• Dissasterix
    link
    -11 year ago

    It sure feels like Im the only one doing any explaining here :p Lets do a lil quid-pro-quo. Ill ramble on after you’ve shown some sign of life here, sheesh.

    Again: Do you think my incentives rationale makes sense?

      • Dissasterix
        link
        -11 year ago

        Lmfaoooo :] Read what I said and try again. Pretty sure even a bot could figure this out.

          • Dissasterix
            link
            -11 year ago

            Again and again: Does my incentives idea make senset to you?

            Again: Ill ramble at you when you seem like a person and not an NPC. Good luck, you got this! This IS an answer, the answer is just ‘no, you first.’ ;]

            • Flying Squid
              link
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No, your idea doesn’t make sense to me. Now answer my question: What is the minimum number of abused children that is acceptable to you based on this plan? You yourself said it might be an increase of 5% of abuse cases. If you’re right, do you find that acceptable?

              Do you think you could possibly answer without insulting me this time? I never called you an “NPC” or any other names.

              • Dissasterix
                link
                01 year ago

                After several attempts I get “No, it doesnt make sense.” This is precisely why I insulted you. You’re doing the least ammount possible and show no candor. I think it makes total sense. What Im trying to do is find an agreement so we can work from there.

                I picked 5% because I intuit that would be n egregious game-over uptick. I do not know the ambient rate, for all I know 5% is ~20 kids. In terms of abuse statistics that would still be too great for me. Remeber what Stalin said about detahs and statistics…

                The 2D take is that ‘no amount of child abuse is right!’ Obviously. The 3D take is that it happens, but we should seek to limit it. The 4D take is/will be that the immediate financial incentives of foster care makes it a better vector for abuse than the long-earned gamble of the vote. That people will more likely abuse children for dollars, not votes.

                As an analogy: You’re going to rob a gas station. You pull out a weapon and begin to make your demands. You see a register and a wall of lotto tickets. You could take the cash in the register, maybe $1000, or you can take the lotto tickets and potentially win $1quadrillion dollars. What do you think will be stolen? Is one in the hand worth two in the bush? [Yes, IRL they will take both. But this is a thought-experiment to better understand the game-theory above.]

                • Flying Squid
                  link
                  31 year ago

                  I didn’t read past your justifying an insult.

                  Since you think insults are deserved, I don’t think I need to continue this conversation with you. One of the reasons I’m not on Reddit anymore is because people think insults are an acceptable method of communicating with others. I don’t. I think it’s juvenile and stifling of conversation.

                  Since you think they are acceptable, I don’t think I need to communicate with you further. Goodbye.

                  • Dissasterix
                    link
                    01 year ago

                    Im sorry you feel that way. Shame can be a poweful motivating force. Be well :]