Whose responsibility is it?

[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.   

In the hypothetical situation you are the only one there. Also you state that placing responsibility on others is not right but you quickly burden the sibling that is not even present with a responsibility that they cannot possibly perform as they are absent at the moment. The only person available that has the opportunity to take responsibility here is you. 

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. 

I apologize for any confusion so let me clarify.  Responsibility is always a choice and is immediately associated with opportunity. You cannot take responsibility for anything that you do not have the opportunity to take responsibility for and when the opportunity presents itself then you have to make the choice of whether you'll take responsibility or not. Obligation is the one that is not connected to choice because it applies to what people "must" do for whatever reason they "must". When you talk about people ignoring responsibilities then you are really talking about them ignoring their obligations otherwise they wouldn't be guilty of "ignoring" anything at all. The fact of the matter is that many times people do resent obligations and ignore them because they are not the ones who get to choose what their obligations may be. You seem to resent the idea that somebody might consider you obliged to protect an innocent child from a tiger simply because you can.

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.

I don't see how I contradicted myself because you can't say that you care about someone and at the same time feel no obligation to them at all. Why say that you care about them then? If you are going to say that you care are you not then obliged to show this "care" in some way, shape, or form? Isn't caring an action? I'm not suggesting that if you care for someone then they are your master and you are their slave, but rather you are "enslaved" as you so put it by your own testimony that you do indeed care. No man is truly a slave though and you can say one thing and do the opposite as often as it pleases you. The fear of death has nothing to do with why you would help that kid in that moment because there's no risk of you dying if you simply do nothing. If you don't care about the well being of a defenseless child enough to intervene and rescue them when it's easy to do so it's truly not your responsibility, even if you are the parent according to your logic. A parent cares for their child but that doesn't mean that they are enslaved to that child because of this "care", and you even went as far as to say that the very idea that caring for others equals an obligation to others is 100% false. Based on this logic nobody should have to care for their children unless they felt like it. Caring for the sick is just a waste of time as the sick will still die even if you heal them, right? Religion/practices are as varied as people are so the statement that you don't rely on religion is vague and most likely untrue. Even if it's your own personal religion that you invented yourself, I'm sure that you have a certain set of guidelines that you live by. If it is your intention to avoid "love" all the days of your life then that is your decision to make, but I don't see how that makes you wiser than people who enjoy and are empowered by this most treasured emotion.

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.

The question is not misleading and it's not a gray area like "helping a kid" it's a life or death situation in which the only possible responsible adult is you. You're right that a lot of people would make it their responsibility but the question wasn't about them it was about the reader. I also was in no way asking if you should shoulder everyone else's burdens as that is a ridiculous prospect. The funny thing is that you would be hard pressed to convince me that you would sit back silently and allow a two year old to wander into a danger zone. You like most people would probably assume responsibility without even thinking about it deeply. The point of the question is to show that there is nothing wrong with assuming responsibility that seems as though it should be someone else's for the sake of the greater good

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.

If you consider yourself a realistic thinker then let's get real for a moment. Taking homeless people into my home would not help them at all and it would hurt me and my family. It's not possible for me to prevent every possible person from bodily harm, so I don't attempt to. The time that I spend doing leisurely activities is helping all the people who come into contact with me as those activities help to relax me and make me more productive overall. The time that I've spent typing on here is time well spent as my brain benefits from the mental exercise. All the better to help more people. The idea that I can help everyone in the world is beyond unreasonable, it's impossible, so why would it bother me that I'm not capable of doing that?

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.

If you change the word responsibilities into obligations then I agree with you that the answer is no. That being said I do believe that on certain occasions people should be forced to deal with obligations that they themselves did not create. You are obligated to wear clothes in public for example.

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?

If stealing is the only way that somebody can survive then they have the ability/right to do it. According to an earlier statement that you made right and wrong are just a matter of perspective and although I disagree I understand that stealing food is a base survival instinct. If people can choose their gender (sort of) then we're beyond the days where a man just has to take a woman's word that they are the father of a child. I do believe in providing assistance to sick people and children that are deprived of basic needs. I think that assistance would be considered 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.

You say that you're an individualist but you live in America and pay taxes just like most Americans do. You work for your money and spend it on whatever you please. Rather than quickly seize an opportunity to help a toddler in danger you think of how the very idea that you would be responsible infringes upon your right to sit back and observe a tiger killing a child. How is that type of thinking markedly individualistic?  Society has successfully brainwashed intelligent people to the point that they resent their fellow human beings, people that are just like them at heart. Religious traditions really have no bearing on this subject as they are extremely varied and for the most part have been separated from government. The government is also labeled as a negative entity but as soon as there's a fire everyone is ready to dial nine eleven for help.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

You still need to fix this quote structure because it isn't coming up right.

Just put quote tags around what I say, and put your response under it.

Jun 9, 2015 0:02:24 GMT -5 misterlc said:

I apologize for any confusion so let me clarify. Responsibility is always a choice and is immediately associated with opportunity. You cannot take responsibility for anything that you do not have the opportunity to take responsibility for and when the opportunity presents itself then you have to make the choice of whether you'll take responsibility or not. Obligation is the one that is not connected to choice because it applies to what people "must" do for whatever reason they "must". When you talk about people ignoring responsibilities then you are really talking about them ignoring their obligations otherwise they wouldn't be guilty of "ignoring" anything at all. The fact of the matter is that many times people do resent obligations and ignore them because they are not the ones who get to choose what their obligations may be. You seem to resent the idea that somebody might consider you obliged to protect an innocent child from a tiger simply because you can.

An obligation just leads to a responsibility. If you say I have a legal responsibility or a moral obligation, you're really just saying the same thing. You're trying to separate legal and moral here, but morals are subjective and you can't just force your morals onto me. By the way I put obligation with choice. I choose to buy a car, I'm responsible for the payments and I'm obligated to make them. I can always choose to not pay them, but it's not the point. It's my duty to do so. Just like I can choose to do anything else.

So this is really a semantics game. When you say it's my responsibility to put my body in danger to help someone out whether I know them or not you're saying I should replace my free choice with a choice someone has decided for me, whether it's you, religion, or some government. I don't like that.

Jun 9, 2015 0:02:24 GMT -5 misterlc said:

I don't see how I contradicted myself because you can't say that you care about someone and at the same time feel no obligation to them at all. Why say that you care about them then? If you are going to say that you care are you not then obliged to show this "care" in some way, shape, or form? Isn't caring an action? I'm not suggesting that if you care for someone then they are your master and you are their slave, but rather you are "enslaved" as you so put it by your own testimony that you do indeed care. No man is truly a slave though and you can say one thing and do the opposite as often as it pleases you. The fear of death has nothing to do with why you would help that kid in that moment because there's no risk of you dying if you simply do nothing. If you don't care about the well being of a defenseless child enough to intervene and rescue them when it's easy to do so it's truly not your responsibility, even if you are the parent according to your logic. A parent cares for their child but that doesn't mean that they are enslaved to that child because of this "care", and you even went as far as to say that the very idea that caring for others equals an obligation to others is 100% false. Based on this logic nobody should have to care for their children unless they felt like it. Caring for the sick is just a waste of time as the sick will still die even if you heal them, right? Religion/practices are as varied as people are so the statement that you don't rely on religion is vague and most likely untrue. Even if it's your own personal religion that you invented yourself, I'm sure that you have a certain set of guidelines that you live by. If it is your intention to avoid "love" all the days of your life then that is your decision to make, but I don't see how that makes you wiser than people who enjoy and are empowered by this most treasured emotion.

You're talking all around yourself and using feel good words.
First you're saying that caring is an obligation.
Then you say it isn't.

This is bs. When you force an obligation on someone you have in fact enslaved them. You're saying that by caring for someone I have to take these certain actions even if I don't want to. Bottom line, and then on top of this you try to differentiate between responsibility and obligation. People do care for their kids because they feel like it. They crank them out and get the ego trip and self fulfillment for doing it. Many morons don't care for their kids. They spit them out and force the obligations on the rest of us.

What about the people who vote to give themselves free things at the expense of future generations? What about the people who have kids to have someone take care of them when they get old? It's just as selfish as anything else.

Furthermore your definition of "caring" and what someone should do in that situation is your own definition. I don't give money out to loser family members while some feel that they should if they care. Oddly enough they expect people like me to do it while they do very little. Your argument is like that ridiculous argument that if you see a woman being raped, you should put your body in harms way to prevent it otherwise you're basically a rapist.

You could always call for help or get the zoo to do it and still care. How many women would put themselves on the line in this scenario? Not many I bet.

Jun 9, 2015 0:02:24 GMT -5 misterlc said:

The question is not misleading and it's not a gray area like "helping a kid" it's a life or death situation in which the only possible responsible adult is you. You're right that a lot of people would make it their responsibility but the question wasn't about them it was about the reader. I also was in no way asking if you should shoulder everyone else's burdens as that is a ridiculous prospect. The funny thing is that you would be hard pressed to convince me that you would sit back silently and allow a two year old to wander into a danger zone. You like most people would probably assume responsibility without even thinking about it deeply. The point of the question is to show that there is nothing wrong with assuming responsibility that seems as though it should be someone else's for the sake of the greater good

Sorry it's pretty clear and cut. You're saying it's my job to help others at my own expense. So where does this end? In visual radius? Does it extend to everyone in a local community or state? Does it extend to everyone in general? Why are these the parameters and why do you get to arbitrarily set them for everyone else? Are you some kind of God?

And for the umpteenth time I can make a choice without something being my responsibility. I can pay your bill for a month even if it isn't my responsibility to. What's so hard about this to understand?

If a child gets into a bad situation it was because of the irresponsibility of the parent/guardian and not the person nearest. Since when did we have responsibility by proxy?

And there's no "greater good" other than serving my own free will. This is that religion/government/ marxist crap. All of these brainwashing techniques upon the masses that say that helping someone means harming yourself in exchange. There is no "greater good". These greater goods are all conjured up by people who have some interest in benefiting from my expense whether it be some stupid religion, church, mooching loser, or some politician or dictator. You've been brainwashed. These greater goods are all made up and you're serving them.

Jun 9, 2015 0:02:24 GMT -5 misterlc said:

If you consider yourself a realistic thinker then let's get real for a moment. Taking homeless people into my home would not help them at all and it would hurt me and my family. It's not possible for me to prevent every possible person from bodily harm, so I don't attempt to. The time that I spend doing leisurely activities is helping all the people who come into contact with me as those activities help to relax me and make me more productive overall. The time that I've spent typing on here is time well spent as my brain benefits from the mental exercise. All the better to help more people. The idea that I can help everyone in the world is beyond unreasonable, it's impossible, so why would it bother me that I'm not capable of doing that?

Ok so you think that helping others at your expense when it puts you in possible danger is bad, but that I should help a kid in a situation that puts myself in definite danger is ok? This is totally hypocritical and the problem I have with marxists. They love to be on the taking side and not the giving side. Obviously your notion is impractical and unrealistic from the start, which was my point. It's better when people look out for their own self interests and take care of their own responsibilities vs forcing them on others.

You could also have foster children, adopt, donate all of your money instead of buying video games with them and other forms of entertainment. You could help the homeless by moving them in, but you simply don't want to. You could move in a friend and they could harm you and screw you over too. You never know.

It seems like you want to relax more than help others and tell others that they should help others. Time spent not being productive is time spent not being productive. I mean you don't have to come on here and post. You don't have to play video games. But you spend your time and resources doing that instead of helping others at your expense.

This is what most people do, because at the end of the day they're in it for their self interest like everyone else. That's fine if they are, but they have no right to tell me what I should do and fling their guilt onto me or their self fulfillment trip onto me.

Like I said, by becoming successful I've done far more use than the "give the shirt off of my back crowd" which as I see is all talk.

Just like the religious people.

Just like the big government people a.k.a Obama.

Just like the people who say we should pay more taxes but don't want to pay more themselves. This is all a game, and I'm not playing it.

Jun 9, 2015 0:02:24 GMT -5 misterlc said:

If you change the word responsibilities into obligations then I agree with you that the answer is no. That being said I do believe that on certain occasions people should be forced to deal with obligations that they themselves did not create. You are obligated to wear clothes in public for example.

Again these are semantics. Nobody has to do anything obviously. You're just talking about legal responsibilities and obligations vs moral. You're saying I should do something that otherwise may or may not be my own choice at the end of the day. Meaning I should follow your thought, religion's thought, or government thought, instead of what I want to do even though I'm not causing anybody harm.

In a limited government individualistic society I definitely do have a right to my privacy and safety which means I can't compromise someone elses, although you guys who have this "forced responsibility" angle are just trying to get around that by saying we should do it anyways.

If a woman says you have an obligation to pay for her kid, and then the court forces you to pay out of responsibility, does the wording make a difference?

Jun 9, 2015 0:02:24 GMT -5 misterlc said:

If stealing is the only way that somebody can survive then they have the ability/right to do it. According to an earlier statement that you made right and wrong are just a matter of perspective and although I disagree I understand that stealing food is a base survival instinct. If people can choose their gender (sort of) then we're beyond the days where a man just has to take a woman's word that they are the father of a child. I do believe in providing assistance to sick people and children that are deprived of basic needs. I think that assistance would be considered welfare.

And just as I suspected you believe that someone has a right to someone else's property because they feel like they "need it". In other words they have a right to take what they want based on the criteria of need they set for themselves. So if someone has less than you, would they be justified in breaking into your house, holding you at gunpoint, and stealing it? The people who preach this socialist crap never think of themselves in these situations. So if I'm strong and powerful and I can take what I want by using my resources, can I do it? Why or why not? I love how the losers get to take from me but not the other way around. You guys would call it oppression if a powerful man stole from the masses, but apparently it's not oppression if the masses steal from the few. The US has a constitution that was designed to protect individuals from tyranny. That definitely is tyranny.

Women can lie and saddle a man with a burden of a kid that isn't theirs, and many times if a man proves it, he's stuck if he doesn't prove it within a certain window. Not that it matters. The kid needs it so somebody should pay for it. The government can make a man responsible just by being a "boyfriend" allowing a woman to double dip in the money from multiple men.

Someone has a bill past due and they need somebody to pay it. Oh it's time to steal.

So instead of people taking responsibility for their own actions, you would just rather give them the right to steal. That's just brilliant. Somebody's right is someone's obligation. If someone has a right to money that means someone has an obligation to give it to them.


Probably one of the most disgusting ideologies that has ever been formed. Marxism has killed 100's of millions of people and these are from the people that are trying to "help". Instead of voluntary assistance, you just believe in theft.

Also if we're going by the logic of them dying anyways, why bother stealing? Aren't they delaying the inevitable while taking from everyone? They only harm others in their way to the bottom. Might as well get it over with based on that alone.

Jun 9, 2015 0:02:24 GMT -5 misterlc said:

You say that you're an individualist but you live in America and pay taxes just like most Americans do. You work for your money and spend it on whatever you please. Rather than quickly seize an opportunity to help a toddler in danger you think of how the very idea that you would be responsible infringes upon your right to sit back and observe a tiger killing a child. How is that type of thinking markedly individualistic? Society has successfully brainwashed intelligent people to the point that they resent their fellow human beings, people that are just like them at heart. Religious traditions really have no bearing on this subject as they are extremely varied and for the most part have been separated from government. The government is also labeled as a negative entity but as soon as there's a fire everyone is ready to dial nine eleven for help.

Yea, you're a Marxist. I knew it as most black people tend to be anyways, but I just wanted it said as clearly as possible since you kept trying to deny it earlier. I know why people don't want to say they are but the shoe fits. The coincidence is that blacks are the biggest takers net wise, so I'm not surprised they follow the religion "be your neighbor's keeper" and the government's "we're all in it together" because it allows them to steal.

First you need to brush up on American history. This was a society based on individual freedom and we have a Constitution to protect that.  Pilgrims settled and tried the communist approach first and almost starved to death until they tried "every man for themselves". We paid taxes in a limited and in a way they could be avoided (by not buying the sold items) to protect our basic freedoms. Essentially, I can do what I want as long as I don't harm others, was our free view, and it allowed us to have tremendous success for everyone. People left their own oppressive countries who followed this very same belief that you have because it was bankrupt and oppressing, and they came here. They were unable to speak English in many cases and rose to great wealth and prosperity. Our country was founded by tax protesters. We believed in freedom and a limited government and a restricted voting system that kept out all of the morons and imbeciles.

Now fast forward a century or two and now we have people who vote for socialist and communist garbage, and politicians who try to give up our freedoms to get elected and we have people who think like you to thank for it. People who give away their freedom and individuality to become part of some collective group of Marxist, socialist, and communist thought. I bet if I showed you the tenets of Marxism you'd believe in all of it. Simply by existing and paying taxes (at gunpoint) that doesn't enslave me to everyone else.

Never did I say that a person *didn't* have to help someone, I said they weren't obligated or responsible for someone else, and why did the person who is responsible for them let them wander off? You seem to have a hard time differentiating between the two. Not only that, but the most rich part is that you want to shame me for having the choice to not put my own self in danger for someone I don't even know because it's not my responsibility, you even said you wouldn't move the homeless in on the idea that it "might" be bad for you. What hypocrisy! I'm not surprised by this because Marxism was always for the corrupt politicians and the moochers of society who resent people like me who have more and they want to steal it by using words like "responsibility and moral obligation". I never said that by following free choice that I am in fact "watching a kid die", but at the same time I have a right to not do it. Furthermore people have a right to hate if they so well choose. You also have a right to not associate with them, but you can't enslave them.

Where did you get this kind of thinking from? It had to be religion or the government. Religion that says we are our neighbors keeper no matter what, and the government who forces it. Then you have the audacity to tell me that I've been brainwashed into believing freedom when the groups you support and the Socialist president you support espouse these very arguments every day. And like Marxists always do they hide behind the skirt of "caring" while they advocate theft and picking pockets. Because they "caring" label is all they have. You speak of resentment? Marxists are the most resentful people, they're literally the worst society has to offer. They're the corrupt politicians, and the lazy, and the stupid. The dirty secret is that no two people are equal and they resent those that are ahead of them and want to undermine what they have by stealing it and saying it's all about luck. These are the losers who took no control of their lives. These are the ugly women who complain about hot women in video games. These are the poor that want to steal from the rich. These are the people who use ad hominem arguments and label those that don't agree with their stupid religion as "evil". The truth is they resent the best and their own freedoms and want to drag them in the ditch with them. Envy is really the lowliest of emotions. This isn't about love, this is about envy.

I believe following free choice is caring and not forcing others to do it. I've helped far more people than the marxists who as you admit pay for your own leisure and sit on the computer when you can be out helping others. Because at the end of the day you were in it for your own self fulfillment. You bought these consoles and video game systems to fulfill yourself instead of taking the scarce resources you have and helping like you say you should.  This holier than thou garbage is about the weak mooching off of the strong.  What makes me laugh is if someone said "The people who are weak and stupid and poor should be killed because they take from the strong and the productive."  You'd say that's horrible, but you believe the dumb masses have the right to steal what they want from the few.  The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and that's why democracy is the worst form of government, because it amounts to a bunch of idiots and losers voting to steal from others.  This is what you believe in.

You're damn right 911 would be called in a fire, because it's what we pay taxes for and it's one of the few jobs they're actually *supposed* to do, instead of taking our tax money and spying on us, or funding stupid wars.


This is why I plan on leaving the country because I don't want to live somewhere where I'm considered a slave because I exist, and that I'm not entitled to keep what I earn.  You say you're here to fight and educate people, but you really want to indoctrinate them.  You have no desire to leave because you believe in what people like Obama support.  You believe in Marxism and thievery all while preaching you care.  I wonder if you get confused with all of these double standards you've been taught to think.  


I'm an individual and this is my life.  I do what I want with it regardless of what some morons, governments, or moochers have to say.  They just want to steal from me anyways so why should I listen to them? They'll emotionally blackmail anybody with the "caring" label while they benefit at their expense. If they took more responsibility over their own lives, then they would be better off, but instead they want to engage in legalized theft.

Your argument is exactly what is wrong with this country.    Instead of being for the individual rights, you're for the wants of the collective.  Such a shame people who would be otherwise smart choose the easy way and follow the masses instead of choosing liberty.

Here are some great videos on the matter:

[misterlc]

Jun 9, 2015 4:36:07 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

You still need to fix this quote structure because it isn't coming up right.

Just put quote tags around what I say, and put your response under it.

An obligation just leads to a responsibility. If you say I have a legal responsibility or a moral obligation, you're really just saying the same thing. You're trying to separate legal and moral here, but morals are subjective and you can't just force your morals onto me. By the way I put obligation with choice. I choose to buy a car, I'm responsible for the payments and I'm obligated to make them. I can always choose to not pay them, but it's not the point. It's my duty to do so. Just like I can choose to do anything else.

So this is really a semantics game. When you say it's my responsibility to put my body in danger to help someone out whether I know them or not you're saying I should replace my free choice with a choice someone has decided for me, whether it's you, religion, or some government. I don't like that.

Both responsibility and obligation are choices so I don't see why you say that you distinctly put obligation with choice when responsibilities are created at an individuals leisure and obligations are created outside of an individual for the most part. There is no trying to separate legal and moral here, they are plainly not the same. People are obligated to follow the laws of whatever land they live in for example and if they choose to break the laws and are caught then they will suffer consequences. They didn't create the laws but they are obliged to follow them and in some cases are enslaved by those laws. Moral obligation is totally different because the restrictions or duties  it obligates one to do have no bearing on the law and the consequences of breaking those obligations are not executed by any human authority figures. Your example about the car is a good one. It brings light on the distinct difference between responsibility and obligation. You chose the responsibility for car payments and entered into an obligation that was set before you showed up on the scene. Choose to disregard your obligation to pay and you will suffer the consequences that someone else created to punish the people that make that choice. There are no set human imposed consequences for not choosing to add on a responsibility, only for failing to fulfill their legal obligation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Many people use the word semantics as a way to excuse the way that they add or subtract to definitions of words. Semantics isn't a game it's how we understand each other. Obligations and responsibilities are not the same no matter how similar they may be. A servant can be working beside a slave in a field doing the exact same job but aren't their positions quite different? Can I use the word slave to describe the servant because their jobs are the same?   A good example of why semantics are important is in your continuing to insist that the hypothetical question puts you in a position where your safety is compromised when that is never suggested. In fact the tiger in the scenario is so far away that it is not even visible through the bars of it's cage so there is ample time to assist the toddler without putting yourself in danger. Please explain where the scenario shows danger for anyone except the toddler.

You're talking all around yourself and using feel good words.
First you're saying that caring is an obligation.
Then you say it isn't.

  I don't remember stating that caring itself was an obligation but I do recall saying that we are obligated to the people that we care about. This obligation would be the moral type but it would still be an obligation.

This is bs. When you force an obligation on someone you have in fact enslaved them. You're saying that by caring for someone I have to take these certain actions even if I don't want to. Bottom line, and then on top of this you try to differentiate between responsibility and obligation. People do care for their kids because they feel like it. They crank them out and get the ego trip and self fulfillment for doing it. Many morons don't care for their kids. They spit them out and force the obligations on the rest of us.

What is bs is that you are playing with the definitions of these words so that they can support your argument. I'm saying that if you care for someone you will take certain actions because you WANT to. Suggesting that a forced obligation automatically enslaves a person is an extreme suggestion as well. When people are forced to keep their sexual activity indoors are they then enslaved? What if they are voyeurs and having an audience of strangers will fulfill their pursuit of happiness? You don't have to be a Marxist or a socialist or a libertarian or any thing similar to see the danger in a land of absolutely no restrictions.  It is hilarious to me to hear the suggestion that having kids is a selfish act every time it happens. The more selfish act is to never have kids and then to criticize everyone else's children. Child rearing is a tremendous undertaking if you're going to take it seriously and there is much sacrifice involved. People don't crank kids out as easily as you make it seem. It's a very arduous process and it lasts as long as you're alive. What benefit you get out of dismissing parenthood as something selfish is beyond me. I'm sure that it can be selfish for some but somebody will sacrifice to raise an infant to adulthood, and it will USUALLY be the parents.

What about the people who vote to give themselves free things at the expense of future generations? What about the people who have kids to have someone take care of them when they get old? It's just as selfish as anything else.

The way you describe people, you make it seem as if the only unselfish act is suicide. Politicians can manipulate the votes of the very people they helped usher into poverty, but the shame is when the people don't realize when this is happening and the ones that do realize it, have no sympathy for the plight of the people who suffer the most from these schemes. People who have kids so that someone will take care of them when they get old have to be in a very small minority because that's a childish concept. Adults know that kids will take them to a nursing home and truly most people want to take care of themselves until their dying day.

Furthermore your definition of "caring" and what someone should do in that situation is your own definition. I don't give money out to loser family members while some feel that they should if they care. Oddly enough they expect people like me to do it while they do very little. Your argument is like that ridiculous argument that if you see a woman being raped, you should put your body in harms way to prevent it otherwise you're basically a rapist.

car-ing  /'keriNG/ adjective 1. displaying kindness and concern for others synonyms; kind, kind-hearted, warmhearted, tender..       noun 1. the work or practice of looking after those unable to care for themselves especially sick and elderly people.  Those were the definitions for caring I found at the online dictionary and here are the ones I found at the urban dictionary:1.) adjective: compassionate, warm-hearted, loving.
2.) adjective: tenderly concerned and helpful
3.) adjective: affectionate 
4.) idea: kindness, sympathy, understanding    The definition is not one that I just invented yesterday so rather than call it mine you should just reject the generally accepted idea of what caring means and just invent an individual one. That may be what it means to be an individualist but it makes it difficult to have a rational discussion if you can just re-invent simple ideas to better suit your arguments. How will complex ideas be adjusted? Giving out money does not equal caring. People are not going to value money that they don't earn so of course they think yours is more expendable. The truth of the matter is that throwing money at problems is not usually going to solve them, people just want money so they'll accept donations as long as you're willing to make them. Your sincere advice can be worth much more than money.  The example of the rape victim is similar but definitely not the same and the idea that you should get killed trying to prevent a rape or you are the same as the rapist is foolish. If you know that you can stop a rape safely and simply decline to do so then that actually may make you lower than the rapist in my opinion.

You could always call for help or get the zoo to do it and still care.

You do realize that either of those actions count as you taking responsibility when you are not obligated to do so legally, right? And of course these actions are caring. 

How many women would put themselves on the line in this scenario? Not many I bet.

Women have more of a maternal instinct than men so I would think they'd be more likely to step in to protect a toddler than a man. Women are usually very protective over children and are usually more involved than men in the things that pertain to them.

Sorry it's pretty clear and cut. You're saying it's my job to help others at my own expense. So where does this end? In visual radius? Does it extend to everyone in a local community or state? Does it extend to everyone in general? Why are these the parameters and why do you get to arbitrarily set them for everyone else? Are you some kind of God?

And for the umpteenth time I can make a choice without something being my responsibility. I can pay your bill for a month even if it isn't my responsibility to. What's so hard about this to understand?

If a child gets into a bad situation it was because of the irresponsibility of the parent/guardian and not the person nearest. Since when did we have responsibility by proxy?

And there's no "greater good" other than serving my own free will. This is that religion/government/ marxist crap. All of these brainwashing techniques upon the masses that say that helping someone means harming yourself in exchange. There is no "greater good". These greater goods are all conjured up by people who have some interest in benefiting from my expense whether it be some stupid religion, church, mooching loser, or some politician or dictator. You've been brainwashed. These greater goods are all made up and you're serving them.

  The only thing that is clear is your reluctance to help in this scenario period. The scenario was quite specific and the only expense that helping would have cost you was speaking up as you stated earlier. You're so reluctant to help that you've read far too deep into the scenario and are responding to imagined scenarios where someone is trying to take advantage of you.  As far as making choices without making things your responsibility...everybody does that. There are a myriad of choices that we can make that have nothing to do with responsibilities, but when you ride your mower into you're neighbors yard and cut his grass because it's an eyesore you made it your responsibility momentarily. As the figure of speech goes, it was none of your business but you made it your business. As far as the hogwash about there being no greater good goes you can in no way support such a claim with evidence. On the other hand I'm able to present evidence that there is a "greater good" GREATER GOOD  See! That was easy C! All jokes aside though we do have evidence that there seems to be a universal balance that is miraculous in its very nature. Evil is not imagined, and that is evident for certain. It does exist and you know it wouldn't take too long too dredge up detailed examples of  just how evil some people will challenge themselves to be. If you have a hint of an imagination and you're above 25 your brain can conjure up imaginary news stories that would make somebody's toes curl. Then experience makes you aware that if you can think it some sicko could do it. The balance shows that there is a worse evil, a greater good must exist as well. Innocence exists in the world in the form of babies and animals. Somebody needs to make it their responsibility to protect it, why not me? I understand why you are leery of swindlers trying to rob you because they are real. The balance demands that if those people are real then there are those who help sincerely as well. You must remember I knew you before you cared so much about material things. Helping others DOESN'T mean harming yourself in exchange. I don't believe that at all.
Ok so you think that helping others at your expense when it puts you in possible danger is bad, but that I should help a kid in a situation that puts myself in definite danger is ok? This is totally hypocritical and the problem I have with marxists. They love to be on the taking side and not the giving side. Obviously your notion is impractical and unrealistic from the start, which was my point. It's better when people look out for their own self interests and take care of their own responsibilities vs forcing them on others.

You could also have foster children, adopt, donate all of your money instead of buying video games with them and other forms of entertainment. You could help the homeless by moving them in, but you simply don't want to. You could move in a friend and they could harm you and screw you over too. You never know.

It seems like you want to relax more than help others and tell others that they should help others. Time spent not being productive is time spent not being productive. I mean you don't have to come on here and post. You don't have to play video games. But you spend your time and resources doing that instead of helping others at your expense.

This is what most people do, because at the end of the day they're in it for their self interest like everyone else. That's fine if they are, but they have no right to tell me what I should do and fling their guilt onto me or their self fulfillment trip onto me.

Like I said, by becoming successful I've done far more use than the "give the shirt off of my back crowd" which as I see is all talk.

Just like the religious people.

Just like the big government people a.k.a Obama.

Just like the people who say we should pay more taxes but don't want to pay more themselves. This is all a game, and I'm not playing it.



Again these are semantics. Nobody has to do anything obviously. You're just talking about legal responsibilities and obligations vs moral. You're saying I should do something that otherwise may or may not be my own choice at the end of the day. Meaning I should follow your thought, religion's thought, or government thought, instead of what I want to do even though I'm not causing anybody harm.

In a limited government individualistic society I definitely do have a right to my privacy and safety which means I can't compromise someone elses, although you guys who have this "forced responsibility" angle are just trying to get around that by saying we should do it anyways.

If a woman says you have an obligation to pay for her kid, and then the court forces you to pay out of responsibility, does the wording make a difference?


And just as I suspected you believe that someone has a right to someone else's property because they feel like they "need it". In other words they have a right to take what they want based on the criteria of need they set for themselves. So if someone has less than you, would they be justified in breaking into your house, holding you at gunpoint, and stealing it? The people who preach this socialist crap never think of themselves in these situations. So if I'm strong and powerful and I can take what I want by using my resources, can I do it? Why or why not? I love how the losers get to take from me but not the other way around. You guys would call it oppression if a powerful man stole from the masses, but apparently it's not oppression if the masses steal from the few. The US has a constitution that was designed to protect individuals from tyranny. That definitely is tyranny.

Women can lie and saddle a man with a burden of a kid that isn't theirs, and many times if a man proves it, he's stuck if he doesn't prove it within a certain window. Not that it matters. The kid needs it so somebody should pay for it. The government can make a man responsible just by being a "boyfriend" allowing a woman to double dip in the money from multiple men.

Someone has a bill past due and they need somebody to pay it. Oh it's time to steal.

So instead of people taking responsibility for their own actions, you would just rather give them the right to steal. That's just brilliant. Somebody's right is someone's obligation. If someone has a right to money that means someone has an obligation to give it to them.


Probably one of the most disgusting ideologies that has ever been formed. Marxism has killed 100's of millions of people and these are from the people that are trying to "help". Instead of voluntary assistance, you just believe in theft.

Also if we're going by the logic of them dying anyways, why bother stealing? Aren't they delaying the inevitable while taking from everyone? They only harm others in their way to the bottom. Might as well get it over with based on that alone.

Yea, you're a Marxist. I knew it as most black people tend to be anyways, but I just wanted it said as clearly as possible since you kept trying to deny it earlier. I know why people don't want to say they are but the shoe fits. The coincidence is that blacks are the biggest takers net wise, so I'm not surprised they follow the religion "be your neighbor's keeper" and the government's "we're all in it together" because it allows them to steal.

First you need to brush up on American history. This was a society based on individual freedom and we have a Constitution to protect that.  Pilgrims settled and tried the communist approach first and almost starved to death until they tried "every man for themselves". We paid taxes in a limited and in a way they could be avoided (by not buying the sold items) to protect our basic freedoms. Essentially, I can do what I want as long as I don't harm others, was our free view, and it allowed us to have tremendous success for everyone. People left their own oppressive countries who followed this very same belief that you have because it was bankrupt and oppressing, and they came here. They were unable to speak English in many cases and rose to great wealth and prosperity. Our country was founded by tax protesters. We believed in freedom and a limited government and a restricted voting system that kept out all of the morons and imbeciles.

Now fast forward a century or two and now we have people who vote for socialist and communist garbage, and politicians who try to give up our freedoms to get elected and we have people who think like you to thank for it. People who give away their freedom and individuality to become part of some collective group of Marxist, socialist, and communist thought. I bet if I showed you the tenets of Marxism you'd believe in all of it. Simply by existing and paying taxes (at gunpoint) that doesn't enslave me to everyone else.

Never did I say that a person *didn't* have to help someone, I said they weren't obligated or responsible for someone else, and why did the person who is responsible for them let them wander off? You seem to have a hard time differentiating between the two. Not only that, but the most rich part is that you want to shame me for having the choice to not put my own self in danger for someone I don't even know because it's not my responsibility, you even said you wouldn't move the homeless in on the idea that it "might" be bad for you. What hypocrisy! I'm not surprised by this because Marxism was always for the corrupt politicians and the moochers of society who resent people like me who have more and they want to steal it by using words like "responsibility and moral obligation". I never said that by following free choice that I am in fact "watching a kid die", but at the same time I have a right to not do it. Furthermore people have a right to hate if they so well choose. You also have a right to not associate with them, but you can't enslave them.

The scenario never suggested that the reader would have to put themselves in danger so you calling me a hypocrite is silly. I would actually provide friends and relatives who were homeless with help, but moving strangers in could be as dangerous as climbing into the cage with the tiger. Calling me a Marxist means nothing to me because I desire to help people with my own power not by stealing yours. I'll gladly pay my taxes whether rich or poor because it's just money and money isn't everything.

Where did you get this kind of thinking from? It had to be religion or the government. Religion that says we are our neighbors keeper no matter what, and the government who forces it. Then you have the audacity to tell me that I've been brainwashed into believing freedom when the groups you support and the Socialist president you support espouse these very arguments every day. And like Marxists always do they hide behind the skirt of "caring" while they advocate theft and picking pockets. Because they "caring" label is all they have. You speak of resentment? Marxists are the most resentful people, they're literally the worst society has to offer. They're the corrupt politicians, and the lazy, and the stupid. The dirty secret is that no two people are equal and they resent those that are ahead of them and want to undermine what they have by stealing it and saying it's all about luck. These are the losers who took no control of their lives. These are the ugly women who complain about hot women in video games. These are the poor that want to steal from the rich. These are the people who use ad hominem arguments and label those that don't agree with their stupid religion as "evil". The truth is they resent the best and their own freedoms and want to drag them in the ditch with them. Envy is really the lowliest of emotions. This isn't about love, this is about envy.

It's amazing how you throw people into groups and act as though the majority are losers. We're all just one car wreck away from being dependents for the rest of our lives! People do have equal worth as we are all born helpless and we all die taking nothing with us when we leave. Your disdain for things like "caring" and "love" is surprising but you still have much life to experience. Earl Nightingale said it best when he stated that the most valuable things in the world cannot be bought. Loved ones, good health, clean air, sunshine are all free. The things that we buy are of little real worth and if they are lost can be easily replaced. I'll have to continue this later, Peace!

I believe following free choice is caring and not forcing others to do it. I've helped far more people than the marxists who as you admit pay for your own leisure and sit on the computer when you can be out helping others. Because at the end of the day you were in it for your own self fulfillment. You bought these consoles and video game systems to fulfill yourself instead of taking the scarce resources you have and helping like you say you should.  This holier than thou garbage is about the weak mooching off of the strong.  What makes me laugh is if someone said "The people who are weak and stupid and poor should be killed because they take from the strong and the productive."  You'd say that's horrible, but you believe the dumb masses have the right to steal what they want from the few.  The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and that's why democracy is the worst form of government, because it amounts to a bunch of idiots and losers voting to steal from others.  This is what you believe in.

You're damn right 911 would be called in a fire, because it's what we pay taxes for and it's one of the few jobs they're actually *supposed* to do, instead of taking our tax money and spying on us, or funding stupid wars.


This is why I plan on leaving the country because I don't want to live somewhere where I'm considered a slave because I exist, and that I'm not entitled to keep what I earn.  You say you're here to fight and educate people, but you really want to indoctrinate them.  You have no desire to leave because you believe in what people like Obama support.  You believe in Marxism and thievery all while preaching you care.  I wonder if you get confused with all of these double standards you've been taught to think.  


I'm an individual and this is my life.  I do what I want with it regardless of what some morons, governments, or moochers have to say.  They just want to steal from me anyways so why should I listen to them? They'll emotionally blackmail anybody with the "caring" label while they benefit at their expense. If they took more responsibility over their own lives, then they would be better off, but instead they want to engage in legalized theft.

Your argument is exactly what is wrong with this country.    Instead of being for the individual rights, you're for the wants of the collective.  Such a shame people who would be otherwise smart choose the easy way and follow the masses instead of choosing liberty.

Here are some great videos on the matter:

[misterlc]

C how am I supposed to respond to such lengthy posts!

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

You need to rephrase all of that because it's messy and tough to understand. Why do you keep messing up the quoting? I have to spend ages cleaning it up and then responding to it.

Just copy and paste my statement and add quote tags around it. It's really easy. Not only is it cleaner for me, but it's cleaner for other readers who want to come in and respond.

[JACK-2]

I just want to chime in and say that government like all institutions has a function in society. A very limited function and if you want an institution to help people. That's fine, but Government on the other-hand is simply an institution of violence and force [It taxes]. It's basically a sword and turning that sword on people asking them to pay for helping people is coercion. Outside of very limited roles like military we should not have government do anything else.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 10, 2015 4:54:29 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I just want to chime in and say that government like all institutions has a function in society. A very limited function and if you want an institution to help people. That's fine, but Government on the other-hand is simply an institution of violence and force [It taxes]. It's basically a sword and turning that sword on people asking them to pay for helping people is coercion. Outside of very limited roles like military we should not have government do anything else.

Which is what always drives me insane with marxists. They always preach about "caring and sharing" but then they believe in force and violence to get what they want. They don't believe in personal responsibility but group responsibility. Not only is it hypocritical it's just plain ineffective. People who believe this are either unintelligent, uninformed, or brainwashed.


What also amazes me is how Marxists run from the fact that they're a Marxist. It has a negative connotation because of the repeated and obvious failures. Yet they believe in it and try to run from the fact by saying they're "caring" when their caring is just stealing.

Even Obama denied being a socialist. They all do. The only ones who admit it are the super hardcore nut job types.


They believe in something they know has failed because either they're: stupid, brainwashed, or have an agenda.

[JACK-2]

Jun 10, 2015 5:37:57 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Which is what always drives me insane with marxists. They always preach about "caring and sharing" but then they believe in force and violence to get what they want. They don't believe in personal responsibility but group responsibility. Not only is it hypocritical it's just plain ineffective. People who believe this are either unintelligent, uninformed, or brainwashed.

Even if they believed in shared responsibility. I wouldn't have a problem if they kept it in their little enclave. Since I believe in freedom to self determinate. Marxist don't just believe in shared responsibility, they think it's the only legitimate way of life. And, killing people to achieve it is okay because they're "Righteous". Like religious fanatics who think they're way is the only way and if you don't abide by their laws you should die. Even when you're outside of their community.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 10, 2015 5:44:27 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Jun 10, 2015 5:37:57 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Which is what always drives me insane with marxists. They always preach about "caring and sharing" but then they believe in force and violence to get what they want. They don't believe in personal responsibility but group responsibility. Not only is it hypocritical it's just plain ineffective. People who believe this are either unintelligent, uninformed, or brainwashed.

Even if they believed in shared responsibility. I wouldn't have a problem if they kept it in their little enclave. Since I believe in freedom to self determinate. Marxist don't just believe in shared responsibility, they think it's the only legitimate way of life. And, killing people to achieve it is okay because they're "Righteous". Like religious fanatics who think they're way is the only way and if you don't abide by their laws you should die. Even when you're outside of their community.

Exactly. People can believe in all of the "sharing" and caring they want. But they know that the people who believe in this tend to be losers, so they want to steal from people like me to fund their nonsense. And then they want to make me pay to leave which is in effect putting a wall up, like the US exit tax. This is why altruism is bad. When you uphold collective sacrifice you remove the freedom of the individual. An exit tax is a tenet of marxism, which they would agree in. They have more in common with Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin than they expect.

My other problem is they run from the fact that they're a Marxist by hiding it. Be brave and stand for your stupidity. They know it doesn't work but they endorse it anyways, but they have to make the pill easy to swallow. Which is why we're at where we're at now. Democracy and slightly increased socialism over the years has led to this mess.


I've talked to MisterLC and he told me that it's my responsibility if someone has more kids than they can afford because I could have educated them. This is common sense, and even when you tell family members this; they don't care because they want to steal. He somehow replaces their decision making on my shoulders and then says it's my burden.

On top of this he said people have a right to steal if they feel like they "need" something. Then he says he's not a marxist. That's the very definition of Marxist, because if you have a right to steal then you clearly don't respect private property. Including the body because the body is my property.

If I have the right to use violence to get what I want when it comes to what you produce with your mind and body, why can't I do the same with your body?

If I need a kidney, can I steal that from you? What if I "need" sex? Can I use a woman's body that she owns and controls to have sex and do what I want with it without her consent?


But he's not a marxist. Not at all.


The "not caring about material things is bs" as well. People like him take their very limited funds and spend more of it on luxury goods they can barely afford and say they don't care about money. They're just not responsible with it. Big difference.

[JACK-2]

Marxist also always believe they have a right to something all while expecting someone else to satisfy this right. You can't have a right to something without putting an obligation on someone else regarding that right. If you have a right to healthcare then it's someones obligation to pay for it. They don't get that or they don't care.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 10, 2015 6:42:15 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Marxist also always believe they have a right to something all while expecting someone else to satisfy this right. You can't have a right to something without putting an obligation on someone else regarding that right. If you have a right to healthcare then it's someones obligation to pay for it. They don't get that or they don't care.

Nope. The most "caring" don't care at all when it comes to getting what they want. More irony and hypocrisy.

People want to hide behind the shield of "caring". People who go on about "caring about people" say this because they don't have anything else going on, and they have to use "caring" as a type of opiate to soothe their own failure. These people who do these feel good causes with other people's money talk about "caring". This is how they get whatever self fulfillment they have and how they aim their resentment at other people. "I don't have money because I care about others and material things don't mean much to me.". That's because they don't have nice things. By the way, where do these things come from that people need to survive? Someone had to make them. These clowns think money just fall out of the sky. Lol.

Loved ones cost money. Women cost a lot of money, children cost money. Being in good health costs money because you need to eat and take care of yourself, and you need healthcare. What if you want to travel? That costs money. The reasons these fools can sit on the internet spouting this nonsense is because someone invented *that* and a computer for them to use.

Like people who have money don't care about others? I'm sure they have friends and loved ones as well. This whole loser worship annoys me because it's bad=good. The poor, uglier, and dumber you are, the better a person you are. You know what I say. Ugly on the outside ugly on the inside. Poor areas have the ugliest and dumbest people, they also have the highest crime rates. So much about caring. They emphsasize caring alright, because people have to care about their safety when they go near those hellholes. I live in a very nice area and the people are kind and leave me alone. They also look out for each other. Much better than you see in the crapsack I came from. Areas like Detroit and Mississippi.

"Caring" is subjective. Caring varies from person to person and subject to subject, and you can make different actions even while caring. People say they care about animals and still eat them.

People say they care about people, but Mister LC advocates violence to get what he wants. Some weird kind of "care" that is.

I care enough to respect people's property and leave them alone. I don't need people to "care" about me. They can hate me because I have money, or hate me because I'm black. Who cares. I appreciate that person far more if they respect my basic rights to freedom and life and my property than someone who "cares" and wants to control my life and steal from me.

Caring doesn't mean shit. It's about actions and results. You can care about something and still do nothing. MisterLC cares and he's on the computer and not out helping others. What matters is results. If someone "cares" about cancer and does nothing about it but talk on some internet site, and the other person actually found a cure for cancer for the sheer love of money, who would I be more thankful for? The person who "cares" more or the person who actually found the cure?


People use "caring" and "love" when they have nothing else to offer. Love is a selfish thing indeed. This "caring" is just a way for losers to feel good about themselves without actually doing anything useful. After all they still care right?

[JACK-2]

Yeah, I really can't stand the "Money doesn't matter crowd" It's one of the reasons I dislike most religions. Including Marxism, how is being a harvest away from starvation in a subsistence economy "good"?

Also, how does having money mean you don't care about people? It's a non-sequitur. Marxist claim rich people are bad because they are rich. But, at the sametime want wealth to buy stuff. Look at all those occupy people who hate capitalism but have Mac's, wear nikes and use youtube lol. Or religious leaders that say wealth is bad but preach inside mega Cathedrals. How is poverty good? How is being hungry because you can't eat or dress properly good? What's worst is then they claim that you'll get all the stuff you didn't have in the afterlife? Why do I need a mansion when I'm dead, when I could've used it now? It's crazy.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 10, 2015 7:33:05 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Yeah, I really can't stand the "Money doesn't matter crowd" It's one of the reasons I dislike most religions. Including Marxism, how is being a harvest away from starvation in a subsistence economy "good"?

Also, how does having money mean you don't care about people? It's a non-sequitur. Marxist claim rich people are bad because they are rich. But, at the sametime want wealth to buy stuff. Look at all those occupy people who hate capitalism but have Mac's, wear nikes and use youtube lol. Or religious leaders that say wealth is bad but preach inside mega Cathedrals. How is poverty good? How is being hungry because you can't eat or dress properly good? What's worst is then they claim that you'll get all the stuff you didn't have in the afterlife? Why do I need a mansion when I'm dead, when I could've used it now? It's crazy.

Yea, the same reason I do. I had one church that told the people it was stupid for wanting more.

People don't understand money or free trade at all, and why money is one of the most important things in an advanced society. Without it our standard of living would plummet.

It's just ignorance. These same people love blowing their money on Apple products. MisterLC told me he was having tough times and then he bought a 3DS which cost $300! If you're struggling why are you spending your money on that? You could save and invest and do better for yourself and donate that. Why not take what money you have and give it? Spending a huge chunk of your money on luxury goods and then saying you don't care about money is silly. Especially when you talk of helping others so much.

And caring isn't really the issue. It's about effectiveness. A system of freedom means a higher standard of living. Also people care when it's voluntary. Force has nothing to do with caring, because if people care so much why do they use force or have to be forced to do something?


It's funny because the Bible said there isn't a problem which couldn't be solved by money. The churches conveniently ignore that because collectivist institutions want to separate you from your wealth in order to enrich themselves. It's all based on lies and intangibles and fear mongering. This is why I say there's no greater good than serving your own free will, because these "greater goods" are manufactured by somebody else to get what they want. These people have their own interests at heart but they manipulate others to get what they want.

It's all a bunch of envy and taking by losers.


This sums it up nicely.

www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/05/10-reasons-you-should-never-have-a-religion/

[JACK-2]

Despite being a theist, I'm gonna have to agree. Have you seen all the marxist crap the new pope is preaching? Pope Francis is the final straw on why I'm done with Catholicism.

www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/11/27/it_s_sad_how_wrong_pope_francis_is_unless_it_s_a_deliberate_mistranslation_by_leftists

But, then again. I should've seen this coming, most religions obsession with Asceticism, the afterlife and frugal living glorifies poverty. Only difference between Marxism is that Marxist actually try to physically separate the rich from their own money. Jesus may have been the first Marxism:

The Bible makes it clear Jesus was a Marxist before Marxism had a name. He distrusted the rich. "It's easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter Heaven," forewarned Jesus. The credo of the Beatitudes demonstrated Jesus saw the world in terms of class struggle. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth."

www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-arel/sorry-republicans-but-jes_b_5916564.html

I feel bad saying this, but Christianity was the worlds first religion for losers. Probably why it's so popular.

The old testament is slightly more in line with capitalism.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 10, 2015 8:25:39 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Despite being a theist, I'm gonna have to agree. Have you seen all the marxist crap the new pope is preaching? Pope Francis is the final straw on why I'm done with Catholicism.

www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/11/27/it_s_sad_how_wrong_pope_francis_is_unless_it_s_a_deliberate_mistranslation_by_leftists

But, then again. I should've seen this coming, most religions obsession with Asceticism, the afterlife and frugal living glorifies poverty. Only difference between Marxism is that Marxist actually try to physically separate the rich from their own money. Jesus may have been the first Marxism:

The Bible makes it clear Jesus was a Marxist before Marxism had a name. He distrusted the rich. "It's easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter Heaven," forewarned Jesus. The credo of the Beatitudes demonstrated Jesus saw the world in terms of class struggle. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth."

www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-arel/sorry-republicans-but-jes_b_5916564.html

I feel bad saying this, but Christianity was the worlds first religion for losers. Probably why it's so popular.

The old testament is slightly more in line with capitalism.

That's what I've been trying to tell you!

You see, this is why I have a problem with religion. It's not because I'm a "bad person" and I hate others or any of that nonsense. I grew up in church.

I don't like it for 2 reasons:

1. I like facts and proof and there is none. It's "just believe". I don't like being told I should change my life to fit something that there is no proof of, and as far as I'm concerned, doesn't exist.

2. Because I believe in freedom, and freedom is also about responsibility. People who believe in this want someone else to take care of their lives, which is about absolving responsibility from themselves, and enslaving others. Yes, the church can't force me to do it at gunpoint, but when they tell me it's my obligation to be my neighbor's keeper or else I'm "GOING TO HELL" they've essentially made me a moral slave by fear-mongering or by scaring me about some boogeyman. It's really just Santa for adults. I believe people should just take responsibility for themselves. People like MisterLC want to dump the responsibility onto me.

I think scaring people about boogeymen or making up some story to get losers to give you stuff is less productive and actually learning facts and being productive to be far more useful not only to oneself but to others. If I make myself rich I've enriched the lives of others (unless I used force or stole it). Religion and government are just parasites and religions for people, one believes in something tangible and uses force, the other in something make believe and uses fear mongering or moral shaming.

I like freedom and I don't need others telling me how to live my life. I know what's best for me.

[JACK-2]

I never thought you were an evil person, btw. Belief or non-belief in deity doesn't mean you're evil...I hate when religious people say that.

I don't like those things either. I don't personally believe in heaven or hell. The consequences or rewards of our actions happen in this life not some fantasy other world that somehow exists when were dead. As for faith in general. I'm willing to believe, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect the same of someone just cause you say so and if they don't black mail them that they're going to hell or disney-world in the clouds. You're right about the shaming and fear mongering.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 10, 2015 8:54:08 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I never thought you were an evil person, btw. Belief or non-belief in deity doesn't mean you're evil...I hate when religious people say that.

I don't like those things either. I don't personally believe in heaven or hell. The consequences or rewards of our actions happen in this life not some fantasy other world that somehow exists when were dead. As for faith in general. I'm willing to believe, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect the same of someone just cause you say so and if they don't black mail them that they're going to hell or disney-world in the clouds. You're right about the shaming and fear mongering.

Well like I always say people believe in self interest. The reason people tend to believe was because their parents brainwashed them, or they're scared of going to hell.

I think the real reason they do in most cases is because they feel like God will "take care of them" and "fix their problems". This gives them an excuse to make bad decisions and talk about how some people are "blessed" (another word for lucky) more than others. I think it's silly waiting for this and people should do for themselves.

"Whenever something good happens, it's God, whenever I don't like it, it's because I wasn't blessed."

This is collectivism in a nutshell.

[JACK-2]

Jun 10, 2015 8:58:48 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Well like I always say people believe in self interest. The reason people tend to believe was because their parents brainwashed them, or they're scared of going to hell.

I think the real reason they do in most cases is because they feel like God will "take care of them" and "fix their problems". This gives them an excuse to make bad decisions and talk about how some people are "blessed" (another word for lucky) more than others. I think it's silly waiting for this and people should do for themselves.

"Whenever something good happens, it's God, whenever I don't like it, it's because I wasn't blessed."

This is collectivism in a nutshell.

And, Christianity and Government in a nutshell.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 10, 2015 9:01:36 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Jun 10, 2015 8:58:48 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Well like I always say people believe in self interest. The reason people tend to believe was because their parents brainwashed them, or they're scared of going to hell.

I think the real reason they do in most cases is because they feel like God will "take care of them" and "fix their problems". This gives them an excuse to make bad decisions and talk about how some people are "blessed" (another word for lucky) more than others. I think it's silly waiting for this and people should do for themselves.

"Whenever something good happens, it's God, whenever I don't like it, it's because I wasn't blessed."

This is collectivism in a nutshell.

And, Christianity and Government in a nutshell.

I find religion to really be the same. Nothing wrong with being spiritual or having beliefs (everyone believes in something). Why the religion though? Why do I need an imposed belief system? Can't I just live my own life and take care of my responsibilities?

[JACK-2]

Jun 10, 2015 9:12:11 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

I find religion to really be the same. Nothing wrong with being spiritual or having beliefs (everyone believes in something). Why the religion though? Why do I need an imposed belief system? Can't I just live my own life and take care of my responsibilities?

Well, I like the communal aspects of religious systems. But, I'm not a fan of forcing or shaming people. Which is what marxist and most big time religions do. They need to force people to believe what they believe because it validates it somehow. It's like how fanboys need bandwagons or they don't feel secure. I'm not a fan of proselytizing religions anyway. It's annoying, and disrespectful.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 10, 2015 10:11:26 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Jun 10, 2015 9:12:11 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

I find religion to really be the same. Nothing wrong with being spiritual or having beliefs (everyone believes in something). Why the religion though? Why do I need an imposed belief system? Can't I just live my own life and take care of my responsibilities?

Well, I like the communal aspects of religious systems. But, I'm not a fan of forcing or shaming people. Which is what marxist and most big time religions do. They need to force people to believe what they believe because it validates it somehow. It's like how fanboys need bandwagons or they don't feel secure. I'm not a fan of proselytizing religions anyway. It's annoying, and disrespectful.

Well religions all want to exand their followers and resources so prostelyzation is necessary. I think people can associate freely without drinking the Kool-Aid and my forum is a (very small) example. No need to shame or indoctrinate.

[JACK-2]

Jun 10, 2015 13:30:30 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Well religions all want to exand their followers and resources so prostelyzation is necessary. I think people can associate freely without drinking the Kool-Aid and my forum is a (very small) example. No need to shame or indoctrinate.

Just the big universal ones like Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Small ethnic religions like Shinto or Judaism don't proselytize. Big time religions are alot like Street Fighter and have lots of fanboys lol. Basically, like most things the smaller the better. I'm for a small, tight-knit group of like minded individuals. Not some mega movement, because those suck. This is why I like this forum, because it's small and no stupidity.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 10, 2015 13:56:54 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Jun 10, 2015 13:30:30 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Well religions all want to exand their followers and resources so prostelyzation is necessary. I think people can associate freely without drinking the Kool-Aid and my forum is a (very small) example. No need to shame or indoctrinate.

Just the big universal ones like Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. Small ethnic religions like Shinto or Judaism don't proselytize. Big time religions are alot like Street Fighter and have lots of fanboys lol. Basically, like most things the smaller the better. I'm for a small, tight-knit group of like minded individuals. Not some mega movement, because those suck. This is why I like this forum, because it's small and no stupidity.

Well their version is "be fruitful and multiply" kids are almost guaranteed followers. They're all groups with similar strong beliefs. I can get that by networking and meeting others like myself.

[JACK-2]

Jun 10, 2015 14:01:05 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Well their version is "be fruitful and multiply" kids are almost guaranteed followers. They're all groups with similar strong beliefs. I can get that by networking and meeting others like myself.

It depends, Judaism doesn't have a strong central tenant like other religions. You don't even have to be a jew to considered a good person. There's also alot more liberal interpretations of Mitzah laws. But, if you mean orthodox than yeah. I don't believe in forcing children to have the same beliefs as myself. You can network with or without religion. I'm not endorsing that you need it to network.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 10, 2015 14:07:29 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Jun 10, 2015 14:01:05 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Well their version is "be fruitful and multiply" kids are almost guaranteed followers. They're all groups with similar strong beliefs. I can get that by networking and meeting others like myself.

It depends, Judaism doesn't have a strong central tenant like other religions. You don't even have to be a jew to considered a good person. There's also alot more liberal interpretations of Mitzah laws. But, if you mean orthodox than yeah. I don't believe in forcing children to have the same beliefs as myself. You can network with or without religion. I'm not endorsing that you need it to network.

I think many religions have certain miniature groups who end up doing their own thing. I was on the more free side, but most kids follow their parent's footsteps.

[JACK-2]

Small, loose and Free groups are the best. Just like Government, large movements with bandwagons and masses suck.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 10, 2015 15:43:26 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Small, loose and Free groups are the best. Just like Government, large movements with bandwagons and masses suck.

Exactly because then you get into groupthink and suddenly people have a fear of leaving because they want acceptance. Which is all this is anyways.

[misterlc]

Ok I'm back and I'm going to respond to as much of what you said as I can. It may be out of order but dammit man you did write a ton! It's obvious you know how to type! Alright here I go...

You stated 'I'm an individual and this is my life. I do what I want with it regardless of what some morons, governments, or moochers have to say. They just want to steal from me anyways so why should I listen to them? They'll emotionally blackmail anybody with the "caring" label while they benefit at their expense. If they took more responsibility over their own lives, then they would be better off, but instead they want to engage in legalized theft.'

The truth is that everyone has to deal with these negative entities as individuals just like you do. Who appreciates anybody who is trying to steal from them? Emotional blackmail is wrong to be certain but people suggesting that other people care is not emotional blackmail. If that's the case then saying that murdering people is bad is just a different type of emotional blackmail. The bottom line is that we WILL teach the next generation through our actions. The things that we are writing here can be viewed and learned by people that may be alive after we are gone. Would you teach someone that murder is ok as long as it is their will to do so? For the record I believe that legalized theft is wrong and taxing people unfairly is destructive. The truth is though that unfairness exists in every corner of the world wherever there are humans. The only thing that you or I can do to change that is to make sure that it doesn't flow out of us. I'll touch on the question about the man that steals food because he feels that he "needs" it. The man is in the wrong if he ignores the various ways that he can procure food for himself and just steals your food because that's easier than earning it. On the other hand if the king owns all the fields and forest around the man and eliminates all the ways that the man can procure his own food then what other choice does the man have other than to catch one of the kings rats and eat it thus stealing food from the king? The king was born with ownership of all the land so he's not guilty of any wrong is he? For the peasant that stole the rat from the king the penalty is death. Do you really believe that the peasant deserves this punishment because he envied the kings ability to catch and eat a rat? Should the peasant be tortured to teach the others that all animals belong to the king who will ration out food as he sees fit? Do you really believe that the peasants that the king turns a blind eye to should just accept their fate and starve to death because eating anything is stealing? Likely these peasants will take a page out of your book and exert their free will in order to survive no matter what they are labeled. I hope that clears up that confusion because I don't believe that people have a right to take what they "think" they need and let's get real you knew that already didn't you? I used food as the example because it's common knowledge that people actually NEED food to survive. This is a discussion, not a competition and we will both learn how the other feels about the topics that come up. We will both "win" knowledge that we otherwise would be ignorant about. I'm not really trying to attack your stances but I am curious about how you sincerely feel about things. Sometimes we become conditioned by experience to respond automatically to certain stimuli as we have become accustomed to how things will play out. I am and will always be a rebel against what is "normal" in this world as corruption is usually the norm in the world of people.

You stated earlier...'I believe following free choice is caring and not forcing others to do it. I've helped far more people than the marxists who as you admit pay for your own leisure and sit on the computer when you can be out helping others. Because at the end of the day you were in it for your own self fulfillment. You bought these consoles and video game systems to fulfill yourself instead of taking the scarce resources you have and helping like you say you should. This holier than thou garbage is about the weak mooching off of the strong. What makes me laugh is if someone said "The people who are weak and stupid and poor should be killed because they take from the strong and the productive." You'd say that's horrible, but you believe the dumb masses have the right to steal what they want from the few. The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and that's why democracy is the worst form of government, because it amounts to a bunch of idiots and losers voting to steal from others. This is what you believe in.'

All forms of government have their pros and cons I'm sure but isn't democracy the one where the people of the land make the rules for the land? Isn't tyranny... I love the internet because I just checked the definition of tyranny and the idea "tyranny of the majority" is a giant oxymoron and you're smart enough to know that. You actually made me doubt my understanding of what tyranny was for a second, that's how much respect I have for your arguments. Ha Ha cmon now C! Don't do that man cause I know that you're better than that! You always were good at this but you always did get real worked up! You know me man I'm not going to come at you like jinzin so you can relax a bit...just keep that passion cause it is a good thing. If you don't like the "holier than thou" behavior of a group then don't be guilty of it yourself... Let's see how you've described your fellow humans on this page alone: morons, losers, selfish, irresponsible, thieves, hypocrites, Marxist, socialists, communists, lazy, stupid, weak, dumb, ugly, and poor. It's your right to describe people as you see fit but they definitely don't have to accept your condescending labels for them. Also you want to teach me about American history and conveniently leave out how the country was stolen by force from the natives of the land. How was that "every man for himself"? They teamed up with the natives to benefit themselves and then teamed up against the natives and only won because they worked as a TEAM better than the natives. The unity of the conquistadors was always their strongest asset. The entire country was lost to the natives mainly because the pilgrims were UNITED, and the natives weren't. At the end of the day you have the option to turn over all that you have to a native American so that you can distinguish yourself from the rest of those people that you described, the ones who have to take what someone else has, the selfish hypocritical losers. In my personal opinion you should take pride in your accomplishments and strive to achieve even more of your goals regardless of the people that envy you. That's their loss because their existence is being wasted imagining what yours is like. John Travolta is pretty wealthy but his son died young, I wouldn't want to trade places with him and I bet he would gladly live a paupers life if he could have his son back.

As far as helping people goes I have been the guy who lets the guy he just met stay at his house for a few nights because the guy had nowhere else to go. I was rewarded by the guy trying to make me feel guilty for telling him that I couldn't accommodate him but I didn't hold it against him. Whether he could stay or not wasn't up for debate and I wasn't putting him in any danger by not planning to accommodate him. (I am aware that mooching happens) Anyone who asks me for anything can get it if I can spare it. I believe in the Bible so I believe that people are not saved by works so my reason for doing as good as I can by people is because I enjoy giving that to them and they seem to benefit from my determination to do
it (Treating people with love) I'll whip my son because I love him and I'll extend the same love to a fellow human that earns my chastisement. I pray for people and there's documented evidence that proves empirically that prayer makes a significant difference when compared to a lack of prayer. Should empirical evidence only be ignored when it proves that God is listening? If self fulfillment means doing the things that make you feel fulfilled isn't that the goal of all sentient creatures? Isn't that basically the same as self preservation? If you don't do the things that make you feel fulfilled won't the "real" you suffer and thus your true "self" is not preserved? So like I stated earlier you make it seem that the only unselfish act someone can make is to commit self destruction. I'm glad that I'm having this discussion with you, a good friend, because I probably wouldn't have cared as much about a stranger ( just being honest) as to respond in such detail. I'll share my personal belief with you about interacting with other people. I like simplicity because real truths should be simple I believe, so my stance is a simple one. In this world you are either helping or hurting and there is no in between. It's been fun C so don't get bent out of shape! I love capitalism!

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I don't get what's so hard about using quote tags. I mean you can even preview the quotes as you do them. This post is messier than the other. You can even highlight my quote and add the tag in the quote function. It's the bar above right next to the smiley that says "quote".

Also not bent out of shape at all, I just got annoyed with the strawmen and you trying to insinuate I wanted a kid to die or something else.

Anyways. I was responding to *your* large paragraphs, which is why it took so long.

Let's make this brief, as I have a lot to do.

1. You keep making this about caring. Stop it. Caring and responsibility are two different things that aren't related. How you feel and what makes you feel good about yourself and gives you self fulfillment is all subjective. People "care" about different things and you can't "make" someone care about something; they either do or they don't. Furthermore people take different actions when they care about something. You just said you hit your child out of care (which I don't agree with but that's another discussion for a different time). Others would say if you cared you wouldn't hit your kid. So who's right? This is why this discussion has gotten frustrating because whether you care or not is irrelevant; it's about the actions. You earlier said you cared and people have a right to steal. I say those who have choice and don't steal care more. I care enough to respect people's right to their private property and freedom, that includes their own body.


2. This was not about "stealing" if you're under some oppressive environment as a slave or something. We're talking about a free society. The reason that slavery is wrong is the reason that theft is wrong. Nobody has the right to take from someone else or own their labor. These rights have obligations attached to them that others are forced to pay for. If you have a right to healthcare for free then you have enslaved some doctor to provide it to you. Marxism is not about care it's about theft and it doesn't work. That's why I'm against it. If a person can steal, why not rape? You said rapists are low but if someone can use force to get what they want, why can't they do it when it comes to sex? It's just a moral slippery slope. Also no two people are equal. Everyone is different and that doesn't give someone the right to steal either. I wasn't born a trust fund baby. Hey, it would have been nice, but I wasn't. Gotta make the most with what I have.

3. People are all in it for their own self interest, but it doesn't mean selfish is bad. It depends on how it's done. People do have kids for their own interest, period.
* The dumb and poor do it the most and they have no hindsight or foresight about whether their kids will take care of them, because they know they get free government money.
* The middle class and average people do it as well because they want to fulfill themselves by bringing someone into the world who didn't ask to be here, and many times they expect to be taken care of. It's a fact, history was full of people having many kids for cheap farm help and other reasons. Why do you think birth rates are so high in agrarian societies? Now people want kids to carry them when they get old, and if theirs don't they steal from other people's kids.

All self centered. I'd rather leave my kid something behind, but even that was in my interest. Black people love to have kids and act like they did them a favor. I hate that type of thinking. Suicide is self fulfilling as well because that person made a choice that it's what they wanted to do. No less selfish than anything else.


4. If people are too stupid and keep getting hoodwinked by politicians; they shouldn't be voting. This shows why democracy is bad because morons vote and you proved my point for me. Politicians promise free stuff and they get on the gravy train. While they are stupid, they're not so stupid they don't know that they benefit in the short term by getting free stuff. There was a radio show where a woman called up and told a host why she takes welfare, because she'll get over 1 million in benefits in her lifetime vs working a shitty job. It's not hard to figure out. They want to steal because it's easy. Yes politicians buy their votes with my money, but it shouldn't be happening because they shouldn't have the choice to steal it and we should have restricted votes.

5. Money matters a whole lot and the whole "money doesn't matter and the best things are free" is bs. Women cost money, kids cost money, food costs money, healthcare costs money. Everything you need and want in life costs money. The reason people are able to "care" about others is because they have their own needs fulfilled with an excess of wealth. Everything you use, touch, and taste during the day was made by someone who wanted to get ahead. There's nothing wrong with that. Money is a tool that gives you options. I'm a hell of a lot happier having it than sitting somewhere starving.


6. How is tyranny of the majority an oxymoron? Why is the majority abusing power and stealing it somehow better than one man? It's nonsense and that's what our country was trying to avoid we are *not* a democracy.

1.
arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
Synonyms: despotism, absolutism, dictatorship.

Where does it have to be one man? Absolute abuse of power is tyrannical regardless of if it's one man or a community. If a group of people in your community wanted to steal your house would you like it? Why would I want the country run by a group of dumbasses who can't even think for themselves? Because they're more of them? So what? Democracies often elect dictators in the first place who follow the same mantra you were preaching. Why even have leaders if we'll just go by what the public wants (which is just stealing).

Simple.