Comment by User23
2 months ago
This is a position commonly referred to as "Social Darwinism." The same logic can get you to "drunk women out by themselves _have_ to be sexually assaulted" and so on. No, it's not OK to victimize people just because they're vulnerable. It's an absolutely odious caricature of moral reasoning.
I disagree with the comparison. A "drunk woman out by themselves" is, at the end of the day, just a person exercising their right to exist. A stock-market gambler, on the other hand, is literally betting on the bad decisions of whoever is on the other side of their trades. It's a predatory position to be in, and deserves a whole lot less sympathy.
That same logic says the rapist is betting on stupid women.
No, how?
WSB users are doing that to themselves. You can't possibly compare them to a raped person.
3 replies →
Not at all. Money represents resources, and it’s objectively better for society for resources to be in the hands of people who are not fools, instead of those who are.
You sound foolish, I’m gonna need to take all your money. Don’t worry, I’m being objective.
The argument is that the objective test is whether you can actually convince anyone to hand over money.
1 reply →
We don't need to take money from the fools. They'll give it away.
You can get like minded people and go roleplay feudalism with guns somewhere else, please leave people with empathy out of it.
PS: don't forget to document your inevitable failure, just like every libertarian "non-fools" community previously.