We shouldn't be discouraged from talking about our unusual ideas with snark, counter arguments and down voting should be sufficient.
Evidence, please?
I meant should in the normative sense. I would rather not see snark become a necessary or frequently used tool. Or do you not find snark cruel?
This is our monthly thread for collecting arbitrarily contrived scenarios in which somebody gets tortured for 3^^^^^3 years, or an infinite number of people experience an infinite amount of sorrow, or a baby gets eaten by a shark, etc. and which might be handy to link to in one of our discussions. As everyone knows, this is the most rational and non-obnoxious way to think about incentives and disincentives.