fmaa
8d ago
Isn't that a pretty standard proselytizing angle, used especially on criminals and drug addicts etc? It may work on spiritual/culturally christian but nonpracticing people, but why would anyone use that line here? It would be a comically bad misread of rationality-community adjacent atheists to believe they "don't think Jesus should love them".
fmaa
10d ago
Is there an obvious answer to to that setup? One of the kids loves baseball and seems to enjoy every part of the practice, the other kid's maybe only there because the authority figures in his life are forcing him and does the bare minimum to not get in trouble. We don't get any insight whatsoever into the first kid's agency, and the lack of more open defiance from the second could show a lack of agency, but then that would be counter to FHMs larger point. (Which I think is nonsense, tbf. His entire post seems to be "agency=good, therefore the action that lead to the best outcome must have been the highest agency".)
I'm confused why you're putting extra time and drugs into the same category here. He can keep taking the drugs for those billable hours.
In fact, I think being against performance enhancing drugs is part of the same confused attitude to work you otherwise decry. Where there's a "proper" way to study/practice law, and doing it on adderall is cheating. Instead of there being an actual service that he's performing with an output/price ratio.
More options
Context Copy link