Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by luckylion 2447 days ago
Let's focus on the actual victims first though, and stop the bullies. There is a meta-argument with regards to free will and whether and how much choice we have in the things we do, but that's a very different discussion (albeit an interesting one) and shouldn't be confused with the one about the bully's acts and immediate (and long term) results.
1 comments
Juliate 2447 days ago
Taking care of the victims today does not exclude taking care of the bullies as well.

Stopping them does not mean only punishment, but counselling (and sometimes, because they were themselves victims of abuses).

link
luckylion 2447 days ago
Given that resources are limited, choices have to be made regarding priority.
link
saagarjha 2447 days ago
From that perspective, stopping a bully is more effective than helping a victim, because bullies often have more than one target.
link
luckylion 2447 days ago
That would be the purely financial angle (provided that it's accurate), it doesn't take into account who deserves the help more (which is a moral judgement and is hard to agree on) and how much more. If somebody attacks somebody else and hurts themselves in the process and they both end up needing a new kidney and only one transplant is available, who gets it?

Instead of punishing robbers, why don't we just give them enough money to live luxurious lives so they aren't tempted to rob any more people?

link
bullytw2019 2447 days ago
> If somebody attacks somebody else and hurts themselves in the process and they both end up needing a new kidney and only one transplant is available, who gets it?

bad analogy, because in this case it's more like one person's kidney got destroyed and the other lost a lung.

You want different types of specialists to deal with victims vs bullies. Assigning the wrong type will probably just make things worse.

> Instead of punishing robbers, why don't we just give them enough money to live luxurious lives so they aren't tempted to rob any more people?

One could argue that's part of the idea behind Universal Basic Income. That if your needs are being met by UBI, you really "shouldn't" have a reason to need to rob, so at that point they don't have any excuses. (I have skepticism about that in practice, but I get the concept at least.)

link
luckylion 2447 days ago
> You want different types of specialists to deal with victims vs bullies.

Both cost money (=resources). Money is limited. Who do we focus on?

As for that theory on "no excuses": UBI is more or less reality in large parts of Europe, yet crime still exists.

link