Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Ayn Rand, welfare queen
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 30, 31, 32 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

recessiontime

Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha

Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 7:55 am Post subject: I've come back from the depths of hell, fox.

Quote:

Well, I don't know who these unnamed biologists are, but they're probably wrong. Western countries assuredly do not need to undergo population contraction for the sake of the world.

What about for the sake of other species or organisms? Do you not value biodiversity and wildlife that you are ultimately dependent on? You do realise that the more people there are the more pollution there is there less space there is for other species, the more extinctions there are.

Quote:

Your concept of value is petty, inhuman, and wrong.

right back at you.

Quote:

Enjoyment is amoral.

I'd like to hear your explanation as to why enjoyment is amoral. This doesn't make any sense fox. Enjoyment is a stimulus organisms have to help them thrive which is adaptive and positive. You sir are wrong on this one.

Quote:

Giving being virtuous doesn't imply that "taking" is selfish.

They get something for nothing, this is an unequal trade and this implies selfishness - the disregard for the needs of the givers.

Quote:

I don't fear people who have less money than me. I don't have any guilt, irrational or otherwise.

Of course you don't. I'm sure you have no trouble sleeping knowing that your parents and even yourself contribute to taxes that go to people that have less money than you. Maybe if we took that system away you'd feel terrible that you had more money than the less fortunate and give to a charity instead so that you wouldn't have any guilt.

Quote:

Sometimes we have a duty to help others, regardless of whether they feel entitled to it.

Only if we value their existence. By forcing me to help anyone I do not value you are putting a burden on me and this is immoral. I cannot live and be expected to sacrifice myself for the well being of others. To expect others to be used as means to and end, as a sacrifice to all other humans is deeply immoral and illogical. Let me repeat that, I am not a means to an end and if you think I am, you are evil.

Fox, you have clearly bought into the Christian dogma that sacrificing oneself for the betterment of others is a mimicry of Jesus and therefore moral. This is nothing more than an inverse morality.

Quote:

Many parts of this country were built by men who sought handouts. America at its "freest" had immense amounts of human suffering and misery, such that anyone holding it up as a model of "what happiness is possible on Earth," is more or less simply ignoring reality. This is all just drivel trying to justify an attempt to ennoble humanity's basest and least admirable traits. Please never quote Rand's trash at me again. In addition to it being both ridiculous and incorrect, I find it to be distasteful.

No, that's not what she meant. She meant that in the early days of America there was no welfare and such. People got by with equal trade, capitalism, none of this redistribution of wealth that we see today.

Enjoyment and valuing oneself over another person is humanity's basest and least admirable trait. That's interesting. A neutral observer would at least look at it and say that it is a survival mechanism designed for survival and proliferation.

Quote:

If you genuinely don't value your fellow man then you are his enemy, as you have natural inclination to compete with him for resources and benefits, but no corresponding natural inclination to assist him due to the aforementioned fact that you don't value him.

You are REALLY reaching here. I only value those that possess something of value to me. This does not mean I am his enemy. That is a stretch. If my friend needs my help, I will help him because I value his existence. I will not help people I do not know or people that might even do harm toward me. I don't help the valueless. There is nothing wrong or immoral about this. You trying to force me to help others and sacrifice my well-being for the sake of others I do not value is immoral and makes no sense.

How can I be expected to be sacrificed for the sake of mankind? What does it say about the value of my sacrifice if I'm doing it to help people I've never met? Probably the same value that of a woman who gives her love to every man she meets on the street - valueless.

Quote:

If you are his enemy, you are in no position to be dictating how he should live. Indeed, a society would be extremely foolish to accept advice from a person who just comes out and says he doesn't value his fellow man. Doubly so if the anti-social individual in question is just parroting from a fictional novel.

I am not dictating how people should live. I'm telling you not to be expecting me to live for the sake of others.

Quote:

Taxation (when administered justly) is not punishment, and financial assistance for the genuinely needy is not a reward.

I am saying that responsible people lacking fund tend to not have kids. They are responsible. They know that if they did have children, they would inflict misery upon them. We punish these people by stealing their money and giving to irresponsible trash that could not give a care about their children.

Quote:

Your posts are like cascading waterfalls of wrongness.

Believe it or not, the feeling is mutual. I get it though, you bought into the Christian dogma that says that sacrificing yourself for everyone else is moral. That's why you have the beliefs you have. It's why you support communism, the redistribution of wealth, and expect everyone to be a means to an end, to sacrifice themselves for everyone else.

Gwangjuboy

Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England

Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:31 am Post subject: Re: .

Fox wrote:

Agreed. If you advocate a social Darwinist perspective then it is virtuous for the poor to steal and destroy the rich, just as ants can devour a scorpion when they work together. In this situation the poor owe nobody anything, and if they can extract greater reward by collectivising their effort then that is absolutely right.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:06 am Post subject:

I think it's time for a knock-out blow. If you want to keep babbling on after this, that's your call, but I've indulged you long enough.

recessiontime wrote:

What about for the sake of other species or organisms?

Stop joking around. You don't even value your fellow man, much less other species or organisms. To answer the substance of your question, nothing about these environmental causes requires population contraction in the first world, but more importantly, you are hypocritical to even bring them up; the preservation of species requires the very governmental intervention you oppose, as people like you are always willing to cause extinctions if it means lining your pockets.

recessiontime wrote:

Something being "moral" and something being "a stimulus organisms have to help them thrive" are totally separate things. Case and point: rape. One can enjoy rape (and no doubt many rapists do). From a genetic perspective rape helps you propagate your genes. It's still wrong. Some enjoyable things are moral. Some enjoyable things are immoral. Most enjoyable things are amoral. Enjoyment does not directly translate into morality, and even when it overlaps with morality, it is not the property of being enjoyable that is making an act ethical. This is very simple and very obvious.

recessiontime wrote:

Quote:

Giving being virtuous doesn't imply that "taking" is selfish.

They get something for nothing, this is an unequal trade and this implies selfishness - the disregard for the needs of the givers.

Again, you're not thinking this through. Governmental redistribution of wealth isn't merely a series of isolated acts which can and must be judged purely on their own. Rather, it's a system. Any individual act of redistribution may or may not benefit a particular person. The presence of such a system benefits everyone, both due to the fact that even the wealthy can fall from their lofty perches and require societal assistance, and due to the fact that it creates a more vibrant middle class, capable of increased consumption, which in turn fuels greater economic activity and creates more opportunity. You need to look at the bigger picture here.

recessiontime wrote:

Quote:

I don't fear people who have less money than me. I don't have any guilt, irrational or otherwise.

Both I personally and my entire family collectively give to charity in addition to our tax burden. It has nothing to do with guilt; we value other human beings and the society composed of them, and we want to help. So yes, if you took the system away, our charitable donations would likely increase. But because there are many things that private charity simply can't accomplish as well or as reliably as systematic government programs funded by taxes, society would still be the worse off for it.

recessiontime wrote:

Quote:

Sometimes we have a duty to help others, regardless of whether they feel entitled to it.

Only if we value their existence. By forcing me to help anyone I do not value you are putting a burden on me and this is immoral.

No, it's not immoral. Living in society gives many, many benefits (which, again, is why you fled to another nation you consider socialist instead of fleeing to an ungoverned part of the world), and it's completely reasonable for the cost of those benefits to be a requirement to assist your fellow man to some degree. For most people this isn't a problem, because they actually value their fellow man (though there may be healthy debate about precisely how we should go about it!). It's only sociopaths who see society as some sort of perverse war that kick up a serious fuss.

recessiontime wrote:

I cannot live and be expected to sacrifice myself for the well being of others. To expect others to be used as means to and end, as a sacrifice to all other humans is deeply immoral and illogical. Let me repeat that, I am not a means to an end and if you think I am, you are evil.

Believe me, I don't think you are a means to an end, and given the self-described burden you've been both on your family and your home society, I doubt anyone else sees you that way either. In fact, it's precisely because you aren't a means to an end that your home society placed value on you and offered you benefits despite your lack of financial success and total inability to find work.

This isn't about reducing people to means to an end. It's you who does that when you insist you shouldn't have to help anyone who isn't of value to you, since you are dividing people into those who can provide value to you (i.e. means to an end), and those who don't provide value to you (i.e. means which are useless with regards to any end you desire), and basing your judgments upon that and that alone. Just as with your little flap about how 'morality and law aren't the same,' you yet again you argue not against me, but against yourself.

recessiontime wrote:

Fox, you have clearly bought into the Christian dogma that sacrificing oneself for the betterment of others is a mimicry of Jesus and therefore moral. This is nothing more than an inverse morality.

It's embarrassing enough when Sergio goes around trying to turn Capitalism into an ethical system. Now recessiontime wants to liken taxpayers into Christ on the cross. This is too ridiculous to even begin to entertain.

recessiontime wrote:

I don't care what you think she meant. If you believe America is founded on ultra-rational, heartless, utilitarian, government-intervention-free capitalism, you're just plain wrong.

recessiontime wrote:

Enjoyment and valuing oneself over another person is humanity's basest and least admirable trait. That's interesting. A neutral observer would at least look at it and say that it is a survival mechanism designed for survival and proliferation.

I suppose a neutral observer would also casually shrug off rape as a means of helping a man to proliferate his genes. Fortunately for us, (most) human beings aren't neutral observers, but rather ethical agents with at least some desire to strive to be better than that.

recessiontime wrote:

You are REALLY reaching here. I only value those that possess something of value to me. This does not mean I am his enemy.

1) You don't value person X in any way, as he cannot help you.
2) You will happily and aggressively compete with person X for resources and benefits.
3) You will do person X harm if you can get away with it and it would benefit you, as you don't value him.

These circumstances clearly mark you as person X's enemy. Now you might choose to dispute one of those, especially number 3. But if you're reticent to do him harm when it would both benefit you and you could get away with it, there must be a reason, and that reason would demand that you put some sort of value on him independent of anything he can do for you or give you.

So either you're lying about not valuing other people (probable), or you're the enemy of your common man (possible).

recessiontime wrote:

I don't help the valueless. There is nothing wrong or immoral about this.

This is borderline sociopathic. I don't know what else to say about it, other than to reiterate that you very clearly don't even begin to grasp the basics of how "ethics" is different from "just doing whatever you want." In any case, hence forth I'm simply going to be ignoring anything from you that even mentions words like "moral," "immoral," "ethical," "unethical," and so forth. It's just not worth the disappointment.

recessiontime wrote:

How can I be expected to be sacrificed for the sake of mankind?

There's a big difference between "being sacrificed for the sake of mankind," and, "having to buy a slightly smaller boat, take one fewer vacations, or eat out a bit less often for the sake of feeding impoverished children." Such a huge difference that I'm having a hard time taking you seriously here.

recessiontime wrote:

I am not dictating how people should live. I'm telling you not to be expecting me to live for the sake of others.

Every time you insist society should be a certain way, you're dictating how people should live. That's what policy discussions are about, recessiontime: talking about how we should manage the society we live in. Your suggestion, evidently, is, "For God's sake we can't have taxes or regulation, because that's tantamount to crucifying taxpayers, and while we're at it I want education kept artificially scarce to help me get a job not through my own merit, but through scarcity of my skill set."

recessiontime wrote:

I am saying that responsible people ...

It's pure hypocrisy for you to talk about responsibility. I won't indulge it.

recessiontime wrote:

I get it though, you bought into the Christian dogma that says that sacrificing yourself for everyone else is moral.
That's why you have the beliefs you have. It's why you support communism, the redistribution of wealth, and expect everyone to be a means to an end, to sacrifice themselves for everyone else.

This is a nice summation of all the completely incorrect things you've said throughout this post. An excellent note to end upon.

Menino80

Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:15 am Post subject:

I love how advocating a 39.5 tax rate instead of the current 36 percent one makes one a communist. I really think it's because libertarians camp out so far on their extreme, they lack the mental acuity to identify nuance in opposing political positions. Because of this, anyone to their left (ie, humanity as a whole) is a communist. Its like they have some mental tendon that has been cut and they can only flop around from one extreme to another when talking about policy.

recessiontime

Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:16 am Post subject:

Menino80 wrote:

I love how advocating a 39.5 tax rate instead of the current 36 percent one makes one a communist. I really think it's because libertarians camp out so far on their extreme, they lack the mental acuity to identify nuance in opposing political positions. Because of this, anyone to their left (ie, humanity as a whole) is a communist.

Its like they have some mental tendon that has been cut and they can only flop around from one extreme to another when talking about policy.

It's not an exaggeration I'm afraid, go head and ask him about it. It has nothing to do with tax laws and he's not bashful about it. On numerous occasions he has talked about how eventually it's going to happen due to automation and technological improvements and that we should look forward to it. There was also that discussion about how *hypothetically* it would be beneficial if the Canadian government gave all citizens 15000/yr checks each year unconditionally. You should look into that thread, I can't find it at the moment. That would give you glimpse into his ideology. I jokingly called him a statist because he always sides with the establishment but I'm really not exaggerating when I say that Mr. fox sees the merits of communism. Whether you see that as a positive or negative is up to you.

fox: I think we both see each others points and everything that had to be said was said. We're still friends right? Razz

Menino80

Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:12 am Post subject:

Communism is a form of government, socialism is a descriptor of a policy. A policy can be a little socialist but mostly market driven and vice versa. A government either is or isn't Communist but can be a little or very socialist, depending on its policies. China is about just as Communist as it was in 1978, but it is far less socialist. Communist governments can have socialist and market-driven policies.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 9:52 am Post subject:

Menino80 wrote:

Don't you see the irony in calling out libertarians as extremists who label others as extremists? Here's some friendly advice. Make your case, just like a prosecutor would on cross-examination of a defense witness, but stop just before your last sentence. The circumstances here are even less favorable. When you try to make the finishing blow, it just gets buried under a litany of replies.

Fox.

I believe you aspire to be merciful towards the weak. So lay up a bit on recessiontime.

Recessiontime,

Your assertion, and Ayn Rand's, that pleasure has some effect on morality is philosophically embarrassing. Its the final of a series of blunders that demonstrates you are unable to go toe to toe with Fox. Fox is one of the best, so don't be too discouraged. It would seem Ayn Rand has led you astray.

Fox has generally been right in the last few pages of this thread. For Nietzsche also says, "Independence is for the very few; it is a privilege of the strong." I haven't read her, but Ayn Rand seems to want to popularize some form of elitist libertarianism. This is manifestly ridiculous.

-----------------------

Government programs seek to reduce harm and to combat suffering. The impulse to support government programs is almost irresistible. Many libertarians can't handle the strength of this impulse, and decide instead to vilify government in general. This is unwise. The government exists as shelter for the weak, and providing for the weak is a privilege of the strong. Jesus once said the poor will always be with us. So too the government, and harm, and suffering, will always be with us.

There is a mistake many social liberals make: they forget that harm and suffering actually have the potential to ennoble. Successful people do rise to the challenge, and it builds character. So too does government imposition have the potential to ennoble the free market entrepreneur or visionary. A little higher taxation, particularly on the rich, will prejudice the great-souled very little. Because the free market was never simply about the accumulation of wealth. Let's not be as easily misled on this point as some on the left.

recessiontime

Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:31 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Recessiontime,

Your assertion, and Ayn Rand's, that pleasure has some effect on morality is philosophically embarrassing. Its the final of a series of blunders that demonstrates you are unable to go toe to toe with Fox. Fox is one of the best, so don't be too discouraged. It would seem Ayn Rand has led you astray.

Fox has generally been right in the last few pages of this thread. For Nietzsche also says, "Independence is for the very few; it is a privilege of the strong." I haven't read her, but Ayn Rand seems to want to popularize some form of elitist libertarianism. This is manifestly ridiculous.

-----------------------

Government programs seek to reduce harm and to combat suffering. The impulse to support government programs is almost irresistible. Many libertarians can't handle the strength of this impulse, and decide instead to vilify government in general. This is unwise. The government exists as shelter for the weak, and providing for the weak is a privilege of the strong. Jesus once said the poor will always be with us. So too the government, and harm, and suffering, will always be with us.

There is a mistake many social liberals make: they forget that harm and suffering actually have the potential to ennoble. Successful people do rise to the challenge, and it builds character. So too does government imposition have the potential to ennoble the free market entrepreneur or visionary. A little higher taxation, particularly on the rich, will prejudice the great-souled very little. Because the free market was never simply about the accumulation of wealth. Let's not be as easily misled on this point as some on the left.

You can't even explain why enjoyment is not a value, that it is immoral so you just simply denounce it. This only convinces dumb people, not people that can think for themselves.

What's even more embarrassing is that you are talking about something you have clue about. You haven't read Atlas Shrugged, you probably didn't even take the time to wikipedia it before giving me a condescending pep-talk.

Then you actually proved me right by equating morality with the Christian dogma that says it is moral and virtuous to sacrifice oneself for the sake of everyone else. I understand you want to praise fox because you agree with his perspective but you have unwittingly proved my point. I don't blame you though, you probably didn't even read my posts, which is why you brought up Jesus. I can also see that you subscribe to the idea that might is right, no surprises here.

Again, convincing or not reality is on my side, or rather, on Rand's side. These practices are not sustainable and in the coming decades you will entitlement programs erode countries, rising taxes, a slowing down of the economy and in opportunity. These prediction Rand made in the past didn't come true because she was prophet but rather because she was right about socialism.

Last edited by recessiontime on Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:51 pm; edited 1 time in total

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:50 pm Post subject:

recessiontime wrote:

Kuros wrote:

You can't even explain why enjoyment is not a value, that it is immoral so you just simply denounce it. This only convinces dumb people, not people that can think for themselves.

Where did I say enjoyment was immoral? Enjoyment is amoral, it hasn't to do with morality.

Quote:

What's even more embarrassing is that you are talking about something you have clue about. You haven't read Atlas Shrugged, you probably didn't even take the time to wikipedia it before giving me a condescending pep-talk.

I missed the reading assignments, at what point did this discussion require that we have read Atlas Shrugged? You'll notice I make no affirmative statements about Ayn Rand, and use the verb 'seem.' I will not be abused because I haven't read Atlas Shrugged when I haven't made any definitive comments on it. Your words and depictions have to stand on their own, you can't hide behind my ignorance any more than I can.

recessiontime wrote:

Then you actually proved me right by equating morality with the Christian dogma that says it is moral and virtuous to sacrifice oneself for the sake of everyone else. I understand you want to praise fox because you agree with his perspective but you have unwittingly proved my point. I don't blame you though, you probably didn't even read my posts, which is why you brought up Jesus.

I didn't bring up Jesus to assert his divinity. If you're going to attack me for defending a Christian worldview, you are most certainly thrusting at a phantom. My worldview is much closer to Aristotle's.

recessiontime

Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:58 pm Post subject:

Kuros, you openly admitted that you think everything Fox said is right and that I am wrong so now you have to deal with it. You agree with Fox's statement that enjoyment is immoral. You can blame yourself for being intellectually lazy enough to agree with bulk of what he said. If you want to criticize others, at least have the decency to read their book. Or do some form of research. How can you even agree with Fox when you haven`t read the book yourself to make up your mind? You brought up Jesus because you agree with his world-view which is entirely consistent with what I said - that self sacrifice for the sake of others is moral. Of course you agree with this. Don`t even try to negate it.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:05 pm Post subject:

recessiontime wrote:

Kuros, you openly admitted that you think everything Fox said is right and that I am wrong so now you have to deal with it. You agree with Fox's statement that enjoyment is immoral. You can blame yourself for being intellectually lazy enough to agree with bulk of what he said.

Fox said enjoyment was amoral. Do you understand the difference between what he said and what you claim he said?

Quote:

If you want to criticize others, at least have the decency to read their book. Or do some form of research. How can you even agree with Fox when you haven`t read the book yourself to make up your mind?

You're going to continue to thump your bible, eh?

Quote:

You brought up Jesus because you agree with his world-view which is entirely consistent with what I said - that self sacrifice for the sake of others is moral. Of course you agree with this. Don`t even try to negate it.

Since I haven't read Ayn Rand, tell me, does she extol the virtues of defining someone else's positions for them?

I don't consider the limited help I've advocated the great-souled to make to be self-sacrifice.

I'll tell you what, you get the last word, and I'll be back after I've read Atlas Shrugged. Its possible I'll enjoy it.

johnnyenglishteacher2

Joined: 03 Dec 2010

Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:40 am Post subject:

recessiontime wrote:

You agree with Fox's statement that enjoyment is immoral.

Immoral = anti-moral
Amoral = without morality, or, to be more precise, neutral in morality.

Whether enjoyment is moral, immoral or amoral depends on your viewpoint, and, as Fox pointed out, the activity from which you derive enjoyment.

Confusing immorality with amorality does not help your argument.

johnnyenglishteacher2

Joined: 03 Dec 2010

Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:46 am Post subject: Re: I've come back from the depths of hell, fox.

recessiontime wrote:

Not wanting to sound too snobbish here (as I was born into the working classes myself), but if procreation did become limited to those who could afford it, then in 20 years' time who's going to pick our food? Who's going to clean the hospitals?

The wealthy tend to ensure that their children get a good education.

Many essential jobs are done by those who don't have much in the way of education and come from poor backgrounds.

mises

Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:56 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

I'll tell you what, you get the last word, and I'll be back after I've read Atlas Shrugged. Its possible I'll enjoy it.

It's very wordy. Best, wait for the movie.

Menino80

Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?

Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:37 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

It is true even if it is ironic. Anyone who deems taxation theft and/or advocates a return to gold is an extremist, ie they are far far out of the mainstream of political thinking.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 30, 31, 32 Next
Page 31 of 32

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe