alt Hacker News>What would you have rather done if you were the poor mother in middle of nowhere India and you had 6 children with complete lack of material stability. You would have rejected it?
There's a major inconsistency here. You're consistently claiming that other people don't understand poverty, and yet you essentially made the point that you're not poor ("those people have lower IQ"). So either you started off poor and then worked your way up via some route that's obviously not this job, or you haven't experienced it either, or you are actually poor and aren't doing this work. Which is it?
>Can you address the point I made where farmers suicides happen because of material poverty?
You haven't provided any evidence. If you can prove the suicide rate is higher for these farmers, you may have a point, but even then, the suicide rate does not necessarily have any bearing on the overall rate of happiness. It's possible that a bigger majority are happier farming, but a small minority are pushed more inexorably towards suicide. Perhaps that isn't true either. We simply don't know without evidence.
That's my basic point. You're making strong claims, but you quite clearly simply do not know and are deciding based on instinct and perhaps a vague desire to have your favoured political candidates get more votes. You haven't provided any justification whatsoever. "I think it's right", "maybe they commit suicide" and "they don't vote for people I prefer" are not justifications, they're guesses. As much as you may want me to ("Who are you to suggest they are less happy than otherwise?"). I have made no claims whatsoever, simply pointed out the lack of nuance using hypotheticals.
Having more money is very good. Psychological damage is very bad. Your point is that psychological damage doesn't matter and having more food is all that matters. Okay, so should you send your child off to fight for a warlord if it means they have more food? Please try to grasp that's there's nuance.
>If you saw that my main point was that metaphysical concerns of “trauma” and “psychological issues” are a non issue for people who don’t have food on their plate.
I've put this at the end because its beside the main point, but this sentence is just a barrel of conceptual misunderstandings. Trauma is a type of psychological issue, so "trauma and psychological issues" makes no sense without a prepended "other". Neither trauma nor psychological issues are metaphysical concerns. Metaphysical concerns are issues of first principles and deeper understandings of concepts. It's a branch of philosophy. If you don't believe me, Google it, or ask ChatGPT.
>There's a major inconsistency here. You're consistently claiming that other people don't understand poverty, and yet you essentially made the point that you're not poor ("those people have lower IQ"). So either you started off poor and then worked your way up via some route that's obviously not this job, or you haven't experienced it either, or you are actually poor and aren't doing this work. Which is it?
Have you considered that I have more knowledge of poverty, not because I have experienced it, but because I have spent time understanding it?
> You haven't provided any evidence. If you can prove the suicide rate is higher for these farmers, you may have a point, but even then, the suicide rate does not necessarily have any bearing on the overall rate of happiness. It's possible that a bigger majority are happier farming, but a small minority are pushed more inexorably towards suicide. Perhaps that isn't true either. We simply don't know without evidence.
You didn't understand the point I was trying to make.
Lets make it clear here: people are either unhappy because of material poverty like lack of money/food or because of higher level needs like love, safety and in this case - not watching abusive videos (so ridiculous that I even have to compare this).
Do you genuinely want to challenge me in claiming that people are more unhappy by watching abusive videos than because of material poverty? Really?
>Having more money is very good. Psychological damage is very bad. Your point is that psychological damage doesn't matter and having more food is all that matters. Okay, so should you send your child off to fight for a warlord if it means they have more food? Please try to grasp that's there's nuance.
Yes I would? The actual equivalent here is that the child does not have other means of earning and would go hungry. And that fighting for the warlord is overall good for the society. In that case its obvious. Are you this naive to not understand that this is _exactly_ why you have an army in your country? Why do you think people become soldiers? You are so naive and stick to moral grandstanding that you have not even grasped why people work.
I have asked you the third (I think) time now. What would you rather do if you were in the woman's situation? You have conveniently ignored it.
Pray tell me, what is the best choice for the woman to make? I have made it clear that I would have done the same thing. I actually think there's a reason why you ignored this question. By answering it, you would clearly admit that
1. this is the best choice she can take
2. this job has to be done by someone anyway so its net benefit to society
3. this means the overall story is a net positive for everyone and your moral grandstanding has no place here