Social Darwinism page 1
andrewclunn
26th January 2012, 03:16 PM
So it's been suggested that there be a thread about this. I identify as a Social Darwinist. What say you?
Tardigrade
26th January 2012, 03:25 PM
I'm an unsocial Darwinist.
nostrum
26th January 2012, 03:33 PM
To identify as one, my sense of morality would have to be vastly different. So, no, I'm on the far left.
oblivion
26th January 2012, 11:50 PM
So it's been suggested that there be a thread about this. I identify as a Social Darwinist. What say you?
How do you define Social Darwinism?
How do you define Social Darwinism?
charlou
27th January 2012, 12:10 AM
I'm for manipulating social outcomes through education, healthcare, fair distribution of wealth and democracy ... I also happen to be very glad Charles Darwin was an observant thinker so we could learn about the history of life on Earth.
Jerome
27th January 2012, 12:20 AM
I'm for manipulating social outcomes through education, healthcare, fair distribution of wealth and democracy ...
How is it determined who is manipulated into what?
How is it determined who is manipulated into what?
Jerome
27th January 2012, 12:22 AM
Anyone that would be worthy would already know the noble lie.
Hermit
27th January 2012, 12:37 AM
I identify as a Social Darwinist. What say you?
I say I'm not at all surprised.
There are a number of flavours of social Darwinism. As mentioned elsewhere, the Wikipedia has an article on the topic here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism). Do you subscribe to the one that entails eugenics?
I say I'm not at all surprised.
There are a number of flavours of social Darwinism. As mentioned elsewhere, the Wikipedia has an article on the topic here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism). Do you subscribe to the one that entails eugenics?
PermanentlyEphemeral
27th January 2012, 01:27 AM
I'm for manipulating social outcomes through education, healthcare, fair distribution of wealth and democracy ... I also happen to be very glad Charles Darwin was an observant thinker so we could learn about the history of life on Earth.
Read up about his wife.
They had one of the greatest romance stories of all time.
And I seem to remember reading she did a great job editing his work.
Read up about his wife.
They had one of the greatest romance stories of all time.
And I seem to remember reading she did a great job editing his work.
charlou
27th January 2012, 02:57 AM
I'm for manipulating social outcomes through education, healthcare, fair distribution of wealth and democracy ...
How is it determined who is manipulated into what?
Democracy is nowhere near my idealistic preference (my ideal being a form of anarchy based on mutual trust - impossible, I think), but it's the best I have seen.
I'm interested in considering alternative ideas though.
How is it determined who is manipulated into what?
Democracy is nowhere near my idealistic preference (my ideal being a form of anarchy based on mutual trust - impossible, I think), but it's the best I have seen.
I'm interested in considering alternative ideas though.
Jerome
27th January 2012, 03:03 AM
it is worth the try
Grumps
27th January 2012, 03:59 AM
Social darwinism assumes there's any 'right' way to be, not worth discussing a philosophy like that.
Jerome
27th January 2012, 04:04 AM
Social darwinism assumes there's any 'right' way to be
religion then
religion then
andrewclunn
27th January 2012, 04:08 AM
I'm more of a laissez faire style social Darwinist, where I think that letting the incompetent and lazy die off is a good idea. Who needs active eugenics? People in power will just arbitrarily apply some form of nepotism and call it eugenics.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
Jerome
27th January 2012, 04:31 AM
If the 'losers and idiots' self destruct the bottom of society will be a black hole sucking down everyone.
Grumps
27th January 2012, 04:36 AM
If the 'losers and idiots' self destruct the bottom of society will be a black hole sucking down everyone.
Phone sanitizers.
You social darwin types are all so happy to get rid the 'lesser people', but then have fits of white middle-class anxiety when you realise that you're going to have to scrub the toilets.
Phone sanitizers.
You social darwin types are all so happy to get rid the 'lesser people', but then have fits of white middle-class anxiety when you realise that you're going to have to scrub the toilets.
Jerome
27th January 2012, 04:51 AM
on the contrary, I have no idea who the 'lesser' people are, they may be me!
Cunt
27th January 2012, 05:13 AM
It sounds like what we have, in some respects.
Adenosine
27th January 2012, 06:52 AM
I'm more of a laissez faire style social Darwinist, where I think that letting the incompetent and lazy die off is a good idea. Who needs active eugenics? People in power will just arbitrarily apply some form of nepotism and call it eugenics.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
So do you blame children for who their parents are?
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
So do you blame children for who their parents are?
Exi5tentialist
27th January 2012, 07:26 AM
I'm more of a laissez faire style social Darwinist, where I think that letting the incompetent and lazy die off is a good idea. Who needs active eugenics? People in power will just arbitrarily apply some form of nepotism and call it eugenics.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
You're repulsive
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
You're repulsive
MSG
27th January 2012, 07:48 AM
on the contrary, I have no idea who the 'lesser' people are, they may be me!
this seems quite plausible
this seems quite plausible
Floppit
27th January 2012, 10:49 AM
I'm more of a laissez faire style social Darwinist, where I think that letting the incompetent and lazy die off is a good idea. Who needs active eugenics? People in power will just arbitrarily apply some form of nepotism and call it eugenics.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
Would you bother to raise a disabled child if you had one? You could legally just place the kid in care I suppose.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
Would you bother to raise a disabled child if you had one? You could legally just place the kid in care I suppose.
PermanentlyEphemeral
27th January 2012, 12:22 PM
If the 'losers and idiots' self destruct the bottom of society will be a black hole sucking down everyone.
Phone sanitizers.
You social darwin types are all so happy to get rid the 'lesser people', but then have fits of white middle-class anxiety when you realise that you're going to have to scrub the toilets.
I think he meant everyone being sucked down a black hole was a bad thing.
Therefore letting the "losers and idiots" self destruct is a bad thing as it leads to everyone being sucked down a black hole.
Personally I think every-time someone wants to get into rehab they should be able to get in within an hour.
Phone sanitizers.
You social darwin types are all so happy to get rid the 'lesser people', but then have fits of white middle-class anxiety when you realise that you're going to have to scrub the toilets.
I think he meant everyone being sucked down a black hole was a bad thing.
Therefore letting the "losers and idiots" self destruct is a bad thing as it leads to everyone being sucked down a black hole.
Personally I think every-time someone wants to get into rehab they should be able to get in within an hour.
Sugreeva
27th January 2012, 04:18 PM
I'm more of a laissez faire style social Darwinist, where I think that letting the incompetent and lazy die off is a good idea. Who needs active eugenics? People in power will just arbitrarily apply some form of nepotism and call it eugenics.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
You're repulsive
.....
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
You're repulsive
.....
andrewclunn
27th January 2012, 04:30 PM
So do you blame children for who their parents are?
I think that giving money to poor parents specifically because they have children they can't afford is ridiculous and promotes child birth among people who shouldn't be having them in the first place. I find that providing for those children at a subsistence level only makes the problem worse. What's the joke? "For only 50 cents a day you can help this little girl to live long enough to get pregnant and have 5 more kids that will need 50 cents a day!"
I also think that penalizing parents who are responsible and plan their families by making them pay more to offset other people's kids is unjust. I think discouraging good behavior and rewarding incompetence will result in creating a culture of dependence and entitlement. I also think that while the nature vs nurture argument is far from settled, genetics certainly plays some role, and yes some people will be better suited (by their very nature) to being successful in modern society than others.
Would you bother to raise a disabled child if you had one? You could legally just place the kid in care I suppose.
I would push to have such a child aborted. If I had a child that had a mental condition, which there is no pre-birth screening for, then I would not put it on the taxpayers and society to raise the child for me. That is my responsibility. Also I do not personally approve of adoption (Though I don't think it should be made illegal).
You social darwin types are all so happy to get rid the 'lesser people', but then have fits of white middle-class anxiety when you realise that you're going to have to scrub the toilets.
I have worked since I was 9. Got a paper route by lying and saying I was 10. I've worked fast food, worked out doors, been a cashier, worked overnight shifts. I went to a state college on a full tuition merit based scholarship, and continued working the whole time while I went to school. I lent my parents about 3 grand when I was 14 (which I had saved up from all the jobs I had been working) to help them make a down payment on their first home. Go fuck yourself.
You're repulsive
That I am. I don't think I owe strangers anything and that does make me repulsive to many people who believe they have a right to take things from me because they claim to need it more. Most people will agree with you. I happen to also think that most people are stupid, lazy, hypocrites.
I think that giving money to poor parents specifically because they have children they can't afford is ridiculous and promotes child birth among people who shouldn't be having them in the first place. I find that providing for those children at a subsistence level only makes the problem worse. What's the joke? "For only 50 cents a day you can help this little girl to live long enough to get pregnant and have 5 more kids that will need 50 cents a day!"
I also think that penalizing parents who are responsible and plan their families by making them pay more to offset other people's kids is unjust. I think discouraging good behavior and rewarding incompetence will result in creating a culture of dependence and entitlement. I also think that while the nature vs nurture argument is far from settled, genetics certainly plays some role, and yes some people will be better suited (by their very nature) to being successful in modern society than others.
Would you bother to raise a disabled child if you had one? You could legally just place the kid in care I suppose.
I would push to have such a child aborted. If I had a child that had a mental condition, which there is no pre-birth screening for, then I would not put it on the taxpayers and society to raise the child for me. That is my responsibility. Also I do not personally approve of adoption (Though I don't think it should be made illegal).
You social darwin types are all so happy to get rid the 'lesser people', but then have fits of white middle-class anxiety when you realise that you're going to have to scrub the toilets.
I have worked since I was 9. Got a paper route by lying and saying I was 10. I've worked fast food, worked out doors, been a cashier, worked overnight shifts. I went to a state college on a full tuition merit based scholarship, and continued working the whole time while I went to school. I lent my parents about 3 grand when I was 14 (which I had saved up from all the jobs I had been working) to help them make a down payment on their first home. Go fuck yourself.
You're repulsive
That I am. I don't think I owe strangers anything and that does make me repulsive to many people who believe they have a right to take things from me because they claim to need it more. Most people will agree with you. I happen to also think that most people are stupid, lazy, hypocrites.
Dirtyarris
27th January 2012, 05:15 PM
I'm sorry, but you've gotta be an ignorant cunt to think this way, thus using your own definition of losers and idiots (check your avatar pic), FUCK OFF AND DIE.
Cunt
27th January 2012, 05:42 PM
Would you bother to raise a disabled child if you had one? You could legally just place the kid in care I suppose.
Would you pressure distressed, underqualified parents to raise a disabled child?
You may have just done that.
andrewclunn would, it seems. Both of you are dead fucking wrong, from my perspective. There are indeed many parents who would funnel all their resources into supporting a disabled child, but also many who would choose to put their resources into the rest of their litter instead.
Should your childhood be robbed because your folks decided to dedicate their life and their family to raising a severely developmentally disabled child?
I think it is perfectly fair for society to pay for this (and this is where I disagree with andrewclunn, I guess). People like andrew have a society which provides for them (like a paper route, fast food job and electricity) and in fact provides many things he could never afford for himself.
I think everyone deserves a bit of support from our society, not just andrewclunn and his 'fuck you I did it all myself' bullshit attitude. He couldn't have the success he has enjoyed without all of the support many of us take for granted.
Would you pressure distressed, underqualified parents to raise a disabled child?
You may have just done that.
andrewclunn would, it seems. Both of you are dead fucking wrong, from my perspective. There are indeed many parents who would funnel all their resources into supporting a disabled child, but also many who would choose to put their resources into the rest of their litter instead.
Should your childhood be robbed because your folks decided to dedicate their life and their family to raising a severely developmentally disabled child?
I think it is perfectly fair for society to pay for this (and this is where I disagree with andrewclunn, I guess). People like andrew have a society which provides for them (like a paper route, fast food job and electricity) and in fact provides many things he could never afford for himself.
I think everyone deserves a bit of support from our society, not just andrewclunn and his 'fuck you I did it all myself' bullshit attitude. He couldn't have the success he has enjoyed without all of the support many of us take for granted.
gib
27th January 2012, 06:02 PM
epic thread spotted
Dirtyarris
27th January 2012, 06:03 PM
I think it is perfectly fair for society to pay for this (and this is where I disagree with andrewclunn, I guess). People like andrew have a society which provides for them (like a paper route, fast food job and electricity) and in fact provides many things he could never afford for himself.
I think everyone deserves a bit of support from our society, not just andrewclunn and his 'fuck you I did it all myself' bullshit attitude. He couldn't have the success he has enjoyed without all of the support many of us take for granted.
THIS.:thumbsup:
I think everyone deserves a bit of support from our society, not just andrewclunn and his 'fuck you I did it all myself' bullshit attitude. He couldn't have the success he has enjoyed without all of the support many of us take for granted.
THIS.:thumbsup:
andrewclunn
27th January 2012, 06:06 PM
"I pay taxes and force you to pay taxes too, and you've benefited from some of the stuff that I've forced you to pay for, so therefore any argument you make against being forced to pay for them makes you an ungrateful hypocrite!"
That's not a good argument. You don't have to agree with me, but making claims like that don't prove anyone wrong. It's an emotional appeal that assumes that all things accomplished through government agencies can only be accomplished in that way (not true), ignores all the horrible things that governments do which people are forced to support via taxation (such as wars), claims that because I was forced to be part of the state collective through laws and taxation that I've somehow consented to it (again, not true), and then attempts to take credit for everything I've earned and claim that it was given to me (nobody just gave me the paycheck from those jobs, I had to do the jobs to get the pay, and no government agency forced anyone to give me the jobs in the first place).
That's not a good argument. You don't have to agree with me, but making claims like that don't prove anyone wrong. It's an emotional appeal that assumes that all things accomplished through government agencies can only be accomplished in that way (not true), ignores all the horrible things that governments do which people are forced to support via taxation (such as wars), claims that because I was forced to be part of the state collective through laws and taxation that I've somehow consented to it (again, not true), and then attempts to take credit for everything I've earned and claim that it was given to me (nobody just gave me the paycheck from those jobs, I had to do the jobs to get the pay, and no government agency forced anyone to give me the jobs in the first place).
andrewclunn
27th January 2012, 06:19 PM
I'm sorry, but you've gotta be an ignorant cunt to think this way, thus using your own definition of losers and idiots (check your avatar pic), FUCK OFF AND DIE.
:rofl: I accept your apology :thumbsup:
:rofl: I accept your apology :thumbsup:
divagreen
27th January 2012, 07:15 PM
"I pay taxes and force you to pay taxes too, and you've benefited from some of the stuff that I've forced you to pay for, so therefore any argument you make against being forced to pay for them makes you an ungrateful hypocrite!"
That's not a good argument. You don't have to agree with me, but making claims like that don't prove anyone wrong. It's an emotional appeal that assumes that all things accomplished through government agencies can only be accomplished in that way (not true), ignores all the horrible things that governments do which people are forced to support via taxation (such as wars), claims that because I was forced to be part of the state collective through laws and taxation that I've somehow consented to it (again, not true), and then attempts to take credit for everything I've earned and claim that it was given to me (nobody just gave me the paycheck from those jobs, I had to do the jobs to get the pay, and no government agency forced anyone to give me the jobs in the first place).
You do realise the Koch brothers make a mint off of wars, right? Corportism should not equate the governement but by your own value system it should! How does that work????
So you pay federal taxes????
That's not a good argument. You don't have to agree with me, but making claims like that don't prove anyone wrong. It's an emotional appeal that assumes that all things accomplished through government agencies can only be accomplished in that way (not true), ignores all the horrible things that governments do which people are forced to support via taxation (such as wars), claims that because I was forced to be part of the state collective through laws and taxation that I've somehow consented to it (again, not true), and then attempts to take credit for everything I've earned and claim that it was given to me (nobody just gave me the paycheck from those jobs, I had to do the jobs to get the pay, and no government agency forced anyone to give me the jobs in the first place).
You do realise the Koch brothers make a mint off of wars, right? Corportism should not equate the governement but by your own value system it should! How does that work????
So you pay federal taxes????
andrewclunn
27th January 2012, 07:28 PM
Yes I pay federal taxes. The rest of your statement seems like you're attributing views and statements to me that I did not make and are making some pretty presumptuous statements about my beliefs. I support corporatism? I like war so long as it's fought for private profits? Huh?
I listed war as one potentially undesirable activity that people are forced to support against their will via government taxation. I listed that as one reason to refute the assertion by Cunt that I am being hypocritical by accepting society's help in the form of police, roads, etc... while railing against it.
Please respond to what I say rather than claiming to understand my point of view already and explain it to me. I promise not to misrepresent my views for the sake of political correctness, and I can almost guarantee that you've never met somebody else who thinks like me (I haven't, and I've looked).
I listed war as one potentially undesirable activity that people are forced to support against their will via government taxation. I listed that as one reason to refute the assertion by Cunt that I am being hypocritical by accepting society's help in the form of police, roads, etc... while railing against it.
Please respond to what I say rather than claiming to understand my point of view already and explain it to me. I promise not to misrepresent my views for the sake of political correctness, and I can almost guarantee that you've never met somebody else who thinks like me (I haven't, and I've looked).
divagreen
27th January 2012, 07:38 PM
Yes I pay federal taxes. The rest of your statement seems like you're attributing views and statements to me that I did not make and are making some pretty presumptuous statements about my beliefs. I support corporatism? I like war so long as it's fought for private profits? Huh?
I listed war as one potentially undesirable activity that people are forced to support against their will via government taxation. I listed that as one reason to refute the assertion by Cunt that I am being hypocritical by accepting society's help in the form of police, roads, etc... while railing against it.
Please respond to what I say rather than claiming to understand my point of view already and explain it to me. I promise not to misrepresent my views for the sake of political correctness, and I can almost guarantee that you've never met somebody else who thinks like me (I haven't, and I've looked).
Settle petal! :hug:
I am trying to explore the boundaries of your thought processes. :)
Social darwinism supports those who :airquotes:works their way to the top:airquotes:, no? And the rest are fodder, yes? If this is a misrepresentation then plz clarify.
I listed war as one potentially undesirable activity that people are forced to support against their will via government taxation. I listed that as one reason to refute the assertion by Cunt that I am being hypocritical by accepting society's help in the form of police, roads, etc... while railing against it.
Please respond to what I say rather than claiming to understand my point of view already and explain it to me. I promise not to misrepresent my views for the sake of political correctness, and I can almost guarantee that you've never met somebody else who thinks like me (I haven't, and I've looked).
Settle petal! :hug:
I am trying to explore the boundaries of your thought processes. :)
Social darwinism supports those who :airquotes:works their way to the top:airquotes:, no? And the rest are fodder, yes? If this is a misrepresentation then plz clarify.
gib
27th January 2012, 07:43 PM
andrewclunn please provide an example of a society, past or present, that you consider fairer than western social democracy
andrewclunn
27th January 2012, 08:00 PM
Social darwinism supports those who :airquotes:works their way to the top:airquotes:, no? And the rest are fodder, yes? If this is a misrepresentation then plz clarify.
No, that's in-group out-group morality based on financial success. Again respond to what I say, not the straw man arguments you've built up in your head. I suggest you start rereading this thread form the beginning.
andrewclunn please provide an example of a society, past or present, that you consider fairer than western social democracy
I am not going to do that. If I state a society, then you can start attacking flaws in that society, even if those are flaws that I agree are flaws. Practical examples serve a place in discussions, but not when one is still trying to communicate a set of values. If you would like to discuss specific issues however, then I'm up for that.
No, that's in-group out-group morality based on financial success. Again respond to what I say, not the straw man arguments you've built up in your head. I suggest you start rereading this thread form the beginning.
andrewclunn please provide an example of a society, past or present, that you consider fairer than western social democracy
I am not going to do that. If I state a society, then you can start attacking flaws in that society, even if those are flaws that I agree are flaws. Practical examples serve a place in discussions, but not when one is still trying to communicate a set of values. If you would like to discuss specific issues however, then I'm up for that.
gib
27th January 2012, 08:13 PM
i'm trying to establish if your ideal society has ever existed or if it's just in your head
andrewclunn
27th January 2012, 08:25 PM
i'm trying to establish if your ideal society has ever existed or if it's just in your head
A society without religious morals being pushed via law, without forced government redistribution of wealth, without a nobility or class immune to the very laws they write, without a military draft, but with laws against murder and violence? No society like that has ever existed to my knowledge.
A society without religious morals being pushed via law, without forced government redistribution of wealth, without a nobility or class immune to the very laws they write, without a military draft, but with laws against murder and violence? No society like that has ever existed to my knowledge.
Jerome
27th January 2012, 08:49 PM
(nobody just gave me the paycheck from those jobs, I had to do the jobs to get the pay, and no government agency forced anyone to give me the jobs in the first place).
This is the same thinking that allows people to support the taxation of a person's labor as income/profit.
Hey everybody!!! Exchanging a days worth of labor for a pay check is not a profit/income, it is an even exchange!
This is the same thinking that allows people to support the taxation of a person's labor as income/profit.
Hey everybody!!! Exchanging a days worth of labor for a pay check is not a profit/income, it is an even exchange!
andrewclunn
27th January 2012, 09:23 PM
(nobody just gave me the paycheck from those jobs, I had to do the jobs to get the pay, and no government agency forced anyone to give me the jobs in the first place).
This is the same thinking that allows people to support the taxation of a person's labor as income/profit.
Hey everybody!!! Exchanging a days worth of labor for a pay check is not a profit/income, it is an even exchange!
This is the second time you've made a post in this thread where it's unclear if you're attempting to use hyperbole to mock an idea or not. There is no sarcastic font and your first statement seems to be against income taxes, while the second looks like you're mocking the notion that payment for labor should not be taxed because it's magically different from income.
I have no clue what you're actually trying to say. Please correct this.
This is the same thinking that allows people to support the taxation of a person's labor as income/profit.
Hey everybody!!! Exchanging a days worth of labor for a pay check is not a profit/income, it is an even exchange!
This is the second time you've made a post in this thread where it's unclear if you're attempting to use hyperbole to mock an idea or not. There is no sarcastic font and your first statement seems to be against income taxes, while the second looks like you're mocking the notion that payment for labor should not be taxed because it's magically different from income.
I have no clue what you're actually trying to say. Please correct this.
nostrum
27th January 2012, 09:30 PM
epic thread spotted
:nada:
:nada:
andrewclunn
27th January 2012, 09:55 PM
i'm trying to establish if your ideal society has ever existed or if it's just in your head
To clarify though. My set of values do not derive from an idealized society. I see that as backwards. Morality should be built around idealized personal interactions and then ethics derived from morality rather than the other way around. One might describe me as subscribing to a form of virtue ethics. Utopia is not my goal and I don't think that anyone can plan out utopia. I believe that simple rules can lead to complex functioning structures in society via emergence, and that the complexity should occur in voluntary social interaction rather than contradictory, convoluted, and often corrupt legal-eze.
To clarify though. My set of values do not derive from an idealized society. I see that as backwards. Morality should be built around idealized personal interactions and then ethics derived from morality rather than the other way around. One might describe me as subscribing to a form of virtue ethics. Utopia is not my goal and I don't think that anyone can plan out utopia. I believe that simple rules can lead to complex functioning structures in society via emergence, and that the complexity should occur in voluntary social interaction rather than contradictory, convoluted, and often corrupt legal-eze.
pensioner
27th January 2012, 10:07 PM
So it's been suggested that there be a thread about this. I identify as a Social Darwinist. What say you?
I hope your Avatar is not a photo of your good self and partner, as a Social Darwinist I would not allow you two to breed. :sadyes:
I hope your Avatar is not a photo of your good self and partner, as a Social Darwinist I would not allow you two to breed. :sadyes:
Exi5tentialist
27th January 2012, 10:45 PM
The problem with Andrew's philosophy is that capitalism automatically gives rise to collectivist forces that can easily overthrow it. In order to keep those collectivist forces at bay, a capitalist state must be in place to police revolutionaries. In a low- or nil-tax state, the police / army will not have the manpower to maintain capitalism by force. Capitalism must therefore rely on policing by consent. But consent is only forthcoming by making concessions, so the capitalist state must offer education, welfare and health care in order to keep the natives from revolting all the time. This is the uneasy truce we call social democracy. Andrew's view is repulsive because it gambles that the withdrawal of the social concessions can be achieved whilst still maintaining the security of the capitalist state. To some extent this is true, and many people will suffer in the process, but ultimately the state will be at risk from each resurgence of collective anger, so the long-term viability of even a fraction of his philosophy is highly tenuous.
Adenosine
28th January 2012, 12:00 AM
Beyond the issue of welfare to poor parents to raise their children, there is the issue of equal access to resources.
You appear to be what I would describe as middle class. You are white and a man. That gives you three huge advantages in society. The schools you went to would have been well funded and most of your contemporaries would have also have been middle class and probably white.
A child born to poor badly educated parents would have none of your advantages. They would learn to speak as their parents do, they would inherit their parent's ideas and they would be educated in poorly funded schools where survival takes precedence over education. So, since you two have started in different places do you really think that it is fair to leave that child without any sort of safety net? They didn't have equal access to resources to start with so it isn't a matter of survival of the fittest, it is a matter of haves and have nots.
I find it interesting that most proponents of social Darwinism are white middle class males.
You appear to be what I would describe as middle class. You are white and a man. That gives you three huge advantages in society. The schools you went to would have been well funded and most of your contemporaries would have also have been middle class and probably white.
A child born to poor badly educated parents would have none of your advantages. They would learn to speak as their parents do, they would inherit their parent's ideas and they would be educated in poorly funded schools where survival takes precedence over education. So, since you two have started in different places do you really think that it is fair to leave that child without any sort of safety net? They didn't have equal access to resources to start with so it isn't a matter of survival of the fittest, it is a matter of haves and have nots.
I find it interesting that most proponents of social Darwinism are white middle class males.
Cunt
28th January 2012, 12:39 AM
"I pay taxes and force you to pay taxes too, and you've benefited from some of the stuff that I've forced you to pay for, so therefore any argument you make against being forced to pay for them makes you an ungrateful hypocrite!"
That's not a good argument. You don't have to agree with me, but making claims like that don't prove anyone wrong. It's an emotional appeal that assumes that all things accomplished through government agencies can only be accomplished in that way (not true), ignores all the horrible things that governments do which people are forced to support via taxation (such as wars), claims that because I was forced to be part of the state collective through laws and taxation that I've somehow consented to it (again, not true), and then attempts to take credit for everything I've earned and claim that it was given to me (nobody just gave me the paycheck from those jobs, I had to do the jobs to get the pay, and no government agency forced anyone to give me the jobs in the first place).
You missed something. You weren't given those jobs, but the fact that you get paid a fair wage for your work is the result of many folks before you paving the way.
You couldn't even make a fucking pencil without the society you disapprove of. And you are trying to take credit for making a bit of money when you were a kid.
Breathtaking arrogance.
How would you have done at those early jobs if unions hadn't prepped employers with minimum wage laws and such?
That's not a good argument. You don't have to agree with me, but making claims like that don't prove anyone wrong. It's an emotional appeal that assumes that all things accomplished through government agencies can only be accomplished in that way (not true), ignores all the horrible things that governments do which people are forced to support via taxation (such as wars), claims that because I was forced to be part of the state collective through laws and taxation that I've somehow consented to it (again, not true), and then attempts to take credit for everything I've earned and claim that it was given to me (nobody just gave me the paycheck from those jobs, I had to do the jobs to get the pay, and no government agency forced anyone to give me the jobs in the first place).
You missed something. You weren't given those jobs, but the fact that you get paid a fair wage for your work is the result of many folks before you paving the way.
You couldn't even make a fucking pencil without the society you disapprove of. And you are trying to take credit for making a bit of money when you were a kid.
Breathtaking arrogance.
How would you have done at those early jobs if unions hadn't prepped employers with minimum wage laws and such?
pensioner
28th January 2012, 01:01 AM
"I pay taxes and force you to pay taxes too, and you've benefited from some of the stuff that I've forced you to pay for, so therefore any argument you make against being forced to pay for them makes you an ungrateful hypocrite!"
That's not a good argument. You don't have to agree with me, but making claims like that don't prove anyone wrong. It's an emotional appeal that assumes that all things accomplished through government agencies can only be accomplished in that way (not true), ignores all the horrible things that governments do which people are forced to support via taxation (such as wars), claims that because I was forced to be part of the state collective through laws and taxation that I've somehow consented to it (again, not true), and then attempts to take credit for everything I've earned and claim that it was given to me (nobody just gave me the paycheck from those jobs, I had to do the jobs to get the pay, and no government agency forced anyone to give me the jobs in the first place).
You missed something. You weren't given those jobs, but the fact that you get paid a fair wage for your work is the result of many folks before you paving the way.
You couldn't even make a fucking pencil without the society you disapprove of. And you are trying to take credit for making a bit of money when you were a kid.
Breathtaking arrogance.
How would you have done at those early jobs if unions hadn't prepped employers with minimum wage laws and such?
Well said, :thumbsup:
That's not a good argument. You don't have to agree with me, but making claims like that don't prove anyone wrong. It's an emotional appeal that assumes that all things accomplished through government agencies can only be accomplished in that way (not true), ignores all the horrible things that governments do which people are forced to support via taxation (such as wars), claims that because I was forced to be part of the state collective through laws and taxation that I've somehow consented to it (again, not true), and then attempts to take credit for everything I've earned and claim that it was given to me (nobody just gave me the paycheck from those jobs, I had to do the jobs to get the pay, and no government agency forced anyone to give me the jobs in the first place).
You missed something. You weren't given those jobs, but the fact that you get paid a fair wage for your work is the result of many folks before you paving the way.
You couldn't even make a fucking pencil without the society you disapprove of. And you are trying to take credit for making a bit of money when you were a kid.
Breathtaking arrogance.
How would you have done at those early jobs if unions hadn't prepped employers with minimum wage laws and such?
Well said, :thumbsup:
Cunt
28th January 2012, 01:23 AM
you only say that because you were there before pencils...
Adenosine
28th January 2012, 01:50 AM
:rofl:
charlou
28th January 2012, 02:08 AM
I'm more of a laissez faire style social Darwinist, where I think that letting the incompetent and lazy die off is a good idea. Who needs active eugenics? People in power will just arbitrarily apply some form of nepotism and call it eugenics.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
By "self destruct" and "die off", do you mean not continue to be born in the first place? I have more questions, dependent on your reply to this one.
I agree that human life doesn't have mystical value innate to the universe, but I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way you're doing. That, in itself, makes us equal. In my opinion. ;)
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
By "self destruct" and "die off", do you mean not continue to be born in the first place? I have more questions, dependent on your reply to this one.
I agree that human life doesn't have mystical value innate to the universe, but I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way you're doing. That, in itself, makes us equal. In my opinion. ;)
Adenosine
28th January 2012, 02:34 AM
I think that human life has value and the value is established by the people around them, their family and friends and even acquaintances.
nostrum
28th January 2012, 04:39 AM
Beyond the issue of welfare to poor parents to raise their children, there is the issue of equal access to resources.
You appear to be what I would describe as middle class. You are white and a man. That gives you three huge advantages in society. The schools you went to would have been well funded and most of your contemporaries would have also have been middle class and probably white.
A child born to poor badly educated parents would have none of your advantages. They would learn to speak as their parents do, they would inherit their parent's ideas and they would be educated in poorly funded schools where survival takes precedence over education. So, since you two have started in different places do you really think that it is fair to leave that child without any sort of safety net? They didn't have equal access to resources to start with so it isn't a matter of survival of the fittest, it is a matter of haves and have nots.
I find it interesting that most proponents of social Darwinism are white middle class males.
Yes... what is with that? :hmmm:
You appear to be what I would describe as middle class. You are white and a man. That gives you three huge advantages in society. The schools you went to would have been well funded and most of your contemporaries would have also have been middle class and probably white.
A child born to poor badly educated parents would have none of your advantages. They would learn to speak as their parents do, they would inherit their parent's ideas and they would be educated in poorly funded schools where survival takes precedence over education. So, since you two have started in different places do you really think that it is fair to leave that child without any sort of safety net? They didn't have equal access to resources to start with so it isn't a matter of survival of the fittest, it is a matter of haves and have nots.
I find it interesting that most proponents of social Darwinism are white middle class males.
Yes... what is with that? :hmmm:
charlou
28th January 2012, 05:18 AM
I think that human life has value and the value is established by the people around them, their family and friends and even acquaintances.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
nick
28th January 2012, 05:22 AM
I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence
I am.
I am.
Floppit
28th January 2012, 10:05 AM
Would you bother to raise a disabled child if you had one? You could legally just place the kid in care I suppose.
Would you pressure distressed, underqualified parents to raise a disabled child?
You may have just done that.
andrewclunn would, it seems. Both of you are dead fucking wrong, from my perspective. There are indeed many parents who would funnel all their resources into supporting a disabled child, but also many who would choose to put their resources into the rest of their litter instead.
My post was short and deliberately vague because I wanted an open question. I wasn't asking about the solution to pressure and distress, I was asking about the plan, intention, desire for any couple who may choose to have a child and in doing so know that there is a real risk of disability.
This was the bit I saw as interesting:
I'm more of a laissez faire style social Darwinist, where I think that letting the incompetent and lazy die off is a good idea. Who needs active eugenics? People in power will just arbitrarily apply some form of nepotism and call it eugenics.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
I wondered if the belief it's good to withdraw all support to the point of death would be altered if that person was his own child, if, for instance he would feel it less cruel to kill the child rather than let it linger, or maybe as he is bound by the state not to murder then, as it is the state's not his decision to support life, he would see it as 'their' responsibility to do so.
The whole question was about how extreme beliefs may or may not alter by a perspective shift. It's not the question I'd ask from someone actually dealing with the reality.
With regard to siblings - I think there are a range of parental responses and consequences but the notion of resources being denied to 'the rest of the litter' is a bit over simplistic. I would agree that children can and do in most families feel that way at times, but often as siblings grow they see real worth in each other, in other words siblings can benefit from the resources given to their brother/sister because they have the relationship with that sibling, they enjoy the siblings worth. Equally I think where parents have denied resources from a disabled child in order to be 'fair', they may find that the siblings who appeared to benefit ('the rest of the litter'), grow up to see them as fuckwits for not giving extra support, ie the siblings give a shit about each other not just themselves.
I think understanding that to allow to slough off those less able to compete isn't something which would happen outside families and close social groups, it would split both and require the heart felt support of all concerned to ever be realised. It would need very able parents to be content and confident to let weaker offspring die, or those able to compete might become more tied up elsewhere...
Would you pressure distressed, underqualified parents to raise a disabled child?
You may have just done that.
andrewclunn would, it seems. Both of you are dead fucking wrong, from my perspective. There are indeed many parents who would funnel all their resources into supporting a disabled child, but also many who would choose to put their resources into the rest of their litter instead.
My post was short and deliberately vague because I wanted an open question. I wasn't asking about the solution to pressure and distress, I was asking about the plan, intention, desire for any couple who may choose to have a child and in doing so know that there is a real risk of disability.
This was the bit I saw as interesting:
I'm more of a laissez faire style social Darwinist, where I think that letting the incompetent and lazy die off is a good idea. Who needs active eugenics? People in power will just arbitrarily apply some form of nepotism and call it eugenics.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
I wondered if the belief it's good to withdraw all support to the point of death would be altered if that person was his own child, if, for instance he would feel it less cruel to kill the child rather than let it linger, or maybe as he is bound by the state not to murder then, as it is the state's not his decision to support life, he would see it as 'their' responsibility to do so.
The whole question was about how extreme beliefs may or may not alter by a perspective shift. It's not the question I'd ask from someone actually dealing with the reality.
With regard to siblings - I think there are a range of parental responses and consequences but the notion of resources being denied to 'the rest of the litter' is a bit over simplistic. I would agree that children can and do in most families feel that way at times, but often as siblings grow they see real worth in each other, in other words siblings can benefit from the resources given to their brother/sister because they have the relationship with that sibling, they enjoy the siblings worth. Equally I think where parents have denied resources from a disabled child in order to be 'fair', they may find that the siblings who appeared to benefit ('the rest of the litter'), grow up to see them as fuckwits for not giving extra support, ie the siblings give a shit about each other not just themselves.
I think understanding that to allow to slough off those less able to compete isn't something which would happen outside families and close social groups, it would split both and require the heart felt support of all concerned to ever be realised. It would need very able parents to be content and confident to let weaker offspring die, or those able to compete might become more tied up elsewhere...
andrewclunn
28th January 2012, 10:41 AM
Drunk, will read all these responses tomorrow. Honestly though, if you're make a three or more paragraph post that doesn't pose a question to me or directly respond to something I've said, then I'm going to ignore it. If you make some kind of subjective value judgement and then use it as evidence that I'm wrong, I'm going to ignore it. If you make personal insults towards me, I'm just going to ignore it. So based on the quick read of the posts made, I'm going to be ignoring a lot of what was said when I check back tomorrow.
Grumps
28th January 2012, 11:57 AM
I think that human life has value and the value is established by the people around them, their family and friends and even acquaintances.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
Adenosine
28th January 2012, 12:07 PM
Drunk, will read all these responses tomorrow. Honestly though, if you're make a three or more paragraph post that doesn't pose a question to me or directly respond to something I've said, then I'm going to ignore it. If you make some kind of subjective value judgement and then use it as evidence that I'm wrong, I'm going to ignore it. If you make personal insults towards me, I'm just going to ignore it. So based on the quick read of the posts made, I'm going to be ignoring a lot of what was said when I check back tomorrow.
Condemning people to starvation and death is bound to elicit an emotional response. You can either accept that as a side effect of your eugenics program and roll with it or find a new, less repulsive philosophy.
Condemning people to starvation and death is bound to elicit an emotional response. You can either accept that as a side effect of your eugenics program and roll with it or find a new, less repulsive philosophy.
Adenosine
28th January 2012, 12:13 PM
I think that human life has value and the value is established by the people around them, their family and friends and even acquaintances.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
That is also true. I may need to rethink that definition.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
That is also true. I may need to rethink that definition.
Hermit
28th January 2012, 12:50 PM
I think that human life has value and the value is established by the people around them, their family and friends and even acquaintances.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
:hehe:
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
:hehe:
Grumps
28th January 2012, 12:57 PM
I think that human life has value and the value is established by the people around them, their family and friends and even acquaintances.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
:hehe:
Except that children as a sexual commodity is not part of Islamic culture, nor is this particular act confined or limited to hypocritical Islamic princes, meaning it is not distinctly an act of a singular culture.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
:hehe:
Except that children as a sexual commodity is not part of Islamic culture, nor is this particular act confined or limited to hypocritical Islamic princes, meaning it is not distinctly an act of a singular culture.
Hermit
28th January 2012, 01:04 PM
I think that human life has value and the value is established by the people around them, their family and friends and even acquaintances.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
:hehe:
Except that children as a sexual commodity is not part of Islamic culture, nor is this particular act confined or limited to hypocritical Islamic princes, meaning it is not distinctly an act of a singular culture.
I was pointing out two posts of yours that contradict each other. In the first you are doing exactly what you argued against in the second.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
:hehe:
Except that children as a sexual commodity is not part of Islamic culture, nor is this particular act confined or limited to hypocritical Islamic princes, meaning it is not distinctly an act of a singular culture.
I was pointing out two posts of yours that contradict each other. In the first you are doing exactly what you argued against in the second.
Jerome
28th January 2012, 01:06 PM
(nobody just gave me the paycheck from those jobs, I had to do the jobs to get the pay, and no government agency forced anyone to give me the jobs in the first place).
This is the same thinking that allows people to support the taxation of a person's labor as income/profit.
Hey everybody!!! Exchanging a days worth of labor for a pay check is not a profit/income, it is an even exchange!
This is the second time you've made a post in this thread where it's unclear if you're attempting to use hyperbole to mock an idea or not. There is no sarcastic font and your first statement seems to be against income taxes, while the second looks like you're mocking the notion that payment for labor should not be taxed because it's magically different from income.
I have no clue what you're actually trying to say. Please correct this.
Taxing labor is immoral.
The income tax was sold as a tax on profits, payroll taxes were sold as insurance programs.
This is the same thinking that allows people to support the taxation of a person's labor as income/profit.
Hey everybody!!! Exchanging a days worth of labor for a pay check is not a profit/income, it is an even exchange!
This is the second time you've made a post in this thread where it's unclear if you're attempting to use hyperbole to mock an idea or not. There is no sarcastic font and your first statement seems to be against income taxes, while the second looks like you're mocking the notion that payment for labor should not be taxed because it's magically different from income.
I have no clue what you're actually trying to say. Please correct this.
Taxing labor is immoral.
The income tax was sold as a tax on profits, payroll taxes were sold as insurance programs.
Grumps
28th January 2012, 01:13 PM
I think that human life has value and the value is established by the people around them, their family and friends and even acquaintances.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
That is also true. I may need to rethink that definition.
A life's value is determined only by what value it grants itself. Whatever imagined value is assigned to a person is only as true as the person allows it to be, and this isn't some psuedo-philosophical statement. Things like self-esteem and resilience are factors in precisely this equation. Suicide is not confined to just the down-trodden and destitute, nor is narcissism limited to the greatest of us.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
That is also true. I may need to rethink that definition.
A life's value is determined only by what value it grants itself. Whatever imagined value is assigned to a person is only as true as the person allows it to be, and this isn't some psuedo-philosophical statement. Things like self-esteem and resilience are factors in precisely this equation. Suicide is not confined to just the down-trodden and destitute, nor is narcissism limited to the greatest of us.
Grumps
28th January 2012, 01:14 PM
I think that human life has value and the value is established by the people around them, their family and friends and even acquaintances.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
:hehe:
Except that children as a sexual commodity is not part of Islamic culture, nor is this particular act confined or limited to hypocritical Islamic princes, meaning it is not distinctly an act of a singular culture.
I was pointing out two posts of yours that contradict each other. In the first you are doing exactly what you argued against in the second.
Except I'm not, as trading children as a sexual commodity is not part of any particular culture.
Edit: Also, note the use of 'hypocritical', suggesting a man actually going against the practices of his culture.
So that's a double 'nope'.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
:hehe:
Except that children as a sexual commodity is not part of Islamic culture, nor is this particular act confined or limited to hypocritical Islamic princes, meaning it is not distinctly an act of a singular culture.
I was pointing out two posts of yours that contradict each other. In the first you are doing exactly what you argued against in the second.
Except I'm not, as trading children as a sexual commodity is not part of any particular culture.
Edit: Also, note the use of 'hypocritical', suggesting a man actually going against the practices of his culture.
So that's a double 'nope'.
Hermit
28th January 2012, 01:26 PM
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
:hehe:
Except that children as a sexual commodity is not part of Islamic culture, nor is this particular act confined or limited to hypocritical Islamic princes, meaning it is not distinctly an act of a singular culture.
I was pointing out two posts of yours that contradict each other. In the first you are doing exactly what you argued against in the second.
Except I'm not, as trading children as a sexual commodity is not part of any particular culture.
You did say "A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them." in one post and "I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders." in the other, did you not? I don't see how that is not a contradiction.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
:hehe:
Except that children as a sexual commodity is not part of Islamic culture, nor is this particular act confined or limited to hypocritical Islamic princes, meaning it is not distinctly an act of a singular culture.
I was pointing out two posts of yours that contradict each other. In the first you are doing exactly what you argued against in the second.
Except I'm not, as trading children as a sexual commodity is not part of any particular culture.
You did say "A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them." in one post and "I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders." in the other, did you not? I don't see how that is not a contradiction.
Grumps
28th January 2012, 01:29 PM
As I have said, trading children is not part of any particular culture, so no I am not advocating one culture over another.
Also, check the edit, which adds a second point as to why you made a dookie.
Also, check the edit, which adds a second point as to why you made a dookie.
Hermit
28th January 2012, 01:36 PM
As I have said, trading children is not part of any particular culture...You need more exposure. A talk with my brother who has been working in Thailand for the past 14 years would be a good start to disabuse you of the error in your assertion.
Grumps
28th January 2012, 01:37 PM
Unless, of course, you mean to argue that slave trafficking of children in to the sex industry is a culture... in which case you'd also be arguing that not trafficking children in to the sex industry is a culture.
Which is a bit like saying Not selling cars is a career.
Which is a bit like saying Not selling cars is a career.
Grumps
28th January 2012, 01:40 PM
As I have said, trading children is not part of any particular culture...You need more exposure. A talk with my brother who has been working in Thailand for the past 14 years would be a good start to disabuse you of the errors of your assertion.
And africa, and in Europe. Both have thriving child sex industries. I need to repeat this again, because you seem to have difficulty quite understanding what it means:
A child sex industry is not particular to any one culture.
Think very carefully about what that means.
And africa, and in Europe. Both have thriving child sex industries. I need to repeat this again, because you seem to have difficulty quite understanding what it means:
A child sex industry is not particular to any one culture.
Think very carefully about what that means.
Hermit
28th January 2012, 01:51 PM
Unless, of course, you mean to argue that slave trafficking of children in to the sex industry is a culture... in which case you'd also be arguing that not trafficking children in to the sex industry is a culture.
What I am saying is that the value of human life is most certainly established by the people around them in sheer practical terms. You and I may consider the selling of children into the sex industry as unacceptable, but for many parents in Thailand it is an unfortunate necessity. In many countries the official law of the land has next to no bearing on entire communities and cultures within it.
What I am saying is that the value of human life is most certainly established by the people around them in sheer practical terms. You and I may consider the selling of children into the sex industry as unacceptable, but for many parents in Thailand it is an unfortunate necessity. In many countries the official law of the land has next to no bearing on entire communities and cultures within it.
Grumps
28th January 2012, 02:15 PM
Unless, of course, you mean to argue that slave trafficking of children in to the sex industry is a culture... in which case you'd also be arguing that not trafficking children in to the sex industry is a culture.
What I am saying is that the value of human life is most certainly established by the people around them in sheer practical terms. You and I may consider the selling of children into the sex industry as unacceptable, but for many parents in Thailand it is an unfortunate necessity. In many countries the official law of the land has next to no bearing on entire communities and cultures within it.
I don't quite understand how this at all follows from your earlier objection. You stated that I was being hypocritical by asserting the superiority of one culture over another.
Exactly what culture was I asserting as superior to what other culture?
As to that second point, no.
There are a multitude of factors both innate and external, but the two largest factors that weigh a person up or down are resilience and self-esteem. That child is not a 'commodity' until it sees itself as one.
And, if we're going to be practical - the state of an economy which dictates the behaviour of a society. The enforcement of law by the state on society. The presence of education, of social services. There are so many factors which play in to the presence of something like child trafficking that to limit to something as narrow as "family and friends" (which was the original quote) in the context you're providing is quite limited.
But then, that wouldn't be assigning value at all. It would be a matter of circumstance. A child is not a commodity because society values it as such, it is a commodity because it lost the cosmic lottery.
What I am saying is that the value of human life is most certainly established by the people around them in sheer practical terms. You and I may consider the selling of children into the sex industry as unacceptable, but for many parents in Thailand it is an unfortunate necessity. In many countries the official law of the land has next to no bearing on entire communities and cultures within it.
I don't quite understand how this at all follows from your earlier objection. You stated that I was being hypocritical by asserting the superiority of one culture over another.
Exactly what culture was I asserting as superior to what other culture?
As to that second point, no.
There are a multitude of factors both innate and external, but the two largest factors that weigh a person up or down are resilience and self-esteem. That child is not a 'commodity' until it sees itself as one.
And, if we're going to be practical - the state of an economy which dictates the behaviour of a society. The enforcement of law by the state on society. The presence of education, of social services. There are so many factors which play in to the presence of something like child trafficking that to limit to something as narrow as "family and friends" (which was the original quote) in the context you're providing is quite limited.
But then, that wouldn't be assigning value at all. It would be a matter of circumstance. A child is not a commodity because society values it as such, it is a commodity because it lost the cosmic lottery.
Cunt
28th January 2012, 05:13 PM
Drunk, will read all these responses tomorrow. Honestly though, if you're make a three or more paragraph post that doesn't pose a question to me or directly respond to something I've said, then I'm going to ignore it. If you make some kind of subjective value judgement and then use it as evidence that I'm wrong, I'm going to ignore it. If you make personal insults towards me, I'm just going to ignore it. So based on the quick read of the posts made, I'm going to be ignoring a lot of what was said when I check back tomorrow.
When you do, could you comment a bit on 'nature vs nurture'?
Specifically, if you were adopted at one day old, and raised by a family of incestuous, abusive alcoholics in a remote community where the only job available was polishing grandpas shaft for nickels, do you think you would be the same man?
Do you think you would deserve the same protection from civilization as you got in your real life?
When you do, could you comment a bit on 'nature vs nurture'?
Specifically, if you were adopted at one day old, and raised by a family of incestuous, abusive alcoholics in a remote community where the only job available was polishing grandpas shaft for nickels, do you think you would be the same man?
Do you think you would deserve the same protection from civilization as you got in your real life?
nostrum
28th January 2012, 06:04 PM
(nobody just gave me the paycheck from those jobs, I had to do the jobs to get the pay, and no government agency forced anyone to give me the jobs in the first place).
This is the same thinking that allows people to support the taxation of a person's labor as income/profit.
Hey everybody!!! Exchanging a days worth of labor for a pay check is not a profit/income, it is an even exchange!
This is the second time you've made a post in this thread where it's unclear if you're attempting to use hyperbole to mock an idea or not. There is no sarcastic font and your first statement seems to be against income taxes, while the second looks like you're mocking the notion that payment for labor should not be taxed because it's magically different from income.
I have no clue what you're actually trying to say. Please correct this.
Taxing labor is immoral.
The income tax was sold as a tax on profits, payroll taxes were sold as insurance programs.
The libertarian "taxation is immoral" is a great topic for another thread, Jerome. Will you do the honours? :blinksmile:
This is the same thinking that allows people to support the taxation of a person's labor as income/profit.
Hey everybody!!! Exchanging a days worth of labor for a pay check is not a profit/income, it is an even exchange!
This is the second time you've made a post in this thread where it's unclear if you're attempting to use hyperbole to mock an idea or not. There is no sarcastic font and your first statement seems to be against income taxes, while the second looks like you're mocking the notion that payment for labor should not be taxed because it's magically different from income.
I have no clue what you're actually trying to say. Please correct this.
Taxing labor is immoral.
The income tax was sold as a tax on profits, payroll taxes were sold as insurance programs.
The libertarian "taxation is immoral" is a great topic for another thread, Jerome. Will you do the honours? :blinksmile:
nostrum
28th January 2012, 06:11 PM
Social Darwinism seems to me to be a convenient label applied by some affluent first-world people who don't wish to appreciate that their own good fortune was not entirely of their own making.
Jerome
28th January 2012, 06:35 PM
Taxing labor is immoral.
The income tax was sold as a tax on profits, payroll taxes were sold as insurance programs.
The libertarian "taxation is immoral" is a great topic for another thread, Jerome. Will you do the honours? :blinksmile:
You have misrepresented what I wrote.
The income tax was sold as a tax on profits, payroll taxes were sold as insurance programs.
The libertarian "taxation is immoral" is a great topic for another thread, Jerome. Will you do the honours? :blinksmile:
You have misrepresented what I wrote.
nostrum
28th January 2012, 06:44 PM
Taxing labor is immoral.
The income tax was sold as a tax on profits, payroll taxes were sold as insurance programs.
The libertarian "taxation is immoral" is a great topic for another thread, Jerome. Will you do the honours? :blinksmile:
You have misrepresented what I wrote.
I'm sorry. I mean the notion of a tax on labor being immoral.
(apology for assumption of libertarian label and wider application)
The income tax was sold as a tax on profits, payroll taxes were sold as insurance programs.
The libertarian "taxation is immoral" is a great topic for another thread, Jerome. Will you do the honours? :blinksmile:
You have misrepresented what I wrote.
I'm sorry. I mean the notion of a tax on labor being immoral.
(apology for assumption of libertarian label and wider application)
andrewclunn
28th January 2012, 06:57 PM
Drunk, will read all these responses tomorrow. Honestly though, if you're make a three or more paragraph post that doesn't pose a question to me or directly respond to something I've said, then I'm going to ignore it. If you make some kind of subjective value judgement and then use it as evidence that I'm wrong, I'm going to ignore it. If you make personal insults towards me, I'm just going to ignore it. So based on the quick read of the posts made, I'm going to be ignoring a lot of what was said when I check back tomorrow.
Condemning people to starvation and death is bound to elicit an emotional response. You can either accept that as a side effect of your eugenics program and roll with it or find a new, less repulsive philosophy.
I have accepted that people rage when they hear my position. That does not mean that emotional arguments suddenly become good arguments if you make them. People can rage all they want. And I can rage right back, doesn't prove a damn thing.
Condemning people to starvation and death is bound to elicit an emotional response. You can either accept that as a side effect of your eugenics program and roll with it or find a new, less repulsive philosophy.
I have accepted that people rage when they hear my position. That does not mean that emotional arguments suddenly become good arguments if you make them. People can rage all they want. And I can rage right back, doesn't prove a damn thing.
andrewclunn
28th January 2012, 07:10 PM
I'm more of a laissez faire style social Darwinist, where I think that letting the incompetent and lazy die off is a good idea. Who needs active eugenics? People in power will just arbitrarily apply some form of nepotism and call it eugenics.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
By "self destruct" and "die off", do you mean not continue to be born in the first place? I have more questions, dependent on your reply to this one.
I'm not in favor of forced sterilization if that's what you mean. People who can't afford or incapable of caring for children shouldn't have them, but if they do anyways then the children will suffer. This happens right now and in countries with more of a welfare state the problem isn't solved by bring people out of poverty, but made worse by increased immigration and large continuous birth rates among the poor.
It's either foreced sterilization or letting the kids die. I understand if you prefer the other. I can respect people who believe in government planning and realize that policies like China's are needed to end the cycle of poverty. It's those who refuse to acknowledge that such an issue even exists and that poverty will work itself out if we just redistribute wealth enough who are lying for their cause, or just plain idiots.
I agree that human life doesn't have mystical value innate to the universe, but I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way you're doing. That, in itself, makes us equal. In my opinion. ;)
Well if you mean that on a cosmic scale each person has a value infinitely close to zero, alright. However our lives have value to us and those we care about. The question is whether we have the right to assert that others value what we value. I don't believe we do.
So in a practical sense if a person's value is subjective (probably more to them self and their relations than strangers) than why should I be able to make you pay for my art, or you for your child's braces, or anyone for whatever they need or desire? I should get to choose what I live for, and if I'm not hurting you, why am I an asshole for thinking I shouldn't have to have to work to take care of strangers? Pay attention to the group thought in this thread.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
By "self destruct" and "die off", do you mean not continue to be born in the first place? I have more questions, dependent on your reply to this one.
I'm not in favor of forced sterilization if that's what you mean. People who can't afford or incapable of caring for children shouldn't have them, but if they do anyways then the children will suffer. This happens right now and in countries with more of a welfare state the problem isn't solved by bring people out of poverty, but made worse by increased immigration and large continuous birth rates among the poor.
It's either foreced sterilization or letting the kids die. I understand if you prefer the other. I can respect people who believe in government planning and realize that policies like China's are needed to end the cycle of poverty. It's those who refuse to acknowledge that such an issue even exists and that poverty will work itself out if we just redistribute wealth enough who are lying for their cause, or just plain idiots.
I agree that human life doesn't have mystical value innate to the universe, but I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way you're doing. That, in itself, makes us equal. In my opinion. ;)
Well if you mean that on a cosmic scale each person has a value infinitely close to zero, alright. However our lives have value to us and those we care about. The question is whether we have the right to assert that others value what we value. I don't believe we do.
So in a practical sense if a person's value is subjective (probably more to them self and their relations than strangers) than why should I be able to make you pay for my art, or you for your child's braces, or anyone for whatever they need or desire? I should get to choose what I live for, and if I'm not hurting you, why am I an asshole for thinking I shouldn't have to have to work to take care of strangers? Pay attention to the group thought in this thread.
Grumps
28th January 2012, 07:37 PM
I'm more of a laissez faire style social Darwinist, where I think that letting the incompetent and lazy die off is a good idea. Who needs active eugenics? People in power will just arbitrarily apply some form of nepotism and call it eugenics.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
By "self destruct" and "die off", do you mean not continue to be born in the first place? I have more questions, dependent on your reply to this one.
I'm not in favor of forced sterilization if that's what you mean. People who can't afford or incapable of caring for children shouldn't have them, but if they do anyways then the children will suffer. This happens right now and in countries with more of a welfare state the problem isn't solved by bring people out of poverty, but made worse by increased immigration and large continuous birth rates among the poor.
It's either foreced sterilization or letting the kids die. I understand if you prefer the other. I can respect people who believe in government planning and realize that policies like China's are needed to end the cycle of poverty. It's those who refuse to acknowledge that such an issue even exists and that poverty will work itself out if we just redistribute wealth enough who are lying for their cause, or just plain idiots.
I agree that human life doesn't have mystical value innate to the universe, but I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way you're doing. That, in itself, makes us equal. In my opinion. ;)
Well if you mean that on a cosmic scale each person has a value infinitely close to zero, alright. However our lives have value to us and those we care about. The question is whether we have the right to assert that others value what we value. I don't believe we do.
So in a practical sense if a person's value is subjective (probably more to them self and their relations than strangers) than why should I be able to make you pay for my art, or you for your child's braces, or anyone for whatever they need or desire? I should get to choose what I live for, and if I'm not hurting you, why am I an asshole for thinking I shouldn't have to have to work to take care of strangers? Pay attention to the group thought in this thread.
Phone Sanitisers.
Why do you feel you don't owe the people who guarantee your success? You live in an economy where unemployment is necessary for a stable economy.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
By "self destruct" and "die off", do you mean not continue to be born in the first place? I have more questions, dependent on your reply to this one.
I'm not in favor of forced sterilization if that's what you mean. People who can't afford or incapable of caring for children shouldn't have them, but if they do anyways then the children will suffer. This happens right now and in countries with more of a welfare state the problem isn't solved by bring people out of poverty, but made worse by increased immigration and large continuous birth rates among the poor.
It's either foreced sterilization or letting the kids die. I understand if you prefer the other. I can respect people who believe in government planning and realize that policies like China's are needed to end the cycle of poverty. It's those who refuse to acknowledge that such an issue even exists and that poverty will work itself out if we just redistribute wealth enough who are lying for their cause, or just plain idiots.
I agree that human life doesn't have mystical value innate to the universe, but I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way you're doing. That, in itself, makes us equal. In my opinion. ;)
Well if you mean that on a cosmic scale each person has a value infinitely close to zero, alright. However our lives have value to us and those we care about. The question is whether we have the right to assert that others value what we value. I don't believe we do.
So in a practical sense if a person's value is subjective (probably more to them self and their relations than strangers) than why should I be able to make you pay for my art, or you for your child's braces, or anyone for whatever they need or desire? I should get to choose what I live for, and if I'm not hurting you, why am I an asshole for thinking I shouldn't have to have to work to take care of strangers? Pay attention to the group thought in this thread.
Phone Sanitisers.
Why do you feel you don't owe the people who guarantee your success? You live in an economy where unemployment is necessary for a stable economy.
andrewclunn
28th January 2012, 07:52 PM
Phone Sanitisers.
Why do you feel you don't owe the people who guarantee your success? You live in an economy where unemployment is necessary for a stable economy.
A few things:
1) Hitchhiker's Guide sucks. Stop referencing it like it's a tome of truth.
2) Starving children in Africa do not guarantee my success.
3) There's never been real full employment ever, so how would anyone even know what a society without unemployment looks like? Also, since when do people instantly starve when they lose their job? I don't know what you're getting at.
Why do you feel you don't owe the people who guarantee your success? You live in an economy where unemployment is necessary for a stable economy.
A few things:
1) Hitchhiker's Guide sucks. Stop referencing it like it's a tome of truth.
2) Starving children in Africa do not guarantee my success.
3) There's never been real full employment ever, so how would anyone even know what a society without unemployment looks like? Also, since when do people instantly starve when they lose their job? I don't know what you're getting at.
Jerome
28th January 2012, 08:16 PM
I'm sorry. I mean the notion of a tax on labor being immoral.
(apology for assumption of libertarian label and wider application)
No problem, it is a meme commonly used to discount the argument, your clarification is appreciated.
(apology for assumption of libertarian label and wider application)
No problem, it is a meme commonly used to discount the argument, your clarification is appreciated.
Grumps
29th January 2012, 01:42 AM
Phone Sanitisers.
Why do you feel you don't owe the people who guarantee your success? You live in an economy where unemployment is necessary for a stable economy.
A few things:
1) Hitchhiker's Guide sucks. Stop referencing it like it's a tome of truth.
2) Starving children in Africa do not guarantee my success.
3) There's never been real full employment ever, so how would anyone even know what a society without unemployment looks like? Also, since when do people instantly starve when they lose their job? I don't know what you're getting at.
You avoided it the actual point, well done. Unemployment is necessary because it drives consumer demand, labor supply and other things.
Who the fuck mentioned Africa? The only reason you're able to fill your car up is because someone else is making shitty pay sitting behind the service counter at a gas station. The only reason you're able to buy meat at a supermarket is because someone is taking shitty pay in an abbatoir. The only reason you can do anything, own any product, eat any food, is because someone somewhere is doing the legwork for minimal pay.
Do you own a television? Clothes? A pen? A phone? Ever buy bedsheets? Ever bought vegetables from a grocer? Ever drunk water from tap or bottle? Ever used a street light? Ever been connected to a power pole? Ever walked down a paved road or pathway? Use a computer?
You make the assumption this has anything to do with your employment. Your entire life is built on the backs of someone else, someone else who was not born with talent or ability, not born in to the land of silver spoons, not born with opportunity at their doorstep.
So, once again, why are you not obligated to help the very people on which your success depends?
Oh, and: Phone Sanitisers.
Why do you feel you don't owe the people who guarantee your success? You live in an economy where unemployment is necessary for a stable economy.
A few things:
1) Hitchhiker's Guide sucks. Stop referencing it like it's a tome of truth.
2) Starving children in Africa do not guarantee my success.
3) There's never been real full employment ever, so how would anyone even know what a society without unemployment looks like? Also, since when do people instantly starve when they lose their job? I don't know what you're getting at.
You avoided it the actual point, well done. Unemployment is necessary because it drives consumer demand, labor supply and other things.
Who the fuck mentioned Africa? The only reason you're able to fill your car up is because someone else is making shitty pay sitting behind the service counter at a gas station. The only reason you're able to buy meat at a supermarket is because someone is taking shitty pay in an abbatoir. The only reason you can do anything, own any product, eat any food, is because someone somewhere is doing the legwork for minimal pay.
Do you own a television? Clothes? A pen? A phone? Ever buy bedsheets? Ever bought vegetables from a grocer? Ever drunk water from tap or bottle? Ever used a street light? Ever been connected to a power pole? Ever walked down a paved road or pathway? Use a computer?
You make the assumption this has anything to do with your employment. Your entire life is built on the backs of someone else, someone else who was not born with talent or ability, not born in to the land of silver spoons, not born with opportunity at their doorstep.
So, once again, why are you not obligated to help the very people on which your success depends?
Oh, and: Phone Sanitisers.
andrewclunn
29th January 2012, 02:26 AM
I never said I would completely end unemployment. The people who pump my gas get paid for it, so what other obligations do I have to them other than pay for my gas?
Adenosine
29th January 2012, 02:40 AM
I never said I would completely end unemployment. The people who pump my gas get paid for it, so what other obligations do I have to them other than pay for my gas?
The people who pump your gas probably needed income support while they were growing up. And got some of that free education.
You never answered my question. Would you condemn a child to starvation and death because of who the child was born to?
The people who pump your gas probably needed income support while they were growing up. And got some of that free education.
You never answered my question. Would you condemn a child to starvation and death because of who the child was born to?
charlou
29th January 2012, 03:42 AM
I think that human life has value and the value is established by the people around them, their family and friends and even acquaintances.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
They certainly think differently to you and I. To them, the child is a commodity. Why is it unethical for them to behave that way? Because you and I say it is? Is that enough reason, or can we try to articulate why it is unethical in a way that those people will understand and come to agree on?
This seems somewhat tangental to what I had in mind wrt people taking the evaluation of the worth of other human beings upon themselves, in the context of the OP.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
They certainly think differently to you and I. To them, the child is a commodity. Why is it unethical for them to behave that way? Because you and I say it is? Is that enough reason, or can we try to articulate why it is unethical in a way that those people will understand and come to agree on?
This seems somewhat tangental to what I had in mind wrt people taking the evaluation of the worth of other human beings upon themselves, in the context of the OP.
MSG
29th January 2012, 03:46 AM
I think that human life has value and the value is established by the people around them, their family and friends and even acquaintances.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
Why use the phrase "Islamic prince"? Are you suggesting that only Moslem royalty exploit children? Or that being a Moslem makes pedophilia more likely?
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
Why use the phrase "Islamic prince"? Are you suggesting that only Moslem royalty exploit children? Or that being a Moslem makes pedophilia more likely?
Hermit
29th January 2012, 03:48 AM
You stated that I was being hypocritical by asserting the superiority of one culture over another.
WTF? I see now why it is so difficult to discuss things with you. You read other people's words, then add your own take to them on what they mean. That explains your frequent insertion of extraneous matter to the debate; you start talking about stuff you think had been mentioned in a post you are attempting to reply to.
If you like, we could start again from scratch, beginning here:
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
I was pointing out two posts of yours that contradict each other. In the first you are doing exactly what you argued against in the second.
To elaborate: "A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them" indicates that the value of a human life, and the ethics that follow on from that value, is something external to the culture within which that human life happens to be. Wishing that "people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders" means we ought not interfere with cultures where child-trade is one of those values because ours are only allegedly superior. To my mind you'd either have to ditch the notion that no cultures are superior to others, or that a human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. Can you now see the problem with trying to reconcile the two posts of yours quoted above?
WTF? I see now why it is so difficult to discuss things with you. You read other people's words, then add your own take to them on what they mean. That explains your frequent insertion of extraneous matter to the debate; you start talking about stuff you think had been mentioned in a post you are attempting to reply to.
If you like, we could start again from scratch, beginning here:
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
I was pointing out two posts of yours that contradict each other. In the first you are doing exactly what you argued against in the second.
To elaborate: "A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them" indicates that the value of a human life, and the ethics that follow on from that value, is something external to the culture within which that human life happens to be. Wishing that "people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders" means we ought not interfere with cultures where child-trade is one of those values because ours are only allegedly superior. To my mind you'd either have to ditch the notion that no cultures are superior to others, or that a human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. Can you now see the problem with trying to reconcile the two posts of yours quoted above?
Grumps
29th January 2012, 04:10 AM
You stated that I was being hypocritical by asserting the superiority of one culture over another.
WTF? I see now why it is so difficult to discuss things with you. You read other people's words, then add your own take to them on what they mean. That explains your frequent insertion of extraneous matter to the debate; you start talking about stuff you think had been mentioned in a post you are attempting to reply to.
If you like, we could start again from scratch, beginning here:
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
I was pointing out two posts of yours that contradict each other. In the first you are doing exactly what you argued against in the second.
To elaborate: "A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them" indicates that the value of a human life, and the ethics that follow on from that value, is something external to the culture within which that human life happens to be. Wishing that "people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders" means we ought not interfere with cultures where child-trade is one of those values because ours are only allegedly superior. To my mind you'd either have to ditch the notion that no cultures are superior to others, or that a human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. Can you now see the problem with trying to reconcile the two posts of yours quoted above?
My post about cultures refers specifically to a clash of cultures. It is about the advocation of any one culture as superior over another.
My post about human life said nothing about what places the value on that life, it only objects to the idea that an immediate outside force is what determines the value of a human life. Any other inference is your own, and incorrect.
If you're going to object to something, make sure it's actually there. If it's not written, don't assume.
WTF? I see now why it is so difficult to discuss things with you. You read other people's words, then add your own take to them on what they mean. That explains your frequent insertion of extraneous matter to the debate; you start talking about stuff you think had been mentioned in a post you are attempting to reply to.
If you like, we could start again from scratch, beginning here:
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
I wish people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders.
Giving less of a fuck would make the world a much better place.
I was pointing out two posts of yours that contradict each other. In the first you are doing exactly what you argued against in the second.
To elaborate: "A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them" indicates that the value of a human life, and the ethics that follow on from that value, is something external to the culture within which that human life happens to be. Wishing that "people learn to give less of a fuck about the alleged superiority of their own culture and magically defined geographical borders" means we ought not interfere with cultures where child-trade is one of those values because ours are only allegedly superior. To my mind you'd either have to ditch the notion that no cultures are superior to others, or that a human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. Can you now see the problem with trying to reconcile the two posts of yours quoted above?
My post about cultures refers specifically to a clash of cultures. It is about the advocation of any one culture as superior over another.
My post about human life said nothing about what places the value on that life, it only objects to the idea that an immediate outside force is what determines the value of a human life. Any other inference is your own, and incorrect.
If you're going to object to something, make sure it's actually there. If it's not written, don't assume.
Grumps
29th January 2012, 04:10 AM
I think that human life has value and the value is established by the people around them, their family and friends and even acquaintances.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
Why use the phrase "Islamic prince"? Are you suggesting that only Moslem royalty exploit children? Or that being a Moslem makes pedophilia more likely?
I didn't use the phrase "Islamic prince". If you're going to quote, quote properly.
I agree.
When I said I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way Andrew is doing, I was referring to the subjectivity of determining what's a "right" way to exist or to allow people to exist.
That doesn't preclude the pragmatism of making such judgements, though. It's just an observation. I might agree with some of Andrew's ideas, but probably not all. I'm interested in more details about the values Andrew mentioned earlier.
A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
Why use the phrase "Islamic prince"? Are you suggesting that only Moslem royalty exploit children? Or that being a Moslem makes pedophilia more likely?
I didn't use the phrase "Islamic prince". If you're going to quote, quote properly.
MSG
29th January 2012, 04:14 AM
I beg your pardon? It is there in your quote.
Grumps
29th January 2012, 04:14 AM
I never said I would completely end unemployment. The people who pump my gas get paid for it, so what other obligations do I have to them other than pay for my gas?
Apparently I'll have to over-simplify.
People who work at a gas station earn very little money.
Things like housing, food, maintenance bills and medicine are very expensive.
A person who works full time at a gas station can't afford to pay for these things.
Therefore: Society subsidises these things, or provides these basic necessities, for the people it relies on to function.
Apparently I'll have to over-simplify.
People who work at a gas station earn very little money.
Things like housing, food, maintenance bills and medicine are very expensive.
A person who works full time at a gas station can't afford to pay for these things.
Therefore: Society subsidises these things, or provides these basic necessities, for the people it relies on to function.
Grumps
29th January 2012, 04:15 AM
I beg your pardon? It is there in your quote.
No, you cherry picked. I suggest you quite the entire phrase I used.
No, you cherry picked. I suggest you quite the entire phrase I used.
charlou
29th January 2012, 04:17 AM
My post about cultures refers specifically to a clash of cultures. It is about the advocation of any one culture as superior over another.
My post about human life said nothing about what places the value on that life, it only objects to the idea that an immediate outside force is what determines the value of a human life.
I had misunderstood too. Thanks for that clarification.
Do you think a person's life has value at all ... and if so, in what way and for whom?
My post about human life said nothing about what places the value on that life, it only objects to the idea that an immediate outside force is what determines the value of a human life.
I had misunderstood too. Thanks for that clarification.
Do you think a person's life has value at all ... and if so, in what way and for whom?
MSG
29th January 2012, 04:24 AM
I beg your pardon? It is there in your quote.
No, you cherry picked. I suggest you quite the entire phrase I used.
No, you used the phrase. You could have equally used "creepy Westerner in Phnom Penh", but you chose to link child sex slavery with Islamic princes. If you think my "cherry picking" is out of order, perhaps you should explain your context more fully, as I originally asked you to do.
No, you cherry picked. I suggest you quite the entire phrase I used.
No, you used the phrase. You could have equally used "creepy Westerner in Phnom Penh", but you chose to link child sex slavery with Islamic princes. If you think my "cherry picking" is out of order, perhaps you should explain your context more fully, as I originally asked you to do.
Grumps
29th January 2012, 04:25 AM
My post about cultures refers specifically to a clash of cultures. It is about the advocation of any one culture as superior over another.
My post about human life said nothing about what places the value on that life, it only objects to the idea that an immediate outside force is what determines the value of a human life.
I had misunderstood too. Thanks for that clarification.
Do you think a child's life has value at all ... and if so, in what way and for whom?
Objectively, a child's life is no more or less important than any other life, or anything at all, really.
Subjectively, a child's value isn't about how important it is, but simply about how much control it has. Mentally and physically a child is undeveloped, and any act putting a child at risk for personal gain or gratification is exploitation because of it.
My post about human life said nothing about what places the value on that life, it only objects to the idea that an immediate outside force is what determines the value of a human life.
I had misunderstood too. Thanks for that clarification.
Do you think a child's life has value at all ... and if so, in what way and for whom?
Objectively, a child's life is no more or less important than any other life, or anything at all, really.
Subjectively, a child's value isn't about how important it is, but simply about how much control it has. Mentally and physically a child is undeveloped, and any act putting a child at risk for personal gain or gratification is exploitation because of it.
Grumps
29th January 2012, 04:26 AM
I beg your pardon? It is there in your quote.
No, you cherry picked. I suggest you quite the entire phrase I used.
No, you used the phrase. You could have equally used "creepy Westerner in Phnom Penh", but you chose to link child sex slavery with Islamic princes. If you think my "cherry picking" is out of order, perhaps you should explain your context more fully, as I originally asked you to do.
I don't need to. All you have to do is go back and properly quote my post.
I used an adjective, you ignored that very important adjective.
No, you cherry picked. I suggest you quite the entire phrase I used.
No, you used the phrase. You could have equally used "creepy Westerner in Phnom Penh", but you chose to link child sex slavery with Islamic princes. If you think my "cherry picking" is out of order, perhaps you should explain your context more fully, as I originally asked you to do.
I don't need to. All you have to do is go back and properly quote my post.
I used an adjective, you ignored that very important adjective.
charlou
29th January 2012, 04:30 AM
My post about cultures refers specifically to a clash of cultures. It is about the advocation of any one culture as superior over another.
My post about human life said nothing about what places the value on that life, it only objects to the idea that an immediate outside force is what determines the value of a human life.
I had misunderstood too. Thanks for that clarification.
Do you think a child's life has value at all ... and if so, in what way and for whom?
Objectively, a child's life is no more or less important than any other life, or anything at all, really.
Subjectively, a child's value isn't about how important it is, but simply about how much control it has. Mentally and physically a child is undeveloped, and any act putting a child at risk for personal gain or gratification is exploitation because of it.
I had edited my post before you replied, and changed the word "child's" to "person's".
Going with your reply to the original .. (your response works wrt vulnerable people of any age, btw. What makes people vulnerable ..? Oh so many trains of thought to explore ..) We think exploitation is unethical. Others don't. How do we explain to them why we think exploitation is unethical?
My post about human life said nothing about what places the value on that life, it only objects to the idea that an immediate outside force is what determines the value of a human life.
I had misunderstood too. Thanks for that clarification.
Do you think a child's life has value at all ... and if so, in what way and for whom?
Objectively, a child's life is no more or less important than any other life, or anything at all, really.
Subjectively, a child's value isn't about how important it is, but simply about how much control it has. Mentally and physically a child is undeveloped, and any act putting a child at risk for personal gain or gratification is exploitation because of it.
I had edited my post before you replied, and changed the word "child's" to "person's".
Going with your reply to the original .. (your response works wrt vulnerable people of any age, btw. What makes people vulnerable ..? Oh so many trains of thought to explore ..) We think exploitation is unethical. Others don't. How do we explain to them why we think exploitation is unethical?
andrewclunn
29th January 2012, 04:31 AM
I never said I would completely end unemployment. The people who pump my gas get paid for it, so what other obligations do I have to them other than pay for my gas?
Apparently I'll have to over-simplify.
People who work at a gas station earn very little money.
Things like housing, food, maintenance bills and medicine are very expensive.
A person who works full time at a gas station can't afford to pay for these things.
Therefore: Society subsidises these things, or provides these basic necessities, for the people it relies on to function.
Oh no! So you mean without a welfare state I'd have to pump my own gas? Perhaps you should pick another example.
Apparently I'll have to over-simplify.
People who work at a gas station earn very little money.
Things like housing, food, maintenance bills and medicine are very expensive.
A person who works full time at a gas station can't afford to pay for these things.
Therefore: Society subsidises these things, or provides these basic necessities, for the people it relies on to function.
Oh no! So you mean without a welfare state I'd have to pump my own gas? Perhaps you should pick another example.
MSG
29th January 2012, 04:32 AM
I don't need to. All you have to do is go back and properly quote my post.
I used an adjective, you ignored that very important adjective.
I did not ignore it, and had I reproduced the word "hypocritical" it would not change the need for you to explain why hypocritical interest in young children is something that needs to be highlighted among Islamic princes and not other classes of men, hypocritical or otherwise.
But since you apparently have no interest in explaining your position, I will simply assume it was motivated by racism after all. And not assume that I need to justify that belief.
I used an adjective, you ignored that very important adjective.
I did not ignore it, and had I reproduced the word "hypocritical" it would not change the need for you to explain why hypocritical interest in young children is something that needs to be highlighted among Islamic princes and not other classes of men, hypocritical or otherwise.
But since you apparently have no interest in explaining your position, I will simply assume it was motivated by racism after all. And not assume that I need to justify that belief.
andrewclunn
29th January 2012, 04:33 AM
I never said I would completely end unemployment. The people who pump my gas get paid for it, so what other obligations do I have to them other than pay for my gas?
The people who pump your gas probably needed income support while they were growing up. And got some of that free education.
You never answered my question. Would you condemn a child to starvation and death because of who the child was born to?
Well apparently if I don't help somebody then I am condemning them to death. So by that definition, then yes, I am okay with that. Then again, so are you for every time you buy something you don't need instead of donating that money to a "feed the starving children" fund or something or other.
The people who pump your gas probably needed income support while they were growing up. And got some of that free education.
You never answered my question. Would you condemn a child to starvation and death because of who the child was born to?
Well apparently if I don't help somebody then I am condemning them to death. So by that definition, then yes, I am okay with that. Then again, so are you for every time you buy something you don't need instead of donating that money to a "feed the starving children" fund or something or other.
Hermit
29th January 2012, 05:21 AM
I didn't use the phrase "Islamic prince". If you're going to quote, quote properly.
LOL. A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
Cheap shot, I know, but you are asking for it. :D
LOL. A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
Cheap shot, I know, but you are asking for it. :D
Adenosine
29th January 2012, 08:49 AM
I never said I would completely end unemployment. The people who pump my gas get paid for it, so what other obligations do I have to them other than pay for my gas?
The people who pump your gas probably needed income support while they were growing up. And got some of that free education.
You never answered my question. Would you condemn a child to starvation and death because of who the child was born to?
Well apparently if I don't help somebody then I am condemning them to death. So by that definition, then yes, I am okay with that. Then again, so are you for every time you buy something you don't need instead of donating that money to a "feed the starving children" fund or something or other.
No, because I live in a country with government provided safety nets. Which you want to do away with leaving everyone to sink or swim on their own. And that is why your analogy is crap.
The people who pump your gas probably needed income support while they were growing up. And got some of that free education.
You never answered my question. Would you condemn a child to starvation and death because of who the child was born to?
Well apparently if I don't help somebody then I am condemning them to death. So by that definition, then yes, I am okay with that. Then again, so are you for every time you buy something you don't need instead of donating that money to a "feed the starving children" fund or something or other.
No, because I live in a country with government provided safety nets. Which you want to do away with leaving everyone to sink or swim on their own. And that is why your analogy is crap.
Grumps
29th January 2012, 11:08 AM
I didn't use the phrase "Islamic prince". If you're going to quote, quote properly.
LOL. A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
Cheap shot, I know, but you are asking for it. :D
You're just as wrong as MSG is.
LOL. A human life is most certainly not established by the people around them. What nonsense. A child bought, sold and traded for the sexual gratification of some hypocritical Islamic prince is not a commodity, no matter what the people in that child's life might think.
Cheap shot, I know, but you are asking for it. :D
You're just as wrong as MSG is.
Grumps
29th January 2012, 11:09 AM
I don't need to. All you have to do is go back and properly quote my post.
I used an adjective, you ignored that very important adjective.
I did not ignore it, and had I reproduced the word "hypocritical" it would not change the need for you to explain why hypocritical interest in young children is something that needs to be highlighted among Islamic princes and not other classes of men, hypocritical or otherwise.
But since you apparently have no interest in explaining your position, I will simply assume it was motivated by racism after all. And not assume that I need to justify that belief.
You ignored the word hypocritical because it makes your lack of judgement even more pronounced when included. The fact that you immediately jump to claims of racism demonstrates a clear lack of any real thought in your writing.
I used an adjective, you ignored that very important adjective.
I did not ignore it, and had I reproduced the word "hypocritical" it would not change the need for you to explain why hypocritical interest in young children is something that needs to be highlighted among Islamic princes and not other classes of men, hypocritical or otherwise.
But since you apparently have no interest in explaining your position, I will simply assume it was motivated by racism after all. And not assume that I need to justify that belief.
You ignored the word hypocritical because it makes your lack of judgement even more pronounced when included. The fact that you immediately jump to claims of racism demonstrates a clear lack of any real thought in your writing.
MSG
29th January 2012, 11:11 AM
it's all right, you don't have to defend yourself if you don't want to. lots of people are racist...
andrewclunn
29th January 2012, 06:02 PM
I never said I would completely end unemployment. The people who pump my gas get paid for it, so what other obligations do I have to them other than pay for my gas?
The people who pump your gas probably needed income support while they were growing up. And got some of that free education.
You never answered my question. Would you condemn a child to starvation and death because of who the child was born to?
Well apparently if I don't help somebody then I am condemning them to death. So by that definition, then yes, I am okay with that. Then again, so are you for every time you buy something you don't need instead of donating that money to a "feed the starving children" fund or something or other.
No, because I live in a country with government provided safety nets. Which you want to do away with leaving everyone to sink or swim on their own. And that is why your analogy is crap.
Are you sure you want to appeal to tradition? That's a really bad argument with a lot of pitfalls. I'll give you some time to come up with another reason.
The people who pump your gas probably needed income support while they were growing up. And got some of that free education.
You never answered my question. Would you condemn a child to starvation and death because of who the child was born to?
Well apparently if I don't help somebody then I am condemning them to death. So by that definition, then yes, I am okay with that. Then again, so are you for every time you buy something you don't need instead of donating that money to a "feed the starving children" fund or something or other.
No, because I live in a country with government provided safety nets. Which you want to do away with leaving everyone to sink or swim on their own. And that is why your analogy is crap.
Are you sure you want to appeal to tradition? That's a really bad argument with a lot of pitfalls. I'll give you some time to come up with another reason.
Cunt
29th January 2012, 07:33 PM
Do you use any of those 'safety nets', andrewclunn? Does your success depend on them in any way?
andrewclunn
29th January 2012, 07:42 PM
Do you use any of those 'safety nets', andrewclunn? Does your success depend on them in any way?
What would that prove? I use the roads. I'm forced to pay taxes to support the roads. Could I effectively get to work if the roads were privately owned? That's impossible to prove one way or the other. What bearing does the fact that I presently use them have on whether the roads should be publicly owned?
What would that prove? I use the roads. I'm forced to pay taxes to support the roads. Could I effectively get to work if the roads were privately owned? That's impossible to prove one way or the other. What bearing does the fact that I presently use them have on whether the roads should be publicly owned?
PermanentlyEphemeral
29th January 2012, 08:09 PM
Don't should all over yourself.
I believe that public roads are more efficient. i.e a better way of doing it.
No need to "should".
Americans could pay less tax for healthcare if it was done the same way as public roads except you had to prove American citizenship to use it.
And Americans would be healthier for it.
I believe that public roads are more efficient. i.e a better way of doing it.
No need to "should".
Americans could pay less tax for healthcare if it was done the same way as public roads except you had to prove American citizenship to use it.
And Americans would be healthier for it.
Cunt
29th January 2012, 08:20 PM
Do you use any of those 'safety nets', andrewclunn? Does your success depend on them in any way?
What would that prove? I use the roads. I'm forced to pay taxes to support the roads. Could I effectively get to work if the roads were privately owned? That's impossible to prove one way or the other. What bearing does the fact that I presently use them have on whether the roads should be publicly owned?
Well, you could not have had your early jobs were in not for social safety nets. You would not have a thin DIME without them, as a matter of fact. (currency is one of those safety nets)
What do you think should happen to a child whose parents have had some misfortune making them unsuitable to parent (say, like dying)? I'll start you off by pointing out that the current system of adoption and foster care is utter shit and we should be ashamed of it.
What would that prove? I use the roads. I'm forced to pay taxes to support the roads. Could I effectively get to work if the roads were privately owned? That's impossible to prove one way or the other. What bearing does the fact that I presently use them have on whether the roads should be publicly owned?
Well, you could not have had your early jobs were in not for social safety nets. You would not have a thin DIME without them, as a matter of fact. (currency is one of those safety nets)
What do you think should happen to a child whose parents have had some misfortune making them unsuitable to parent (say, like dying)? I'll start you off by pointing out that the current system of adoption and foster care is utter shit and we should be ashamed of it.
Grumps
29th January 2012, 08:41 PM
it's all right, you don't have to defend yourself if you don't want to. lots of people are racist...
Do you still beat your wife?
Do you still beat your wife?
andrewclunn
29th January 2012, 08:53 PM
Do you use any of those 'safety nets', andrewclunn? Does your success depend on them in any way?
What would that prove? I use the roads. I'm forced to pay taxes to support the roads. Could I effectively get to work if the roads were privately owned? That's impossible to prove one way or the other. What bearing does the fact that I presently use them have on whether the roads should be publicly owned?
Well, you could not have had your early jobs were in not for social safety nets. You would not have a thin DIME without them, as a matter of fact. (currency is one of those safety nets)
Currency existed long before central banking. Again, just because we currently rely on the government for a service does not prove that only the government would provide that service. Also because there are laws against using other forms of currency for US transaction it's imposed on me. Saying that things would be different than they presently are if that weren't the case doesn't prove anything either way.
What do you think should happen to a child whose parents have had some misfortune making them unsuitable to parent (say, like dying)? I'll start you off by pointing out that the current system of adoption and foster care is utter shit and we should be ashamed of it.
Please watch this:
Abandoned in Guatemala: The Failure of International Adoption Policies - YouTube
What would that prove? I use the roads. I'm forced to pay taxes to support the roads. Could I effectively get to work if the roads were privately owned? That's impossible to prove one way or the other. What bearing does the fact that I presently use them have on whether the roads should be publicly owned?
Well, you could not have had your early jobs were in not for social safety nets. You would not have a thin DIME without them, as a matter of fact. (currency is one of those safety nets)
Currency existed long before central banking. Again, just because we currently rely on the government for a service does not prove that only the government would provide that service. Also because there are laws against using other forms of currency for US transaction it's imposed on me. Saying that things would be different than they presently are if that weren't the case doesn't prove anything either way.
What do you think should happen to a child whose parents have had some misfortune making them unsuitable to parent (say, like dying)? I'll start you off by pointing out that the current system of adoption and foster care is utter shit and we should be ashamed of it.
Please watch this:
Abandoned in Guatemala: The Failure of International Adoption Policies - YouTube
Cunt
29th January 2012, 08:56 PM
it's all right, you don't have to defend yourself if you don't want to. lots of people are racist...
Do you still beat your wife?
Be nice, Grumps. Maybe he just doesn't want to lean into it...maybe he just wants to hint that you might be racist. Maybe he lacks the understanding of proper use of passive-aggressive resistance.
Do you still beat your wife?
Be nice, Grumps. Maybe he just doesn't want to lean into it...maybe he just wants to hint that you might be racist. Maybe he lacks the understanding of proper use of passive-aggressive resistance.
charlou
29th January 2012, 11:47 PM
What would that prove? I use the roads. I'm forced to pay taxes to support the roads. Could I effectively get to work if the roads were privately owned? That's impossible to prove one way or the other. What bearing does the fact that I presently use them have on whether the roads should be publicly owned?
Just curious ... if roads weren't publicly funded, who would pay for them? And would everyone be able to use them?
Just curious ... if roads weren't publicly funded, who would pay for them? And would everyone be able to use them?
charlou
30th January 2012, 12:10 AM
I'm more of a laissez faire style social Darwinist, where I think that letting the incompetent and lazy die off is a good idea. Who needs active eugenics? People in power will just arbitrarily apply some form of nepotism and call it eugenics.
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
By "self destruct" and "die off", do you mean not continue to be born in the first place? I have more questions, dependent on your reply to this one.
I'm not in favor of forced sterilization if that's what you mean. People who can't afford or incapable of caring for children shouldn't have them, but if they do anyways then the children will suffer. This happens right now and in countries with more of a welfare state the problem isn't solved by bring people out of poverty, but made worse by increased immigration and large continuous birth rates among the poor.
re the bit I've bolded ... I'm not sure statistics would support your claim that bringing people out of poverty does not alleviate the problem. That said, I'm not in favour of governmental policy that actively encourages people to have more children when they are already dependent on welfare. Cynically breeding fodder for the future under the guise of growing a great nation is narrow sighted at best ..
It's either foreced sterilization or letting the kids die. I understand if you prefer the other. I can respect people who believe in government planning and realize that policies like China's are needed to end the cycle of poverty. It's those who refuse to acknowledge that such an issue even exists and that poverty will work itself out if we just redistribute wealth enough who are lying for their cause, or just plain idiots.
I prefer neither imposed sterilisation, nor letting kids die (though the latter is already happening with little I can directly do about it). Education, health and sharing wealth are my preference.
I agree that human life doesn't have mystical value innate to the universe, but I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way you're doing. That, in itself, makes us equal. In my opinion. ;)
Well if you mean that on a cosmic scale each person has a value infinitely close to zero, alright. However our lives have value to us and those we care about. The question is whether we have the right to assert that others value what we value. I don't believe we do.
So in a practical sense if a person's value is subjective (probably more to them self and their relations than strangers) than why should I be able to make you pay for my art, or you for your child's braces, or anyone for whatever they need or desire? I should get to choose what I live for, and if I'm not hurting you, why am I an asshole for thinking I shouldn't have to have to work to take care of strangers? Pay attention to the group thought in this thread.
I don't think you're an asshole, so let's set that aside.
Group thought is kinda important in this context, actually .. not the doctrinal, unquestioning sort you're referring to, of course .. but agreement and cooperation about how we want to live and get along in society has been a successful method of survival up to now.
What is your background for holding your view, Andrew?
Don't give anybody special perks for any reason. Then dispense with BS like human life have some mystical value innate to the universe and people all being created equal. Do those things and let the losers and idiots self destruct and those who are capable of self sufficiency will all be better off for it.
By "self destruct" and "die off", do you mean not continue to be born in the first place? I have more questions, dependent on your reply to this one.
I'm not in favor of forced sterilization if that's what you mean. People who can't afford or incapable of caring for children shouldn't have them, but if they do anyways then the children will suffer. This happens right now and in countries with more of a welfare state the problem isn't solved by bring people out of poverty, but made worse by increased immigration and large continuous birth rates among the poor.
re the bit I've bolded ... I'm not sure statistics would support your claim that bringing people out of poverty does not alleviate the problem. That said, I'm not in favour of governmental policy that actively encourages people to have more children when they are already dependent on welfare. Cynically breeding fodder for the future under the guise of growing a great nation is narrow sighted at best ..
It's either foreced sterilization or letting the kids die. I understand if you prefer the other. I can respect people who believe in government planning and realize that policies like China's are needed to end the cycle of poverty. It's those who refuse to acknowledge that such an issue even exists and that poverty will work itself out if we just redistribute wealth enough who are lying for their cause, or just plain idiots.
I prefer neither imposed sterilisation, nor letting kids die (though the latter is already happening with little I can directly do about it). Education, health and sharing wealth are my preference.
I agree that human life doesn't have mystical value innate to the universe, but I don't think any of us are more qualified than anyone else to assign value to a person's existence in the way you're doing. That, in itself, makes us equal. In my opinion. ;)
Well if you mean that on a cosmic scale each person has a value infinitely close to zero, alright. However our lives have value to us and those we care about. The question is whether we have the right to assert that others value what we value. I don't believe we do.
So in a practical sense if a person's value is subjective (probably more to them self and their relations than strangers) than why should I be able to make you pay for my art, or you for your child's braces, or anyone for whatever they need or desire? I should get to choose what I live for, and if I'm not hurting you, why am I an asshole for thinking I shouldn't have to have to work to take care of strangers? Pay attention to the group thought in this thread.
I don't think you're an asshole, so let's set that aside.
Group thought is kinda important in this context, actually .. not the doctrinal, unquestioning sort you're referring to, of course .. but agreement and cooperation about how we want to live and get along in society has been a successful method of survival up to now.
What is your background for holding your view, Andrew?
gib
30th January 2012, 12:26 AM
it's all right, you don't have to defend yourself if you don't want to. lots of people are racist...
comment: even my troll on the wine thread was better than this!
comment: even my troll on the wine thread was better than this!
Exi5tentialist
30th January 2012, 12:28 AM
What is your background for holding your view, Andrew?
Apparently he bought his parents' house for them when he was little, therefore anybody with a socialistic view isn't entitled to an opinion.
Apparently he bought his parents' house for them when he was little, therefore anybody with a socialistic view isn't entitled to an opinion.
amused
30th January 2012, 01:25 AM
So it's been suggested that there be a thread about this. I identify as a Social Darwinist. What say you?
So, let's say that tomorrow morning Social Darwinism becomes the law of the land. The people in the military and police would automatically become the top dogs since they have most of the best weapons. The rest of the population would go tribal and attempt to identify with an armed group for protection. The groups with the guns would take whatever (and whoever) they wanted, because it's the way things are supposed to be under this system. If you complain, they kill you.
Assuming this system could even support an economy of any size, and that economy could generate food, during hard times the groups with the guns would hoard the food and be free to kill anybody who complained. The population would eventually collapse into a few Sparta like enclaves where nobody trusts anybody and there is a constant churn of who is the top dog as they plot against each other.
Haven't we done this already?
So, let's say that tomorrow morning Social Darwinism becomes the law of the land. The people in the military and police would automatically become the top dogs since they have most of the best weapons. The rest of the population would go tribal and attempt to identify with an armed group for protection. The groups with the guns would take whatever (and whoever) they wanted, because it's the way things are supposed to be under this system. If you complain, they kill you.
Assuming this system could even support an economy of any size, and that economy could generate food, during hard times the groups with the guns would hoard the food and be free to kill anybody who complained. The population would eventually collapse into a few Sparta like enclaves where nobody trusts anybody and there is a constant churn of who is the top dog as they plot against each other.
Haven't we done this already?
Adenosine
30th January 2012, 06:36 AM
Detroit?
Cunt
30th January 2012, 07:24 AM
Please watch this:
Abandoned in Guatemala: The Failure of International Adoption Policies - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWrdz-Aqw-U)
Okay, but I don't get the point you were trying to make. Can you spell it out a bit more please?
Abandoned in Guatemala: The Failure of International Adoption Policies - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWrdz-Aqw-U)
Okay, but I don't get the point you were trying to make. Can you spell it out a bit more please?
andrewclunn
30th January 2012, 05:27 PM
Does this forum have an ignore feature? I'd like to put one person on it as clearly person insults and non-sequiturs are all they have. I won't name the person, but it should be easy enough to figure out.
Elouise,
I'm not really sure what you mean by my 'background.' Like I stated before, I don't really know anyone who holds the same opinions that I do (I agree that my positions probably look like a hardcore libertarian's right now, but that's simply because I agree with them on this particular subject. Well I agree with their desired course of action, even if not the thought process they use to get there).
amused,
Really? Do I have to point out what a horrible straw man that is? One might as well make an argument against Communism where they assume that it comes about by installing a ruthless dictator. Please try again.
Cunt,
Innate within your arguments appears to be this presumption that the government solution is ideal. Let's say that I take a utilitarian perspective (if only for the sake of argument) and ask, "What is the best outcome for everyone involved?" Then I must avoid seeing either government run central planning or market based approaches in their idealized forms. Instead (If I seek to honestly determine what the best approach is) I should attempt to see the real consequences of each approach.
You mentioned that you thought our current system of adoption and foster care is shit. I presented that video to show you how a market based approach that (to be blunt) allows the market to put a price on the lives of children, actually might end up serving the children better. That was my point.
Elouise,
I'm not really sure what you mean by my 'background.' Like I stated before, I don't really know anyone who holds the same opinions that I do (I agree that my positions probably look like a hardcore libertarian's right now, but that's simply because I agree with them on this particular subject. Well I agree with their desired course of action, even if not the thought process they use to get there).
amused,
Really? Do I have to point out what a horrible straw man that is? One might as well make an argument against Communism where they assume that it comes about by installing a ruthless dictator. Please try again.
Cunt,
Innate within your arguments appears to be this presumption that the government solution is ideal. Let's say that I take a utilitarian perspective (if only for the sake of argument) and ask, "What is the best outcome for everyone involved?" Then I must avoid seeing either government run central planning or market based approaches in their idealized forms. Instead (If I seek to honestly determine what the best approach is) I should attempt to see the real consequences of each approach.
You mentioned that you thought our current system of adoption and foster care is shit. I presented that video to show you how a market based approach that (to be blunt) allows the market to put a price on the lives of children, actually might end up serving the children better. That was my point.
oblivion
30th January 2012, 05:38 PM
Yes. Two ways to do this currently:
1. Click the person's Avatar or otherwise navigate to their profile page. Find the button-link "User Lists" near the top of the page, but below their name. Click that and choose "Add to Ignore List".
2. Click UserCP at the top of the page in the navigation bar. Click the "Edit Ignore List" link under Settings and Options on the left hand side. Click that and add the person to your ignore list.
1. Click the person's Avatar or otherwise navigate to their profile page. Find the button-link "User Lists" near the top of the page, but below their name. Click that and choose "Add to Ignore List".
2. Click UserCP at the top of the page in the navigation bar. Click the "Edit Ignore List" link under Settings and Options on the left hand side. Click that and add the person to your ignore list.
amused
30th January 2012, 06:18 PM
amused,
Really? Do I have to point out what a horrible straw man that is?
Yes, please show how that is a horrible straw man.
Really? Do I have to point out what a horrible straw man that is?
Yes, please show how that is a horrible straw man.
Exi5tentialist
30th January 2012, 06:42 PM
Does this forum have an ignore feature? I'd like to put one person on it as clearly person insults and non-sequiturs are all they have. I won't name the person, but it should be easy enough to figure out.
Is it andrewclunn?
Is it andrewclunn?
Jerome
30th January 2012, 08:42 PM
Do you use any of those 'safety nets', andrewclunn? Does your success depend on them in any way?
What would that prove? I use the roads. I'm forced to pay taxes to support the roads. Could I effectively get to work if the roads were privately owned? That's impossible to prove one way or the other. What bearing does the fact that I presently use them have on whether the roads should be publicly owned?
lol at 'public roads', governments are now selling them to private, and sometimes foreign, entities.
What would that prove? I use the roads. I'm forced to pay taxes to support the roads. Could I effectively get to work if the roads were privately owned? That's impossible to prove one way or the other. What bearing does the fact that I presently use them have on whether the roads should be publicly owned?
lol at 'public roads', governments are now selling them to private, and sometimes foreign, entities.
Cunt
31st January 2012, 12:15 AM
Cunt,
Innate within your arguments appears to be this presumption that the government solution is ideal.
Did you get that from the part where I said that the way we currently deal with children in need is 'shit'?
I think our current systems get a lot of things right, still many wrong. Where I think we disagree is the goal to aim for.
You are not a self-made man. Far from it, in fact. One need only look at the difference in success rates between humans raised in poverty in Tulita compared to humans raised in wealth in Connecticut to see the difference clearly.
You were raised in a life of privilege, as was I. I can see the difference, but I
think that you can't.
Do you really think you would have done as well for yourself if you had been born and raised in Tulita? Darfour? Do you think you would have done as well if you had never been taught how to be a good worker?
We all need the support of our communities. You take all the support you need, so why be so down on helping others?
Let's say that I take a utilitarian perspective (if only for the sake of argument) and ask, "What is the best outcome for everyone involved?" Then I must avoid seeing either government run central planning or market based approaches in their idealized forms. Instead (If I seek to honestly determine what the best approach is) I should attempt to see the real consequences of each approach.And many hate consequences. I see it all the time with educators. They seem to have a mandate to remove consequences from the education system.
But go on. I'll brace myself.
You mentioned that you thought our current system of adoption and foster care is shit. I presented that video to show you how a market based approach that (to be blunt) allows the market to put a price on the lives of children, actually might end up serving the children better. That was my point.
It might end up serving those children better, but honestly, when someone adopts a brown baby and says they are doing a great service to (pick a country), I think it's just vanity.
Better to forbid international adoption. If those desperate parents really want to make a difference in Guatemala, go there and fucking raise that kid right. Improve the neighbourhood you live in and don't pretend that taking one kid out of that situation helps anyone. There are plenty of kids in EVERY country who need parents. Adopting a brown baby is fine, and stylish, but don't try to pretend that it is anything other than vanity driving it. The kid will be replaced quickly. The more kids that are adopted, the more that will be produced.
But I think your point was aimed a bit off. I don't think those big-eyed, sad Guatemalan children are enough to sway me. Maybe try a puppy.
Innate within your arguments appears to be this presumption that the government solution is ideal.
Did you get that from the part where I said that the way we currently deal with children in need is 'shit'?
I think our current systems get a lot of things right, still many wrong. Where I think we disagree is the goal to aim for.
You are not a self-made man. Far from it, in fact. One need only look at the difference in success rates between humans raised in poverty in Tulita compared to humans raised in wealth in Connecticut to see the difference clearly.
You were raised in a life of privilege, as was I. I can see the difference, but I
think that you can't.
Do you really think you would have done as well for yourself if you had been born and raised in Tulita? Darfour? Do you think you would have done as well if you had never been taught how to be a good worker?
We all need the support of our communities. You take all the support you need, so why be so down on helping others?
Let's say that I take a utilitarian perspective (if only for the sake of argument) and ask, "What is the best outcome for everyone involved?" Then I must avoid seeing either government run central planning or market based approaches in their idealized forms. Instead (If I seek to honestly determine what the best approach is) I should attempt to see the real consequences of each approach.And many hate consequences. I see it all the time with educators. They seem to have a mandate to remove consequences from the education system.
But go on. I'll brace myself.
You mentioned that you thought our current system of adoption and foster care is shit. I presented that video to show you how a market based approach that (to be blunt) allows the market to put a price on the lives of children, actually might end up serving the children better. That was my point.
It might end up serving those children better, but honestly, when someone adopts a brown baby and says they are doing a great service to (pick a country), I think it's just vanity.
Better to forbid international adoption. If those desperate parents really want to make a difference in Guatemala, go there and fucking raise that kid right. Improve the neighbourhood you live in and don't pretend that taking one kid out of that situation helps anyone. There are plenty of kids in EVERY country who need parents. Adopting a brown baby is fine, and stylish, but don't try to pretend that it is anything other than vanity driving it. The kid will be replaced quickly. The more kids that are adopted, the more that will be produced.
But I think your point was aimed a bit off. I don't think those big-eyed, sad Guatemalan children are enough to sway me. Maybe try a puppy.
amused
31st January 2012, 01:29 AM
Does this forum have an ignore feature? I'd like to put one person on it as clearly person insults and non-sequiturs are all they have. I won't name the person, but it should be easy enough to figure out.
Yes. Two ways to do this currently:
1. Click the person's Avatar or otherwise navigate to their profile page. Find the button-link "User Lists" near the top of the page, but below their name. Click that and choose "Add to Ignore List".
2. Click UserCP at the top of the page in the navigation bar. Click the "Edit Ignore List" link under Settings and Options on the left hand side. Click that and add the person to your ignore list.
This seems to run a little against the 'no moderation' ethos since it's letting the software do some moderating. The experiment here might be more interesting if people were forced to endure each other. So, no 'ignore' feature. Not a biggy for me, just a suggestion.
Yes. Two ways to do this currently:
1. Click the person's Avatar or otherwise navigate to their profile page. Find the button-link "User Lists" near the top of the page, but below their name. Click that and choose "Add to Ignore List".
2. Click UserCP at the top of the page in the navigation bar. Click the "Edit Ignore List" link under Settings and Options on the left hand side. Click that and add the person to your ignore list.
This seems to run a little against the 'no moderation' ethos since it's letting the software do some moderating. The experiment here might be more interesting if people were forced to endure each other. So, no 'ignore' feature. Not a biggy for me, just a suggestion.
charlou
31st January 2012, 01:42 AM
Does this forum have an ignore feature? I'd like to put one person on it as clearly person insults and non-sequiturs are all they have. I won't name the person, but it should be easy enough to figure out.
Yes. Two ways to do this currently:
1. Click the person's Avatar or otherwise navigate to their profile page. Find the button-link "User Lists" near the top of the page, but below their name. Click that and choose "Add to Ignore List".
2. Click UserCP at the top of the page in the navigation bar. Click the "Edit Ignore List" link under Settings and Options on the left hand side. Click that and add the person to your ignore list.
This seems to run a little against the 'no moderation' ethos since it's letting the software do some moderating. The experiment here might be more interesting if people were forced to endure each other. So, no 'ignore' feature. Not a biggy for me, just a suggestion.
re the bit I've bolded ... I disagree .. It's the user who is implementing the option and thus choosing to moderate their own experience.
Yes. Two ways to do this currently:
1. Click the person's Avatar or otherwise navigate to their profile page. Find the button-link "User Lists" near the top of the page, but below their name. Click that and choose "Add to Ignore List".
2. Click UserCP at the top of the page in the navigation bar. Click the "Edit Ignore List" link under Settings and Options on the left hand side. Click that and add the person to your ignore list.
This seems to run a little against the 'no moderation' ethos since it's letting the software do some moderating. The experiment here might be more interesting if people were forced to endure each other. So, no 'ignore' feature. Not a biggy for me, just a suggestion.
re the bit I've bolded ... I disagree .. It's the user who is implementing the option and thus choosing to moderate their own experience.
charlou
31st January 2012, 01:49 AM
Not disagreeing that the experiment might be more ... interesting ... if people were forced to endure each other, mind. I just don't see this as the kind of experiment that needn't acknowledge that some people want tools to moderate themselves.
Jerome
31st January 2012, 02:00 AM
This seems to run a little against the 'no moderation' ethos since it's letting the software do some moderating.
An individual having the common tools to enhance their experience on their terms without harming any other member/s is the point from my thinking.
An individual having the common tools to enhance their experience on their terms without harming any other member/s is the point from my thinking.
AdminCunt
31st January 2012, 02:00 AM
I don't mind censorship, it's just something people should do alone, for themselves, and make sure they wash their hands after.
Oh, and don't do it publicly.
Oh, and don't do it publicly.
Jerome
31st January 2012, 02:04 AM
Not disagreeing that the experiment might be more ... interesting ... if people were forced to endure each other, mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
:dunno:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
:dunno:
Jerome
31st January 2012, 02:08 AM
I don't mind censorship, it's just something people should do alone, for themselves, and make sure they wash their hands after.
Oh, and don't do it publicly.
Right, don't be a dick about it.
Everyone at all times has the ability to censor themselves from the internets entirely by simply pulling the plus.
Oh, and don't do it publicly.
Right, don't be a dick about it.
Everyone at all times has the ability to censor themselves from the internets entirely by simply pulling the plus.
Cunt
31st January 2012, 02:30 AM
I think censorship is important because I want fucking QUIET when I am trying to rearrange my hates and misconceptions. I wouldn't brag about it, though.
Jerome
31st January 2012, 02:36 AM
i am just here for the mafia
amused
31st January 2012, 11:54 AM
If I don't get my way I'll throw a fit and pull a flounce.
:hehe:
:hehe:
andrewclunn
31st January 2012, 01:10 PM
Cunt,
My privilege comes largely from my parents, my genetics, and environmental factors that can not be controlled or accounted for. Again, attempting to say that I owe society at large for forcing me into an agreement that I disdain is a bad argument.
I do not owe my country military service because the military claims to have kept me safe. I fairly hate the actions of the US military during my lifetime. I also am fully capable of willingly aiding those people (such as my parents) who I see have benefited me. You're repeated claims that I am somehow just ignorant of my blessings and ungrateful, unlike you, are childish and insulting. Learn to argue against the point, not the person.
My privilege comes largely from my parents, my genetics, and environmental factors that can not be controlled or accounted for. Again, attempting to say that I owe society at large for forcing me into an agreement that I disdain is a bad argument.
I do not owe my country military service because the military claims to have kept me safe. I fairly hate the actions of the US military during my lifetime. I also am fully capable of willingly aiding those people (such as my parents) who I see have benefited me. You're repeated claims that I am somehow just ignorant of my blessings and ungrateful, unlike you, are childish and insulting. Learn to argue against the point, not the person.
Cunt
31st January 2012, 09:53 PM
I really think you are trying to cut the supports which you used to get where you are. It doesn't seem like a sensible position.
What do you think should be done about those with severe intellectual/developmental disabilities? (perhaps some specifics about your position could clear up my misunderstanding)
What do you think should be done about those with severe intellectual/developmental disabilities? (perhaps some specifics about your position could clear up my misunderstanding)
Adenosine
1st February 2012, 12:26 AM
Cunt,
My privilege comes largely from my parents, my genetics, and environmental factors that can not be controlled or accounted for. Again, attempting to say that I owe society at large for forcing me into an agreement that I disdain is a bad argument.
I do not owe my country military service because the military claims to have kept me safe. I fairly hate the actions of the US military during my lifetime. I also am fully capable of willingly aiding those people (such as my parents) who I see have benefited me. You're repeated claims that I am somehow just ignorant of my blessings and ungrateful, unlike you, are childish and insulting. Learn to argue against the point, not the person.
And that's what I've been telling you and what you have been ignoring. Now what about those that weren't born with your privilege? What about those that were born into poverty or to poorly educated parents or who were born black or a woman or, as Cunt has said, disabled? Why shouldn't they get a hand up to be at the same starting point as you?
My privilege comes largely from my parents, my genetics, and environmental factors that can not be controlled or accounted for. Again, attempting to say that I owe society at large for forcing me into an agreement that I disdain is a bad argument.
I do not owe my country military service because the military claims to have kept me safe. I fairly hate the actions of the US military during my lifetime. I also am fully capable of willingly aiding those people (such as my parents) who I see have benefited me. You're repeated claims that I am somehow just ignorant of my blessings and ungrateful, unlike you, are childish and insulting. Learn to argue against the point, not the person.
And that's what I've been telling you and what you have been ignoring. Now what about those that weren't born with your privilege? What about those that were born into poverty or to poorly educated parents or who were born black or a woman or, as Cunt has said, disabled? Why shouldn't they get a hand up to be at the same starting point as you?
Cunt
1st February 2012, 01:21 AM
It's not even about the 'same starting point' for me, but a much deeper sensibility. When women were treated as un-persons, they were prevented from contributing to society in many ways. There is no denying their contribution now. We used to treat disabilities like un-persons. Turns out they had a lot to contribute as well.
Diversity is something pretty valuable.
Diversity is something pretty valuable.
charlou
1st February 2012, 02:18 AM
It's not even about the 'same starting point' for me, but a much deeper sensibility. When women were treated as un-persons, they were prevented from contributing to society in many ways. There is no denying their contribution now. We used to treat disabilities like un-persons. Turns out they had a lot to contribute as well.
Not only that, but it changes the way those who are not treated as 'un-persons' contribute to society ... for the better, I think .. because the interactive dynamic is improved.
Not only that, but it changes the way those who are not treated as 'un-persons' contribute to society ... for the better, I think .. because the interactive dynamic is improved.
andrewclunn
1st February 2012, 02:20 AM
I"m for equal treatment under the law and against affirmative action. That seems to be an entirely different topic. As far as people who are born into poor families, do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder?
oblivion
1st February 2012, 02:28 AM
I"m for equal treatment under the law and against affirmative action. That seems to be an entirely different topic. As far as people who are born into poor families, do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder?
this showed up on postspy. Is it satire?
this showed up on postspy. Is it satire?
charlou
1st February 2012, 02:31 AM
I"m for equal treatment under the law and against affirmative action. That seems to be an entirely different topic. As far as people who are born into poor families, do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder?
You've raised genetics as being part of your rationale for your philosophy ... Do you equate being poor with having a difference in genetics to those who are wealthy? How does genetics fit into the disparity?
You've raised genetics as being part of your rationale for your philosophy ... Do you equate being poor with having a difference in genetics to those who are wealthy? How does genetics fit into the disparity?
Adenosine
1st February 2012, 02:33 AM
I"m for equal treatment under the law and against affirmative action. That seems to be an entirely different topic. As far as people who are born into poor families, do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder?
:stare:
What say I?
I say you are an inhumane pos that couldn't actually handle true social Darwinism because you'd be one of the first to suffer. My friends and I frequently use the expression "would not survive in the wild". That's you. You are a complete product of society yet having received yours, you turn around and go "fuck you all! I got mine, fuck the rest of you!"
You think you'd prosper in a social Darwinism scenario? You going to run your own sewerage pipes? Take your own rubbish to...where would you take your rubbish? You think you could grow enough food to feed your family? You're going to have to because there are no more poor people to pick your fruit.
It isn't poor people that are the problem with society, it's entitled middle class males who use the phrase "bootstraps" too much.
:stare:
What say I?
I say you are an inhumane pos that couldn't actually handle true social Darwinism because you'd be one of the first to suffer. My friends and I frequently use the expression "would not survive in the wild". That's you. You are a complete product of society yet having received yours, you turn around and go "fuck you all! I got mine, fuck the rest of you!"
You think you'd prosper in a social Darwinism scenario? You going to run your own sewerage pipes? Take your own rubbish to...where would you take your rubbish? You think you could grow enough food to feed your family? You're going to have to because there are no more poor people to pick your fruit.
It isn't poor people that are the problem with society, it's entitled middle class males who use the phrase "bootstraps" too much.
Hermit
1st February 2012, 03:01 AM
As far as people who are born into poor families, do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder?Ah! A member of the Seth Club. I wish there was some sort of an island where people with this attitude could be isolated. That would make for an interesting experiment.
Pity their offspring, though.
Pity their offspring, though.
charlou
1st February 2012, 03:07 AM
That's not very inclusive, Seraph.
Such things should be voluntary, anyway. Who are we to force anyone into putting their actions where their philosophies are.
Such things should be voluntary, anyway. Who are we to force anyone into putting their actions where their philosophies are.
MSG
1st February 2012, 07:34 AM
Tim Minchin Fuck The poor - YouTube
Magicziggy
1st February 2012, 08:11 AM
I disagree with andrewclunn's position. Fuck if I can put it into words though.
It's a logical argument vs an emotional argument. Logic says allow the system to be naturally efficient and let the strong prosper and the weak die. I am forever stuck on the emotional side of this debate. Appealing to logic from an emotional standpoint just won't work for me.
Andrewclunn.. Show me an emotional response. Anything. I'll go from there.
For your social darwinism to work emotion would have to be a trait weeded out. Otherwise the great unwashed will come and slit your throat in the night. Or maybe broad daylight. I think I would.
Having said that.. I respect the manner in which you have defended your position.
It's a logical argument vs an emotional argument. Logic says allow the system to be naturally efficient and let the strong prosper and the weak die. I am forever stuck on the emotional side of this debate. Appealing to logic from an emotional standpoint just won't work for me.
Andrewclunn.. Show me an emotional response. Anything. I'll go from there.
For your social darwinism to work emotion would have to be a trait weeded out. Otherwise the great unwashed will come and slit your throat in the night. Or maybe broad daylight. I think I would.
Having said that.. I respect the manner in which you have defended your position.
charlou
1st February 2012, 04:04 PM
I think emotion plays a part in reasonable logic. To dismiss emotion is to deny reality.
Compassion and empathy are not illogical stances from which to proceed in getting along with others. Quite the contrary, by definition, in fact.
Compassion and empathy are not illogical stances from which to proceed in getting along with others. Quite the contrary, by definition, in fact.
andrewclunn
1st February 2012, 04:18 PM
Magicziggy,
I am totally fine with accepting that this is a value judgement issue and recognizing that it needs to be about appealing to the emotions and values of people. I will gladly then adjust how I'm arguing my position. But before that point it would require others to:
1) Recognize that they are not logically destroying my argument by making emotional appeals.
2) Stop attacking me personally because they emotionally reject my position.
I have no problem with taking the conversation in the direction you suggest, but I can't do that so long as the majority of people here will simply attempt cheap shots. So long as they are caught in an adversarial stance, they will not hear my words regardless, and I have no hope of making an emotional argument for my case.
Elouise,
The percentage of how much intellect and other traits are tied to genetics is unimportant. The clear truth is that while some families may fail or succeed due to random variations, that genetic predisposition for aptitude in areas important for competing in a modern society will correlate with success.
Evolution works on a "good enough" principle. If there is a subset of people who are not able to be self sufficient based on genetics (take those with down syndrome for example) then is it unjust if their genetics material is not perpetuated for another generation? By what definitions of 'fair' and 'equal' should they be given additional support in order to procreate and then create more children who will invariably be dependent on society throughout their lives as well?
I am totally fine with accepting that this is a value judgement issue and recognizing that it needs to be about appealing to the emotions and values of people. I will gladly then adjust how I'm arguing my position. But before that point it would require others to:
1) Recognize that they are not logically destroying my argument by making emotional appeals.
2) Stop attacking me personally because they emotionally reject my position.
I have no problem with taking the conversation in the direction you suggest, but I can't do that so long as the majority of people here will simply attempt cheap shots. So long as they are caught in an adversarial stance, they will not hear my words regardless, and I have no hope of making an emotional argument for my case.
Elouise,
The percentage of how much intellect and other traits are tied to genetics is unimportant. The clear truth is that while some families may fail or succeed due to random variations, that genetic predisposition for aptitude in areas important for competing in a modern society will correlate with success.
Evolution works on a "good enough" principle. If there is a subset of people who are not able to be self sufficient based on genetics (take those with down syndrome for example) then is it unjust if their genetics material is not perpetuated for another generation? By what definitions of 'fair' and 'equal' should they be given additional support in order to procreate and then create more children who will invariably be dependent on society throughout their lives as well?
Dirtyarris
1st February 2012, 04:26 PM
1) Recognize that they are not logically destroying my argument by making emotional appeals.
There really is no need to logically, empirically, objectively destroy your argument.
Your argument is self evidently fucked from the outset that opposition to it can revolve purely around giving you shit.
2) Stop attacking me personally because they emotionally reject my position.
Fuck off and die. I reject you as a person BECAUSE you hold these views.
There really is no need to logically, empirically, objectively destroy your argument.
Your argument is self evidently fucked from the outset that opposition to it can revolve purely around giving you shit.
2) Stop attacking me personally because they emotionally reject my position.
Fuck off and die. I reject you as a person BECAUSE you hold these views.
andrewclunn
1st February 2012, 04:31 PM
One more makes it to the ignore list.
Dirtyarris
1st February 2012, 04:47 PM
Result.
Hermit
1st February 2012, 04:51 PM
Evolution works on a "good enough" principle. If there is a subset of people who are not able to be self sufficient based on genetics (take those with down syndrome for example) then is it unjust if their genetics material is not perpetuated for another generation?There is no doubt that the more a society becomes advanced, the more it enables genetically inferior individuals to survive long enough to pass on their defective genes to the next generation. In other words, the more we become civilised, the more we become biologically degenerate.
But is this a bad thing in itself? That is a question I asked myself when I was about twelve years old. It became obvious then that I was seriously short-sighted. It occurred to me that my degenerate optical system would have increased my likelihood of being killed before I reached the age at which I could reproduce my genes by fucking, had I been born a few centuries earlier, and much more so, had I been born a few millennia ago.
It is the advancement of civilisations that enable cripples to not only survive, but also positively contribute to. I don't think helping them survive or killing them off (actively or passively) has anything to do with justice. It has all to do with compassion and empathy, two qualities you seem to be devoid of.
But is this a bad thing in itself? That is a question I asked myself when I was about twelve years old. It became obvious then that I was seriously short-sighted. It occurred to me that my degenerate optical system would have increased my likelihood of being killed before I reached the age at which I could reproduce my genes by fucking, had I been born a few centuries earlier, and much more so, had I been born a few millennia ago.
It is the advancement of civilisations that enable cripples to not only survive, but also positively contribute to. I don't think helping them survive or killing them off (actively or passively) has anything to do with justice. It has all to do with compassion and empathy, two qualities you seem to be devoid of.
andrewclunn
1st February 2012, 05:07 PM
Evolution works on a "good enough" principle. If there is a subset of people who are not able to be self sufficient based on genetics (take those with down syndrome for example) then is it unjust if their genetics material is not perpetuated for another generation?There is no doubt that the more a society becomes advanced, the more it enables genetically inferior individuals to survive long enough to pass on their defective genes to the next generation. In other words, the more we become civilised, the more we become biologically degenerate.
But is this a bad thing in itself? That is a question I asked myself when I was about twelve years old. It became obvious then that I was seriously short-sighted. It occurred to me that my degenerate optical system would have increased my likelihood of being killed before I reached the age at which I could reproduce my genes by fucking, had I been born a few centuries earlier, and much more so, had I been born a few millennia ago.
It is the advancement of civilisations that enable cripples to not only survive, but also positively contribute to. I don't think helping them survive or killing them off (actively or passively) has anything to do with justice. It has all to do with compassion and empathy, two qualities you seem to be devoid of.
There is a difference between advancements in technology that allow people to survive and welfare state programs that do. A crippled person being able to be a productive member of society because they can purchase a wheel chair is very different from society providing all forms of technology to them at no cost.
But is this a bad thing in itself? That is a question I asked myself when I was about twelve years old. It became obvious then that I was seriously short-sighted. It occurred to me that my degenerate optical system would have increased my likelihood of being killed before I reached the age at which I could reproduce my genes by fucking, had I been born a few centuries earlier, and much more so, had I been born a few millennia ago.
It is the advancement of civilisations that enable cripples to not only survive, but also positively contribute to. I don't think helping them survive or killing them off (actively or passively) has anything to do with justice. It has all to do with compassion and empathy, two qualities you seem to be devoid of.
There is a difference between advancements in technology that allow people to survive and welfare state programs that do. A crippled person being able to be a productive member of society because they can purchase a wheel chair is very different from society providing all forms of technology to them at no cost.
Hermit
1st February 2012, 05:49 PM
Evolution works on a "good enough" principle. If there is a subset of people who are not able to be self sufficient based on genetics (take those with down syndrome for example) then is it unjust if their genetics material is not perpetuated for another generation?There is no doubt that the more a society becomes advanced, the more it enables genetically inferior individuals to survive long enough to pass on their defective genes to the next generation. In other words, the more we become civilised, the more we become biologically degenerate.
But is this a bad thing in itself? That is a question I asked myself when I was about twelve years old. It became obvious then that I was seriously short-sighted. It occurred to me that my degenerate optical system would have increased my likelihood of being killed before I reached the age at which I could reproduce my genes by fucking, had I been born a few centuries earlier, and much more so, had I been born a few millennia ago.
It is the advancement of civilisations that enable cripples to not only survive, but also positively contribute to. I don't think helping them survive or killing them off (actively or passively) has anything to do with justice. It has all to do with compassion and empathy, two qualities you seem to be devoid of.
There is a difference between advancements in technology that allow people to survive and welfare state programs that do. A crippled person being able to be a productive member of society because they can purchase a wheel chair is very different from society providing all forms of technology to them at no cost.
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. Oh, wait. I do. If a crippled person cannot procure the wherewithal for his or her own needs, let him or her rot and die.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNcDYejKBWTQH5cbqNARr-KA7hKArCBj1kYWkamCsB0juQBCFMuuRXvRrrFg
Like I mentioned above, you are devoid of compassion and empathy. Enjoy your journey.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_P7V_s3yyW1Q/TNRp3iKWixI/AAAAAAAAApU/Qe_bvHeGgsE/s1600/haiti_death-pics-1.jpg
But is this a bad thing in itself? That is a question I asked myself when I was about twelve years old. It became obvious then that I was seriously short-sighted. It occurred to me that my degenerate optical system would have increased my likelihood of being killed before I reached the age at which I could reproduce my genes by fucking, had I been born a few centuries earlier, and much more so, had I been born a few millennia ago.
It is the advancement of civilisations that enable cripples to not only survive, but also positively contribute to. I don't think helping them survive or killing them off (actively or passively) has anything to do with justice. It has all to do with compassion and empathy, two qualities you seem to be devoid of.
There is a difference between advancements in technology that allow people to survive and welfare state programs that do. A crippled person being able to be a productive member of society because they can purchase a wheel chair is very different from society providing all forms of technology to them at no cost.
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. Oh, wait. I do. If a crippled person cannot procure the wherewithal for his or her own needs, let him or her rot and die.
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNcDYejKBWTQH5cbqNARr-KA7hKArCBj1kYWkamCsB0juQBCFMuuRXvRrrFg
Like I mentioned above, you are devoid of compassion and empathy. Enjoy your journey.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_P7V_s3yyW1Q/TNRp3iKWixI/AAAAAAAAApU/Qe_bvHeGgsE/s1600/haiti_death-pics-1.jpg
andrewclunn
1st February 2012, 06:16 PM
I answer the political compass quiz. Somebody asks why I'm so far to the right. I share that I'm a Social Darwinist. I'm asked a few times to make a thread about it. I make this thread, and people ask me to clarify my beliefs. I do so and thus begins pages upon pages of vile hatred in the name of opposing my position and calling it vile and hatred. Well I won't stick around to waste more of your time. Enjoy the freedom of expression to use your bully pulpits to ensure that only people who think like you are represented. I'll leave this shit hole to rot on the vine.
Floppit
1st February 2012, 06:28 PM
The word hyperbole comes to mind....
oblivion
1st February 2012, 06:41 PM
I"m for equal treatment under the law and against affirmative action. That seems to be an entirely different topic. As far as people who are born into poor families, do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder?
this showed up on postspy. Is it satire?
So I take it this is not satire.
Wow.
this showed up on postspy. Is it satire?
So I take it this is not satire.
Wow.
amused
1st February 2012, 09:29 PM
Well that went well.
:hehe:
:hehe:
Dirtyarris
1st February 2012, 11:14 PM
Maybe he fucked off and died? :wave:
Guess his genes weren't up to much after all.
Guess his genes weren't up to much after all.
Cunt
2nd February 2012, 12:06 AM
Evolution works on a "good enough" principle. If there is a subset of people who are not able to be self sufficient based on genetics (take those with down syndrome for example) then is it unjust if their genetics material is not perpetuated for another generation? By what definitions of 'fair' and 'equal' should they be given additional support in order to procreate and then create more children who will invariably be dependent on society throughout their lives as well?
You keep pretending that 'evolution' has a direction. It does not. Our perspective makes it only easy to see one direction.
You use the example of down syndrome being not self-sufficient based on genetics. Can you smell the bullshit in your example?
Let me drive it up your nose a bit just in case.
The genes for down syndrome have survived thousands of years before you came along and guessed that they are 'not able to be self-sufficient based on genetics'.
The diversity we experience now, from Seraphs poor vision to my dear dead friend whose last birthday I attended last year, is the current result of REAL 'Darwinism'. What you are pretending to use for selection criteria are not darwinian selection pressures, but artificial ones you are making up to fit your prejudices. You could very easily be the poor you despise (would Warren Buffet think you 'poor'?)
You keep pretending that 'evolution' has a direction. It does not. Our perspective makes it only easy to see one direction.
You use the example of down syndrome being not self-sufficient based on genetics. Can you smell the bullshit in your example?
Let me drive it up your nose a bit just in case.
The genes for down syndrome have survived thousands of years before you came along and guessed that they are 'not able to be self-sufficient based on genetics'.
The diversity we experience now, from Seraphs poor vision to my dear dead friend whose last birthday I attended last year, is the current result of REAL 'Darwinism'. What you are pretending to use for selection criteria are not darwinian selection pressures, but artificial ones you are making up to fit your prejudices. You could very easily be the poor you despise (would Warren Buffet think you 'poor'?)
Adenosine
2nd February 2012, 12:12 AM
Down's is caused by trisomy, an extra chromosome 21. It's one of the few polyploidys that does't lead to premature termination. It isn't genetic, anyone can have a child with Down's Syndrome. But it has been around for millennia, it just isn't a big deal. My niece has Down's.
Cunt
2nd February 2012, 12:25 AM
Oops, sorry, I should learn more before speaking...I should have known better, too.
My point remains, though. Any 'genetic failures' we have have already been through thousands of years of selection pressures. For andrewclunn (or anyone else) to say they 'know better' is a wee bit arrogant, I would say.
My point remains, though. Any 'genetic failures' we have have already been through thousands of years of selection pressures. For andrewclunn (or anyone else) to say they 'know better' is a wee bit arrogant, I would say.
Hermit
2nd February 2012, 01:06 AM
Enjoy the freedom of expression to use your bully pulpits to ensure that only people who think like you are represented. I'll leave this shit hole to rot on the vine.Sorry, I misjudged you, Andrew. You're such a sensitive soul. At least as far as your views are concerned. Nobody is trying to ensure homogeneity of opinion here. It just so happens that most of the not even two dozen members who were sufficiently interested to post in this thread don't like yours and said as much. Did you expect them to pussyfoot around someone as asocial, uncompassionate and lacking in empathy to loudly and unashamedly proclaim: 'do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder? (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=12405#post12405)', or were you expecting them to shut up altogether unless they have something nice to say about your views?
gib
2nd February 2012, 08:47 AM
epic thread spotted
:nada:
:nada:
:nada:
:nada:
MSG
2nd February 2012, 10:10 AM
why am I doing this?
:nada:
:nada:
:nada:
:nada:
:nada:
:nada:
Exi5tentialist
2nd February 2012, 12:00 PM
Dreadful person
nostrum
2nd February 2012, 12:29 PM
I"m for equal treatment under the law and against affirmative action. That seems to be an entirely different topic. As far as people who are born into poor families, do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder?
this showed up on postspy. Is it satire?
So I take it this is not satire.
Wow.
Indeed
this showed up on postspy. Is it satire?
So I take it this is not satire.
Wow.
Indeed
Cunt
2nd February 2012, 01:46 PM
andrewclunn, if you are reading, you are responsible for what you post. If you hold a minority position (I think that you do), I would like to encourage you to stay and defend it. Odds are, with enough time, you would either turn me around, or change your own mind. (I can't speak for others here)
Doesn't that make it worth standing behind your ideas? Rather than running away claiming...I don't know...were you claiming that everyone was against you?
Doesn't that make it worth standing behind your ideas? Rather than running away claiming...I don't know...were you claiming that everyone was against you?
nick
2nd February 2012, 02:06 PM
I honestly and truly believe that andrewclunn made a good point.
nick
2nd February 2012, 02:09 PM
Specifically this:
1) Hitchhiker's Guide sucks. Stop referencing it like it's a tome of truth.
1) Hitchhiker's Guide sucks. Stop referencing it like it's a tome of truth.
Hermit
2nd February 2012, 04:10 PM
andrewclunn, if you are reading, you are responsible for what you post. If you hold a minority position (I think that you do), I would like to encourage you to stay and defend it. Odds are, with enough time, you would either turn me around, or change your own mind. (I can't speak for others here)
Doesn't that make it worth standing behind your ideas? Rather than running away claiming...I don't know...were you claiming that everyone was against you?
Andrew claimed that this forum is "bully pulpits to ensure that only people who think like you are represented." Then he left in a huff. Obviously not emotionally and intellectually strong enough to stick it out. What, I wonder, would social Darwinists say about that?
Doesn't that make it worth standing behind your ideas? Rather than running away claiming...I don't know...were you claiming that everyone was against you?
Andrew claimed that this forum is "bully pulpits to ensure that only people who think like you are represented." Then he left in a huff. Obviously not emotionally and intellectually strong enough to stick it out. What, I wonder, would social Darwinists say about that?
borealis
2nd February 2012, 04:46 PM
andrewclunn, if you are reading, you are responsible for what you post. If you hold a minority position (I think that you do), I would like to encourage you to stay and defend it. Odds are, with enough time, you would either turn me around, or change your own mind. (I can't speak for others here)
Doesn't that make it worth standing behind your ideas? Rather than running away claiming...I don't know...were you claiming that everyone was against you?
Andrew claimed that this forum is "bully pulpits to ensure that only people who think like you are represented." Then he left in a huff. Obviously not emotionally and intellectually strong enough to stick it out. What, I wonder, would social Darwinists say about that?
There's that.
Equally dismaying is that he appears to be pretty ignorant of how human societies, evolution, natural selection, international politics, medical technologial advances, and a host of other subjects actually work. Iow, his philosophy is based in lack of knowledge and failure to sufficiently self educate.
He seems a bit of a sociopath, and as such I kind of wish he'd stick around. It's an unpopular sort of humanity, but it is a subset of humanity and therefore imo worth exploring. We've lost the opportunity to learn directly from a form of human mind that is atypical yet manages to operate quite successfully within human society.
Doesn't that make it worth standing behind your ideas? Rather than running away claiming...I don't know...were you claiming that everyone was against you?
Andrew claimed that this forum is "bully pulpits to ensure that only people who think like you are represented." Then he left in a huff. Obviously not emotionally and intellectually strong enough to stick it out. What, I wonder, would social Darwinists say about that?
There's that.
Equally dismaying is that he appears to be pretty ignorant of how human societies, evolution, natural selection, international politics, medical technologial advances, and a host of other subjects actually work. Iow, his philosophy is based in lack of knowledge and failure to sufficiently self educate.
He seems a bit of a sociopath, and as such I kind of wish he'd stick around. It's an unpopular sort of humanity, but it is a subset of humanity and therefore imo worth exploring. We've lost the opportunity to learn directly from a form of human mind that is atypical yet manages to operate quite successfully within human society.
nostrum
2nd February 2012, 06:00 PM
^ erk calling someone a sociopath is a huge call. :unsure:
borealis
2nd February 2012, 06:24 PM
^ erk calling someone a sociopath is a huge call. :unsure:
I did say 'a bit of a sociopath'. It may be a huge call but it's a subset of human I have some familiarity with.
Hardly worse than calling someone a dumb cunt, and I've put up with that, and without someone chiding the comment maker, though I considered it a huge call.
I did say 'a bit of a sociopath'. It may be a huge call but it's a subset of human I have some familiarity with.
Hardly worse than calling someone a dumb cunt, and I've put up with that, and without someone chiding the comment maker, though I considered it a huge call.
nostrum
2nd February 2012, 06:32 PM
^ erk calling someone a sociopath is a huge call. :unsure:
I did say 'a bit of a sociopath'. It may be a huge call but it's a subset of human I have some familiarity with.
Hardly worse than calling someone a dumb cunt, and I've put up with that, and without someone chiding the comment maker, though I considered it a huge call.
Yes I do too (familiarity) hence being uncomfortable seeing the label tossed around.
I didn't see you called that. Not only is it laughably untrue (you being dumb) I think that kind of insult is a mask to hide not being able to debate properly.
I did say 'a bit of a sociopath'. It may be a huge call but it's a subset of human I have some familiarity with.
Hardly worse than calling someone a dumb cunt, and I've put up with that, and without someone chiding the comment maker, though I considered it a huge call.
Yes I do too (familiarity) hence being uncomfortable seeing the label tossed around.
I didn't see you called that. Not only is it laughably untrue (you being dumb) I think that kind of insult is a mask to hide not being able to debate properly.
borealis
2nd February 2012, 07:18 PM
^ erk calling someone a sociopath is a huge call. :unsure:
I did say 'a bit of a sociopath'. It may be a huge call but it's a subset of human I have some familiarity with.
Hardly worse than calling someone a dumb cunt, and I've put up with that, and without someone chiding the comment maker, though I considered it a huge call.
Yes I do too (familiarity) hence being uncomfortable seeing the label tossed around.
I didn't see you called that. Not only is it laughably untrue (you being dumb) I think that kind of insult is a mask to hide not being able to debate properly.
Oh, I haven't been called that here... yet. Nor do I agree that it's necessarily a mask for inadequacy. There are intelligent people who are as outraged by my observations of reality as some in this thread are by Andrew's belief set.
I'm not uncomfortable with stating that someone who espouses opinions which are arguably sociopathic as possibly being a sociopath, or at least walking and talking like one.
It's pretty well understood that lots of people have sociopathic (in the sense of humans being social empathic animals) tendencies yet are high functioning mimics who do very well for themselves. We rarely get to talk to people like that in this kind of setting, where we aren't likely to be harmed by them (whether personally or by virtue of their being corporate CEOs).
Also, I think we tend to tiptoe around mental traits, inborn or as a consequence of disease in a way we don't around physical traits or deformities or diseases. People are fine with insisting someone seek treatment if they have a physical disease, but are wary of even suggesting someone seek psychiatric therapy.
I think this is a legitimate wariness, just as you are wary of calling someone 'a bit of a sociopath', because historically we have been way kinder to people with physical differences than to people with mental differences. But I think that wariness, while important for protecting people from undue interference, goes too far and in some cases may harm our acceptance of human variation as natural and to be studied. I think psychiatric science, for example, has lagged way behind physical medical science partly because of fear and knowledge of the really terrible history of the treatment of the mentally different.
I don't know if I've gotten across what I intended to say. Partly, I think someone ought to be able to say 'I am a sociopath/schizophrenic/etc.' without people becoming uncomfortable about talking to them, or blaming them for the shape of their own brain, while still feeling free to call them out on the divergence from reality as experienced by the majority.
I did say 'a bit of a sociopath'. It may be a huge call but it's a subset of human I have some familiarity with.
Hardly worse than calling someone a dumb cunt, and I've put up with that, and without someone chiding the comment maker, though I considered it a huge call.
Yes I do too (familiarity) hence being uncomfortable seeing the label tossed around.
I didn't see you called that. Not only is it laughably untrue (you being dumb) I think that kind of insult is a mask to hide not being able to debate properly.
Oh, I haven't been called that here... yet. Nor do I agree that it's necessarily a mask for inadequacy. There are intelligent people who are as outraged by my observations of reality as some in this thread are by Andrew's belief set.
I'm not uncomfortable with stating that someone who espouses opinions which are arguably sociopathic as possibly being a sociopath, or at least walking and talking like one.
It's pretty well understood that lots of people have sociopathic (in the sense of humans being social empathic animals) tendencies yet are high functioning mimics who do very well for themselves. We rarely get to talk to people like that in this kind of setting, where we aren't likely to be harmed by them (whether personally or by virtue of their being corporate CEOs).
Also, I think we tend to tiptoe around mental traits, inborn or as a consequence of disease in a way we don't around physical traits or deformities or diseases. People are fine with insisting someone seek treatment if they have a physical disease, but are wary of even suggesting someone seek psychiatric therapy.
I think this is a legitimate wariness, just as you are wary of calling someone 'a bit of a sociopath', because historically we have been way kinder to people with physical differences than to people with mental differences. But I think that wariness, while important for protecting people from undue interference, goes too far and in some cases may harm our acceptance of human variation as natural and to be studied. I think psychiatric science, for example, has lagged way behind physical medical science partly because of fear and knowledge of the really terrible history of the treatment of the mentally different.
I don't know if I've gotten across what I intended to say. Partly, I think someone ought to be able to say 'I am a sociopath/schizophrenic/etc.' without people becoming uncomfortable about talking to them, or blaming them for the shape of their own brain, while still feeling free to call them out on the divergence from reality as experienced by the majority.
nostrum
2nd February 2012, 07:27 PM
Sure. It's just very different for you to label yourself, than for someone to label someone else based on posts by that person in one thread. I've seen many others of andrew's posts and I personally don't think he warrants being called a sociopath.
borealis
2nd February 2012, 07:43 PM
Sure. It's just very different for you to label yourself, than for someone to label someone else based on posts by that person in one thread. I've seen many others of andrew's posts and I personally don't think he warrants being called a sociopath.
Perhaps you're right. Me, I think it might fit, and I don't think being told you sound like a sociopath (or a schizophrenic, or a manic depressive) ought to be considered that serious an insult, or an insult at all. Beats being called deliberately evil, imo. Plus it might even give a person some insight into why they think the way they do, or the impetus to find out something about themselves. or at least give them the opportunity to correct what other people are thinking but not saying by pointing out things about themselves that make such an assessment wrong.
Perhaps you're right. Me, I think it might fit, and I don't think being told you sound like a sociopath (or a schizophrenic, or a manic depressive) ought to be considered that serious an insult, or an insult at all. Beats being called deliberately evil, imo. Plus it might even give a person some insight into why they think the way they do, or the impetus to find out something about themselves. or at least give them the opportunity to correct what other people are thinking but not saying by pointing out things about themselves that make such an assessment wrong.
Hermit
2nd February 2012, 11:34 PM
why am I an asshole for thinking I shouldn't have to have to work to take care of strangers?
My privilege comes largely from my parents, my genetics, and environmental factors that can not be controlled or accounted for.
As far as people who are born into poor families, do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder?
calling someone a sociopath is a huge call. :unsure:
Can you suggest a better description?
My privilege comes largely from my parents, my genetics, and environmental factors that can not be controlled or accounted for.
As far as people who are born into poor families, do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder?
calling someone a sociopath is a huge call. :unsure:
Can you suggest a better description?
Cunt
2nd February 2012, 11:59 PM
He could have stayed until we understood each other, but my guess is didn't want to stand for what he saw as abuse. Too bad, he could have had a place to be himself here, out in the open. If he keeps his world populated by folks who either agree, or shut up, he may never find out where he is 'an emperor with no clothes'.
Maybe people with such unsupportable (in my opinion) views can only maintain them with an agreeable group surrounding them.
With that in mind, can someone invite a group from a religious board? I have been banned from all the ones I have participated in...
Maybe people with such unsupportable (in my opinion) views can only maintain them with an agreeable group surrounding them.
With that in mind, can someone invite a group from a religious board? I have been banned from all the ones I have participated in...
Adenosine
3rd February 2012, 12:11 AM
I'll throw the gauntlet down at Rapture Ready. lol
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 12:28 AM
Andrew,
I came late to this discussion (wow - I missed all the fun!) but I'd like to ask you to consider some hypothetical questions which I think will become very real and pressing questions before this century is out. If you have kids, I'm sure they will have to deal with it, for good or ill. What happens if our economy evolves so that full employment is no longer possible, even for the able mind and bodied?
I'm not a Luddite. In fact I'm an AI scientist and entrepreneur who has built many high-tech companies. I'm self-sufficient, to use your terms, if there is such a thing (I don't really believe this - I depend on the implicit social contract to do just about anything of economic value). AI and robotics are already displacing many workers. So far, this displacement has arguably been more than offset by the increasing opportunities enabled by such technology. I'm here to tell you that's unsustainable. And it doesn't take too much common sense or a belief in the Singularity or sci-fi terminators to realize its coming, whether we like it or not.
The process may already be beginning:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/11/artificial-intelligence
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/from-watson-to-siri-as-machines-replace-humans-are-they-creating-inequality-too/12096/
In any event, would you do me the courtesy of assuming I'm right, for sake of argument? This is an exercise for me about better understanding your thinking, not your conclusions.
Then my question becomes, how would your views change, if at all, if let's say, only 50% of humanity is employable? Consider the fact that many able mind/body people as well as those that aren't will basically be in the same boat. They may differ in capability, drive, willingness to work but they will all suffer about the same from want if provided with no income.
If I dropped you into this world today that I'm describing to you, what would you do and how would you want your loved ones to be treated?
Darwinism always implies a fitness function. What do you think the human fitness function would be in this hypothetical society?
I came late to this discussion (wow - I missed all the fun!) but I'd like to ask you to consider some hypothetical questions which I think will become very real and pressing questions before this century is out. If you have kids, I'm sure they will have to deal with it, for good or ill. What happens if our economy evolves so that full employment is no longer possible, even for the able mind and bodied?
I'm not a Luddite. In fact I'm an AI scientist and entrepreneur who has built many high-tech companies. I'm self-sufficient, to use your terms, if there is such a thing (I don't really believe this - I depend on the implicit social contract to do just about anything of economic value). AI and robotics are already displacing many workers. So far, this displacement has arguably been more than offset by the increasing opportunities enabled by such technology. I'm here to tell you that's unsustainable. And it doesn't take too much common sense or a belief in the Singularity or sci-fi terminators to realize its coming, whether we like it or not.
The process may already be beginning:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/11/artificial-intelligence
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/from-watson-to-siri-as-machines-replace-humans-are-they-creating-inequality-too/12096/
In any event, would you do me the courtesy of assuming I'm right, for sake of argument? This is an exercise for me about better understanding your thinking, not your conclusions.
Then my question becomes, how would your views change, if at all, if let's say, only 50% of humanity is employable? Consider the fact that many able mind/body people as well as those that aren't will basically be in the same boat. They may differ in capability, drive, willingness to work but they will all suffer about the same from want if provided with no income.
If I dropped you into this world today that I'm describing to you, what would you do and how would you want your loved ones to be treated?
Darwinism always implies a fitness function. What do you think the human fitness function would be in this hypothetical society?
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 12:34 AM
Damn, I should have read all the posts. Did he leave?
Fuck, I missed all the fun.
Fuck, I missed all the fun.
charlou
3rd February 2012, 01:56 AM
Andrew,
I came late to this discussion (wow - I missed all the fun!) but I'd like to ask you to consider some hypothetical questions which I think will become very real and pressing questions before this century is out. If you have kids, I'm sure they will have to deal with it, for good or ill. What happens if our economy evolves so that full employment is no longer possible, even for the able mind and bodied?
I'm not a Luddite. In fact I'm an AI scientist and entrepreneur who has built many high-tech companies. I'm self-sufficient, to use your terms, if there is such a thing (I don't really believe this - I depend on the implicit social contract to do just about anything of economic value). AI and robotics are already displacing many workers. So far, this displacement has arguably been more than offset by the increasing opportunities enabled by such technology. I'm here to tell you that's unsustainable. And it doesn't take too much common sense or a belief in the Singularity or sci-fi terminators to realize its coming, whether we like it or not.
The process may already be beginning:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/11/artificial-intelligence
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/from-watson-to-siri-as-machines-replace-humans-are-they-creating-inequality-too/12096/
In any event, would you do me the courtesy of assuming I'm right, for sake of argument? This is an exercise for me about better understanding your thinking, not your conclusions.
Then my question becomes, how would your views change, if at all, if let's say, only 50% of humanity is employable? Consider the fact that many able mind/body people as well as those that aren't will basically be in the same boat. They may differ in capability, drive, willingness to work but they will all suffer about the same from want if provided with no income.
If I dropped you into this world today that I'm describing to you, what would you do and how would you want your loved ones to be treated?
Darwinism always implies a fitness function. What do you think the human fitness function would be in this hypothetical society?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali described this reality in her book Infidel. For me it was one of the most harrowing aspects of her story.
eta: my bold.
I came late to this discussion (wow - I missed all the fun!) but I'd like to ask you to consider some hypothetical questions which I think will become very real and pressing questions before this century is out. If you have kids, I'm sure they will have to deal with it, for good or ill. What happens if our economy evolves so that full employment is no longer possible, even for the able mind and bodied?
I'm not a Luddite. In fact I'm an AI scientist and entrepreneur who has built many high-tech companies. I'm self-sufficient, to use your terms, if there is such a thing (I don't really believe this - I depend on the implicit social contract to do just about anything of economic value). AI and robotics are already displacing many workers. So far, this displacement has arguably been more than offset by the increasing opportunities enabled by such technology. I'm here to tell you that's unsustainable. And it doesn't take too much common sense or a belief in the Singularity or sci-fi terminators to realize its coming, whether we like it or not.
The process may already be beginning:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/11/artificial-intelligence
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/from-watson-to-siri-as-machines-replace-humans-are-they-creating-inequality-too/12096/
In any event, would you do me the courtesy of assuming I'm right, for sake of argument? This is an exercise for me about better understanding your thinking, not your conclusions.
Then my question becomes, how would your views change, if at all, if let's say, only 50% of humanity is employable? Consider the fact that many able mind/body people as well as those that aren't will basically be in the same boat. They may differ in capability, drive, willingness to work but they will all suffer about the same from want if provided with no income.
If I dropped you into this world today that I'm describing to you, what would you do and how would you want your loved ones to be treated?
Darwinism always implies a fitness function. What do you think the human fitness function would be in this hypothetical society?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali described this reality in her book Infidel. For me it was one of the most harrowing aspects of her story.
eta: my bold.
borealis
3rd February 2012, 02:01 AM
Well, he seems to have left, with a final defiant cry of 'fuck the poor!'.
I rather wish he hadn't because it would be interesting to discuss with someone the social and personal ramifications of being an asocial non-empathic member of social empathy displaying species. The poor man couldn't make it in a wolf pack, after all. Or a killer whale pod.
I rather wish he hadn't because it would be interesting to discuss with someone the social and personal ramifications of being an asocial non-empathic member of social empathy displaying species. The poor man couldn't make it in a wolf pack, after all. Or a killer whale pod.
nostrum
3rd February 2012, 02:55 AM
why am I an asshole for thinking I shouldn't have to have to work to take care of strangers?
My privilege comes largely from my parents, my genetics, and environmental factors that can not be controlled or accounted for.
As far as people who are born into poor families, do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder?
calling someone a sociopath is a huge call. :unsure:
Can you suggest a better description?
Well, I'm not convinced he believed his own BS. He quit ratz, so he sounds a little... vulnerable.
My privilege comes largely from my parents, my genetics, and environmental factors that can not be controlled or accounted for.
As far as people who are born into poor families, do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder?
calling someone a sociopath is a huge call. :unsure:
Can you suggest a better description?
Well, I'm not convinced he believed his own BS. He quit ratz, so he sounds a little... vulnerable.
Cunt
3rd February 2012, 03:47 AM
Maybe he is having a re-think.
Hermit
3rd February 2012, 04:24 AM
why am I an asshole for thinking I shouldn't have to have to work to take care of strangers?
My privilege comes largely from my parents, my genetics, and environmental factors that can not be controlled or accounted for.
As far as people who are born into poor families, do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder?
calling someone a sociopath is a huge call. :unsure:
Can you suggest a better description?
Well, I'm not convinced he believed his own BS. He quit ratz, so he sounds a little... vulnerable.Vulnerable, yes, but I think he's fair dinkum about the bullshit he spouts. According to this quiz result (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=9121#post9121) he is just about to fall off the the chart at the extreme right wing libertarian corner of the quadrants.
My privilege comes largely from my parents, my genetics, and environmental factors that can not be controlled or accounted for.
As far as people who are born into poor families, do I really need to say, "Fuck the poor!" any louder?
calling someone a sociopath is a huge call. :unsure:
Can you suggest a better description?
Well, I'm not convinced he believed his own BS. He quit ratz, so he sounds a little... vulnerable.Vulnerable, yes, but I think he's fair dinkum about the bullshit he spouts. According to this quiz result (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?p=9121#post9121) he is just about to fall off the the chart at the extreme right wing libertarian corner of the quadrants.
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 04:28 AM
Then my question becomes, how would your views change, if at all, if let's say, only 50% of humanity is employable? Consider the fact that many able mind/body people as well as those that aren't will basically be in the same boat. They may differ in capability, drive, willingness to work but they will all suffer about the same from want if provided with no income.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali described this reality in her book Infidel. For me it was one of the most harrowing aspects of her story.
eta: my bold.
Yes. And if we all don't begin to understand social economics and the true nature of money, capital, and aggregate demand within about the next 30 years, even we in the developing world will face this fate. Hence my post here (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?t=388).
I predict some forms of neo-marxism and/or stakeholder capitalism will arise and compete to deal with the problem - but the transition could be one of terrible strife. In any case, until we realize that aggregate demand, i.e., all consumption by consumers, must be treated like a valuable natural resource, we won't be able to adjust. This problem, under a different guise, is already much to blame for the economic misery we are in now.
Andrew will not feel at home in this future.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali described this reality in her book Infidel. For me it was one of the most harrowing aspects of her story.
eta: my bold.
Yes. And if we all don't begin to understand social economics and the true nature of money, capital, and aggregate demand within about the next 30 years, even we in the developing world will face this fate. Hence my post here (http://mindromp.org/forum/showthread.php?t=388).
I predict some forms of neo-marxism and/or stakeholder capitalism will arise and compete to deal with the problem - but the transition could be one of terrible strife. In any case, until we realize that aggregate demand, i.e., all consumption by consumers, must be treated like a valuable natural resource, we won't be able to adjust. This problem, under a different guise, is already much to blame for the economic misery we are in now.
Andrew will not feel at home in this future.
Cunt
3rd February 2012, 04:37 AM
Fuck you are just a BIG ray of sunshine, aren't you.
Thanks for the articles, I think.
Thanks for the articles, I think.
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 04:47 AM
Fuck you are just a BIG ray of sunshine, aren't you.
Thanks for the articles, I think.
Cunt, I think people like you will end up much better off.
I do think we'll figure it out, though the transition may be painful, so that the world will be much more affluent overall. However, i think for many the problem will become feeling useful.
But you'll be in your orgasmatron all day fucking a beautiful virtual woman. So what do you care?
Thanks for the articles, I think.
Cunt, I think people like you will end up much better off.
I do think we'll figure it out, though the transition may be painful, so that the world will be much more affluent overall. However, i think for many the problem will become feeling useful.
But you'll be in your orgasmatron all day fucking a beautiful virtual woman. So what do you care?
nick
3rd February 2012, 04:50 AM
My birthday is on Tuesday!
FedUpWithFaith
3rd February 2012, 05:01 AM
My birthday is on Tuesday!
Happy ? Birthday!
How old will you be?
Happy ? Birthday!
How old will you be?
Cunt
3rd February 2012, 05:46 AM
My birthday is on Tuesday!
Baby Jesus hates birthdays.
Baby Jesus hates birthdays.
nick
3rd February 2012, 05:47 AM
So
nick
3rd February 2012, 05:47 AM
I pity the fool who hates my birthday.
charlou
19th February 2013, 08:04 AM
epic thread spotted
:nada:
:nada:
:nada:
:nada:
:nada:
:nada:
koan
19th February 2013, 08:40 AM
I think there is some confusion between evolution through natural selection vs through artificial selection.
"Social Darwinism" seems to be a bastardization of what Darwin described. In common usage it's really just Ayn Rand dressed up in a lab coat.
"Social Darwinism" seems to be a bastardization of what Darwin described. In common usage it's really just Ayn Rand dressed up in a lab coat.
Sugreeva
19th February 2013, 11:55 PM
I didn't read this thread but I'm hoping it didn't take 202 posts to arrive at the conclusion that social darwinism is some Kropotkinesque-like ideology at best, and a Galtonesque naturalistic fallacy at worst.
borealis
20th February 2013, 12:07 AM
We drove the OP out with whips and truncheons and cries of disgust and he was never seen again.
Sugreeva
20th February 2013, 12:49 AM
Sweet!
gib
16th July 2014, 09:26 PM
necro-bumped for rednoise's enjoyment!
borealis
16th July 2014, 09:31 PM
Speaking of never seen again... when's the last time anyone saw sugri/eeva post anywhere?
gib
16th July 2014, 09:47 PM
yeah i was thinking that, has to be at least a year
rednoise
16th July 2014, 11:19 PM
necro-bumped for rednoise's enjoyment!
"Social darwinism is bullshit" should've been the only post in this thread.
"Social darwinism is bullshit" should've been the only post in this thread.
borealis
16th July 2014, 11:26 PM
You know we're short on good trolls here. He might have been a keeper. :(
gib
16th July 2014, 11:34 PM
he was, we blew that one
nick
17th July 2014, 12:32 AM
Did somebody say we are short on good trolls?
Adenosine
17th July 2014, 12:52 AM
Yes. Very short on good trolls.
nostrum
12th January 2017, 10:09 PM
hey aden, how's it going?
andrewclunn
13th January 2017, 05:37 AM
Wouldn't you know it. It's my old thread! :awesome:
OmicronPersei8
13th January 2017, 12:15 PM
Now we know who to blame and won't be winning any posting awards.
nostrum
13th January 2017, 05:15 PM
who?
gib
13th January 2017, 11:56 PM
so it was a nostrum sock all along, well played
nostrum
14th January 2017, 05:35 AM
it was the longest long game let me tell you
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét