Philosophical question.

[Wildboer]

16 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Oh boy.

"Logical fallacies" huh? 

Tell you what, if you want to debate, you can pick one.  Either your statement was meant literally or figuratively.  You DO understand the idiocy of trying to argue the point for both don't you?  You are basically saying you don't really have an argument.  Or, you were making light of your own literal issue in which you want people to make a choice and vote?  For what purpose?  You don't know if their answer is literal or figural.  

C'mon dude.

Short points.  No memes.

 

You're getting fucked by income inequality too you just don't see it because you've been brainwashed to blame everything on the "lazy" poor people.

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, motonoggin said:

Threat of starvation forces cheap third world labor into factories. Literally.

Threat of starvation forces developed world workers to accept shitty working conditions or lower wages because if they complain they may lose their job. They probably won't starve, at least not right away, so this would be an application of the figurative form. 

 

 

1). What were these people in the thrord world countries doing before the factories?  Why didn't they keep doing that?  Why can't they go back to that if that life was better?  You don't really need to answer these.

2.) There is almost no possibility of "starvation" inany feveloped country short of individuals choosing it.  In fact, the lowest earners are often the fatest.  The people that want the perks (if they see them that way) of living in a society have to be able to realize their limitations and worth to that society.  If their worth (which is defined in many ways) earns them less than what they find acceptable, they can forgo the society.  Or even live somewhat "halfway".  Either way, sacrifices of ones life need to be made to fit in and be a more integral member of society, or sacrifices in the benefits and niceties (which they shouldn't be able to see anymore) in cutting society out.  

I DO understand you (and they) want society to change for them (and you), but that's not happening.  So the options I listed above are logical (and literal) if brief and elementary.

Note: I'm on my phone and not proofing this.

[Zambroski]

5 minutes ago, Wildboer said:

You're getting fucked by income inequality too you just don't see it because you've been brainwashed to blame everything on the "lazy" poor people.

I don't care.  I worked the system that was given to me to the best of my ability.  Well, maybe not "best" all the time.  I cheated it a lot in my favor.

And I don't really blame "lazy poor people" for anything.  I do me and worry about me.  They do them and worry about them.

[motonoggin]

You don't get it. 

There is enough for all to eat, for all to have homes, for all to not want for basics. 

But yet there is hunger, homelessness, and strife here and abroad. Why?

And don't get me started about how cheap food makes you fat. 

These are conditions created by capitalism in order to extract surplus value from exploited labor. 

It doesn't have to be this way, but there's no money in fixing it.

[Zambroski]

56 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

You don't get it. 

There is enough for all to eat, for all to have homes, for all to not want for basics. 

But yet there is hunger, homelessness, and strife here and abroad. Why?

And don't get me started about how cheap food makes you fat. 

These are conditions created by capitalism in order to extract surplus value from exploited labor. 

It doesn't have to be this way, but there's no money in fixing it.

Starting with stating that "I don't get it" made me not read he rest.  I was a bit disappointing to be honest.

[motonoggin]

1 hour ago, Zambroski said:

Starting with stating that "I don't get it" made me not read he rest.  I was a bit disappointing to be honest.

That's pretty thin skinned.

 

[Ez ryder]

1 hour ago, motonoggin said:

I don't see how creating a society where everyone's basic needs are universally met in order to allow people to pursue intellectual, recreational, and industrial experimentation and innovation could be a bad thing. 

As long as we keep worrying about someone getting something we don't think they deserve, we're going to have problems. Once we understand that everyone deserves basic needs, then we can really unlock humanity's potential. 

who is supplying thé food so other can pursue there dreams? do you think a Guy Wants To spend his day shoveling cow shit so other can sit around and paint and read? Nice fanticy not baised in thé Réal world of humain nature 

[motonoggin]

11 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

who is supplying thé food so other can pursue there dreams? do you think a Guy Wants To spend his day shoveling cow shit so other can sit around and paint and read? Nice fanticy not baised in thé Réal world of humain nature 

Agriculture is quickly becoming automated. I'd guess it's probably automating faster than any other industry at the moment. 

I'd also guess that it's someone's dream to run a farm that produces food for a multitude of people.

We could be missing out on the next Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein because the kid is too busy with basic survival activities instead of contemplating the cosmos.

[Wildboer]

2 hours ago, Zambroski said:

I don't care.  I worked the system that was given to me to the best of my ability.  Well, maybe not "best" all the time.  I cheated it a lot in my favor.

And I don't really blame "lazy poor people" for anything.  I do me and worry about me.  They do them and worry about them.

Of course you do, you don't understand half the ways the deck is stacked against you and you don't care about all the ways it's stacked against the poor and minorities. The ability to write stuff like that off is what us smart people call privilege.

[Anler]

I think food is a bad example. Nobody is really starving in this country unless you are really stupid. I think the problem with everything is greed. We gotta have this and we gotta have that. And everybody is lead around by the nose with whatever the tv is telling them. There are a lot of dumb mother tickets in this country. Totally incapable of critical thought. And what do they want to cut? Education... think about that...

[motonoggin]

25 minutes ago, Anler said:

I think food is a bad example. Nobody is really starving in this country unless you are really stupid. I think the problem with everything is greed. We gotta have this and we gotta have that. And everybody is lead around by the nose with whatever the tv is telling them. There are a lot of dumb mother tickets in this country. Totally incapable of critical thought. And what do they want to cut? Education... think about that...

Well sure because dumb fucks are easier to control.

Ever see Idiocracy?

[Ez ryder]

28 minutes ago, Anler said:

I think food is a bad example. Nobody is really starving in this country unless you are really stupid. I think the problem with everything is greed. We gotta have this and we gotta have that. And everybody is lead around by the nose with whatever the tv is telling them. There are a lot of dumb mother tickets in this country. Totally incapable of critical thought. And what do they want to cut? Education... think about that...

cut no . take control out of the hands of the Unions yes let the kids mom and dad decide where the kid goes to school yes.

I am in favor of a voucher  system  that gives a set $ amount per family and is accepted at every school. have 1 kid you get 1 voucher for 18 grand a yr  the going rate for per pupil in my parts . you have 2 kids you get 2 vouchers  for 9 grand each and so on . you can pay cash from your own pocket if you want to send your kids to a even better school . 

you want 5 kids that is a personal choice that you can pay for

[Ez ryder]

1 hour ago, motonoggin said:

Agriculture is quickly becoming automated. I'd guess it's probably automating faster than any other industry at the moment. 

I'd also guess that it's someone's dream to run a farm that produces food for a multitude of people.

We could be missing out on the next Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein because the kid is too busy with basic survival activities instead of contemplating the cosmos.

it is no ones dream to shovel shit from cattle stalls no ones dream to clean out the hog barn .who dreams of sticking both arms up a cows cunt to yank out a  calf ? who is going to build housing who is going to mine the raw materials who is going to fix the equpment. non of that shit is dream work we do it for the $ . nice fantasy but human nature already ruined your world before it started  

[motonoggin]

7 minutes ago, Ez ryder said:

it is no ones dream to shovel shit from cattle stalls no ones dream to clean out the hog barn .who dreams of sticking both arms up a cows cunt to yank out a  calf ? who is going to build housing who is going to mine the raw materials who is going to fix the equpment. non of that shit is dream work we do it for the $ . nice fantasy but human nature already ruined your world before it started  

Lol. Citing 'human nature' is not a blanket out for any argument. 

 

[Anler]

7 hours ago, Ez ryder said:

cut no . take control out of the hands of the Unions yes let the kids mom and dad decide where the kid goes to school yes.

I am in favor of a voucher  system  that gives a set $ amount per family and is accepted at every school. have 1 kid you get 1 voucher for 18 grand a yr  the going rate for per pupil in my parts . you have 2 kids you get 2 vouchers  for 9 grand each and so on . you can pay cash from your own pocket if you want to send your kids to a even better school . 

you want 5 kids that is a personal choice that you can pay for

Our public education system doesn't teach children to be independent, critical thinkers. Nor does it teach the principles of freedom and government. It teaches them how to take tests. Your solution is one that was told to you by the media and all it does is take resources away from poorer kids and give them to wealthier districts. 

[Mileage Psycho]

22 hours ago, motonoggin said:

Just an age old philosophical question...

 

 

[Zambroski]

7 hours ago, motonoggin said:

Lol. Citing 'human nature' is not a blanket out for any argument. 

 

Yeah....he should have just told you that "you don't get it".  

I love this whole "Starvation" narrative your peeps are pushing now....it makes your ideology seem even more estranged.  "Occupy Whole Foods"!!!!!

 

27 minutes ago, Anler said:

Our public education system doesn't teach children to be independent, critical thinkers. Nor does it teach the principles of freedom and government. It teaches them how to take tests. Your solution is one that was told to you by the media and all it does is take resources away from poorer kids and give them to wealthier districts. 

100% agreed on this.  All but the voucher thing.  I think it gives parents the option to vote and punish schools that perform poorly by getting their kids into a better school,  Low income families should not be used as an excuse for poor performing schools and teachers.

[Mileage Psycho]

11 hours ago, motonoggin said:

You don't get it. 

There is enough for all to eat, for all to have homes, for all to not want for basics. 

But yet there is hunger, homelessness, and strife here and abroad. Why?

And don't get me started about how cheap food makes you fat. 

These are conditions created by capitalism in order to extract surplus value from exploited labor. 

It doesn't have to be this way, but there's no money in fixing it.

Some cultures and some folks just aren't that motivated, and then there is mental illness.

[Zambroski]

8 hours ago, Wildboer said:

Of course you do, you don't understand half the ways the deck is stacked against you and you don't care about all the ways it's stacked against the poor and minorities. The ability to write stuff like that off is what us smart people call privilege.

Oh...please....tell me more!  Me likes to learn stuff about things!  Tell me about how obstacles are hard...and should not be a part of life.  And certainly should have no part in the workplace creating tough situations in people's career advancements.  Please 'splain that to me.

[motonoggin]

"... Humans everywhere care about themselves. They care about having enough to eat, they want to be cared for when sick, they care about having a roof over our heads. We also care deeply about certain intangibles. Our autonomy, our dignity, and maybe even some unsavory things about ourselves — what people think of us, our standing in the eyes of our peers.

But our antagonist’s view of human nature is one in which we care only about these things, in which we only care about maximizing returns from the world to ourselves.

This is the bourgeois view. The abstract human is basically like a two-year-old on an airplane. Nobody else matters. And if this were true, our project would be doomed. Out of toddlers on an airplane, I think you’d probably be able to build a world of an Ayn Rand novel, but you wouldn’t be able to build socialism.

But the bourgeois view is only partly correct. Humans are capable of many things other than simple selfishness. We’re capable of caring for others, we’re capable of empathy and compassion, we have the capacity to distinguish fairness from unfairness, and the capacity to hold ourselves to those standards.

The bourgeois view inflates our selfish drives and ignores these other qualities. Socialists do not have to do the same. Human nature is not infinitely plastic. Its contain a variety of drives and capacities — some inner demons and some better angels, to quote Steven Pinker."

 

[Zambroski]

9 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

"... Humans everywhere care about themselves. They care about having enough to eat, they want to be cared for when sick, they care about having a roof over our heads. We also care deeply about certain intangibles. Our autonomy, our dignity, and maybe even some unsavory things about ourselves — what people think of us, our standing in the eyes of our peers.

But our antagonist’s view of human nature is one in which we care only about these things, in which we only care about maximizing returns from the world to ourselves.

This is the bourgeois view. The abstract human is basically like a two-year-old on an airplane. Nobody else matters. And if this were true, our project would be doomed. Out of toddlers on an airplane, I think you’d probably be able to build a world of an Ayn Rand novel, but you wouldn’t be able to build socialism.

But the bourgeois view is only partly correct. Humans are capable of many things other than simple selfishness. We’re capable of caring for others, we’re capable of empathy and compassion, we have the capacity to distinguish fairness from unfairness, and the capacity to hold ourselves to those standards.

The bourgeois view inflates our selfish drives and ignores these other qualities. Socialists do not have to do the same. Human nature is not infinitely plastic. Its contain a variety of drives and capacities — some inner demons and some better angels, to quote Steven Pinker."

 

Trying to forcefully educate humans out of drive for material things ("selfishness") should be followed by first succeeding in educating out the propensity for violence for almost any reason including the smallest difference of opinion.  Millions of years of evolution went into both and you are claiming our problems are only a few hundred with modern capitalism?  No.  Even the most modern of these instincts can be traced back thousands of years.  

Truth...and proven facts and statistics:  Capitalism is the single greatest advancement of the human race in history.  OK....relax now...it's too early for head gyrations.

 

 

[motonoggin]

7 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

Trying to forcefully educate humans out of drive for material things ("selfishness") should be followed by first succeeding in educating out the propensity for violence for almost any reason including the smallest difference of opinion.  Millions of years of evolution went into both and you are claiming our problems are only a few hundred with modern capitalism?  No.  Even the most modern of these instincts can be traced back thousands of years.  

Truth...and proven facts and statistics:  Capitalism is the single greatest advancement of the human race in history.  OK....relax now...it's too early for head gyrations.

 

 

Fuck off bourgeois scum.

[motonoggin]

"First, a society which meets everyone’s needs is a society in which there would be less to quarrel about. Less reason for aggression, less reason for violence, less reason for predation. Compare the person you are when you’re sharing a box of cookies with your brother or sister, to the person you are when you’re sharing one cookie.

The second point is that socialism would also be a much more egalitarian society. People would be each other’s equals — not subordinates or superiors.

I’m sure many of you have heard of the Stanford prison experiment, which illustrated that hierarchies can make monsters out of ordinary humans. Well, the absence of these hierarchies should make it easier to bid farewell to the monsters inside us.

In a more developed, and more egalitarian society, better humans will flourish. Socialists one, libertarian cousin zero."

[Zambroski]

6 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Fuck off bourgeois scum.

You first dipshit!

Why do certain fringe groups feel it is best to change society for what they feel is best for their own lives instead of grouping together and starting their own?  You know, it wouldn't be that hard to do if enough were committed to it.  What's the problem you think?

[motonoggin]

1 minute ago, Zambroski said:

You first dipshit!

Why do certain fringe groups feel it is best to change society for what they feel is best for their own lives instead of grouping together and starting their own?  You know, it wouldn't be that hard to do if enough were committed to it.  What's the problem you think?

Capitalism hates competition.