Whose responsibility is it?

[misterlc]

         In this hypothetical situation you are touring a zoo out of the country. You are amazed at how the safety regulations are almost non-existent and how casual the natives are about not watching their children in this zoo where the dangerous animals are only separated from the public by bars. You make your way to the tiger cage and get to enjoy some peace and quiet as there is nobody else around. The tigers novelty in this land has long since worn off and the exhibit is usually only visited by tourists like yourself.  While you are at the exhibit a two year old wanders in to the exhibit and proceeds dangerously close to bars of the tigers cage. You know that the tiger is inside the enclosure even though he is not immediately visible. You look around to see if the child is with someone and see that they are not. The tiger will kill the child if they wander too close to it's cage. 

    The question is... Who's responsible for this child at this moment? 

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Hey mister! Be sure to introduce yourself in the welcome board.

May 30, 2015 8:03:16 GMT -5 misterlc said:

         In this hypothetical situation you are touring a zoo out of the country. You are amazed at how the safety regulations are almost non-existent and how casual the natives are about not watching their children in this zoo where the dangerous animals are only separated from the public by bars. You make your way to the tiger cage and get to enjoy some peace and quiet as there is nobody else around. The tigers novelty in this land has long since worn off and the exhibit is usually only visited by tourists like yourself.  While you are at the exhibit a two year old wanders in to the exhibit and proceeds dangerously close to bars of the tigers cage. You know that the tiger is inside the enclosure even though he is not immediately visible. You look around to see if the child is with someone and see that they are not. The tiger will kill the child if they wander too close to it's cage. 

    The question is... Who's responsible for this child at this moment? 

The responsibility of that child falls on the parent/guardian at all times. Another individual isn't obligated to put their life on the line for another, but they are more than welcome to.

It's also the responsibility of the zoo to make sure the place is well run. If they don't they'll lose customers.

The free market will take care of this just fine. Nobody wants to go to an unsafe zoo where they are likely to get attacked no more than they want to go on a plane that is likely to crash.

People looking out in their self interest works out much better in this case than forcing unnecessary regulations and laws. If a zoo is run poorly they'll go out of business so they'll want to make sure the place is well run.

[misterlc]

The parents of humans have the same choice in whether they will take responsibility for their offspring as you have the choice of whether you will act in this hypothetical situation.   There is no right or wrong answer to the question because any answer is based on opinion.  I know that in this situation I would assume responsibility because I would be disturbed by the idea that I let a child die when there was something I could have easily done to prevent that. 

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 30, 2015 9:48:30 GMT -5 misterlc said:

The parents of humans have the same choice in whether they will take responsibility for their offspring as you have the choice of whether you will act in this hypothetical situation.   There is no right or wrong answer to the question because any answer is based on opinion.  I know that in this situation I would assume responsibility because I would be disturbed by the idea that I let a child die when there was something I could have easily done to prevent that. 

Well you could by that logic say that nobody has to do anything and that nothing really matters. The burden of care falls on the parent/guardian of that child. I'm not enslaved to take care of a child that someone else created or assumed responsibility for. Are you responsible for paying my bills or anything else? Choosing to do something doesn't make it your responsibility; it makes it your choice. I can also choose not to take responsibility, but it doesn't mean that it's not mine. If I buy a car, it's my responsibility to pay the bill on time. I can't just force that responsibility on someone else. Even if you chose to pay my bill for me to help me out, it doesn't mean it's your responsibility to do so.

By that logic I can say it's not my responsibility to take care of myself and that others should do it for me. I have no right to expect others to do it. If I choose to starve and sit on the streets, that's my choice. People operate better when they have responsibility for their choices and not when a community assumes them ala socialism or communism. Saying that it's my job to be expendable and put myself in harms way for something I had no choice in doing or making is basically enslaving me to someone else. Is it your responsibility to pay for everyone's expenses so they don't starve on the street?

[misterlc]

You are correct when you say that by that logic nobody has to do anything, but I don't see how nothing matters simply because of people choosing to do nothing. Actions speak louder than words and you can say that something is not your responsibility but the proof of what you believe your responsibility is will lie in what you do. We don't always have the luxury of being given the choice to perform our responsibilities. In my hypothetical scenario the parents may be getting mugged just around the corner but all we know for sure is that they aren't there to protect the child at that moment. The choice to do nothing to protect the child is evidence that you believe that it is not your responsibility and a lack of remorse after the child is killed is even more evidence that you acted based on your sincere feelings. You said that by the logic I used you can say that it's not your responsibility to take care of yourself but you will likely die if you don't take care of yourself in any way. Other people are too busy taking care of their responsibilities to help you do things that you should do and are opting not to do. Someone who loves you will likely try to force you to eat and drink and do those things that you should be taking responsibility for and they will believe that it is their responsibility to help you out.

The last point I'd like to make is that your love for others will make a big difference in how much you consider them to be your responsibility, whether they are blood relatives or not. Your kids are as safe around me as my kids are and I feel that I am responsible for many things that are unfolding around me. I learned a long time ago that with great power comes great responsibility, and I can't lie I do feel that as a human I'm one of the most powerful animals in the world.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 30, 2015 19:27:41 GMT -5 misterlc said:

You are correct when you say that by that logic nobody has to do anything, but I don't see how nothing matters simply because of people choosing to do nothing. Actions speak louder than words and you can say that something is not your responsibility but the proof of what you believe your responsibility is will lie in what you do. We don't always have the luxury of being given the choice to perform our responsibilities. In my hypothetical scenario the parents may be getting mugged just around the corner but all we know for sure is that they aren't there to protect the child at that moment. The choice to do nothing to protect the child is evidence that you believe that it is not your responsibility and a lack of remorse after the child is killed is even more evidence that you acted based on your sincere feelings. You said that by the logic I used you can say that it's not your responsibility to take care of yourself but you will likely die if you don't take care of yourself in any way. Other people are too busy taking care of their responsibilities to help you do things that you should do and are opting not to do. Someone who loves you will likely try to force you to eat and drink and do those things that you should be taking responsibility for and they will believe that it is their responsibility to help you out.

The last point I'd like to make is that your love for others will make a big difference in how much you consider them to be your responsibility, whether they are blood relatives or not. Your kids are as safe around me as my kids are and I feel that I am responsible for many things that are unfolding around me. I learned a long time ago that with great power comes great responsibility, and I can't lie I do feel that as a human I'm one of the most powerful animals in the world.

Everyone has a choice. In regards to anything.

You could choose not to take care of yourself, but it's nobody else's job to. The police has a responsibility to protect the citizens and uphold the law because that's what they agreed to. You're confusing responsibility with choice. A person can do what they want but it doesn't mean they assume responsibility.

Where does this end based on your logic? Where do you draw the line with this? Are you reponsible for every burden? People die constantly and nobody cares as they aren't attached to it. One person you know dying makes little statistical difference. Love is based off of self interest, people do what they can to avoid feeling the pain of loss when in reality people die all of the time and nobody cares. If an adult doesn't care whether they live or not why should I?

Furthermore this "shared responsibility" is a tool used by Marxists to ensnare others to serve their own interests. You remove individuality and install a collectivist mindset. When you say everyone has an "obligation" to everyone else; you've effectively enslaved them. I find the people who talk about "sharing, caring, and giving" to be the most selfish and taking type of people. They want others to give while they take (welfare recipients and politicians). Dictators love altruist collectivist thought because it stamps out individuality.

Also you're assuming responsibility= caring which isn't true. People care more when they aren't forced into something.

You didn't answer my question from earlier. If I don't pay my bill, is it your responsibility to do so?

[JACK-2]

The Parents are the responsible ones at any given time. Also, if you volunteer to save the Child and you get hurt. The parents should compensate for you and you should sue the Zoo.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 30, 2015 20:15:23 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

The Parents are the responsible ones at any given time. Also, if you volunteer to save the Child and you get hurt. The parents should compensate for you and you should sue the Zoo.

That's a fresh take, lol.

[JACK-2]

May 30, 2015 20:34:50 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

That's a fresh take, lol.

Always keeping it original!

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 30, 2015 21:17:07 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

May 30, 2015 20:34:50 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

That's a fresh take, lol.

Always keeping it original!

How do you feel about the overall concept of shared responsibility?

[JACK-2]

May 30, 2015 21:36:54 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

How do you feel about the overall concept of shared responsibility?

Whether it worked at sometime in the past or not. I don't think it's a good idea, because Marxist as always hijack it for there own ends. Usually, to get people to pay for unproductive people or what not. It's samething with conservationism. I used to believe in conservation and concerned without. Then Marxist came and shat everything up as always.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 30, 2015 22:17:06 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

May 30, 2015 21:36:54 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

How do you feel about the overall concept of shared responsibility?

Whether it worked at sometime in the past or not. I don't think it's a good idea, because Marxist as always hijack it for there own ends. Usually, to get people to pay for unproductive people or what not. It's samething with conservationism. I used to believe in conservation and concerned without. Then Marxist came and shat everything up as always.

Collectivism has always failed in its various forms because it rewards the wrong things and punishes good behavior. Most of the world's history was collectivist and America was the first to try and break it. The funny thing is we saw collectivism fail in every other part of the world and then decided we'd try it here. People got lax and politicians were politicians. You know the rest.

Conservatism just means you're conserving something and progressive just means you're progressing towards something. We're progressing towards socialism and both sides are marxist.

Shared responsibility is Marxist because marxism is about the collective over the individual, which is what shared responsibility is. People do the best when they're responsible for their own behavior. Otherwise you get moral hazard.

[misterlc]

I would quote but it's not familiar to me here. I'll answer your questions quickly. You asked if it was my responsibility to pay a bill that you create. The answer is dependent on the situation. If you're my father and you die without any insurance you have created a bill for me and I do have the choice on whether I pay it or not. There's no confusion here that choice and responsibility are the same here. If I do nothing then the body will be disposed of so what wrong am I guilty of? You think that people have a choice in regards to anything but are children not people? You can't choose your guardians, race , nationality, native language, siblings, and many other things. I believe that we are supposed to love one another, and yes that is a choice but if you do decide to make that choice then you do take on a lot of responsibility for your fellow man and woman.

I do have the choice to hate others instead of love them as well and I'm sure that there are great rewards for that approach and for those that choose it. A complete and total lack of emotion or empathy towards everyone else is probably useful in reaping a hefty profit in this world. Somehow though I tend to think that the rewards for having GENUINE care and concern for others are greater than the rewards for using humans as a way to advance oneself.

All those titles Marxist, communist, socialist etc.. They don't really define any particular individual as much as they generalize groups of people. At the end of the day every choice is made by the individual so isn't that who we should focus on communicating with? There are people waiting to take advantage of every situation be it good or bad, so should I base my actions on how those people may benefit from them? If I do then don't I give them a level of control over my actions?

I'll end this by saying that I do love others and have been doing so for so long that it comes natural. I can't choose to hate individuals anymore only their actions, as I have rejected hate for so long. When you love people you are in a way enslaved by that emotion. It usually starts when a person is a child and they love their parents. I sure hope that it isn't Marxist when you love your family but I honestly wouldn't know or care. Why would I withhold a good thing from people because some tell me that giving people good things is a selfish act on my part? I've heard that smiling at people is a free gift to them that brightens their day and mine. Should I instead scowl at people so that I can avoid fitting the description that someone else makes for people who smile at others?

To me thinking for yourself equals rejecting many of the ideas that the world has come up with to define us and just being sincere to ourselves.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 31, 2015 9:57:19 GMT -5 misterlc said:

I would quote but it's not familiar to me here. I'll answer your questions quickly. You asked if it was my responsibility to pay a bill that you create. The answer is dependent on the situation. If you're my father and you die without any insurance you have created a bill for me and I do have the choice on whether I pay it or not. There's no confusion here that choice and responsibility are the same here. If I do nothing then the body will be disposed of so what wrong am I guilty of? You think that people have a choice in regards to anything but are children not people? You can't choose your guardians, race , nationality, native language, siblings, and many other things. I believe that we are supposed to love one another, and yes that is a choice but if you do decide to make that choice then you do take on a lot of responsibility for your fellow man and woman.

You don't have to pay the bill of a dead family member. That really only happened if the family was under some setup.

I'm talking about if I choose to not pay my mortgage, are you obligated to pay it? Choice and responsibility are two different things because you keep saying that I essentially have no choice in the matter and that I'm enslaved to provide for someone else at my expense.

This has absolutely no thing to do with love or religion. You can donate to a charity or not, or help someone or not. These are choices, I'm not forced to donate to charity, but I'm forced to pay for welfare benefits. The person who has a choice cares more because they got to choose what they wanted to do.

People have choices all of the time and children did not make themselves appear here. Their parents made the decision to have them therefore it's their responsibility to take care of those kids and train them the best way they can so they can make their own choices. If I had a slave do something for me, they were forced to do it and it doesn't mean anything. If a person chose to do something because they wanted to I'm sure they'd care a lot more.

You can choose where you end up and who you hang out with. You can choose what language you want to speak while learning another. People who say they have no choice in life are just dumping the responsibility for their decisions on others and basing it on things like "luck" and "God". These things are far more damaging than taking personal responsibility.

I highly doubt you go around paying the bills of everyone and being expendable for everybody to whatever needs they have, it's not possible and not practical. This is why I don't agree with religion because it talks about "loving" a God under the fear or going to hell, so religion often manufactures fear.

May 31, 2015 9:57:19 GMT -5 misterlc said:

I do have the choice to hate others instead of love them as well and I'm sure that there are great rewards for that approach and for those that choose it. A complete and total lack of emotion or empathy towards everyone else is probably useful in reaping a hefty profit in this world. Somehow though I tend to think that the rewards for having GENUINE care and concern for others are greater than the rewards for using humans as a way to advance oneself.

This has nothing to do with hate or love. This "well you just hate others because you don't give them free stuff" is popular with socialists and Marxist thought as a tool of shaming others into doing what they want. By the way, I don't believe love exists in some magical form. Caring is all about self interest and I don't think people really choose who they care about. I mean people are dying right now as you type to me, you don't really care about it. It doesn't affect you or move you in the least as you have no attachment to them.

By the way you're also free to hate who you want, but this has nothing to do with forcing responsibilities on another person. A person can take care of someone else if they choose so without being forced to. People are better off when they take control of their own lives and stop worrying for government or God to take care of it for them.

May 31, 2015 9:57:19 GMT -5 misterlc said:

All those titles Marxist, communist, socialist etc.. They don't really define any particular individual as much as they generalize groups of people. At the end of the day every choice is made by the individual so isn't that who we should focus on communicating with? There are people waiting to take advantage of every situation be it good or bad, so should I base my actions on how those people may benefit from them? If I do then don't I give them a level of control over my actions?

They define ways of thought. Your statement is contradictory. You say every choice is made by the individual and that we have control of our own lives, and then you list that people have an obligation to take care of others at their own expense and have no control over it.

I believe in freedom and individuality. What you describe is a collectivist and lack of freedom mentality, aka Marxist. The "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need" doesn't work. It's failed everywhere it was tried because if a person knows they'll be bailed out for their bad decisions they won't be bothered to make good decisions and those who are punished for good decisions will make less good decisions because people don't like forced theft.

May 31, 2015 9:57:19 GMT -5 misterlc said:

I'll end this by saying that I do love others and have been doing so for so long that it comes natural. I can't choose to hate individuals anymore only their actions, as I have rejected hate for so long. When you love people you are in a way enslaved by that emotion. It usually starts when a person is a child and they love their parents. I sure hope that it isn't Marxist when you love your family but I honestly wouldn't know or care. Why would I withhold a good thing from people because some tell me that giving people good things is a selfish act on my part? I've heard that smiling at people is a free gift to them that brightens their day and mine. Should I instead scowl at people so that I can avoid fitting the description that someone else makes for people who smile at others?

There is no "love". Love and hate are still selfish motives. I choose my friends and I associate with family based on what they do for me. I have friends who are fun to be around, have similar interests, etc. If my friend was dishonest, negative, a loser, or some other drain I'd kick them. Just like I'd kick any family member who was a thief, lazy, loser, or a beggar. I don't need the drain. Being dragged down by other's dead weight and irresponsibility only serves to drag me down and time and energy are limited. I do not give money to losers under any circumstances and that includes any family member who is one. I very rarely loan as it is to be honest because that ends up bad. You can care without being enslaved to give them stuff. I think it's caring to let them learn from their mistakes and not coddle them.

Children are taught these things but it doesn't mean they understand it. Just like they're brainwashed about religion.

People meet and date others based on the traits they find desirable. Why don't homeless guys get dates? Why are so many old women alone eating cat food? Because people pick what's in their self interest.

People bond because it motivates them to reproduce. If you had no desire to have sex you wouldn't have kids. People bond with their kids because it's biological and it is a mental way to increase the chance of a child surviving. People have kids for entirely selfish reasons. To get money from the government, to keep a man around, to see how good looking their kids are going to be "etc.". Often it's the poorest and dumbest having the most kids who take from the rest of us. How caring is that?

Kids will get old, go through misery and suffering, consume valuable resources, and eventually die. What part of having a kid is selfless? It's all selfish.

Nobody said you can't help others out or do things for them, just that you are not enslaved to it If you enslave someone to smile at you it doesn't mean anything because they're forced to do it.

May 31, 2015 9:57:19 GMT -5 misterlc said:

To me thinking for yourself equals rejecting many of the ideas that the world has come up with to define us and just being sincere to ourselves.

Exactly and one of those ideals is shared responsibility, "we're all in it together", religion, and maxism. When people realize they can make the world a better place pursuing their own self interest, then we'll be far better off. Not when we're all enslaved under some collective ideology.

[misterlc]

How is love selfish? You said that my statement earlier was contradictory but I did clarify the difference between actual choices, (things that we have the ability to decide upon) and things that we cannot decide. If a choice can be made then the individual will make the choice. There are plenty of real things that humans have no choice about, and suggesting that these things are of little or no significance is shocking considering all the evidence that we have that points to these many different circumstances benefiting or hindering progression in some areas. The figure of speech "it's a man's world" references to the huge differences in how men and women are treated in this world. In most of the world women are under the rule of the men and this even applies in countries like the us where the leaders are mainly men. Nobody can choose what sex they'll be born but whether they are male or female is definitely significant when it comes to which options are available to them. That's just one example and there are many others where circumstances are extremely significant to an individuals growth.

You suggested earlier that I may not care about the people that are dying at this moment. You're incorrect on that because I care about everyone whether I meet them or not. It's easy because I know some of what they have experienced as a human. Dependency on another human is the first thing we all experience, self awareness kicks in eventually, and knowing what it means to have human feelings is unique and common all at the same time as we are the only creatures that we're aware of that can discuss these complex feelings. I don't feel remorse about people dying as it is an important thing for all of us to do. I do feel sad about all the people who are suffering but I won't despair because I do believe that God will redeem all suffering but it must exist as an opposite to pleasure.

Sometimes things are best explained in a simple way so I'll give that a shot. Love and hate are real and so are right and wrong. The only one who can truly define them is the individual that is experiencing them. That means you, the one reading this right now. You know whether you are showing love to someone or not and you know whether you are doing right by someone or not. Loving yourself is not selfishness and hating yourself is not unselfishness. Caring about others is a joy to one and a burden to another but which one it is differs based on the individuals. Life is good and there's no reason why we shouldn't enjoy it and share our enjoyment of it with as many people as we can.

What is the term for some one who is happy and enjoys making other people happy? You can label me as one of those.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 31, 2015 15:12:33 GMT -5 misterlc said:

How is love selfish? You said that my statement earlier was contradictory but I did clarify the difference between actual choices, (things that we have the ability to decide upon) and things that we cannot decide. If a choice can be made then the individual will make the choice. There are plenty of real things that humans have no choice about, and suggesting that these things are of little or no significance is shocking considering all the evidence that we have that points to these many different circumstances benefiting or hindering progression in some areas. The figure of speech "it's a man's world" references to the huge differences in how men and women are treated in this world. In most of the world women are under the rule of the men and this even applies in countries like the us where the leaders are mainly men. Nobody can choose what sex they'll be born but whether they are male or female is definitely significant when it comes to which options are available to them. That's just one example and there are many others where circumstances are extremely significant to an individuals growth.

"Love" is nothing more than chemicals in your head. You "loving" something or someone gives you a feeling of satisfaction that you pursue; much like a drug. That's why people get involved in relationships because they feel it enhances their life. What about all of these people who stay with other incompatible people because they "love" them? In reality they're too needy or dependent to do their own thing.

Actually people do change their gender (kind of anyways), but you're still in control of your own actions regardless of gender and you can succeed or fail regardless. It's a man's world because men take control and do pretty much everything, and invent everything, and they're the expendable ones that women benefit from. This sexist propaganda is just victimhood speak. Women get *more* rights in many parts of the world compared to men, and in the US included. They get special perks, government grants, they get wealth handed to them from men automatically without having to work for it or by a government gun. Women aren't made expendable for the sake of society, men are. Men are in control because they are the best at it and women like it that way overall because they don't like taking risks or doing dangerous things. I just get tired of people crying victimhood when they are still in control of their own lives. Do you ever hear the stories about how men and young boys are sent off to fight while women are not? Men have been tasked to carry women through life and just about everything they have is pretty much a product of male labor and effort. People who sit back and complain they don't get enough frustrate me.  Same with people complaining about race.  People have had hardships throughout humanity.  I'm not going to weep when women get things just for being women since time immemorial.

Also how does gender entail responsibility? Should I be enslaved to women because they're less capable in many areas? Should whites be enslaved to blacks? Many parts of the world have forced responsibility and it doesn't work.

May 31, 2015 15:12:33 GMT -5 misterlc said:

You suggested earlier that I may not care about the people that are dying at this moment. You're incorrect on that because I care about everyone whether I meet them or not. It's easy because I know some of what they have experienced as a human. Dependency on another human is the first thing we all experience, self awareness kicks in eventually, and knowing what it means to have human feelings is unique and common all at the same time as we are the only creatures that we're aware of that can discuss these complex feelings. I don't feel remorse about people dying as it is an important thing for all of us to do. I do feel sad about all the people who are suffering but I won't despair because I do believe that God will redeem all suffering but it must exist as an opposite to pleasure.

You're saying it's your responsiblity to help others out and that you're obligated to.  Does that mean you're avoiding responsibility and being careless if you don't help others by that logic  I don't really buy it.  People are dying every few seconds of every day and yet you're here typing on the computer.  I don't think you're wrong for doing it, but you don't know these people enough to care.  You might feel a bit of guilt when I bring it up but you'll still go about your day none the wiser.

You're telling me you care about every single thing going on in this world at this time?  Every wrongdoing?  Every person in pain?  Every person in need whether their need is self manufactured?  Why aren't you out solving these problems if you're responsible for the burdens of others?

May 31, 2015 15:12:33 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Sometimes things are best explained in a simple way so I'll give that a shot. Love and hate are real and so are right and wrong. The only one who can truly define them is the individual that is experiencing them. That means you, the one reading this right now. You know whether you are showing love to someone or not and you know whether you are doing right by someone or not. Loving yourself is not selfishness and hating yourself is not unselfishness. Caring about others is a joy to one and a burden to another but which one it is differs based on the individuals. Life is good and there's no reason why we shouldn't enjoy it and share our enjoyment of it with as many people as we can.

Love and hate are subjective.  One person can call one thing love and another person can call it hate.  Morals are subjective and there is no "right or wrong" in a objective sense, but only what people decide is right or  wrong.

People thought slavery was right because it was their God given right.  People just use "right and wrong" to justify what they want to do anyways.  People who believe in big government say it's their right to steal because they "need" it, by your logic they have a right to what I earn since it's my responsibility to take care of them.

May 31, 2015 15:12:33 GMT -5 misterlc said:

What is the term for some one who is happy and enjoys making other people happy? You can label me as one of those.

I would have agreed with your general idea if you didn't say we were enslaved to help others and that you don't care if you don't have the responsibility to. Life isn't a cartoon. Nobody goes around helping every person with everything because it's not practical or realistic.

People don't just go around avoiding everyone and not helping ever either because that's also not realistic.

My entire issue with this premise is you believe in altruism. That one should lose for another to gain. I benefit far more people following my own self interests and making money (legitimately) than you do by giving a person the shirt off of your back. Everything you use and enjoy today was made by somebody who made your life better. It's far more useful than some self indulgent "act of kindness" that was really about making one person feel better about themselves.

[JACK-2]

May 31, 2015 9:57:19 GMT -5 misterlc said:

I would quote but it's not familiar to me here. I'll answer your questions quickly. You asked if it was my responsibility to pay a bill that you create. The answer is dependent on the situation. If you're my father and you die without any insurance you have created a bill for me and I do have the choice on whether I pay it or not. There's no confusion here that choice and responsibility are the same here. If I do nothing then the body will be disposed of so what wrong am I guilty of? You think that people have a choice in regards to anything but are children not people? You can't choose your guardians, race , nationality, native language, siblings, and many other things. I believe that we are supposed to love one another, and yes that is a choice but if you do decide to make that choice then you do take on a lot of responsibility for your fellow man and woman.

That's great and all. But, there's a difference between feeling obligated to help someone and a legal responsibility to do so. Legally, in this scenario the responsibility falls under: 1. The parents of the child and the Zoo for the safety of the visitors. If the Zoo fails to make their establishment safe then they'll be in legal trouble. Like wise, if the parents fail to supervise their child they will be in legal trouble. You loving people and being a nice guy really has no bearing in this.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

May 31, 2015 16:47:38 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

May 31, 2015 9:57:19 GMT -5 misterlc said:

I would quote but it's not familiar to me here. I'll answer your questions quickly. You asked if it was my responsibility to pay a bill that you create. The answer is dependent on the situation. If you're my father and you die without any insurance you have created a bill for me and I do have the choice on whether I pay it or not. There's no confusion here that choice and responsibility are the same here. If I do nothing then the body will be disposed of so what wrong am I guilty of? You think that people have a choice in regards to anything but are children not people? You can't choose your guardians, race , nationality, native language, siblings, and many other things. I believe that we are supposed to love one another, and yes that is a choice but if you do decide to make that choice then you do take on a lot of responsibility for your fellow man and woman.

That's great and all. But, there's a difference between feeling obligated to help someone and a legal responsibility to do so. Legally, in this scenario the responsibility falls under: 1. The parents of the child and the Zoo for the safety of the visitors. If the Zoo fails to make their establishment safe then they'll be in legal trouble. Like wise, if the parents fail to supervise their child they will be in legal trouble. You loving people and being a nice guy really has no bearing in this.

Right, you're more than welcome to help someone if you want. People can do that to their heart's content as long as they're not saying I'm enslaved to them.

[misterlc]

May 31, 2015 16:47:38 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

May 31, 2015 9:57:19 GMT -5 misterlc said:

I would quote but it's not familiar to me here. I'll answer your questions quickly. You asked if it was my responsibility to pay a bill that you create. The answer is dependent on the situation. If you're my father and you die without any insurance you have created a bill for me and I do have the choice on whether I pay it or not. There's no confusion here that choice and responsibility are the same here. If I do nothing then the body will be disposed of so what wrong am I guilty of? You think that people have a choice in regards to anything but are children not people? You can't choose your guardians, race , nationality, native language, siblings, and many other things. I believe that we are supposed to love one another, and yes that is a choice but if you do decide to make that choice then you do take on a lot of responsibility for your fellow man and woman.

That's great and all. But, there's a difference between feeling obligated to help someone and a legal responsibility to do so. Legally, in this scenario the responsibility falls under: 1. The parents of the child and the Zoo for the safety of the visitors. If the Zoo fails to make their establishment safe then they'll be in legal trouble. Like wise, if the parents fail to supervise their child they will be in legal trouble. You loving people and being a nice guy really has no bearing in this.

 I see what you're saying but in this hypothetical situation the question never was who was legally responsible. The zoo is in a country whose laws are unfamiliar and the child's parents could be dead for all we know. The hypothetical situation asks who is responsible for that child at the moment when the only adult around is you. Actions are the things that reveal the truth because doing nothing can be considered an action since a choice to do nothing is consciously made. From what I'm getting the general consensus is that most feel that doing nothing to prevent the child from being killed is their responsibility. By doing nothing they can assure that when the child is killed all the truly responsible individuals will know the consequences of their actions, correct?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 2, 2015 20:02:15 GMT -5 misterlc said:

May 31, 2015 16:47:38 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

That's great and all. But, there's a difference between feeling obligated to help someone and a legal responsibility to do so. Legally, in this scenario the responsibility falls under: 1. The parents of the child and the Zoo for the safety of the visitors. If the Zoo fails to make their establishment safe then they'll be in legal trouble. Like wise, if the parents fail to supervise their child they will be in legal trouble. You loving people and being a nice guy really has no bearing in this.

 I see what you're saying but in this hypothetical situation the question never was who was legally responsible. The zoo is in a country whose laws are unfamiliar and the child's parents could be dead for all we know. The hypothetical situation asks who is responsible for that child at the moment when the only adult around is you. Actions are the things that reveal the truth because doing nothing can be considered an action since a choice to do nothing is consciously made. From what I'm getting the general consensus is that most feel that doing nothing to prevent the child from being killed is their responsibility. By doing nothing they can assure that when the child is killed all the truly responsible individuals will know the consequences of their actions, correct?

Well you didn't say the parents were dead, you said they were away. How did this kid get into the zoo without a parent/guardian and why weren't the Zoo doing their job. I don't know any place where you can just break in willy nilly.

Also we're not saying that our responsibility is to do "nothing". We're saying it's not our obligation to care for someone else's kid. A person can choose to help, but it's not their obligation. This is a fact and should be easy to understand.

By the way, what about these laws that allow women to pin men for child support when they aren't the father? They use the same argument "in the child's interest" to steal money from the man and give it to the child (aka the woman). The interest of a child (woman) doesn't override the right of someone else. Nobody can force an obligation onto me that isn't mine. That's called slavery.

There are people all over the world who are dying and in need and you aren't helping them out. Are you saying it's your responsibility to let them die or suffer pain? That logic doesn't work.

[misterlc]

May 31, 2015 15:33:00 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

May 31, 2015 15:12:33 GMT -5 misterlc said:

"Love" is nothing more than chemicals in your head. You "loving" something or someone gives you a feeling of satisfaction that you pursue; much like a drug. That's why people get involved in relationships because they feel it enhances their life. What about all of these people who stay with other incompatible people because they "love" them? In reality they're too needy or dependent to do their own thing.

Actually people do change their gender (kind of anyways), but you're still in control of your own actions regardless of gender and you can succeed or fail regardless. It's a man's world because men take control and do pretty much everything, and invent everything, and they're the expendable ones that women benefit from. This sexist propaganda is just victimhood speak. Women get *more* rights in many parts of the world compared to men, and in the US included. They get special perks, government grants, they get wealth handed to them from men automatically without having to work for it or by a government gun. Women aren't made expendable for the sake of society, men are. Men are in control because they are the best at it and women like it that way overall because they don't like taking risks or doing dangerous things. I just get tired of people crying victimhood when they are still in control of their own lives. Do you ever hear the stories about how men and young boys are sent off to fight while women are not? Men have been tasked to ca rry women through life and just about everything they have is pretty much a product of male labor and effort. People who sit back and complain they don't get enough frustrate me.  Same with people complaining about race.  People have had hardships throughout humanity.  I'm not going to weep when women get things just for being women since time immemorial.

Also how does gender entail responsibility? Should I be enslaved to women because they're less capable in many areas? Should whites be enslaved to blacks? Many parts of the world have forced responsibility and it doesn't work.

May 31, 2015 15:12:33 GMT -5 misterlc said:

You're saying it's your responsiblity to help others out and that you're obligated to.  Does that mean you're avoiding responsibility and being careless if you don't help others by that logic  I don't really buy it.  People are dying every few seconds of every day and yet you're here typing on the computer.  I don't think you're wrong for doing it, but you don't know these people enough to care.  You might feel a bit of guilt when I bring it up but you'll still go about your day none the wiser.

You're telling me you care about every single thing going on in this world at this time?  Every wrongdoing?  Every person in pain?  Every person in need whether their need is self manufactured?  Why aren't you out solving these problems if you're responsible for the burdens of others?

May 31, 2015 15:12:33 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Love and hate are subjective.  One person can call one thing love and another person can call it hate.  Morals are subjective and there is no "right or wrong" in a objective sense, but only what people decide is right or  wrong.

People thought slavery was right because it was their God given right.  People just use "right and wrong" to justify what they want to do anyways.  People who believe in big government say it's their right to steal because they "need" it, by your logic they have a right to what I earn since it's my responsibility to take care of them.

May 31, 2015 15:12:33 GMT -5 misterlc said:

I would have agreed with your general idea if you didn't say we were enslaved
to help others and that you don't care if you don't have the responsibility to. Life isn't a cartoon. Nobody goes around helping every person with everything because it's not practical or realistic.

People don't just go around avoiding everyone and not helping ever either because that's also not realistic.

My entire issue with this premise is you believe in altruism. That one should lose for another to gain. I benefit far more people following my own self interests and making money (legitimately) than you do by giving a person the shirt off of your back. Everything you use and enjoy today was made by somebody who made your life better. It's far more useful than some self indulgent "act of kindness" that was really about making one person feel better about themselves.

[misterlc]

I screwed up trying to respond.. I'm bout to go to bed.

[misterlc]

Jun 2, 2015 20:13:18 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Jun 2, 2015 20:02:15 GMT -5 misterlc said:

 I see what you're saying but in this hypothetical situation the question never was who was legally responsible. The zoo is in a country whose laws are unfamiliar and the child's parents could be dead for all we know. The hypothetical situation asks who is responsible for that child at the moment when the only adult around is you. Actions are the things that reveal the truth because doing nothing can be considered an action since a choice to do nothing is consciously made. From what I'm getting the general consensus is that most feel that doing nothing to prevent the child from being killed is their responsibility. By doing nothing they can assure that when the child is killed all the truly responsible individuals will know the consequences of their actions, correct?

Well you didn't say the parents were dead, you said they were away. How did this kid get into the zoo without a parent/guardian and why weren't the Zoo doing their job. I don't know any place where you can just break in willy nilly.

Also we're not saying that our responsibility is to do "nothing". We're saying it's not our obligation to care for someone else's kid. A person can choose to help, but it's not their obligation. This is a fact and should be easy to understand.

By the way, what about these laws that allow women to pin men for child support when they aren't the father? They use the same argument "in the child's interest" to steal money from the man and give it to the child (aka the woman). The interest of a child (woman) doesn't override the right of someone else. Nobody can force an obligation onto me that isn't mine. That's called slavery.

There are people all over the world who are dying and in need and you aren't helping them out. Are you saying it's your responsibility to let them die or suffer pain? That logic doesn't work.

Orphans can get into the zoo even if their parents are dead, their sibling could be their guardian. As for saying that it's not your obligation to care for a strangers child, I don't understand the point because humans are never obligated to do anything once they become self aware, including staying alive. The question that was posed was basically "If you are the only one who can save a strange child's life will you call it your responsibility or would you rather that the child die than assume responsibility for the child for a moment"   I am helping the people who are in need. I meet them almost every day and I help them. Everybody is dying so what can anyone do about that? Without death who would truly appreciate life?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 3, 2015 1:05:35 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Jun 2, 2015 20:13:18 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Well you didn't say the parents were dead, you said they were away. How did this kid get into the zoo without a parent/guardian and why weren't the Zoo doing their job. I don't know any place where you can just break in willy nilly.

Also we're not saying that our responsibility is to do "nothing". We're saying it's not our obligation to care for someone else's kid. A person can choose to help, but it's not their obligation. This is a fact and should be easy to understand.

By the way, what about these laws that allow women to pin men for child support when they aren't the father? They use the same argument "in the child's interest" to steal money from the man and give it to the child (aka the woman). The interest of a child (woman) doesn't override the right of someone else. Nobody can force an obligation onto me that isn't mine. That's called slavery.

There are people all over the world who are dying and in need and you aren't helping them out. Are you saying it's your responsibility to let them die or suffer pain? That logic doesn't work.

Orphans can get into the zoo even if their parents are dead, their sibling could be their guardian. As for saying that it's not your obligation to care for a strangers child, I don't understand the point because humans are never obligated to do anything once they become self aware, including staying alive. The question that was posed was basically "If you are the only one who can save a strange child's life will you call it your responsibility or would you rather that the child die than assume responsibility for the child for a moment"   I am helping the people who are in need. I meet them almost every day and I help them. Everybody is dying so what can anyone do about that? Without death who would truly appreciate life?

So their sibling is responsible for their well being at the zoo.

Again you keep mixing up responsibility and obligation with choice. Nobody has to do anything, but people do enter various responsibilities throughout their life. Their jobs, their children, their own commitments. They can choose to be irresponsible and neglect them, but they can't force those onto anybody else. How is it not their responsibility to take care of themselves but it's my responsibility to? You own your own body and can do what you wan with it just like you can throw away your computer or burn it. Not quite the same thing.

You contradicted yourself because earlier you said this was about caring and that since you care about others you are enslaved to them, which is 100% false and I don't agree with. Let's face it, even if you help that kid, they'll still die later. Perhaps even the next day. So who are you doing it for? Maybe you and most other people have to fear death and pretend it will never happen to appreciate it, and believe in things like religion and "love" to get you through. I choose the realistic approach and make the most of our time.

Your question seems intentionally misleading. You should just ask if a person would help a kid. I'm sure a lot of people would help a kid in need, but it's not their responsibility to. You aren't asking that. You're asking if it's our responsibility to shoulder everyone else's burdens.

You do not help everyone you could at every time. You don't take homeless people into your house and fund them room and board. You're not preventing every possible person from bodily harm. The time you spend doing leisurely activities could be spent helping others. The time you spend typing on here could have been spent helping another in need. It's impractical and unreasonable.

You also dodged my question again. The real question is "can somebody force their responsibilities onto somebody else because they want or need to". And my answer is no. You clearly believe from our conversations that others have a right to force their responsibility others and enslave them.

Do you feel a person who needs food has a right to seize it from others at gunpoint? Should a woman with a kid be able to pin it on a man who isn't the father? Do you believe in welfare?


I'm an individualist and a free man and I don't believe in those things, because not only does theft and slavery wrong from my moral perspective, it simply doesn't work from a practical perspective. Freer societies where people do what they want and follow their own self interest have the highest standards of living. Whereas Marxist societies that follow your belief system fail. I guarantee you that people who build wealth and myself included have done far more and helped far more than the "giving the other the shirts off of our backs" crowd does, who largely rely on theft. And it's not even the charity, it's the fact that the wealth was built in the first place by enhancing peoples lives through voluntary transactions.

So again, the question is, "Can a person force their responsibility onto others because of a perceived want or need"?

This is my big problem with religion and government this "be your neighbors keeper" argument. To what end? The government is just religion for Marxists and religious conservatives talk about freedom and then say I have a responsibility to carry others through life. Religion and government are the same thing with different flavors.

[JACK-2]

Jun 2, 2015 20:02:15 GMT -5 misterlc said:

 I see what you're saying but in this hypothetical situation the question never was who was legally responsible. The zoo is in a country whose laws are unfamiliar and the child's parents could be dead for all we know. The hypothetical situation asks who is responsible for that child at the moment when the only adult around is you. Actions are the things that reveal the truth because doing nothing can be considered an action since a choice to do nothing is consciously made. From what I'm getting the general consensus is that most feel that doing nothing to prevent the child from being killed is their responsibility. By doing nothing they can assure that when the child is killed all the truly responsible individuals will know the consequences of their actions, correct?

Well, if the law doesn't tell you who's responsible then okay. But, what I'm saying is a good law is concerned with who is at fault. It doesn't make sense for someone who just happens to be there and isn't the parent or even works at the Zoo to be responsible for a child he's just seen in a chance encounter.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 3, 2015 17:28:20 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Jun 2, 2015 20:02:15 GMT -5 misterlc said:

 I see what you're saying but in this hypothetical situation the question never was who was legally responsible. The zoo is in a country whose laws are unfamiliar and the child's parents could be dead for all we know. The hypothetical situation asks who is responsible for that child at the moment when the only adult around is you. Actions are the things that reveal the truth because doing nothing can be considered an action since a choice to do nothing is consciously made. From what I'm getting the general consensus is that most feel that doing nothing to prevent the child from being killed is their responsibility. By doing nothing they can assure that when the child is killed all the truly responsible individuals will know the consequences of their actions, correct?

Well, if the law doesn't tell you who's responsible then okay. But, what I'm saying is a good law is concerned with who is at fault. It doesn't make sense for someone who just happens to be there and isn't the parent or even works at the Zoo to be responsible for a child he's just seen in a chance encounter.

That would be an insane law. He seems to be talking about personal responsibility... I think anyways.

[JACK-2]

Jun 3, 2015 17:36:29 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

That would be an insane law. He seems to be talking about personal responsibility... I think anyways.

You can't have personal responsibility with someone you don't know. Even small, collectivistic tribes only look out for members within their small tribe. Where everyone knows one another, but some random kid in a zoo?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 3, 2015 17:40:33 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Jun 3, 2015 17:36:29 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

That would be an insane law. He seems to be talking about personal responsibility... I think anyways.

You can't have personal responsibility with someone you don't know. Even small, collectivistic tribes only look out for members within their small tribe. Where everyone knows one another, but some random kid in a zoo?

Right. You can't expect everyone to be their neighbor's keeper. It doesn't work. You can choose to put yourself in harms way for someone, but you're not obligated to. What if you die? What of your own life, family, and responsibilities? This thinking doesn't work.

[misterlc]

Jun 3, 2015 4:09:20 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Jun 3, 2015 1:05:35 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Orphans can get into the zoo even if their parents are dead, their sibling could be their guardian. As for saying that it's not your obligation to care for a strangers child, I don't understand the point because humans are never obligated to do anything once they become self aware, including staying alive. The question that was posed was basically "If you are the only one who can save a strange child's life will you call it your responsibility or would you rather that the child die than assume responsibility for the child for a moment"   I am helping the people who are in need. I meet them almost every day and I help them. Everybody is dying so what can anyone do about that? Without death who would truly appreciate life?

So their sibling is responsible for their well being at the zoo.

Again you keep mixing up responsibility and obligation with choice. Nobody has to do anything, but people do enter various responsibilities throughout their life. Their jobs, their children, their own commitments. They can choose to be irresponsible and neglect them, but they can't force those onto anybody else. How is it not their responsibility to take care of themselves but it's my responsibility to? You own your own body and can do what you wan with it just like you can throw away your computer or burn it. Not quite the same thing.

You contradicted yourself because earlier you said this was about caring and that since you care about others you are enslaved to them, which is 100% false and I don't agree with. Let's face it, even if you help that kid, they'll still die later. Perhaps even the next day. So who are you doing it for? Maybe you and most other people have to fear death and pretend it will never happen to appreciate it, and believe in things like religion and "love" to get you through. I choose the realistic approach and make the most of our time.

Your question seems intentionally misleading. You should just ask if a person would help a kid. I'm sure a lot of people would help a kid in need, but it's not their responsibility to. You aren't asking that. You're asking if it's our responsibility to shoulder everyone else's burdens.

You do not help everyone you could at every time. You don't take homeless people into your house and fund them room and board. You're not preventing every possible person from bodily harm. The time you spend doing leisurely activities could be spent helping others. The time you spend typing on here could have been spent helping another in need. It's impractical and unreasonable.

You also dodged my question again. The real question is "can somebody force their responsibilities onto somebody else because they want or need to". And my answer is no. You clearly believe from our conversations that others have a right to force their responsibility others and enslave them.

Do you feel a person who needs food has a right to seize it from others at gunpoint? Should a woman with a kid be able to pin it on a man who isn't the father? Do you believe in welfare?


I'm an individualist and a free man and I don't believe in those things, because not only does theft and slavery wrong from my moral perspective, it simply doesn't work from a practical perspective. Freer societies where people do what they want and follow their own self interest have the highest standards of living. Whereas Marxist societies that follow your belief system fail. I guarantee you that people who build wealth and myself included have done far more and helped far more than the "giving the other the shirts off of our backs" crowd does, who largely rely on theft. And it's not even the charity, it's the fact that the wealth was built in the first place by enhancing peoples lives through voluntary transactions.

So again, the question is, "Can a person force their responsibility onto others because of a perceived want or need"?

This is my big problem with religion and government this "be your neighbors keeper" argument. To what end? The government is just religion for Marxists and religious conservatives talk about freedom and then say I have a responsibility to carry others through life. Religion and government are the same thing with different flavors.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I can't understand your quote if you're doing it. You'll have to revise it.

Basically just add quote tags over whatever you want to quote with

[*quote](The comment)[/quote*]

Remove the "*".