In general the "if you think X is a problem but you don't support our solution of giving us more money and power you must not actually think X is a problem" is tiresome but this one in particular chafes. "You think there's a mental health crisis but don't want to give money and power to the people that just spend two years isolating, lying to, demoralizing and experimenting on the public and who won't admit any mistake because it was all intentional; pretty hypocritical of you." Alternatively, "you say that 98% of spree shooters are on SSRIs but with only a few tens of billions per year we can get that number to 100%!"
I see the same thing in the abortion debate (disclaimer: am pro-choice). People say that if you oppose abortion, then you have to pay for other people's children - even more than you already do now.
Of course, there is no such principle. Pro-lifers believe that abortion kills a human. You don't have to pay for other people's kids to prevent them from killing them.
It leaves every other question as well, including whether or not general AI is possible. The point is that this question is not relevant, and that lack of support for arbitrarily defined social welfare programs does not make anyone 'hypocritical'.
In general the "if you think X is a problem but you don't support our solution of giving us more money and power you must not actually think X is a problem" is tiresome but this one in particular chafes. "You think there's a mental health crisis but don't want to give money and power to the people that just spend two years isolating, lying to, demoralizing and experimenting on the public and who won't admit any mistake because it was all intentional; pretty hypocritical of you." Alternatively, "you say that 98% of spree shooters are on SSRIs but with only a few tens of billions per year we can get that number to 100%!"
I see the same thing in the abortion debate (disclaimer: am pro-choice). People say that if you oppose abortion, then you have to pay for other people's children - even more than you already do now.
Of course, there is no such principle. Pro-lifers believe that abortion kills a human. You don't have to pay for other people's kids to prevent them from killing them.
It leaves every other question as well, including whether or not general AI is possible. The point is that this question is not relevant, and that lack of support for arbitrarily defined social welfare programs does not make anyone 'hypocritical'.
There are hundreds of thousands of people waiting on adopting a baby. It's a burden readily taken on by these people.