[immibis]

You said this: "If to someone it makes sense to pour money into an apparently non-viable business on the off chance that it succeeds, what exactly is it that you're saying is not functioning properly?"

But this comment only makes sense when starting from a whole bunch of assumptions, which happen to be true right here and now, but are in no way universal.

Let me make a comparison: "If to someone it makes sense to carry a flamethrower to the grocery store to defend against thieves, what exactly is wrong with that?" What's wrong is a society where that kind of defense is necessary! We shouldn't be debating whether the individual should carry a flamethrower to the grocery store, we should be discussing how to improve society so they don't have to.

Also, rich people don't get to create a problem and also claim credit for solving it (with money).

Edit: much better analogy.

[fluoridation]

>Let me make a comparison: Me: "People should be able to walk to work" You: "If someone can't walk 10 miles to work along the side of a road with cars whizzing by at 100mph, why should they be able to walk to work?"

Yeah, like I said, you completely missed the point of my comment. Here, let me fix the analogy for you:

A: The fact that people drive cars on roads is a bug, not a feature.

B: A bug where? Like, in people's minds for thinking that driving cars on roads is a practical mode of transportation?

C: People should be able to walk to work.

Do you see how C's reply to B is a non sequitur? It doesn't answer the question that was posed, it presents an irrelevant "should", and even if one is generous enough to grant that people should be able to walk to work, it doesn't make choosing to drive cars on roads for other purposes an irrational decision. And, and, it most certainly doesn't make it irrational in the world we actually live in.

EDIT:

>We shouldn't be debating whether the individual should carry a flamethrower to the grocery store, we should be discussing how to improve society so they don't have to.

I don't appreciate being told what is or isn't okay to talk about.

[tucnak]

I'm sorry, but it is you who completely misses the point, and have so far failed to engage with your opponent's rhetoric on any meaningful level. (Using latin words like sequitur does not count!)

To borrow your analogy: there is, in fact, major issue in people driving cars on roads. This is why many cities elect to reduce car use by means of policy. This is accomplished because there's a dialectic where "should" translates into "must." It's called governance.

[fluoridation]

>so far failed to engage with your opponent's rhetoric on any meaningful level.

I have not failed to do it, I have chosen not to do it. I asked a specific question and received as an answer something that's totally irrelevant. I am decidedly not interested in whether "it would be possible to have a system where startups to require less funding, for example, by UBI, or normalizing bootstrapping". It has nothing to do with my original comment, and I'm not going to engage with it.

[immibis]

I am decidedly not interested in whether it's possible to build a society where grandma doesn't need to defend herself with a flamethrower at the grocery store. That has nothing to do with my comment and I won't engage with it. I am simply asking what's wrong with grandma defending herself with a flamethrower at the grocery store.

[fluoridation]

How dare I not want to talk about what you want to talk about?