfill that, is the seller 's responsibility to bear the cost of the damages.
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.
Actually, you are if someone poisoned them. The deal is that you sell me veggies, not veggies and polonium
Hope I managed to make myself clear. Any more questions, fire away! You know I luv arguing with you:dancing:
Sorry for the short kind of the reply, I 'm a bit lacking of time today :weather00