So, Geezer, rappy, in your ideal world, what should happen? by 1kiki

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Don't have to.

You never do.
That's a train don't come.
Mostly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:32 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So rappy, when we QUOTE YOU DIRECTLY, WORD FOR WORD we're somehow 'misrepresenting' you.

And when you can't find a single quote for what YOU claim we're saying, what are YOU doing?

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

"You, who live in any kind of comfort or convenience, do not know how these people can survive these things, do you? They will endure because there is no immediate escape from endurance. Some will die, the rest must live."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:37 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Don't have to.
You never do.
That's a train don't come.
Mostly.

I usually do, but not for mundane crap like gay wedding cakes and photography for gay weddings, which is in the current news.

Whether it's lies about the GOP on Healthcare - " And with that, a Republican wants federally subsidized hospitals to turn away ill human beings who lack insurance. Certainly customary of the “pro-life” party, right? " , which is nothing but an intentional distortion of the facts...

Or you claiming crap about Ninja skills and mocking the point of fighting against Islamo Jihadists who want to kill Americans ( 9/11, Ft Hood, DC Sniper, Times Square bomber, Boston Marathon bombers, Shoe bomber, Panties bomber , etc... ) , there is a real clear and present danger, regardless of what your WISH were true.

There IS a place for NSA to be doing SOMETHING to try to connect the dots before another 9/11 happens, but it doesn't have to include granny being felt up by the TSA or everyone being watched 24/7.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2014 12:45 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So rappy, when we QUOTE YOU DIRECTLY, WORD FOR WORD we're somehow 'misrepresenting' you.

And when you can't find a single quote for what YOU claim we're saying, what are YOU doing?

You're going anal here, simply because you can't win the discussion. I've given examples a plenty, so there's no need for a direct quote. Only thing is, you intentionally do this shit, so then you can go on arguing what the definition of IS is, and continue to NOT deal w/ the issue.

( And no, I never claimed you asked anyone for the exact definition of IS, dumb ass. That is an obvious and clear reference to Bill Clinton, and his obfuscating from having to simply admit he and Monica did in fact have sexual relations. He hyper twisted the language, so as to try to get out from having to simply admit what he'd done. The Left ALWAYS does this, so it's no surprise that you're trying to do it as well )

I suppose, TECHNICALLY, I should have use italics, and not quotes, but fuck, this isn't a god damn thesis. It's an informal internet forum.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:35 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I've given examples a plenty" Where?

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:13 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
" In my ideal world, the vast majority of folks would understand that it was their responsibility to plan to have something in place to take care of themselves when they couldn't, and that voluntary associations would be in place for the folks whose plans didn't work out."

"So, you base your society on a notion that (most) think just like you."

"No. I base my ideal society on the notion that most people in it will share certain principles (pretty much the definition of a society)."

So, I threw these up together to see how they fared. Took out the everybody from my summary and substituted most, as that's more accurate - and it comes out the same as far as I can see. I'm not sure where the dispute is. To understand the same things is to think the same things is to share the same principles (thoughts).

The dispute is that people can share principles about a particular societal goal without having to share opinions about everything ("...think just like you"). Lots of folks in the U.S. and other democracies share the idea that representative democracy is a good thing, but differ greatly in how they see it applied, or the goals such a democracy should have.

I am impressed with the way you go back and edit your own words to try and make your argument stronger. Doesn't work, but it shows your character very well.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:24 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think the thing that Geezer fails to recognize is that people may simply not WANT the future he proposes. It's very possible that they understand the basis of his ideal society (I'm not sure I do... he's never been able to explain how it's supposed to work or even what it's supposed to achieve or what it's supposed to "look like" when it's done) but who the fuck wants a society of everyone against everyone, with all significant interactions reduced to property ownership and sales? It sounds like a fucking propertarian dystopian nightmare to me.

So we've had a lot of "that won't work", reductio ad absurdum arguments arguing things no one has said, and general insult from you, but no response to KIKI's original question.

So, SignyM, in your ideal world, what should happen to KIKI's friend and folks like her? How would you set it up so that she'd be cared for?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:50 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ideally??

Drawn from real people, this is what I've seen, where it worked, where it fell short, and where it would need to be filled in:

Ideally, there would be family members nearby. Children, younger siblings, nieces and nephews. The family members who take on caring for an elder or disabled relative are carrying a TREMENDOUS burden, financial, physical and emotional. The fewer people who are involved, the worse it is. At my age and situation, I speak both from experience (daughter, MIL) and observation (mom, parents of people that I work with). But in today's society, when families split up by thousands of miles just to find work and there are fewer and fewer children, it's not always possible. Family is NOT the answer now, it won't be the answer in the future. (And it won't be the answer in YOUR envisioned future either... unless your envisioned future has families living in self-sustaining enclaves where the whole family doesn't have to hive off to find work.)

Some elderly people like to continue to live at home.

For the alone-and-mainly-functional elderly, how about minimally-intrusive help to start? Meals on Wheels, for example, is excellent minimally-intrusive assistance- they bring meals, sit and chat, do a subtle "welfare check" when they visit. It was a Meals on Wheels person who detected a gas leak in our mom's house (being elderly, her sense of smell wasn't good). Visiting nurses (part of the universal single-payer healthcare in my ideal society), even visiting GPs. (They do that in France, and pay less per person for healthcare. Why cant' we do that here?) Drivers to help take people around.

When live-in help is required, pay family members to do it. Add as necessary government-paid household assistants (housecleaners, people to help with personal care) for people who could be maintained in their own homes. When living at home is not longer possible (and it CAN be possible, under some circumstances, with enough support: My MIL lived with us to her death from cancer, our mom lived at home with our eldest sister's help until her death from COPD) or desired (some elderly prefer assisted-living) government-run assisted living. The fact that you could find a decent facility tells me that it's possible to staff one. There are programs in NYS that allow the development of small group homes or assisted-living facilities in the familiar community- in this case, they're private but they receive real-estate tax credits. Being nearby, where family members can visit often, patients are less subject to neglect. Obviously there would have to be good oversight. When we hire people to take care of our daughter, we interview a number of people who work at elder-care facilities. Some are well-meaning but ignorant, some are just callous.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:15 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I've given examples a plenty" Where?

Like every time he makes that claim - nowhere. That won't for a second stop him from claiming he did, over and over.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2014 2:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think the thing that Geezer fails to recognize is that people may simply not WANT the future he proposes. It's very possible that they understand the basis of his ideal society (I'm not sure I do... he's never been able to explain how it's supposed to work or even what it's supposed to achieve or what it's supposed to "look like" when it's done) but who the fuck wants a society of everyone against everyone, with all significant interactions reduced to property ownership and sales? It sounds like a fucking propertarian dystopian nightmare to me. -signy

So we've had a lot of "that won't work", reductio ad absurdum arguments arguing things no one has said, and general insult from you, but no response to KIKI's original question.-geezer

Well I just answered that question. And what it boils down to is... if you can find that kind of care commercially, it can be done by the government.

As far as the rest of your comments

The idea of HOW a libertarian "society" would work as been addressed, over and over and over, and you have NOT ONCE been able to provide a description or process by which your propertarian assumptions would turn into a functioning society. In fact, in at least one thread (the "show me a single society in which libertarianism works" one) you repeatedly disavowed the ability to do so. The only explanation you've been able to come up with is... in my ideal world, with ideal people, society would be ideal. So the only person who's engaged in reductio ad absurdum arguments, as far as I can tell, has been you.

So let me once again re-address that concept about how a functioning society can be created from propertarian assumptions, and maybe if you could finally address my concerns and questions we can get somewhere.

The essential right- in fact, the ONLY right- of people in your society is the right to own property and the right to enter into contracts and to have them enforced. Even your relationship to YOURSELF is one of ownership... And somehow, amidst this profound emphasis on property, ownership, and contractual obligation (enforced by private courts), people are supposed to have a deep familial loyalty, respect for the individual, AND a compassion for the unpropertied.

In your society, there is no minimum guarantee of property. So, one of the questions that I asked (which you never answered) was: For people who have nothing left to own or to sell- can they sell themselves into slavery? Can they sell themselves as body parts? If the contract was entered into "freely"... albeit economic compelled ... technically, in your society, I supposed it would be possible because I have not heard once about the right to liberty or right to life. Maybe it was an oversight on your part. If you meant to include it, let me know.

There is also no UPPER bound on the property that one can own. So despite the literally millenia of history in which entities get larger and larger by swallowing up smaller units (hamlets to villages to cities to duchies to kingdoms to empires; mom-and-pop shops to chains to monopolies) you imagine that people will somehow resist monopolization/ collectivization and maintain an economy of small units. So my other question would be: If that is the case, what is the additional ethic (besides a propertarian one) that limits the size of an enterprise?

The third problem I have is with the nature of people themselves, and whether they could ever start out with your assumptions and develop a society that you envision. The society that you envision is highly individualistic- atomized into independent buyers and sellers of goods and services. You see every person as a self-sufficient "unit" who can approach the remainder of society on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. As I've said, I don't think it would remain in such a state for very long due to economic forces- and since a collective is ALWAYS more powerful than an individual, dire economic compulsion is always a possibility.

Aside from that, what is to prevent the economic assumptions from tearing apart the social ones? For example, over time, people tend to do what is economically rewarded. In societies where children are your retirement plan there tends to be large families, and where women don't have jobs divorce rates are low. So if people are rewarded only as individuals, will they have children? Why would anyone bother to take care of their elders? What is the reward? If you say that the family is the unit of society, that presupposes that the entire family unit lives together. But that presupposes that jobs can always be found nearby, or that the family unit can create jobs. In other words- back to a geographically-limited clan society, which could not support modern technology.

In fact, we have today a society of individuals. Atoms in the economy, who don't have children and can't take care of their parents (even if they wanted to).

There are too many contradictions in your own proposals that I just can't get past, which you've never been able to explain.

And BTW- I didn't "insult" you. Your proposal DOES sound like a fucking dystopian propertarian nightmare. That's not an insult - were you personally offended? It's an honest reaction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 15, 2014 6:21 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I've given examples a plenty" Where?

Like every time he makes that claim - nowhere. That won't for a second stop him from claiming he did, over and over.

And every time I have an example, y'all bitch out of the discussion and pretend it didn't happen.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:56 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Ideally??

Drawn from real people, this is what I've seen, where it worked, where it fell short, and where it would need to be filled in:

Ideally, there would be family members nearby. Children, younger siblings, nieces and nephews. The family members who take on caring for an elder or disabled relative are carrying a TREMENDOUS burden, financial, physical and emotional. The fewer people who are involved, the worse it is. At my age and situation, I speak both from experience (daughter, MIL) and observation (mom, parents of people that I work with). But in today's society, when families split up by thousands of miles just to find work and there are fewer and fewer children, it's not always possible. Family is NOT the answer now, it won't be the answer in the future. (And it won't be the answer in YOUR envisioned future either... unless your envisioned future has families living in self-sustaining enclaves where the whole family doesn't have to hive off to find work.)

Okay, so do you have to have a one-size-fits-all solution? Just because families can't always be there, that's not an acceptable part of the plan for you?

Families do work for the care of the elderly or infirm in a lot of situations. I was able to provide care, through financial support, of my mother from 600 miles away. That takes some of the burden off other solutions.

Quote:
Some elderly people like to continue to live at home.

For the alone-and-mainly-functional elderly, how about minimally-intrusive help to start? Meals on Wheels, for example, is excellent minimally-intrusive assistance- they bring meals, sit and chat, do a subtle "welfare check" when they visit. It was a Meals on Wheels person who detected a gas leak in our mom's house (being elderly, her sense of smell wasn't good).

Interesting that your first example of a program that works is one that is mostly either supported by voluntary organizations or local (City and County) governments. Even the government supported units rely heavily on volunteers to provide their services. The voluntary organizations are funded largely by contributions through the United Way and other charitable organizations.

Are you suggesting that such organizations be co-opted by larger governments (State/national) and stop soliciting for volunteers and donations?

Sticking to the volunteer theme...

Quote:
Drivers to help take people around.

Also plenty of voluntary organizations that do just this.

Quote:
Visiting nurses (part of the universal single-payer healthcare in my ideal society)

http://vnaa.org/

Quote:
even visiting GPs. (They do that in France, and pay less per person for healthcare. Why cant' we do that here?)

I can go on line and find doctors who make house calls pretty much anywhere in the country. As to cost, convince doctors to earn less money, and we could pay less.

Quote:
When live-in help is required, pay family members to do it.

So family IS the answer now.

Quote:
Add as necessary government-paid household assistants (housecleaners, people to help with personal care) for people who could be maintained in their own homes.

What if the family is able to pay for it?

Quote:
When living at home is not longer possible ... government-run assisted living.

Why government run? Many families who can pay or folks who can afford it on their own could, and do, use private facilities quite well.

Quote:
The fact that you could find a decent facility tells me that it's possible to staff one.

With, as I noted, pretty high staff turnover.

Quote:
There are programs in NYS that allow the development of small group homes or assisted-living facilities in the familiar community- in this case, they're private but they receive real-estate tax credits. Being nearby, where family members can visit often, patients are less subject to neglect. Obviously there would have to be good oversight.

The assisted living facility my Mom was in was in a neighborhood setting, so obviously there are plenty of such places.

-----

So it appears that your solution is to take all the parts of elder-care that work pretty well as currently run by either non-profits, local governments, or private businesses, and turn them over to state or national governments, since those governments have such a track record of efficiently and effectively running large projects such as urban renewal and anti-poverty programs.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:19 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

The essential right- in fact, the ONLY right- of people in your society is the right to own property and the right to enter into contracts and to have them enforced. Even your relationship to YOURSELF is one of ownership... And somehow, amidst this profound emphasis on property, ownership, and contractual obligation (enforced by private courts), people are supposed to have a deep familial loyalty, respect for the individual, AND a compassion for the unpropertied.

And, as usual, you pick one aspect of something and ignore the others.

You always in these arguments ignore the Zero Aggression Principle and the societal principles that would derive from it.

You should understand what the ZAP is since I've mentioned it several times, but since you tend to forget it, here it is again:

It is wrong to initiate force against anyone.

Seems pretty simple.

But from that rule, you can derive others:
It's wrong to physically assault anyone who isn't hurting you.
It's wrong to take people's stuff, by physical force or dishonesty.
It's wrong to enslave.
It's wrong to intimidate or coerce by threat of force.
Get the idea?

For people who believe it's wrong to do any of these things, it seems apparent that they would believe that people have the right to be secure in their persons and property.

So consider what type of person would feel morally obliged to respect these rights. Seems to me that it would be a person who has quite a bit of consideration for other people - who is concerned about their welfare - since if they weren't concerned they wouldn't care if others were assaulted or swindled or robbed.

And if they're that concerned about the welfare of their fellows, would they not be willing to assist them in time of need?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:30 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Geezer's penchant for engaging in masterbatory tete-a-tetes with the libtard psychos is something that needs to be studied at the clinical level in Vienna.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
It's wrong to physically assault anyone who isn't hurting you.
It's wrong to take people's stuff, by physical force or dishonesty.
It's wrong to enslave.
It's wrong to intimidate or coerce by threat of force.

So basically you hate our governments past & present?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 10:20 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
It's wrong to physically assault anyone who isn't hurting you.
It's wrong to take people's stuff, by physical force or dishonesty.
It's wrong to enslave.
It's wrong to intimidate or coerce by threat of force.
So basically you hate our governments past & present?

So do you have an opinion on the subject, Chris, or just the usual sad try at a bon mot?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:40 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So consider what type of person would feel morally obliged to respect these rights. Seems to me that it would be a person who has quite a bit of consideration for other people - who is concerned about their welfare - since if they weren't concerned they wouldn't care if others were assaulted or swindled or robbed.

And if they're that concerned about the welfare of their fellows, would they not be willing to assist them in time of need?

Perhaps, perhaps not. Most people don't steal or hurt others, most people also don't go out of their way to offer others help. Watch how many cars drive by a broken down car on the road sometime.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 2:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So do you have an opinion on the subject

Those standards are laughable. No government or corporation could exist much less function well sticking to every one of them.
They happen to be part of my own personal philosophy though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 3:25 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I've given examples a plenty" Where?

Like every time he makes that claim - nowhere. That won't for a second stop him from claiming he did, over and over.

And every time I have an example, y'all bitch out of the discussion and pretend it didn't happen.

Ah, more fantasy. Rappy's only "evidence."

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 16, 2014 6:57 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Ah, more fantasy. Rappy's only "evidence."

Ah, more delusion. Storybook's claims blown totally out of the water.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:14 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

In my ideal world, people are more interconnected with their community and live less self focused, individualistic lives. Community could include biological family or people who are connected non biologically, but there would be capacity for the very old and very young to be cared for. Services could also be available to support the most vulnerable of that community.

Somebody said on these boards that the permananent care for a disabled family member is beyond the resources of most families, both physically and financially. That's true when family means only 'mother' or 'sister'.

Our communities have become too large to care about the individual and families too small to cope.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer- as far as the involvement of family is concerned, clearly it is part of the answer FOR SOME. And where family is involved, there needs to be support (money, regular time off from work, other people to help) for the primary caregivers.

But since family isn't even PART of the answer for EVERYONE, there have to be durable alternatives available EVERYWHERE, FOR EVERYONE.

You refer to several programs and mentioned that these wonderful programs can be found "in many places". Seeing as I'm familiar with both NY (state, not city) and CA, and I've done a little poking around on the inet, I can tell you that these programs are NOT available "everywhere", not even in the comparatively wealthy state of CA. Thinking otherwise is just a fantasy. Because I don't think a person's level of support should depend on where they live, the programs should be available through federal money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It is wrong to initiate force against anyone.

Seems pretty simple.

But from that rule, you can derive others:
It's wrong to physically assault anyone who isn't hurting you.
It's wrong to take people's stuff, by physical force or dishonesty.
It's wrong to enslave.
It's wrong to intimidate or coerce by threat of force.
Get the idea?

For people who believe it's wrong to do any of these things, it seems apparent that they would believe that people have the right to be secure in their persons and property.

So consider what type of person would feel morally obliged to respect these rights. Seems to me that it would be a person who has quite a bit of consideration for other people - who is concerned about their welfare - since if they weren't concerned they wouldn't care if others were assaulted or swindled or robbed.

Once of the questions you didn't answer was whether a person could "freely" sell themselves into slavery or as body parts. You didn't answer it before, either, and it gets to the heart of the failure in your system of ethics.

A person can be ECONOMICALLY compelled- without any threat of "violence" at all- to do some very dangerous - even fatal- things. TONY asked us, once upon a time, what kinds of economic pressures could be brought to bear on people and how that could be accomplished, and I (and others) started with a list of about 20 different examples (what if there is a water monopoly in your area?) until he cried uncle.

That's why I think your system of ethics is childish: it is so primitive and so oblivious to other forces besides direct violence that it would allow other forms of coercion... even slavery.

Just as an aside, while your ethics stress the individual, I noticed there is nothing in there about family. And yet, you rely on family rather heavily.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:10 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:

Ah, more fantasy. Rappy's only "evidence."

Ah, more delusion. Storybook's claims blown totally out of the water.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

HA!

You'd have to actually post some evidence for that, son.

I know, you think repeating it over and over makes it so. That's why you're so hilarious!

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 12:41 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"You always in these arguments ignore the Zero Aggression Principle and the societal principles that would derive from it."

I have four better principles for you:

the golden rule (how do we treat each other directly)
if everybody did it what would it be like (how do we organize ourselves socially)
if the person could go off and farm or hunt and had a source of water and could keep themselves alive without working for you, would they chose to work for you instead (economic organization)
if this was done for seven generations what would it be like (ecological, social, economic sustainability)

Your fantasy society assumes everyone has a CHOICE to be independent (number 3 on the list). If that choice isn't available, your fantasy falls apart. It also doesn't account for the commons, or the future.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 1:37 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I am impressed with the way you go back and edit your own words to try and make your argument stronger. Doesn't work, but it shows your character very well."

Hmmm ... let's see. I agreed with you that my original post wasn't as representative of your statements as it should have been. I did NOT go back and alter the original post. Instead, when I replied in a new post I altered one word of a quote (I substituted 'most' for 'all') of a statement to better match your statements, so as to better compare meanings and look for vital rather than casual differences. I POINTED OUT THAT I ALTERED IT, WHAT I ALTERED, AND WHY I ALTERED IT. And then I went on to examine the statements.

It seems to me like I was discussing ideas.

What were you doing?

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 1:49 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Once of the questions you didn't answer was whether a person could "freely" sell themselves into slavery or as body parts. You didn't answer it before, either, and it gets to the heart of the failure in your system of ethics.

Because it's one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions.

But do you think that people who were morally opposed to using violence or intimidation against others, or taking advantage of them, would take someone up on his/her offer to sell themselves as a slave? In what situation would it morally benefit someone with that philosophy to buy a slave rather than to hire an employee or just help a fellow person?

I note that people currently donate organs, sometimes to complete strangers. If someone wanted to sell an organ they could do without, how is that different?

Quote:
A person can be ECONOMICALLY compelled- without any threat of "violence" at all- to do some very dangerous - even fatal- things. TONY asked us, once upon a time, what kinds of economic pressures could be brought to bear on people and how that could be accomplished, and I (and others) started with a list of about 20 different examples (what if there is a water monopoly in your area?) until he cried uncle.

You don't think "I'll deny you water, and prevent anyone else from providing it to you, until you die, unless you do what I want." is violence?

Quote:
That's why I think your system of ethics is childish

Nope. Your conception of violence is just very one-dimensional.

Quote:
Just as an aside, while your ethics stress the individual, I noticed there is nothing in there about family. And yet, you rely on family rather heavily.

Nothing in there about same-sex marriage or drug use either. It wasn't part of the point I was trying to make.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 2:00 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"You always in these arguments ignore the Zero Aggression Principle and the societal principles that would derive from it."

I have four better principles for you:

the golden rule (how do we treat each other directly)

Sort'a the point of the ZAP. Treat folks as you'd like to be treated.

Quote:
if everybody did it what would it be like (how do we organize ourselves socially)

Seems more like a question than a principle. How do you think we'd be organized socially if we kept to either the Golden Rule or the ZAP?

Quote:
if the person could go off and farm or hunt and had a source of water and could keep themselves alive without working for you, would they chose to work for you instead (economic organization)

See above. Exchange 'economically' for 'socially'.

Quote:
if this was done for seven generations what would it be like (ecological, social, economic sustainability)

See above.

Quote:
Your fantasy society assumes everyone has a CHOICE to be independent (number 3 on the list). If that choice isn't available, your fantasy falls apart.

No one has complete choice. You can step off a cliff and choose not to fall, and that won't work too well. However, in a society where folks will not coerce you into doing anything, seems you would certainly have some choice as to what you want to do and who you want to associate with. You can also make bad choices, like deciding to manufacture buggy whips in a world where there are no buggies.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 2:10 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Because I don't think a person's level of support should depend on where they live, the programs should be available through federal money.

So how do you propose to deal with the inefficiency and downright incompetence that occurs in many current federal aid programs and that would pretty much inevitably occur in federally operated meals-on-wheels, transportation, etc.?

Would you have everything run top-down, with no allowance for local conditions and existing volunteer efforts, or would you just hand out money?

When the meals-on-wheels czar decides it's more cost-effective to serve the same meal on the same day everywhere in the country, regardless of climate, regional eating habits, or the desires of the folks being fed, will that be okay with you?

(See. I can ask "Have you stopped beating your spouse?" questions too.)

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 2:56 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

the golden rule (how do we treat each other directly)

Sort'a the point of the ZAP. Treat folks as you'd like to be treated.

These aren't QUITE the same. ZAP indicates * ONLY * no DIRECT PERSONAL PHYSICAL aggression or coercion FIRST. But the golden rule goes further. How would you feel if someone was spreading untrue and unpleasant rumors about you? How would you feel if someone divulged your foibles that were entrusted in confidence? How would you feel if you were injured at the side of the road and no one stopped to help? The golden rule covers so much more than 'don't personally physically hurt (or threaten to hurt) someone first'.

if everybody did it what would it be like (how do we organize ourselves socially)

Seems more like a question than a principle. How do you think we'd be organized socially if we kept to either the Golden Rule or the ZAP?

It could be phrased to be an affirmative statement rather than a question. Also, the golden rule is more inclusive than ZAP (see above), they aren't equivalent. So getting those points out of the way, a more vital question is - are there social organizational principles not covered by the golden rule? I'd say the answer is yes. FOR EXAMPLE: maybe your mom never said this to you, but mine did - if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too? This goes to the issue that how we directly treat each other (by some common preferred standard) doesn't address the standard we commonly choose. The Spartans had a common standard for their infants and young boys. Just b/c it was how they expected to be treated, and how they treated each other, is that a standard we wish to adopt? This rule sets treatment of each other out there as a system, where one can look at results, to see if those are the results we want.

if the person could go off and farm or hunt and had a source of water and could keep themselves alive without working for you, would they chose to work for you instead (economic organization)

See above. Exchange 'economically' for 'socially'.

So often these discussions end up in mutual incomprehension at this point: if both people agree, it must be OK v circumstances can coerce people into agreement and that's not OK. I framed it this way to create a definitive point of comparison - one of the person perfectly free to choose one way or the other. I think it's a good standard by which to assess a proposed economic arrangement.

if this was done for seven generations what would it be like (ecological, social, economic sustainability)

See above.

In previous discussions you couldn't address protecting common resources, like wild fish hatcheries, forests that remove CO2, and water resources. In your previous discussions, anything that wasn't owned was up for grabs by the first/ strongest person to access it, and ownership conferred rights to destroy the resource no matter how commonly useful. You have yet to explain how a system based solely on property rights and 'no direct personal physical aggression first' can protect common resources in the present and over time; or recognize social injustices over time; or address economic unsustainability over time.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 7:31 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

The paralysis sounds like the cokeheads I know. The erratic brain function sounds like the potheads I know. Drinks don't connect me to what you described.
Under Obamacare she will be warehoused and any financial reserves attached to her will be confiscated to redistribute to young perpetually unemployed voters. Not a perfect world, but Obamacare is what we are stuck with.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 7:32 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

GEEZER

Well, Geezer, I noticed you've changed your ideals in response to my post. Specifically...

Quote:
Once of the questions you didn't answer was whether a person could "freely" sell themselves into slavery or as body parts. You didn't answer it before, either, and it gets to the heart of the failure in your system of ethics. -signy

Because it's one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions. But do you think that people who were morally opposed to using violence or intimidation against others, or taking advantage of them....

Apparently your ethics include not "taking advantage" of people. That goes a lot farther than simply not threatening people with direct physical violence.... but it was a statement you never made before. Hmmm.... did you???

Quote:
It's wrong to physically assault anyone who isn't hurting you.
It's wrong to take people's stuff, by physical force or dishonesty.
It's wrong to enslave.
It's wrong to intimidate or coerce by threat of force.

NOPE! Nothing in there about not taking advantage of people! If you had simply mentioned that... oh, about 20 posts ago... this whole discussion could have gotten a lot farther.

So, how do YOU define "taking advantage" of people, because that opens up a whole new dimension in your ideal world.

Quote:
You don't think "I'll deny you water, and prevent anyone else from providing it to you, until you die, unless you do what I want." is violence?

Well, I didn't think YOU thought so, because you never said so before. I mentioned it quite a few times!

And it's not like that aspect of violence wasn't brought up before either, especially in relation to the dangers that monopolies pose individuals. Your continuing answer to that conundrum was simply to keep insisting that monopolies don't exist, or aren't inevitable, or can be competed against by smaller companies like Ben&Jerry's and Burt's Bees (which were infamously bought up by monopolies). Do you remember those examples? I certainly do!

Quote:
Nope. Your conception of violence is just very one-dimensional.

Nope. YOUR conception of violence is (was?) very one-dimensional. Because I've always known that siege is just another form of war. But, hey, glad you came around to seeing that POV!

In the past, you've always been against dishonesty. After all, how can you have an enforceable contract if one side is misrepresenting itself?

So ASIDE FROM dishonesty, what are the various ways of "taking advantage" of people that would be frowned on?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Under Obamacare she will be warehoused and any financial reserves attached to her will be confiscated to redistribute to young perpetually unemployed voters

Nope, it will be redistributed to the PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES which are so famously a part of Obamacare.

------------
RAPPY: It's not ME! I didn't say it! It was that article! That no-account author of that ridiculous article (that I posted because I so clearly disagreed with!) Don't talk to ME! Talk to the AUTHOR!
...

OK, we WON'T talk to you!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 17, 2014 11:35 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

GEEZER

Quote:
So how do you propose to deal with the inefficiency and downright incompetence that occurs in many current federal aid programs and that would pretty much inevitably occur in federally operated meals-on-wheels, transportation, etc.?

Same way you deal with any company: fire the people who aren't doing their jobs. But, yanno, as a former government employee, I'm sure you've seen even government employees who were interested in doing a good job. I work with many of them myself... absolutely stellar self-starting professionals who've instituted many improvements in our processes. Possibly even yourself and madam belong in that category.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2014 8:58 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
GEEZER

Well, Geezer, I noticed you've changed your ideals in response to my post. Specifically...

Quote:
Once of the questions you didn't answer was whether a person could "freely" sell themselves into slavery or as body parts. You didn't answer it before, either, and it gets to the heart of the failure in your system of ethics. -signy

Because it's one of those "Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions. But do you think that people who were morally opposed to using violence or intimidation against others, or taking advantage of them....

Apparently your ethics include not "taking advantage" of people. That goes a lot farther than simply not threatening people with direct physical violence.... but it was a statement you never made before. Hmmm.... did you???

Quote:
It's wrong to physically assault anyone who isn't hurting you.
It's wrong to take people's stuff, by physical force or dishonesty.
It's wrong to enslave.
It's wrong to intimidate or coerce by threat of force.

NOPE! Nothing in there about not taking advantage of people! If you had simply mentioned that... oh, about 20 posts ago... this whole discussion could have gotten a lot farther.

So, how do YOU define "taking advantage" of people, because that opens up a whole new dimension in your ideal world.

First, that wasn't an all-inclusive list, just (as I noted) some things to give you the idea of rules that might derive from the ZAP.

Second, you don't consider taking peoples stuff (and "stuff" could cover more than physical possessions - reputation for example) by dishonesty to be "taking advantage"?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2014 9:02 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Same way you deal with any company: fire the people who aren't doing their jobs.

But when it's the entire system that's not doing its job? I can hear you say "Just replace the entire thing". And you say my solutions are impractical.

And what about that meals-on-wheels czar and his "one-meal-fits-all" idea?

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2014 10:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Second, you don't consider taking peoples stuff (and "stuff" could cover more than physical possessions - reputation for example) by dishonesty to be "taking advantage"?

The word "stuff" usually means "things". The right to freedom or a good reputation doesn't automatically spring to mind.

Going to online dictionaries...
Stuff:
1.the material of which anything is made: a hard, crystalline stuff.
2.material to be worked upon or to be used in making something: wood, steel, and other stuff for building.
3.material of some unspecified kind: a cushion filled with some soft stuff.
4.Chiefly British . woven material or fabric, especially wool.
5.property, as personal belongings or equipment; things.

Several dictionaries say the same thing. I tried working that usage into a sentence... Life, liberty, privacy, and all that stuff. Not working, except ironically. Having beat the question to death, the answer is

"NO, I don't consider intangibles (more than physical possessions) to be 'stuff' and neither do most people"

Also, you're limiting this dispossession of .... whatever ... to loss by dishonesty.

But yanno, I can imagine killing someone without ever being dishonest or outwardly violent. It's the problem of the monopoly, again. I can takes someone's "stuff" ... his things, her freedom, their lives... very openly. Corporations are doing it today. They've been doing it for years. Every time you break the seal of a software package or get it pre-loaded on your PC, you've given up many rights per the EULA (end user license agreement, helpfully written our for you) and apparently given up your right to privacy. Every time you click on google, use Youtube, gmail, or any other of the google services, your information is harvested whether you want or not. It's all spelled out in that new "privacy" policy. Don't like it? Don't use the internet!

Download a Cheerios coupon? You've just given up your right to sue, even if an employee deliberately tampered with a product. See? It says... right here

New provisions about how you become bound by these legal terms and how you can opt out of them. Your use of any of our sites or services, or participation in any other General Mills offering, means that you are agreeing to these Legal Terms. You may terminate this agreement at time by notifying us by email of your intent to do so, but only if you also cease to participate in any of our offerings.
http://generalmills.com/Legal_Notice_Summary.aspx

In fact, MANY companies have these kinds of terms baked into their contracts... If you use our products in any way, you no longer have the right to sue, Oh, and BTW- you can't enter into a class-action lawsuit, either. (If you don't believe me, look it up.)

No dishonesty there! Perfectly up-front and inescapable.

So, what do you think of these examples of "taking advantage" which involve neither dishonesty nor violence? Do they belong in your ideal world? If not- what ethic would prohibit them?

I feel that your earlier emphasis on property rights and non-violence might have obscured the REAL ethics of your ideal world. That there may be underlying ethics which might be hard to describe but are more fundamental than what you've talked about so far.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2014 10:28 AM

Signy, you spell things out SO clearly- I don't know why Geezer can't 'get' it...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 18, 2014 10:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, AFA a government system not working...

We do analyses. We follow procedures, we check back to see if they're "working" on the micro scale: Did the instrument run consistently from beginning to end? Are the analyses repeatable and fully documented?

But we also check back to see if they're "working" on a macro scale... Are these analyses telling us what we need to know? Is pollution being reduced? Are people getting healthier? Is less property damage being done? Are we looking at the right things or is there a form of pollution that we haven't noticed, or a new form of pollution being created by new technology (eg nano particles) that's sneaking up on us?

I guess what I'm trying to say is... changing procedures, changing systems, changing metrics isn't new to us. If "the system" isn't working, you change it until it does.

My boss once told me.. and this has really stuck... that there is a difference between efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency is doing things right. Effectiveness is doing the right thing. I think every process needs feedback. The problem is engaging the feedback before interests become too entrenched. Now, we have corporate interests fully entrenched in government, and politicians mostly cozily snuggled in.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:16 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh, AFA a government system not working...

We do analyses. We follow procedures, we check back to see if they're "working" on the micro scale: Did the instrument run consistently from beginning to end? Are the analyses repeatable and fully documented?

Right.

So who does this? The government? A GSA analogue? Citizens' groups with no actual power to require change? The Effectiveness Fairy?

Perhaps you should provide a bit more detail about how this would work and how we would get there from here.

Also governments and governmental organizations, being groups of people with their own ideas of what's effective, not mechanical devices, are a bit harder to both analyze and correct, especially if their definition of "working" differs from yours. The Meals-on-wheels Czar and his directors are sure that they are more effective if they provide the same meal to everyone in the country on the same day.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2014 8:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Second, you don't consider taking peoples stuff (and "stuff" could cover more than physical possessions - reputation for example) by dishonesty to be "taking advantage"?

The word "stuff" usually means "things". The right to freedom or a good reputation doesn't automatically spring to mind.

Use whatever word you like. If you're honest, you understand my meaning. The fact you play such word games makes me doubt it.

Quote:
Also, you're limiting this dispossession of .... whatever ... to loss by dishonesty.

No. It's an example, not all inclusive. Sort'a like I haven't brought up how money might work in such a system.

Quote:
But yanno, I can imagine killing someone without ever being dishonest or outwardly violent.

Yeah. You really seem to have a fixation on killing people.

Quote:
It's the problem of the monopoly, again. I can takes someone's "stuff" ... his things, her freedom, their lives... very openly. Corporations are doing it today. They've been doing it for years. Every time you break the seal of a software package or get it pre-loaded on your PC, you've given up many rights per the EULA (end user license agreement, helpfully written our for you) and apparently given up your right to privacy. Every time you click on google, use Youtube, gmail, or any other of the google services, your information is harvested whether you want or not. It's all spelled out in that new "privacy" policy. Don't like it? Don't use the internet!

So? What part of don't aggress and don't take people's stuff/data/right to sue/other rights/whatever if they don't want you to do you not understand? If you're taking from someone without their consent, you're violating the ZAP and the moral rules that derive from it.

Quote:
I feel that your earlier emphasis on property rights and non-violence might have obscured the REAL ethics of your ideal world. That there may be underlying ethics which might be hard to describe but are more fundamental than what you've talked about so far.

I noted above the (to me) similarity between the Golden Rule and the moral rules that can be derived from the ZAP. Actually, property rights seems to fit right in with the GR as well. If I have property and you have property and we want to exchange some of it, I want you to be treated as fairly as I would like to be treated.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2014 10:19 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
HA!

You'd have to actually post some evidence for that, son.

I know, you think repeating it over and over makes it so. That's why you're so hilarious!

Suck on it.

http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57863

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2014 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Suck on it.

Yes. A twelve year old...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2014 12:05 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Geezer, I've been staying out of your conversation with Signy b/c she's far more patient than I. But I have to say, when you stop using normal meanings for words, to claim we should just all accept what you MEANT - and, uh, not what you SAID - it seems to me you don't even know what you mean. Not really. If you did, you could find the words and explain to the rest of us what you mean.

To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis

OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2014 1:21 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Use whatever word you like. If you're honest, you understand my meaning. The fact you play such word games makes me doubt it.

Geezer, I can only understand what you're SAYING, I can't psychically absorb your feelings and intentions. We use words because they have meanings by which we communicate our thoughts and feelings. It matters which words you use and which words I use.

On this problem, you're like other right-wingers..using words like "freedom", "human", "life", and "stuff" which have been inadequately defined by the people using them.

Quote:
Yeah. You really seem to have a fixation on killing people.

I use it as the most extreme example of taking someone's "stuff", and a test for how well your system would work in preventing it. If I can think of a simple way to kill someone without violating any of your "rules" then your system doesn't work very well (no matter how well-intentioned).

Quote:
So? What part of don't aggress and don't take people's stuff/data/right to sue/other rights/whatever if they don't want you to do you not understand? If you're taking from someone without their consent, you're violating the ZAP and the moral rules that derive from it.

Oh, but now there are OTHER rights? BESIDES the right to own property and enter into contracts? Rights which, in fact, supersede those propertarian rights which you've described more than once? Well, why don't you explain what THOSE rights are, then?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2014 3:22 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Suck on it.

Yes. A twelve year old...

He started it, I ended it.

Shows why it's not worth responding to some folks.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 19, 2014 3:49 PM