|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 0:28:41 GMT -5
What do you think?
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy 
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 24, 2013 4:56:39 GMT -5
Absolutely, people just talk down money because it's politically incorrect since it makes those who don't have it feel bad. Money is nothing more than a tool to expedite barter and remove the situation of double coincidence. Money is a tool that gives you more options in life. Don't like your job, well you don't have to worry about that since you can quit at any time. You have wealth. Don't like where you live? Move. No need to choose between heating for the winter and food. Have both. You have options and don't have to answer to anyone or put up with things you'd have to otherwise. It's nothing more than a tool to give you what you want. More options means more ways to increase your happiness. It's not about buying fancy crap, it's about being able to do what you want when you want which is great. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 5:58:38 GMT -5
Absolutely, people just talk down money because it's politically incorrect since it makes those who don't have it feel bad. Money is nothing more than a tool to expedite barter and remove the situation of double coincidence. Money is a tool that gives you more options in life. Don't like your job, well you don't have to worry about that since you can quit at any time. You have wealth. We live in a culture where poverty is viewed as morally superior then wealth. You know how it is. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 24, 2013 6:09:41 GMT -5
Absolutely, people just talk down money because it's politically incorrect since it makes those who don't have it feel bad. Money is nothing more than a tool to expedite barter and remove the situation of double coincidence. Money is a tool that gives you more options in life. Don't like your job, well you don't have to worry about that since you can quit at any time. You have wealth. We live in a culture where poverty is viewed as morally superior then wealth. You know how it is. Which is designed to make losers feel better about themselves since this is a loser society. They always portray people who are poor as morally superior... while asking for handouts. How can they get a handout of the person who handed it out didn't have anything to give. This is the problem with altruism. It's morally inferior to earn your own, and morally superior to leech off of others and enslave them. This is done to appeal to the masses, but if you go around people who are poor, you will see they are far more irresponsible, drink and smoke more, gamble more, have kids they can't afford, steal more, plan less. What is good about this? I'd say creating jobs and services and goods that others value is a greater good. Not mooching and wanting a handout. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 6:16:11 GMT -5
Which is designed to make losers feel better about themselves since this is a loser society. They always portray people who are poor as morally superior... while asking for handouts. How can they get a handout of the person who handed it out didn't have anything to give. This is the problem with altruism. It's morally inferior to earn your own, and morally superior to leech off of others and enslave them. This is done to appeal to the masses, but if you go around people who are poor, you will see they are far more irresponsible, drink and smoke more, gamble more, have kids they can't afford, steal more, plan less. What is good about this? I'd say creating jobs and services and goods that others value is a greater good. Not mooching and wanting a handout. That's not really altruism, since they're not begging for alms. Rather they're using government to steal from people who have money. So, it's not really asking for a handout. Instead they're robbing you and use justifications to rationalize what they're doing. Marxist aren't altruist, they just use it because it's convenient to cover up what they're really doing. . .stealing. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 24, 2013 6:41:20 GMT -5
Which is designed to make losers feel better about themselves since this is a loser society. They always portray people who are poor as morally superior... while asking for handouts. How can they get a handout of the person who handed it out didn't have anything to give. This is the problem with altruism. It's morally inferior to earn your own, and morally superior to leech off of others and enslave them. This is done to appeal to the masses, but if you go around people who are poor, you will see they are far more irresponsible, drink and smoke more, gamble more, have kids they can't afford, steal more, plan less. What is good about this? I'd say creating jobs and services and goods that others value is a greater good. Not mooching and wanting a handout. That's not really altruism, since they're not begging for alms. Rather they're using government to steal from people who have money. So, it's not really asking for a handout. Instead they're robbing you and use justifications to rationalize what they're doing. Marxist aren't altruist, they just use it because it's convenient to cover up what they're really doing. . .stealing. Well it stems from an altruistic philosophy that the only *good* you can do is by "sacrificing", this is what opens the door to that mentality and starts the idea of something for nothing. It's a lot of the same thing in religion. "You didn't earn that, you didn't do that, you owe it to us to give." The idea that altruism is not only a form of good, but is good in and of itself is destructive to society, but people have been taught it so long that they believe it is good. The whole idea that takes away from the individual and is all about the collective. The idea of "be your neighbors keeper", to what end? You are doing more good by producing than by taking from someone else, either by guilt or by stealing. Our society has blown out into full form stealing, but it's all altruistic roots. Hitler was an altruist. He demanded sacrifice from his people to the "greater good" which he determined. Most destructive things have stemmed from altruism. aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.htmlwww.atlassociety.org/virtue-selfishnessPeople who love altrusim are the ones who benefit from the taking. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 6:50:08 GMT -5
That sounds like Ayn Rands interpretation of altruism and I'm gonna have to disagree. Ultimately, self- sacrifice has to be voluntary in order to be deemed as morally good. However, since the 20th century there has been this idea that someone asking you to be altruistic at gunpoint [government] is altruism. Bad people, including the ones in government and in churches asking people to lay down their property and hard earned money for the greater good isn't a good representative of what altruism should be about.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 24, 2013 7:02:15 GMT -5
That sounds like Ayn Rands interpretation of altruism and I'm gonna have to disagree. Ultimately, self- sacrifice has to be voluntary in order to be deemed as morally good. However, since the 20th century there has been this idea that someone asking you to be altruistic at gunpoint [government] is altruism. Bad people, including the ones in government and in churches asking people to lay down their property and hard earned money for the greater good isn't a good representative of what altruism should be about. Ayn Rand didn't just say it had to be government theft, but the philosophy of it in general. Here's another interpretation: www.jasonsummers.org/negative-side-of-altruism/Altruism is still bad because it encourages the idea that the needs of someone else's or the need of the group is better than your own needs and that you life to serve that cause. It doesn't just have to be government doing it at gunpoint (which is theft) but even churches and other groups preach this same ideal. That you only do good by sacrificing which is a zero sum game at best, and negative since it promotes people to not be as hard working on creative. The one who loses is going to be less motivated to produce and the one who gains is less motivated to produce. When you said earlier that people were seen as morally superior for having less, that's because that belief is steeped in altruism the idea that if you have more that you should "sacrifice" to others by giving them your stuff whether voluntary or at gunpoint. My point is that by being successful you have already done a lot of good by your inventions, hard work, savings (which are invested), or jobs you create does far more good than philanthropic contributions. A wealthy person creates far more value in aggregate than he does for himself. Society benefits more from the automobile than the creator. Sure the creator is richer individually than the others, but society benefited a lot and it created opportunities that weren't there before. Is what I'm saying making more sense now?? |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 7:08:22 GMT -5
Is what I'm saying making more sense now?? It's not that it doesn't make sense, I just disagree. I've never been into Ayn Rand and her anti-religious attitude. It's a no- win situtation because for her any act of altruism is "bad" and It's too much to say that it automatically leads to hitler or socialism. For one thing, hitler was a product of democracy and socialism is a scam. But, since altruism has been abused the way it has then people become cynical of it. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 24, 2013 7:53:11 GMT -5
Is what I'm saying making more sense now?? It's not that it doesn't make sense, I just disagree. I've never been into Ayn Rand and her anti-religious attitude. It's a no- win situtation because for her any act of altruism is "bad" and It's too much to say that it automatically leads to hitler or socialism. For one thing, hitler was a product of democracy and socialism is a scam. But, since altruism has been abused the way it has then people become cynical of it. It seems like you don't like it because it's Ayn Rand.  I gave you another viewpoint and they are all saying the same thing. The problem with religion and things that religious conservatives often face, as was pointed out with Rick Santorum is that it is also a contradiction to a free lifestyle. Religion preaches moral obligations. "A man has a moral obligation to tithe." "A man has a moral obligation to marry a woman and raise a family." "A man has a moral obligation to his community." You can't really preach pure freedom and religion, because a man has no obligations to anyone's morals besides his own. Now if you said a man was free to practice his own spiritual beliefs that would be different. Also keep in mind religion was used as a governing influence in the past and through most of history. The problem with altruism is that it instills a moral obligation on people. A free man in a free society can do what he wants with his money. Save it, invest it, spend it, give it to his children, etc. He has no "moral obligation" instilled upon him. Altruism is exactly that,a moral obligation instilled onto others to sacrifice. It would be nothing without that. Through most of history altruism has been preached and throughout most of histories societies have been marxist; this is no coincidence. Free markets is a new thing that led to tremendous success until the democracy tore it down. The government nowadays sees everything as theirs and whatever they let you keep as a "gift". The way they see it: you need to be forced at gunpoint to keep your moral obligation, otherwise the evil greedy rich wouldn't do it. Look at how they complain about Wal Mart. "Everyone should pay a living wage, even if the worker doesn't deserve it." Why? Well you have a moral duty to take care of the poor after all. You gotta "give something back." Some of the most dangerous words in history that. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 8:10:06 GMT -5
The problem with religion and things that religious conservatives often face, as was pointed out with Rick Santorum is that it is also a contradiction to a free lifestyle. Religion preaches moral obligations. Well, yeah. It's not free because you've choosen the burden of a moral obligation. Wealth redistribution isn't choice, though. While someone might be bound by their faith to do such and such. Wealth redistribution relies on coercion. You can't really preach pure freedom and religion, because a man has no obligations to anyone's morals besides his own. Now if you said a man was free to practice his own spiritual beliefs that would be different. Also keep in mind religion was used as a governing influence in the past and through most of history. It's more accurate to say that a man of no religious persuasion is obligated to no one. Second, that's necessarily true. Which religion? Christianity as it was in the west was a separate institution. The separation of church and state is actually biblical: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" It's just not true that the church was always interchangeable with the government. That may have been true in eastern europe or Islamic countries. But, not western Christianity. There was a plurality in authority for thousand years. But, Altruism doesn't necessarily prevent you from making business investments. It's an oversimplification to say someone who makes a living is doing it for purely selfish goals. He could have a family to feed or a cause to fight for. Through most of history altruism has been preached and throughout most of histories societies have been marxist; this is no coincidence. Free markets is a new thing that led to tremendous success until the democracy tore it down. Free markets have roots in canon law/ church law, Magna carta and a host of different sources. You should listen to Tom Woods on this. But, what about people behind the words? Anyone can claim to be anything, that doesn't mean it's true. It's more likely that they're lying not altruist. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 24, 2013 8:33:35 GMT -5
Well, yeah. It's not free because you've choosen the burden of a moral obligation. Wealth redistribution isn't choice, though. While someone might be bound by their faith to do such and such. Wealth redistribution relies on coercion. We don't disagree that physical theft is wrong. I understand what you're saying there. But the point is that in a free society a man does what he wants with his money. Altruism is bad because it puts a moral obligation on others to sacrifice for the "common good"; this "common good" is often what the leader of that religion or form of government dictates. Religions are all about moral obligations which remove choice. Saying you need to be your neighbors keeper might not be done as much by a point of a gun (at least not anymore), but it is done through a fear or a boogeyman of some sort, by giving an obligation to someone you have effectively enslaved them to that person. It's more accurate to say that a man of no religious persuasion is obligated to no one. He's a free man, he follows his own will and nobody else's. Second, that's necessarily true. Which religion? Christianity as it was in the west was a separate institution. The separation of church and state is actually biblical: Throughout arguably most of history religion was a way to govern behavior and create modern civilizations. That's why many of the successful ones have many similarities, especially in regards to their root laws. "Though shalt not kill, steal, or have sex with your neighbor's wife" is the basic law of pretty much any society. Separation of church and state came by much later, and even kings had to deal with the pope in some cultures. Here is an explanation in crude form: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" God was (and still is) still seen as the ultimate influence in many cultures and was a way to regulate behavior. It's just not true that the church was always interchangeable with the government. That may have been true in eastern europe or Islamic countries. But, not western Christianity. There was a plurality in authority for thousand years. Do you mean America? Well yes we separated church and state although our foundation still had religious beliefs instilled in them. But religion (church may be a different word, I just mean religion) was seen as an archaic way to govern people and it still goes on today somewhat. Religion was also the cause of many bloody wars in the past as people tried to convert others over. The crusades for instance, what about the people coming over here and trying to convert the Native Americans. It played a big role. But, Altruism doesn't necessarily prevent you from making business investments. It's an oversimplification to say someone who makes a living is doing it for purely selfish goals. He could have a family to feed or a cause to fight for. The government doesn't prevent you from doing it either, but it regulates what you do. The thing you might not be understanding in my argument is that I'm simply saying a man is free to do what he wants with his money and is in no moral obligation to give it to others or "sacrifice" for the benefit of someone else. A family is an responsibility that one creates voluntarily. If you have a kid that's your responsibility and not anybody else's (another thing our country has forgotten). I think you are also thinking of "selfish" as bad. Everything people do is done in their own self interest even if they don't admit it. Free markets have roots in canon law/ church law, Magna carta and a host of different sources. You should listen to Tom Woods on this. I have listened to Tom Woods a lot. There are some parts in free markets that reference a "god given right". But religion has many references to altruism more so. The US was the first real attempt at freedom and while it was based on an unalienable right to keep what you earn, it was unlike any "religious" or societal following ever seen before. Societies in the past were pretty much all socialist. But, what about people behind the words? Anyone can claim to be anything, that doesn't mean it's true. It's more likely that they're lying not altruist. You ask a person if a doctor has an obligation to take care of the sick. The answer would pretty much always be a resounding yes. You ask if people have an obligation to take care of the poor. The answer is a resounding yes. These are the type of philosophies that religions and pretty much all governments are built on. The problem is that by creating an obligation for one man you enslave another, therefore they are not free. People don't have a "right" to anything except their own freedom and property. I go by what is done in practice, and that is what altruists believe. Which is why it doesn't work. It encourages sloth and an entitlement mentality. A man is free to give his earnings and there's nothing wrong with that, he just doesn't have an obligation to it. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 14:03:29 GMT -5
Hey, C-master  We don't disagree that physical theft is wrong. I understand what you're saying there. But the point is that in a free society a man does what he wants with his money. Altruism is bad because it puts a moral obligation on others to sacrifice for the "common good"; this "common good" is often what the leader of that religion or form of government dictates. I think there's a misunderstanding here about altruism in government vs a religious institution. Government can't make people be good, that is to say it's not the job of the government to make you a good person. So, it cannot pass laws that compel you to do X or Y because it's good. The only proper role of government is to protect your property and physical life from theft or violence. It's a secular institution. Now, with that said let's talk about the churches proper role. The church is a moral institution, but it doesn't operate via legislation. A church shouldn't have the power to use secular laws to compel people to obey. That's a violation of the role it should play. Religions are all about moral obligations which remove choice. Saying you need to be your neighbors keeper might not be done as much by a point of a gun (at least not anymore), but it is done through a fear or a boogeyman of some sort, by giving an obligation to someone you have effectively enslaved them to that person. That sounds like bad religion which is common. Moral obligation is a choice. Fear mongering is wrong as well. Look, I'm not defending every religion or choices that most religious institutions have made. They deserve alot of the hate they get. But, it's like government. [unless you're an anarchist] Every institution has a proper role. This is where the concept of limited government comes from. Throughout arguably most of history religion was a way to govern behavior and create modern civilizations. That's why many of the successful ones have many similarities, especially in regards to their root laws. That's an anachronism. First of all, pre-christian religion is not the same as post christian religion. Most pre-christian religions were local not universal, disorganized [they had no founder] and ultimately amounted into superstitious beliefs like bad luck which required sating said dieties to avoid bad things from happening. There weren't many organized systems with a body of rules like modern religion. "Though shalt not kill, steal, or have sex with your neighbor's wife" is the basic law of pretty much any society. Separation of church and state came by much later, and even kings had to deal with the pope in some cultures. There was no separation of church and state in most cultures. The separation of institutions is actually a western concept. Here is an explanation in cruder form: " Duchesne refers as well to the Medieval “warren of jurisdictions” – duchies, baronies, bishoprics, counties, guilds, monasteries, universities – which effectively meant that no one man or group of men had authority over all." Furthermore, you mention basic laws of societies. But, I'm not talking about laws that a government would pass and the laws during the time of exodus don't represent the extent of what it means to be moral in a christian sense. So, of course you can have laws like these in even a secular setting. That's not my argument btw. God was (and still is) still seen as the ultimate influence in many cultures and was a way to regulate behavior. Not in my religion, but even that aside. There's a little thing called free-wil which many Christians believe in. It's non-deterministic. Do you mean America? Well yes we separated church and state although our foundation still had religious beliefs instilled in them. But religion (church may be a different word, I just mean religion) was seen as an archaic way to govern people and it still goes on today somewhat. No, not in america. Pre-reformation europe and Medieval europe. By the time the colonies were founded, Christianity had lost it's power in europe which led to the rise of absolutism. Alot of the founding fathers ideology goes back to the separation of power that was common in medieval europe. Religion was also the cause of many bloody wars in the past as people tried to convert others over. The crusades for instance, what about the people coming over here and trying to convert the Native Americans. It played a big role. So, has government. . .it killed 100 million people in the 20th century alone. But, that doesn't justify say anarchism? Bad religion like bad government leads to bad things. Also, it's not really true that conversions happened strictly through force. It's alot more complicated than that. The government doesn't prevent you from doing it either, but it regulates what you do. The thing you might not be understanding in my argument is that I'm simply saying a man is free to do what he wants with his money and is in no moral obligation to give it to others or "sacrifice" for the benefit of someone else. I agree with you, though. Nobody should be able to tell you what you should do with your money. I have listened to Tom Woods a lot. There are some parts in free markets that reference a "god given right". But religion has many references to altruism more so. The US was the first real attempt at freedom and while it was based on an unalienable right to keep what you earn, it was unlike any "religious" or societal following ever seen before. Societies in the past were pretty much all socialist.America is actually the end result of many classic liberal ideas that have existed for a long time. The difference is the founders decided to establish a society based on these rules. Socialism as an ideology only emerged in the 20th century, absolutism is post reformation and despotism is around since the archaic era. Those ideals are very similar, but different. You ask a person if a doctor has an obligation to take care of the sick. The answer would pretty much always be a resounding yes. You ask if people have an obligation to take care of the poor. The answer is a resounding yes. Yes, but the how isn't answered? It doesn't have to be through hand outs and doles. You make it seem like Altruist hate when people can take care of themselves. These are the type of philosophies that religions and pretty much all governments are built on. The problem is that by creating an obligation for one man you enslave another, therefore they are not free. A country that only cares about it's licenses and not it's duties is bound to fail.  But, ultimately people should be free. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 14:27:42 GMT -5
I just want to make a point here. I'm not a moral absolutist in the sense that I believe that morality is uniform around the world and that all morality comes from some God. Also, there's a difference between secular laws that allow a society to function and religious law. I don't believe that if religion disappeared, people would start killing each other and be at a lost of what to do.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 24, 2013 15:22:24 GMT -5
thecoolship.com/2012/03/26/christian-conservatism-a-contradiction-in-terms/I think this is a great article that sheds light on the viewpoint of being religious and being individualistic. While I believe a person is free to practice their religion, religion is still steeped in altruist and collectivist themes. I'm going to use the world collective vs individual because one represents freedom and the other represents an obligation to a group. Morally or otherwise, laws start from ideas and collectivism is definitely something government and religion have in common as well as many other themes. Hey, C-master Hey Jack. I think there's a misunderstanding here about altruism in government vs a religious institution. Government can't make people be good, that is to say it's not the job of the government to make you a good person. So, it cannot pass laws that compel you to do X or Y because it's good. The only proper role of government is to protect your property and physical life from theft or violence. It's a secular institution. Now, with that said let's talk about the churches proper role. The church is a moral institution, but it doesn't operate via legislation. A church shouldn't have the power to use secular laws to compel people to obey. That's a violation of the role it should play. Well nobody can make someone be "good", it's either done by fear or force. What is defined as "good" has varied a bit through many cultures but was more wildly varied before a more modern law and religion. Currently society sees altruism as "good". While there is a difference in gunpoint charity via the government and doing it through a church it still comes from the same belief set. Again I'm not saying a person shouldn't donate, but the idea that you have an obligation to take care of others at your expense is an altruistic and collectivist notion that religions and governments have used. Not to mention the mainstream media and just about everyone else actually. That sounds like bad religion which is common. Moral obligation is a choice. Fear mongering is wrong as well. Look, I'm not defending every religion or choices that most religious institutions have made. They deserve alot of the hate they get. But, it's like government. [unless you're an anarchist] Every institution has a proper role. This is where the concept of limited government comes from. Yea, but what determines who is good or bad, every religion feels they are doing good, and religions have to rely on some sort of fear mongering to get people to do things they normally wouldn't. Religions don't rely on force anymore because they can't. Modern government has taken up that role so they rely on "eternal life" and promises and the lack thereof to keep people in check. It isn't just "do whatever you want". That would be pointless in the vast majority of religion. The concept of limited government is that government is a necessary evil and is there to protect people's personal rights for the sake of the individual. Not because of the need of church having a role. That's an anachronism. First of all, pre-christian religion is not the same as post christian religion. Most pre-christian religions were local not universal, disorganized [they had no founder] and ultimately amounted into superstitious beliefs like bad luck which required sating said dieties to avoid bad things from happening. There weren't many organized systems with a body of rules like modern religion. I'm talking about religion as a whole. Of course most religion in the past were local; people had various ideas that were snuffed out and didn't last. You also didn't have the technology to "spread the word" the way you do now. Religion still preaches things that aren't scientifically proven. People can try to argue it but at the end of the day religion is about believing things you can't actually prove. Religions get people in by promising to take care of them, just like government. They're all selling something. There was no separation of church and state in most cultures. The separation of institutions is actually a western concept. That's what I was saying. Religion was a governing form of power for a very long time and only more recently did it sto Not in my religion, but even that aside. There's a little thing called free-wil which many Christians believe in. It's non-deterministic. Christians still believe in God being the ultimate power and having control over everything and knowing everything that will happened seeing as he is all powerful. No, not in america. Pre-reformation europe and Medieval europe. By the time the colonies were founded, Christianity had lost it's power in europe which led to the rise of absolutism. Alot of the founding fathers ideology goes back to the separation of power that was common in medieval europe. But Christianity much like any other religion and most governments still have a collectivist slant. I don't see how this is deniable. "You didn't do that, the government helped you along the way. You have to pay your fair share." "You didn't accomplish that, God helped you along the way and made it possible. You need to tithe." Just a different way of saying the same thing. You're really just replacing one power over the other, furthermore people who believe in this big government don't even believe in anything logical. They just want it to work because they believe in things like Obamacare even if it doesn't go with the facts. So, has government. . .it killed 100 million people in the 20th century alone. But, that doesn't justify say anarchism? Bad religion like bad government leads to bad things. Also, it's not really true that conversions happened strictly through force. It's alot more complicated than that. That's why government was seen as a necessary evil by the founding fathers and kept limited, now it is an unbearable evil. It's the collectivism that is the problem. These institutions both believe in the group over the individual, just like religion does. America is actually the end result of many classic liberal ideas that have existed for a long time. The difference is the founders decided to establish a society based on these rules. Socialism as an ideology only emerged in the 20th century, absolutism is post reformation and despotism is around since the archaic era. Those ideals are very similar, but different. Liberal had a different meaning then. But my point is altruism and collectivism. These other terms stray from the point that they are about putting others before you and sacrifice. This takes away from the individual and makes them slaves to the collective and at the control of whomever is leading them. Religion has always been collective by design, for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 17:18:41 GMT -5
Well nobody can make someone be "good", it's either done by fear or force. I know no one can make someone good. That was my whole point. The church leads to good through voluntary choice and leading by example. It's members choose to follow it's creed or laws. You know, free will? What is defined as "good" has varied a bit through many cultures but was more wildly varied before a more modern law and religion. Currently society sees altruism as "good". I'm aware of that. That's why it has to be voluntary. Since you put faith in your moral creed. Christians just happened to have a more universal morality. While there is a difference in gunpoint charity via the government and doing it through a church it still comes from the same belief set.Again I'm not saying a person shouldn't donate, but the idea that you have an obligation to take care of others at your expense is an altruistic and collectivist notion that religions and governments have used. Not to mention the mainstream media and just about everyone else actually. I could argue that unethical egoism is the same as egoism simply because it's egoism. But, I'd be wrong. So, why is it okay to argue only unethical altruism and not ethical altruism? Why is there a distinction for one and not the other? That's not really fair. Yea, but what determines who is good or bad, every religion feels they are doing good, and religions have to rely on some sort of fear mongering to get people to do things they normally wouldn't. Good and bad is ordained by God and revealed through his vicar on earth. It's validity of course is based on faith, however it is of course willing faith. If I try to get you to follow my God, I have to win you over. It's advertising, just like businesses do. It's voluntary. Religions don't rely on force anymore because they can't. Modern government has taken up that role so they rely on "eternal life" and promises and the lack thereof to keep people in check. It isn't just "do whatever you want". That would be pointless in the vast majority of religion. Only organized religion really spread through force, though. Also, it's not always true that force was how Christianity spread. But, I digress. The concept of limited government is that government is a necessary evil and is there to protect people's personal rights for the sake of the individual. Not because of the need of church having a role. That's not true all. First of all, there's these things called unalienable rights ordained by a creator. This concept comes from imago dei. That is since humans are created in the image of God. They have inherent worth and value in their lives. That's been a big stepping stone in the concept of rights. Also, the church created a plurality in Europe that kept government from monopolizing power. This system was destroyed during the reformation and Absolutism arose after the churches decline. Most people did not believe in human rights in other cultures. Since in ancient times people were just a cog in the wheel for society. Ideas like free will and imago dei did alot for human rights. People did not suddenly start believing that they had value. Scientifically speaking why would anyones life have any inherit value anyway? Most atheist would say it's because of human utility that we have value over animals. However, if we apply this morality inward then we find just like human accomplishment puts man over beast. It logically can put man over man. That is since men are not equal in ability then they cannot be equal in worth under this system. So, someone birth with cerebral palsy or some with mental retardation could not be equal to someone who is a genius. What about time, people get old and their utility fade. Is an old man as valuable as a young man? We have no intrinsic worth outside of our own opinion. It's a can of worms. I'm talking about religion as a whole. Of course most religion in the past were local; people had various ideas that were snuffed out and didn't last. You also didn't have the technology to "spread the word" the way you do now. Bringing up technology is kinda strange. Both Islam and Christianity spread far wider than any other pagan religion even in the pre-industrial age. Christianity last expansion took place before the industrial revolution. Technology has nothing to do with it. Religion still preaches things that aren't scientifically proven. People can try to argue it but at the end of the day religion is about believing things you can't actually prove. Why would you need to believe in something that is empirically or even rationally deducible? You don't need faith to know that the sun will raise in the morrow or what comes up goes down. People seem to have the wrong idea. Religions job isn't to explain natural phenomenon. It's about providing meaning to ones life or in the case of religion. Ones community. Science can explain cause and effect, it however doesn't supply meaning to an event other than why it happened. It doesn't tell you what it means in the grand scheme of thing. Assuming your an atheist. Christians still believe in God being the ultimate power and having control over everything and knowing everything that will happened seeing as he is all powerful. That sounds more like Islam to be honest. Christianity is non-deterministic. At least it used to be, but there are so many sects and branch offs. It's ultimately pointless. Traditionally, Man was viewed as having free will. God simply recommends we follow it's laws. But Christianity much like any other religion and most governments still have a collectivist slant. I don't see how this is deniable. "You didn't do that, the government helped you along the way. You have to pay your fair share." "You didn't accomplish that, God helped you along the way and made it possible. You need to tithe." Just a different way of saying the same thing. You're really just replacing one power over the other, furthermore people who believe in this big government don't even believe in anything logical. They just want it to work because they believe in things like Obamacare even if it doesn't go with the facts. Man, I don't know what happened between you and religion. It most likely failed to provide any meaningful answers in you or any other persons life. I'm truly sorry for that. But, this is wrong. First off, Religious power is not and never should be the same as government power [Though it has been, unfortunately]. A religion cannot pass political laws or even tax in order to survive [it should depend on alms]. There's no force, no coercion. It's just a contract, a voluntary one where someone chooses self-sacrifice when needed. It seems to me that you believe any form of self-sacrifice is wrong. It's the completely opposite of some people who believe that any form of self-interest is wrong. Why does objectivism and rand allow for ethical self-interest, but not ethical self-sacrifice? That's a bit one-sided to me. It's the collectivism that is the problem. These institutions both believe in the group over the individual, just like religion does. But my point is altruism and collectivism. These other terms stray from the point that they are about putting others before you and sacrifice. This takes away from the individual and makes them slaves to the collective and at the control of whomever is leading them. Religion has always been collective by design, for obvious reasons. So let me ask you a question. Would you not sacrifice yourself for your libertarian values? If you were given the choice between death or forever renouncing libertarianism and becoming a marxist? Would you choose to renounce it, I mean it's in your rational self-interest to preserve your life right? Even if it means becoming a socialist? On the flip side, if you choose death. How is that in your best interest? You would be dead and unable to enjoy the benefits of this ideologue. So, why choose death? The point is people self-sacrifice everyday. You can try to chalk it up to self-interest. However, what about situations where sacrifice is guaranteed loss [physical, property, etc]? There's no rational reason to sacrifice yourself for anything. Cause there's no ration self benefit from said loss. That's a harsh way to live imo. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 17:49:01 GMT -5
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 24, 2013 18:00:16 GMT -5
I know no one can make someone good. That was my whole point. The church leads to good through voluntary choice and leading by example. It's members choose to follow it's creed or laws. You know, free will? I'm aware of that. That's why it has to be voluntary. Since you put faith in your moral creed. Christians just happened to have a more universal morality. I could argue that unethical egoism is the same as egoism simply because it's egoism. But, I'd be wrong. So, why is it okay to argue only unethical altruism and not ethical altruism? Why is there a distinction for one and not the other? That's not really fair. All laws are followed by choice. And everyone clearly has free will, but you are bringing in the argument that religion is entirely about a man being individualistic and free. Which is false. The problem is you keep switching between Christianity and other religions, and then you go from western Christianity to other versions of Christianity which dilutes the point. It was never "follow God's word when you feel like it." It is based off of a set lifestyle with set consequences for those who do not follow the word. Religion has had countless amounts of bloodshed no different than government. You keep arguing ethical vs unethical and this argument is going so far off that it's hard to remember where it started. My point was that altruism is not freedom nor is it conducive to a free society and it is also the principles that churches and governments base most of their collectivist teachings. Altruism is all about sacrificing oneself to a "greater good" which is seen as more than oneself. It is collectivist and does not lead to prosperity. You keep talking about what's moral vs immoral but altruism as the core principle of society simply does not work. God says it's your duty to clothe the naked and take care of the sick to get into heaven. It's pretty blatant. Altruists can (and have) argued that Obamacare and welfare is taking care of the sick and needy and the right thing to do. After all it is seen as one's moral duty. Altruism never said that welfare was wrong, only that people should sacrifice. You are ignoring this and giving it a different meaning. Good and bad is ordained by God and revealed through his vicar on earth. It's validity of course is based on faith, however it is of course willing faith. If I try to get you to follow my God, I have to win you over. It's advertising, just like businesses do. Yes and to believe in these things you have to give up your freedom to a "higher being", which is my point. Or else you aren't following the religion. You keep going back to the point that government uses force and religion doesn't as much anymore. My point is that religious teachings are based off of altruism and are collectivist and they are. Only organized religion really spread through force, though. Also, it's not always true that force was how Christianity spread. But, I digress. Religion has to have some sort of common or organized belief even if it isn't a mega religion. And religion was done through force for much of history. I'm not even talking about Christianity, it can be Judaism or anything else. It's still based on belief in a higher power and the common good over the individual. That's not true all. First of all, there's these things called unalienable rights ordained by a creator. This concept comes from imago dei. That is since humans are created in the image of God. They have inherent worth and value in their lives. Rights didn't just come out of thin air. Also, the church created a plurality in Europe that kept government from monopolizing power. Absolutism arose after the churches decline. News flash, most people did not believe in human rights and even if a man had a right. Some men had more. Yes one interpretation of it was "god given rights" but another interpretation was that people have a right to their own property and that your body was your own property and nobody else had a right to take that right away. This is off topic. Bringing up technology is kinda strange. Both Islam and Christianity spread far wider than any other pagan religion even in the pre-industrial age. Christianity last expansion took place before the industrial revolution. Technology has nothing to do with it. You were talking about religion being smaller and less organized. Technology and ability to travel and spread the word (through whatever means, many times violence) help it become more mainspread. Why would you need to believe in something that is empirically or even rationally deducible? You don't need faith to know that the sun will raise in the morrow. Also, religions job isn't to explain natural phenomenon. It's about providing meaning to ones life or in the case of religion. Ones community. Science can explain cause and effect, it however doesn't supply meaning to an event other than why it happened. It doesn't tell you what it means in the grand scheme of thing. You said many religion has superstitious beliefs. But religion is based off of belief. None of religion can be proven and as was said before much of it was used to control behavior and the masses. Nowadays it's more of a social tool or way for people to believe in themselves in give their own lives meaning when they can't find it elsewhere. Much like when people get married, have families, or do whatever else gets them to bed at night quite frankly. That sounds more like Islam to be honest. Christianity is non-deterministic. At least it used to be, but there are so many sects and branch offs. It's ultimately pointless. Traditionally, Man was viewed as having free will. God simply recommends we follow it's laws. God is seen at the beginning and end, omnipotent. Yes you can choose not to follow him, but the idea is that God knows you better than you know yourself being all knowing. This is off topic. Man, I don't know what happened between you and religion. It most likely failed to provide any meaningful answers in you or any other persons life. I'm truly sorry for that. But, this is wrong. First off, Religious power is not and never should be the same as government power. A religion cannot pass political laws or even tax in order to survive [it should depend on alms]. There's no force, no coercion. It's just a contract, a voluntary one where someone chooses self-sacrifice. It seems to me that you believe any form of self-sacrifice is wrong. It's the completely opposite of some people who believe that any form of self-interest is wrong. Why does objectivism and rand allow for ethical self-interest, but not ethical self-sacrifice? That's a bit one-sided to me. Governments are ultimately there to regulate behavior through various means, religions have served the same purpose in past societies before advanced governments. You're not understanding my point. Again. A man is free to give to what he wants. He just has no moral obligation to. And thus the inherent contradiction with freedom and individuality and religion. The invisible hand teaches that everyone serving their own self interest makes everybody's lives better (as seen in the US). Altruism tells us we have to use sacrifice for the sake of others instead of following our own self interest. you can't have both and altruism doesn't work since we all do what's in our own self interest no matter how much you deny it. So let me ask you a question. Would you not sacrifice yourself for your libertarian values? If you were given the choice between death or forever renouncing libertarianism and becoming a marxist? Would you choose to renounce it, I mean it's in your rational self-interest to preserve your life right? Even if it means becoming a socialist? On the flip side, if you choose death. How is that in your best interest? You would be dead and unable to enjoy the benefits of this ideologue. So, why choose death? The point is people self-sacrifice everyday. You can try to chalk it up to self-interest. However, what about situations where sacrifice is guaranteed death? There's no rational reason to sacrifice yourself for your child for example. If you die, you won't be there to enjoy his company while if he dies you can just have another one. Given those two options, once again which is the better choice to you? Everyone sacrifices time and energy into something, but that's not my point. Altruism= self sacrifice for the benefit of others is the highest goal and moral obligation. Individualism= doing what is in your own self interest. People do what's in their own self interest all of the time. Eating, sleeping, sex, having children. Altruism teaches us that we should spend our energy self sacrificing for others, which of course is destructive and never works. That rich man that donated money did far more for society by growing a business, creating jobs, etc, than by simply giving money. He wouldn't be able to give anything if he didn't build it in the first place. That's the invisible hand. Problem is that people are in denial and not everyone is equal and the weak want to take from the strong by using laws, guilt tripping, "ideals" like altruism. Of course the majority like it, because they benefit from it. The ones on the losing end don't like it though. You never see the poorer over here giving regularly to even poorer countries. That's because they care about themselves, even moreso than the ones who actually produce in this society. Next post will have to probably get back on point because this argument is all over the place now. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 24, 2013 18:20:04 GMT -5
The give a man a fish one didn't come from the bible actually. Just clearing that up as they all start to sound similar after a while. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 20:55:56 GMT -5
All laws are followed by choice. I said voluntary laws. That is laws that are not enforced with the threat of violence. That's not the samething. And everyone clearly has free will, but you are bringing in the argument that religion is entirely about a man being individualistic and free. Which is false. The problem is you keep switching between Christianity and other religions, and then you go from western Christianity to other versions of Christianity which dilutes the point. It was never "follow God's word when you feel like it." It is based off of a set lifestyle with set consequences for those who do not follow the word. Religion has had countless amounts of bloodshed no different than government. I think you're misunderstanding something here. I was never talking abut various forms of Christianity. Just medieval Christianity as it existed in western europe after the fall of rome. I never stated otherwise, So, that was a misunderstanding. Also, everyone does not have free will. That is the belief in free will is not inherent. Look how dominant fatalism has been throughout history, what about determinism now. You make it seem like it's obvious. I believe in Free Will and it's good that you do to. But, it's not inherent of a given. You keep arguing ethical vs unethical and this argument is going so far off that it's hard to remember where it started. My point was that altruism is not freedom nor is it conducive to a free society and it is also the principles that churches and governments base most of their collectivist teachings. Altruism is all about sacrificing oneself to a "greater good" which is seen as more than oneself. It is collectivist and does not lead to prosperity. I brought up ethical vs unethical altruism because rands strain off thought often distinguishes between ethical and non-ethical egoism. Ration self- interest she calls it. I thought you were doing the same. I mean unless you think all forms of egoism is good, which I very much doubt you do. You keep talking about what's moral vs immoral but altruism as the core principle of society simply does not work. God says it's your duty to clothe the naked and take care of the sick to get into heaven. It's pretty blatant. Altruists can (and have) argued that Obamacare and welfare is taking care of the sick and needy and the right thing to do. After all it is seen as one's moral duty. Altruism never said that welfare was wrong, only that people should sacrifice. You are ignoring this and giving it a different meaning. But, altruism isn't about welfare, though. If you're saying the system is flawed because parasites abuse it or it's easy to misuse then okay. But, that doesn't make it evil. Yes and to believe in these things you have to give up your freedom to a "higher being", which is my point. Or else you aren't following the religion. You keep going back to the point that government uses force and religion doesn't as much anymore. My point is that religious teachings are based off of altruism and are collectivist and they are. But, you're using altruism at it's worst to prove your point. That's not exactly fair. It's like when people use examples of sweat shops or pollution in industrialization to bad mouth capitalism. I don't believe in perfect ideas, that's utopian which I'm not. Religion has to have some sort of common or organized belief even if it isn't a mega religion. What's the common creed of the Hellenic religions or the vedic religions? There is none, they were wild unstructured superstitions which varied from village to village. And religion was done through force for much of history. I'm not even talking about Christianity, it can be Judaism or anything else. It's still based on belief in a higher power and the common good over the individual. This is misleading, people expanded through force. As they expanded they took their beliefs with them. However, religion has spread through various means. Arab and Hindu traders brought their beliefs to maritime south east asia. Mahayana Buddhism came into China through missionaries. There are religious wars, but it's silly to say it's always been how religion spread. Yes one interpretation of it was "god given rights" but another interpretation was that people have a right to their own property and that your body was your own property and nobody else had a right to take that right away. This is off topic. I'll drop it if it's off-topic then. You were talking about religion being smaller and less organized. Technology and ability to travel and spread the word (through whatever means, many times violence) help it become more mainspread. Smaller and less organized? Where did any major religion rely on modern technology to reach a new continent? You said many religion has superstitious beliefs. But religion is based off of belief. None of religion can be proven and as was said before much of it was used to control behavior and the masses. I said, it's a cacophony of superstitions. There are superstitions in organized religion as well. The difference is there is at the very least is you have or had a degree of consistency in beliefs. Nowadays it's more of a social tool or way for people to believe in themselves in give their own lives meaning when they can't find it elsewhere. Much like when people get married, have families, or do whatever else gets them to bed at night quite frankly. What's wrong with wanting to find meaning in lives? God is seen at the beginning and end, omnipotent. Yes you can choose not to follow him, but the idea is that God knows you better than you know yourself being all knowing. This is off topic. Some ideas place God as being you or another part of you which is why he knows you so well. But, I digress. Governments are ultimately there to regulate behavior through various means, religions have served the same purpose in past societies before advanced governments. But, they didn't. . . Why would two institutions governing the same area need to differentiate themselves. In the past and in many non-western societies. There was no difference because they were the same institution. Look up God-Kings for example, the situation repeated itself with the rise of absolutism. You're not understanding my point. Again. A man is free to give to what he wants. He just has no moral obligation to. And thus the inherent contradiction with freedom and individuality and religion. The invisible hand teaches that everyone serving their own self interest makes everybody's lives better (as seen in the US). Altruism tells us we have to use sacrifice for the sake of others instead of following our own self interest. you can't have both and altruism doesn't work since we all do what's in our own self interest no matter how much you deny it. The invisible hand can only solve our economic problems. It cannot solve ALL our social problems for example. It has a prper, but limited role. Like government, The church and any institution. Everyone sacrifices time and energy into something, but that's not my point. Altruism= self sacrifice for the benefit of others is the highest goal and moral obligation. Individualism= doing what is in your own self interest. People do what's in their own self interest all of the time. Eating, sleeping, sex, having children. Altruism teaches us that we should spend our energy self sacrificing for others, which of course is destructive and never works. Your not really explain how, though. Just a declarative statement, sort of like the people who claim self interest is bad and selfish. That rich man that donated money did far more for society by growing a business, creating jobs, etc, than by simply giving money. He wouldn't be able to give anything if he didn't build it in the first place. That's the invisible hand. Well, I agree with this. But, summing up altruism as hand outs is fair how? Problem is that people are in denial and not everyone is equal and the weak want to take from the strong by using laws, guilt tripping, "ideals" like altruism. You really adhere to survival of the fittest? That ideology will ultimately bring in the rule of tooth and claw. I know that hardworking people like you are upset at all the thievery and entitlement. But, I implore you to turn the other cheek. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 24, 2013 21:17:25 GMT -5
Far too off topic so I'll get back to the central theme.
#1. Laws always take away freedom, every law you have takes away another freedom. Laws without force don't mean anything.
#2. You keep talking about rational altruism. How is it rational? It's very irrational, counter-intuitive and unproductive.
The invisible hand is about standards of living in general. You do not need a religion to have a happy social culture. One could argue that religion has created a lot of bad social things, many things religions did in the past they do not do now because it would not fit socially.
Altruism and handouts go hand and hand because they stem from the same belief about sacrifice. That's why it's one big steaming contradiction.
Survival of the fittest is nature, it is not about adhering to or not adhering to. If a person can't take care of themselves they'll perish unless they steal from someone else or rely on them to carry their own dead weight. In our society they do this through theft, but the fittest still survive the best. You can have this done in a free society through inventions and creations or through a socialist society with force and oppression.
At the end of the day religion is still altruistic and collectivist and I think even you agree it has many roots there. Religion is about relying on some higher power and sacrificing yourself to it, except like government it doesn't exist outside of faith, but the correlations are very similar.
Altruism is a very bad core belief to have in any society and we've seen the results of many altruists. Hitler, Stalin, FDR, Obama, are all altruists in their own form. They believe in sacrifice of the individual to the group a "greater good" by their terms. You cannot be an individual free minded person and still be an altruist, because they are two different things entirely.
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 21:28:41 GMT -5
Sorry for going off-topic then
1. Laws and Morals aren't the samething. Laws are required for a society to function. You can't have a lawless society, that's a contradiction. Morals aren't laws though. Rather their values that arise as a consequence from a given world view. Good being that which furthers this worldview and evil being that which frustrates it. Morals can be encoded into law, but being law abiding and being morally upright are not the same-thing. You could be amoral, but operate under laws that allow you fulfill your rational self-interest.
2. I brought up ethical altruism actually as a contrast to rands ethical egoism. But, you're right. In a utilitarian society,altruism isn't rational. You could pursue your rational self-interest without being "good". But, are you really okay with that. You say that Survival of the fittest is nature. I guess you're throwing away the belief that man is a special creation. But, ignoring that. Nature is tooth and claw, where violence, parasitism, and decency are irrelevant. In a system like that, why should people have to put up with being good? They won't. You talk about self -sufficiency like it's the only thing that matters. . .c'mon.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 24, 2013 21:37:13 GMT -5
Sorry for going off-topic then 1. Laws and Morals aren't the samething. Laws are required for a society to function. You can't have a lawless society, that's a contradiction. Morals aren't laws though. Rather their values that arise as a consequence from a given world view. Good being that which furthers this worldview and evil being that which frustrates it. Morals can be encoded into law, but being law abiding and being morally upright are not the same-thing. You could be amoral, but operate under laws that allow you fulfill your rational self-interest. 2. I brought up ethical altruism actually as a contrast to rands ethical egoism. But, you're right. In a utilitarian society,altruism isn't rational. You could pursue your rational self-interest without being "good". But, are you really okay with that. You say that Survival of the fittest is nature. I guess you're throwing away the belief that man is a special creation. But, ignoring that. Nature is tooth and claw, where violence, parasitism, and decency are irrelevant. In a system like that, why should people have to put up with being good? They won't. You talk about self -sufficiency like it's the only thing that matters. . .c'mon. Basic laws are required for society to function, laws can also be destructive because they are really opinions with a gun. Who regulates the man making the laws if they go corrupt nobody. Morals are justifications ultimately. Good and Evil have taken on different meanings throughout time but much of it has to do with governing behavior. Many would argue that giving people free stuff is good, I do not. There is no real "good". What's good is what is determined by someone else. You're looking at ethics which allow a society to actually function. Morals, heaven, good deeds, are opinions and justifications for one own's belief system. Men are the strongest because we survived the best. But you can't overthrow nature's laws. If one can't survive then nothing else matters. People will eventually throw away their moral beliefs when that comes to the table. Just like people steal when they're hungry enough. It's nature. And no I didn't say we should be anarchists, that's a strawman argument. In a society people are more productive when they can keep what they earn. The strongest in this society are the fittest and live the best because they are smarter, more ambitious, more creative, and just harder workers. They make better decisions and plan their lives better. Would you consider a welfare loser who has tons of kids to be as fit as a man who makes billions and leaves his offspring better off? Of course not. Society knows this as well despite lies about being "equal" and will steal to fulfill what they see as an injustice. Now we have more of the "unfit" and unwilling living off of the rest which is why this nation is collapsing. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 21:49:57 GMT -5
Basic laws are required for society to function, laws can also be destructive because they are really opinions with a gun. Who regulates the man making the laws if they go corrupt nobody.Morals are justifications ultimately. Good and Evil have taken on different meanings throughout time but much of it has to do with governing behavior. Many would argue that giving people free stuff is good, I do not. There is no real "good". What's good is what is determined by someone else. You're looking at ethics which allow a society to actually function. Morals, heaven, good deeds, are opinions and justifications for one own's belief system. Men are the strongest because we survived the best. But you can't overthrow nature's laws. If one can't survive then nothing else matters. People will eventually throw away their moral beliefs when that comes to the table. Just like people steal when they're hungry enough. It's nature. Now were getting somewhere my friend. Yes, morality is subjective! Each man left to his own devices will come up with a different standard of what is right and wrong. What the meaning of life is and so forth. Furthermore, these morals might even bring conflict if they're irreconcilable. There is no empirical "good" outside of mens beliefs. But, laws and ethics are not. They are objective. A society needs x y and z just to exist. That's what I've been trying to say. So, we both agree there is a difference between morals [good and evil] and laws [functional rules.]? I want to clarify so we can move to the next part of this discussion. Would you consider a welfare loser who has tons of kids to be as fit as a man who makes billions and leaves his offspring better off? Of course not. Society knows this as well despite lies about being "equal" and will steal to fulfill what they see as an injustice. Now we have more of the "unfit" and unwilling living off of the rest which is why this nation is collapsing. When I said equal. I mean equal before the law, equal before God and equal in terms of god given rights via imago dei. But, Let me ask you a question. would you be okay with a society where people who are smarter, more ambitious, more creative, and just harder workers. Being subject to a different moral standard then the: Lazy, The stupid, the ignorant, the feeble, the weak? |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 24, 2013 21:55:42 GMT -5
Basic laws are required for society to function, laws can also be destructive because they are really opinions with a gun. Who regulates the man making the laws if they go corrupt nobody.Morals are justifications ultimately. Good and Evil have taken on different meanings throughout time but much of it has to do with governing behavior. Many would argue that giving people free stuff is good, I do not. There is no real "good". What's good is what is determined by someone else. You're looking at ethics which allow a society to actually function. Morals, heaven, good deeds, are opinions and justifications for one own's belief system. Men are the strongest because we survived the best. But you can't overthrow nature's laws. If one can't survive then nothing else matters. People will eventually throw away their moral beliefs when that comes to the table. Just like people steal when they're hungry enough. It's nature. Now were getting somewhere my friend. Yes, morality is subjective! Each man left to his own devices will come up with a different standard of what is right and wrong. What the meaning of life is and so forth. Furthermore, these morals might even bring conflict if they're irreconcilable. There is no empirical "good" outside of mens beliefs. But, laws and ethics are not. They are objective. A society needs x y and z just to exist. That's what I've been trying to say. So, we both agree there is a difference between morals [good and evil] and laws [functional rules.]? I want to clarify so we can move to the next part of this discussion. Would you consider a welfare loser who has tons of kids to be as fit as a man who makes billions and leaves his offspring better off? Of course not. Society knows this as well despite lies about being "equal" and will steal to fulfill what they see as an injustice. Now we have more of the "unfit" and unwilling living off of the rest which is why this nation is collapsing. When I said equal. I mean equal before the law, equal before God and equal in terms of god given rights via imago dei. But, Let me ask you a question. would you be okay with a society where people who are smarter, more ambitious, more creative, and just harder workers. Being subject to a different moral standard then the: Lazy, The stupid, the ignorant, the feeble, the weak? Agreed on the first. And no you don't need a separate moral standard. The point is these people love altruism because it benefits them, which is very self centered in its own right. And we're not equal before the law either, and even God had favorites but I won't even get into that. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 24, 2013 22:02:24 GMT -5
And we're not equal before the law either, and even God had favorites but I won't even get into that. Then let's take it to pm. It's getting too interesting to stop it now. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 24, 2013 22:03:25 GMT -5
And we're not equal before the law either, and even God had favorites but I won't even get into that. Then let's take it to pm. It's getting too interesting to stop it now. We can discuss it here, I just thought God's favorites was a bit off topic. This site isn't that large we have to have some posts here. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 25, 2013 3:55:21 GMT -5
What are your plans today? I know what technology does, a part of my business relies on tools, and the job is still very demanding. You use a chainsaw vs a hand saw. Yes you'll get more work done, but it's actually MORE physically demanding because of the weight of the machine, the kickback, and dealing with the risk of using it. You severely underestimate how much work is still done by hand because the US is in a bullshit bubble economy and we have most of work done overseas. Many times we use machines because the laws make using a human more expensive. Without it you'd still see more manual labor. Face it, you wouldn't be nearly as efficient. There's a reason other animals haven't made a single tool in a long time. We also have better eyesight than most species aside from birds and say turtles, you don't think this played a role? Walking on two legs doesn't matter? These things are huge. Being able to survive in many climates was partially due to animal skins, but the ability to not rely on that immediate element the way other animals do. What about the ability to reproduce year round? This isn't a big deal? We're a lot better now than we were then and we still use men. Arguing that men aren't used in war mainly because of their physical ability is fallacious. Old men and women were never used in war unless the society was on its last legs, even with drones we still use men. It's for an obvious reason. Right i know society views men as expendable, but they're still much better at fighting and therefore they're used. I'd rather have robots do everything. Why berate man's physical prowess? We needed it like we needed our brain. I don't see the point in putting down one over the other. A sound body and a sound mind and all of that. There's a reason men were also out getting the shit done and society and it's because they can "tough it out" and have the strength and ability to cut it. Surviving harsh conditions and enduring is critical to evolving. You're underestimating the need for physical ability in our society. It also seems that Americans are getting fatter, dumber, and poorer by the minute. There is a large correlation between wealth, intelligence, and physical ability/attractiveness after all. That's another thing, people who are more "fit" tend to have the total package. They have the money, the ambition, and the looks to pass on their genes successfully, it isn't just brains. I just had a guess. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Dec 25, 2013 17:51:35 GMT -5
What are your plans today? Hanging out with the family. *I know what technology does, a part of my business relies on tools, and the job is still very demanding. You use a chainsaw vs a hand saw. Yes you'll get more work done, but it's actually MORE physically demanding because of the weight of the machine, the kickback, and dealing with the risk of using it. * You severely underestimate how much work is still done by hand because the US is in a bullshit bubble economy and we have most of work done overseas. Many times we use machines because the laws make using a human more expensive. Without it you'd still see more manual labor. *Well, all technology starts off as heavy and cumbersome. Through miniaturization they become more powerful while also becoming smaller. Only a matter of time. *I though automation was on the rise in the us? Or is it overseas? *Face it, you wouldn't be nearly as efficient. There's a reason other animals haven't made a single tool in a long time. We also have better eyesight than most species aside from birds and say turtles, you don't think this played a role? Walking on two legs doesn't matter? These things are huge. Being able to survive in many climates was partially due to animal skins, but the ability to not rely on that immediate element the way other animals do. What about the ability to reproduce year round? This isn't a big deal? What I mean is that it would be hard to imagine how technology would evolve if we had tentacles instead of hands and fingers. Technological progress isn't really inherent as people think it is. Many discoveries are the results of a chain of accidents creating more accidents. James Burke calls this the trigger effect. History is one big game of cause and effect. An ugly rich man with game can bag more women to reproduce than a male-model. Someone with game [technique] can get more females than someone without it. Mind:1 Body:0 We're a lot better now than we were then and we still use men. Arguing that men aren't used in war mainly because of their physical ability is fallacious. Old men and women were never used in war unless the society was on its last legs, even with drones we still use men. It's for an obvious reason. Actually, the future of warfare is robots. But, since robotics is still in it's infancy then we have to rely on human operators. However, Tanks, Jets, Nuclear Submarines, all the machinery that defines modern warfare and so forth could hardly be called "man-power" in the traditional sense. It's machines Why berate man's physical prowess? We needed it like we needed our brain. I don't see the point in putting down one over the other. A sound body and a sound mind and all of that. Because they're not equal. Mind power far exceeds physical prowess. It's what makes man unique and able to dominate this planet. One man cannot physical outmatch 20 men, but he can outsmart 2 million. Physical prowess doesn't last, while mental prowess last well past arms bearing ages. For example: This There was this hoarder named randy on TLCs. He had a giant arcade race track set. Which weighed several thousand tons. This 55 year old man was able to move said track by himself where a group of young men could not. When asked how he did it. He responded: “With intelligence, experience, and leverage.”There's no comparison in my eyes. There's a reason men were also out getting the shit done and society and it's because they can "tough it out" and have the strength and ability to cut it. Surviving harsh conditions and enduring is critical to evolving. You're underestimating the need for physical ability in our society. It also seems that Americans are getting fatter, dumber, and poorer by the minute. There is a large correlation between wealth, intelligence, and physical ability/attractiveness after all. That's another thing, people who are more "fit" tend to have the total package. They have the money, the ambition, and the looks to pass on their genes successfully, it isn't just brains. The average Inuit is 5'3-5'5, and physically unimposing compared to the average European and American. Yet, they can survive in the harsh frigid regions of Canada (Greenland), United States (Alaska) and Siberia. Which I very much doubt the most physically tough non-Inuit man could. They do so with their experience, not strength. Strength counts very little in the long run. Physical ability and physical toughness has very little to do with survival. Mental toughness and mental resources like experience and knowledge or even attitude far outstrips physical anything. You don't need good genes. You're ugly? Get cosmetic surgery and you're good. Hell, Science is getting to the point where you can make your baby look however you want them to. They're called designer babies. You could be genetically Japanese or Thai but your parents make you look like Marilyn Monroe or Audrey Hepburn. Soon good genes won't matter, since you'll be able to buy them. |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Dec 25, 2013 20:14:13 GMT -5
*Well, all technology starts off as heavy and cumbersome. Through miniaturization they become more powerful while also becoming smaller. Only a matter of time. *I though automation was on the rise in the us? Or is it overseas? Only a matter of time before our bodies become useless? Never. We're far more advanced than we used to be and we still do. Your argument is based on maybe and not theory. I don't really understand what you're arguing because you were the one who brought up physical strength, not me. The fittest are the richest, most attractive, and smartest few of any population. It's a combination of the above. What I mean is that it would be hard to imagine how technology would evolve if we had tentacles instead of hands and fingers. Technological progress isn't really inherent as people think it is. Many discoveries are the results of a chain of accidents creating more accidents. James Burke calls this the trigger effect. History is one big game of cause and effect. We don't have to imagine, we can look around. Many creatures don't have our manual dexterity and therefore can't do as much. An ugly rich man with game can bag more women to reproduce than a male-model. Someone with game [technique] can get more females than someone without it. Mind:1 Body:0 That's not even entirely true. As I mentioned before, a top level male is a male who has all of these factors and there is a correlation between money, looks, and intelligence. No need to necessarily even trade off. Go to a rich area. You'll see far better looking people. A woman will choose a George Clooney over a Howard Stern though both can get laid. Women want money, but they don't care where it comes from. They'll gladly marry a rich guy and reproduce with a hot guy anyways. Getting laid isn't hard for either a hot guy or a rich guy, but a rich hot guy gets them all. It also doesn't change the fact that good genes also ensure a higher chance of reproduction. Attractive men and women are more likely to pass on their genes and mate with others that are attractive and/or rich. Water seeks its own level. Game is just nonsense and is used by men who lack money and looks to get women. A man who is attractive and rich doesn't need to bother. Actually, the future of warfare is robots. But, since robotics is still in it's infancy then we have to rely on human operators. However, Tanks, Jets, Nuclear Submarines, all the machinery that defines modern warfare and so forth could hardly be called "man-power" in the traditional sense. It's machines We have robots and nukes now, but we still rely on soldiers. Because they're not equal. Mind power far exceeds physical prowess. It's what makes man unique and able to dominate this planet. One man cannot physical outmatch 20 men, but he can outsmart 2 million. Physical prowess doesn't last, while mental prowess last well past arms bearing ages. For example: This There was this hoarder named randy on TLCs. He had a giant arcade race track set. Which weighed several thousand tons. This 55 year old man was able to move said track by himself where a group of young men could not. When asked how he did it. He responded: “With intelligence, experience, and leverage.”There's no comparison in my eyes. No men dominate the planet for several reasons. Yes one reason is mental ability, but it's also the ability to stand on two legs, sharp eyesight, the ability to divide tasks, strong social skills, opposable thumbs and the ability to reproduce year round. It wasn't just mental ability, if you never had the physical ability to survive you would have never developed the skills. Intelligence is a very broad term and really encompasses a myriad of skills and abilities. Most people we have now are really just brainwashed fools. One man can outsmart many, but he wouldn't stand a chance against a bunch of men working together anyways, and he still needs labor and muscle power to create those tools. The mind falls apart as well as the body. The surgeon needs good hands as well as a sharp mind. So does a mechanic, a machine operator, or just about all of the jobs that make the world go round. The average Inuit is 5'3-5'5, and physically unimposing compared to the average European and American. Yet, they can survive in the harsh frigid regions of Canada (Greenland), United States (Alaska) and Siberia. Which I very much doubt the most physically tough non-Inuit man could. They do so with their experience, not strength. Strength counts very little in the long run. Physical ability and physical toughness has very little to do with survival. Mental toughness and mental resources like experience and knowledge or even attitude far outstrips physical anything. You don't need good genes. You're ugly? Get cosmetic surgery and you're good. Hell, Science is getting to the point where you can make your baby look however you want them to. They're called designer babies. You could be genetically Japanese or Thai but your parents make you look like Marilyn Monroe or Audrey Hepburn. Soon good genes won't matter, since you'll be able to buy them. Muscle strength isn't the only important trait. Endurance, durability, speed, and dexterity are also important as well. If you don't think they play a role you're mistaken. Good genes are critical. And plastic surgery doesn't turn a hideous person into a gorgeous one, it turns a beautiful person into a more beautiful person if done right. Genes are more than looks and strength. Many things make a person the fittest. Great physique, great looks, great mind, great ambition, great skill, great leadership. It's not just one thing over the other. You need those good genes to create good offspring. As usual the stupid losers do all of the reproducing and have a bunch of crappy spawn they can't take care of. The best mate with the best and have fewer children because that's all that's necessary. The unfit are holding back the fit. There's a reason there's a correlation between attractiveness, success, and physical shape. It's because these are the things humans look for when they reproduce. Women still want tall, well built men and not short ugly men, because it's hard wired. Men want attractive women and not fat ugly women unless they're poor and ugly and can't do any better. No matter how many systems they put into place and the amount of brainwashing they do it will always be survival of the fittest. It's like this fact bothers people. It's usually the "intellectual" type betas I see who try to argue that only brains matter and why don't they have more wealth and why won't women date them etc. I had this exact same argument at MGTOW before with why men like that can't get ahead and why some people end up better off. It's due to the fittest. In a natural society only the fittest would be doing the majority of the reproducing. We reward losers to reproduce in this society by heavily penalizing the fittest. Which is a shame. |
|
I gave you another viewpoint and they are all saying the same thing.
Apr 9, 2018 6:20:33 GMT -5