Total Posts:1,031|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 12:42:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Economic and Ethical Concept of "Earning" is a Big Lie

Caveat lector, my object here is to make your minds boldly go to a place they've never gone before, a place of critically questioning one of the most fundamental and virtually unquestioned tenets of your core worldview – the belief that we can and must earn our daily bread, our piece of the pie, and the proverbial cherry atop it.

Yes, in that assumptional matrix called common sense resides and is entrenched the normative notion of "earning". And in our capitalist culture it's a notion especially near and dear to our minds. We hold it to be quite the tangible truism that every individual has an unalienable right to exercise private proprietary control over the proceeds and profits, i.e., the earnings of his self-interested efforts, and to earn a measure of wealth superior to that of his neighbor, even if he exploits and impoverishes his neighbor in the process. This, this individualistic and possessive concept of earning and ownership, is the essence of the system and spirit of so-called "free enterprise". It's a system and spirit that we've all been educated from the cradle to embrace and that few of us ever think about in a truly skeptical fashion.

However, that an idea is widespread and largely unquestioned doesn't establish it's veracity beyond reproach. Once upon a time no one on earth had any inkling of gravity, the universally accepted explanation for why whatever goes up must invariably come down was the concept of natural place, the idea that terrestrial objects naturally belong on the ground and consequently return there when thrown up into the air. What could be more commonsensical?!

But then along came Newton, and physicists began to realize how common sense could and does lead our thinking about the nature of reality into astray from the truth and smack-dab into error. Likewise, the concept that the natural place of wealth is in the purse and coffers of those who supposedly "earn" it is in need of quite fundamental reevaluation and revision.

To begin with, the concept of earning is inherently egoistic and runs contrary to and flouts humanistic, ethical, and spiritual principles of equality. In both a democratic and an ethical-spiritual worldview we hold it to be a self-evident truth that all human beings are equal embodiments of the ultimate reality and mystery called creativity. Each of us gives it form as the same species of life and possesses the same intrinsic baseline value, goodness, and entitlement to well-being and joy. Each of us is therefore endued with an equal natural right to the economic necessities and prosperity necessary for a dignified and happy existence.

Sure, some individuals give evidence of greater genetic gifts than others, and some individuals actualize more potential than others. In a positivistic and profane, utilitarian and "tough-minded" perspective all men and women are not at all equal. But this flat fact does not take away from, let alone trump, the sociomorally revolutionary truth that we all enjoy the same fundamental, ontological nature and sanctity of life. And yes, this being the case, no one is privileged to be entitled to greater economic security and status than his fellow man; and no one can privilege himself with, i.e., no one can "earn", such a right.

Not even through the virtues of hard work and an enterprising spirit? No, being driven harder than your neighbor by a selfish and materialistic desire for wealth, which is often achieved by expropriating the value of his labor, does not mean that you thereby acquire a superior worthiness to enjoy the decent quality of life that we all have an inherently equal right to.

To put it in theistic language, everyone's welfare and fulfillment is equally important to God; equally important from a cosmic and metaphysical standpoint, that is. And from a human-equality perspective everyone's needs are of equal validity and concern. A more equitable distribution of society's wealth, reflective of these enlightened viewpoints is what we ought to be striving for, not a capitalistic form of economics that in the name of rewarding hard work places egoistic acquisitiveness before the spirit of egalitarian community.

Ontologically and ethically-speaking then, sharing ought to take precedence over "earning", and living on a coequal basis ought to be preferred to existing under a hierarchical power structure in which capitalist plutocrats claim to have somehow legitimately earned their place at the top. And no, this rejection of the concept of earning in favor of socioeconomic coequality and communal sharing is certainly not a denial or infringement of people's right to pursue and attain what they want out of life, it's merely the rejection of the notion that we have a right to behave with the kind of selfishness that leads to 1% of the population enjoying an obscenely opulent standard of living, and 99% coping with poverty or chronically struggling to make ends meet.

All of this might sound like insanely radical nonsense to someone who believes that we have a right of some kind to practice a socially-autistic privatism, that the best form of society is one in which we all economically function like atomized individuals edaciously earning, rapaciously reaping the fruits of our self-interested pursuits. But behold the insanity of capitalism, of a system that elevates private ownership and economic egoism above all other principles and produces a status quo in which a tiny elite is disproportionately blessed, and the bulk of humanity is unjustly distressed.

Yes, the concept of earning, though it might seem innocuous and right-minded, is in fact a euphemistic conceptualization and a rationalization of self-interest and uncompassion, which recklessly swings the door wide open to precisely the sort of egoistic, dog-eat-dog individualism that has always visited so much cruelty and pain on the poor.

The self-justifying idea that I've "earned" what I have allows me to feel okay about being one of the fortunate haves enjoying the good life amidst the suffering of other human beings whose lives are worth just as much as mine and who don't deserve to be consigned to the underclass of hapless have-nots. With my sanctimonious sense that I've entitled myself to live better than the losers struggling in their own self-made squalor I needn't feel guilt or show pity. If I can hide my selfishness behind the concept of earning, well, I needn't feel the slightest pang of conscience! And of course I therefore see no moral imperative to reorganize society and redistribute its wealth along more equitable lines to help give all of my fellow men and women a first-class ticket to ride aboard the capitalist gravy train.

Indeed, my attitude will transcend even Marie Antoinette's in callousness, instead of "Let them eat cake" I'll declare in my hardened heart "Nay, don't even let them eat cake, they haven't earned it like me". Thus and so, the "commonsense" concept of earning leads to brutal individualism and the familiar evils of a capitalist economy.

Interdependence and solidarism, a recognition that the underlying structure of our existence is relational and social, that we are all individuals within the cosmic context of interconnectedness, and that our mode of economic production and way of living together should actualize this reality, that's the ticket to a genuinely kinder and gentler form of economics and society.

The concluding segment is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 12:43:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Concluding Segment

To stand on your supposed right to be an autonomous, utterly autarkic economic actor, securing success for yourself with depraved disregard for the community that has in fact made your success possible is an irresponsibly selfish rejection of the synergistic structure of reality as the best model upon which to base our socioeconomic system, it significantly impedes our growth into a more mutually caring society, it's the height of egoistic hubris, and it makes you morally complicit in the misfortune and misery of capitalist society's casualties. That is, clinging to the concept of earning is contraindicated for the common good and for your personal moral good.

Nope, no man is truly an economic, "earning" island, individually entitling himself to an extra large à la mode slab of the ole prosperity pie. He never does alone and independently whatever it is that he thinks "earns" him a middle or upper-class lifestyle. His economic activities and achievements are all intricately involved with the economic doings of the rest of humanity. The notion that one "earns" anything by him/herself is an outright lie that our ego tells our conscience. And the notion that the private enterprise system is merely a meritocracy based on our right to earn our way to affluence is a social lie that we're fed to give it the illusion of being fair – and that our own egoism feeds into and helps to perpetuate.

It's not at all hyperbole, then, to say that the putatively commonsense concept of earning is actually a morally and socially catastrophic conceit. It's certainly far from being the valid & sound, right & proper, a priori, axiomatic and absolute principle that it's usually taken to be. Indeed, if excessive egoism and the concupiscent love of personal gain is the root of all human evil, well, then the concept of earning is the beguiling bloom that belies the moral and social danger. And whether you agree with this or not, the sooner that we realize that no one should have to "earn" his exemption from poverty and his right to partake of a rich society's prosperity, the better off will the average human being's lot and life be.

As the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau realized, the invention of the idea of private property and earning was the beginning of the fettering of human beings by their egoism, their fellow man, and by social systems geared around these ill-begotten ideas. Embracing Rousseau's realization, and renouncing the rationale for private ownership formulated by the likes of John Locke and Adam Smith that ideologically underpins the capitalist system, replacing it with a more ontologically and ethically enlightened concept of community property, cooperation, connectedness, and coequality, will be the next great revolution in human history. The most life-transforming since the Agricultural Revolution!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 3:14:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Addendum

Before the Agricultural Revolution, before the dawn of thinking in terms of owning and earning, Homo sapiens were certainly sapient, wise enough to realize that egalitarianism, not egoism, is where it's at. For the hundred thousand or so years that our prehistoric predecessors spent as hunter-gatherers the egalitarian ethos of one for all, all for one prevailed and was strictly enforced. For instance, when a bison or mammoth hunt was successful the individual who killed the woolly beast did not claim that he had "earned" first dibs on the meat; rather, it was considered the bounty and wealth of the group and divided equally. The beauty of this system was obvious even to Paleolithic primitives. It ensured that no one went hungry, that everyone received his/her portion. It was truly common sense. Alas, common sense that we promptly fell away from when the egoistic ethos of uncharitably keeping what you "earn" for yourself came into fashion.

But if we were to abolish the ethic of earning and return to the ancient wisdom of equalitarianism wouldn't that disincentivize productivity and lead to a major "free rider" problem? Well, wouldn't it be logical to expect that we'd end up with a large percentage of the population parasitically living off of the economic productivity of others? If one could share the wealth without contributing to its creation why deign to work? Well, for one thing, society could insist on full, universal employment for all able-bodied members, being a lounge-about leech would not be permitted. Also, it's a bit cynical and materialistic to think that material gain is the sole motivation that drives people to be productive. There's also the moral desire to do one's part, and the internal need to express our creativity, which would still be in effect after the abolition of our selfishness-based system. At any rate, the values of an equalitarian society would be radically different and arguably just as effective at inducing everyone to be of use to his community.

To wrap up, our system geared for the obsessive, insatiable overaccumulation of capital and wealth is the ultimate evolution of the bad idea that we're entitled to earn the reward of being actively self-serving, of following our covetousness and greed. It's a system that doesn't really work very well at all, except to guarantee recurrent recessions and the routine victimization of workers. And it conclusively convicts the concept of earning of having tendencies that are pernicious, corruptive, anti-social, and seriously at cross-purposes with human well-being. "Earning", it turns out, is one of those ideas that at first blush and when not subjected to critical thought might seem reasonable and right, but upon further investigation is seen to be morally and socially crazy and warped.

A society explicitly predicated upon the principles of equality and interdependence; that kicks "earning" and economic egoism to the curb of socially-unacceptable motivations; and in which the good of all takes priority over the special interests of businessmen, bosses, and bankers, over their supposed prerogative of grossly overaccumulating prosperity at everyone else's expense; such a prosocial socioeconomic system can be the beautiful destination of human civilization's long journey, if we dare to aspire to it.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 4:20:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 3:39:35 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Earning respect is a lie too...

Yes, everyone is intrinsically entitled to a certain baseline amount of respect, consideration, and dignity simply by virtue of being a human being. Such fundamental respect is not something that one should have to "earn". However, there is also of course what I'll term acquired respect, which one must indeed cultivate and earn. That is, if one wishes to enjoy respect for excellence in a particular area of endeavor one must cultivate excellence and earn it. For instance, if one wishes to be respected as a great artist one must develop the technical capabilities to produce great works of art, i.e., one must earn the admiration of art connoisseurs and not think of it as an entitlement. This indeed is just common sense. Even I understand that.

So, you see, I do not reject the concept and ethic of earning in a simplistically sweeping fashion. No, I do in fact recognize its legitimacy and necessity when it comes to attaining certain goals such as acquired respect in one's field. I merely maintain that the egoism involved in thinking in terms of "earning" doesn't belong in our economic thinking and shouldn't be the basis for our system of society.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 4:23:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 3:39:35 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Earning respect is a lie too. We all love you Charles.

Btw, fess up, you just read the title, didn't you?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 4:38:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ever watch the National Geographic Channel's new gawk-at-bizarro-people-on-TV (fringe folks who are euphemistically called "outliers") show, Doomsday Preppers ? Well, it features a new 21st century breed of survivalists, people with the psychology of thoroughly atomized individuals (very much like that of right-libertarians) who are preoccupied with the prospect of a financial collapse or the eruption of a supervolcano, and whose mind-set is: "I'm preparing for my own personal survival and that of my little nuclear family, and writ'n off the rest of humanity. If any desperate human beings come around looking to share my supplies, well, I've got my little arsenal and will give them an armed response. No one else is getting in my lifeboat!"

These so-called "preppers" epitomize, in a very naked and extreme way, the essentially egoistic mentality that I critique in this post. Mm-hmm, anyone who thinks that the tendency of our capitalist culture to produce an egoistic mentality is merely a figment of my "commie" thinking is invited to view an episode of Doomsday Preppers and have his/her misconception corrected.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 5:15:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How does it feel to know that until I posted this, 86% of the posts in this thread were from you?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 5:15:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 5:15:06 PM, thett3 wrote:
How does it feel to know that until I posted this, 86% of the posts in this thread were from you?

LOL, you're so mean <3
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 6:44:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 5:15:06 PM, thett3 wrote:
How does it feel to know that until I posted this, 86% of the posts in this thread were from you?

lol
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 9:24:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Holy sh!t you ramble a lot. The first four paras are solely fillers :/

For all who tl;dr'ed the post- basically he's saying that we are not entitled to live a better life than our fellow human beings, because we are all born equal. Even though we might have better skills, and talent than our fellow companions- god intended us to be equal (?), he gave us the same life, thus striving for betterment is immoral. Basically the same sh!tty socialism arguments.

Reply: Equality is a desirable attribute in an economy- something that every economy does strive for. However, incentivising better production is something that leads to Growth of an economy. Once there is no incentive to produce better, there is a dampness in economic growth- which has severe economic consequences.

Also your argument is based on entitlement- which is a flawed concept.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 9:29:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 9:24:08 PM, Cermank wrote:
Holy sh!t you ramble a lot. The first four paras are solely fillers :/

If he were more concise, I would be more inclined to read his posts. This is an internet forum, not a thesis.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 9:33:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 9:29:32 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:24:08 PM, Cermank wrote:
Holy sh!t you ramble a lot. The first four paras are solely fillers :/

If he were more concise, I would be more inclined to read his posts. This is an internet forum, not a thesis.

Even thesis are marked down if one includes unimportant shizz. He even mentioned gravity. :/

The post itself isn't that bad, but it's presentation is atrocious.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 9:55:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 9:33:25 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:29:32 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:24:08 PM, Cermank wrote:
Holy sh!t you ramble a lot. The first four paras are solely fillers :/

If he were more concise, I would be more inclined to read his posts. This is an internet forum, not a thesis.

Even thesis are marked down if one includes unimportant shizz. He even mentioned gravity. :/

The post itself isn't that bad, but it's presentation is atrocious.

Yep.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:03:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 9:33:25 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:29:32 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:24:08 PM, Cermank wrote:
Holy sh!t you ramble a lot. The first four paras are solely fillers :/

If he were more concise, I would be more inclined to read his posts. This is an internet forum, not a thesis.

Even thesis are marked down if one includes unimportant shizz. He even mentioned gravity. :/

The post itself isn't that bad, but it's presentation is atrocious.

That's the thing about charles. I would be happy to call him, or someone with similar views, a friend. It's the manner he goes about it that's frustrating he only wants to attack and talk at people. He's a quote from our friend charles in reply to microsuck:

At 4/18/2012 3:56:52 PM, charleslb wrote:
"Microsuck", hmm, is that perhaps what your girlfriend calls it when she performs oral sex upon you? You know, in reference to the minuscule size of what she's applying suction to? This reminds me that I've always suspected that the name Bill Gates chose for his company, Microsoft, is perhaps quite self-revealing in a Freudian sort of way. Well, if you doubt that capitalists and their defenders might be overcompensating just consider Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:19:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:03:26 PM, thett3 wrote:
He's a quote from our friend charles in reply to microsuck:
At 4/18/2012 3:56:52 PM, charleslb wrote:
"Microsuck", hmm, is that perhaps what your girlfriend calls it when she performs oral sex upon you? You know, in reference to the minuscule size of what she's applying suction to? This reminds me that I've always suspected that the name Bill Gates chose for his company, Microsoft, is perhaps quite self-revealing in a Freudian sort of way. Well, if you doubt that capitalists and their defenders might be overcompensating just consider Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh.

You should never discredit the word of the experienced.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:42:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:03:26 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:33:25 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:29:32 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/25/2012 9:24:08 PM, Cermank wrote:
Holy sh!t you ramble a lot. The first four paras are solely fillers :/

If he were more concise, I would be more inclined to read his posts. This is an internet forum, not a thesis.

Even thesis are marked down if one includes unimportant shizz. He even mentioned gravity. :/

The post itself isn't that bad, but it's presentation is atrocious.

That's the thing about charles. I would be happy to call him, or someone with similar views, a friend. It's the manner he goes about it that's frustrating he only wants to attack and talk at people. He's a quote from our friend charles in reply to microsuck:

At 4/18/2012 3:56:52 PM, charleslb wrote:
"Microsuck", hmm, is that perhaps what your girlfriend calls it when she performs oral sex upon you? You know, in reference to the minuscule size of what she's applying suction to? This reminds me that I've always suspected that the name Bill Gates chose for his company, Microsoft, is perhaps quite self-revealing in a Freudian sort of way. Well, if you doubt that capitalists and their defenders might be overcompensating just consider Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh.

I also wouldn't have a problem reading a post that long, but its always just a bunch of ad homenium attacks and confirmation biases, that its not worth reading. If someone like wnope or roylatham were to write a post that long I'd read it. But If I'm going to spend a long time reading it, there better be a good justification for it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 10:51:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

I also wouldn't have a problem reading a post that long, but its always just a bunch of ad homenium attacks and confirmation biases, that its not worth reading. If someone like wnope or roylatham were to write a post that long I'd read it. But If I'm going to spend a long time reading it, there better be a good justification for it.

This isn't that bad. Not a profoundly- OMG this opened my eyes post... obviously- but not even a this-was-a-waste-of-time post. You cant read the summary.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 11:23:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 5:15:06 PM, thett3 wrote:
How does it feel to know that until I posted this, 86% of the posts in this thread were from you?

Perhaps it's simply the case that the economic section receives less traffic, or perhaps the lack of response thus far is due to the fact that my radical rejection of the concept of earning a living, and my aspheterism (the view that private ownership is a phantasm that only seems real because so many of us are culturally conditioned to buy into it; i.e., that the right to private property is a veritable canard, an egoistic convention masquerading as a right) is too radical for conservative folks to wrap their minds around and mount an intellectual attack against? Well, perhaps time will tell.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
thett3
Posts: 14,348
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 11:25:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 11:23:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 4/25/2012 5:15:06 PM, thett3 wrote:
How does it feel to know that until I posted this, 86% of the posts in this thread were from you?


Perhaps it's simply the case that the economic section receives less traffic, or perhaps the lack of response thus far is due to the fact that my radical rejection of the concept of earning a living, and my aspheterism (the view that private ownership is a phantasm that only seems real because so many of us are culturally conditioned to buy into it; i.e., that the right to private property is a veritable canard, an egoistic convention masquerading as a right) is too radical for conservative folks to wrap their minds around and mount an intellectual attack against? Well, perhaps time will tell.

Haha, pick a topic any time you want and we can debate it and see who's mind really has the trouble with concepts.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2012 11:28:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 5:15:44 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/25/2012 5:15:06 PM, thett3 wrote:
How does it feel to know that until I posted this, 86% of the posts in this thread were from you?

LOL, you're so mean <3

Any thoughts on the contents and thesis of the OP? Others, of the conservative ilk of course, have predictably already contributed their critical commentary on my style of self-expression, perhaps you, as a fellow communist, might have something more substantive to contribute to the thread?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 12:09:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
... Seriously?

You won't address the response of the only person who addressed the points made by you, but you can try to finger point at people who made fun of your long post? No wonder no one replies to you.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 12:39:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 9:24:08 PM, Cermank wrote:
Holy sh!t you ramble a lot.

Ramble? Hardly, what you consider to be rambling is simply called a long train of thought by people whose cognitive processes haven't been conditioned for excessive brevity by too much twitter and texting. Yes, apparently too much time spent with one's mind engaged in processing and communicating in the sound bites of internet forums and cell phone messages can cause what's being called popcorn brain, a condition that makes one ill-equipped to deal with input and information that takes more than a second or two to process and that doesn't yield instant gratification (indeed, according to a CNN article "Over time, and with enough Internet usage, the structure of our brains can actually physically change, according to a new study. Researchers in China did MRIs on the brains of 18 college students who spent about 10 hours a day online. Compared with a control group who spent less than two hours a day online, these students had less gray matter, the thinking part of the brain"). Well, those of you who apparently suffer from some degree of popcorn brain do tend to complain about the prolixity of my posts and have difficulty thinking about their theses (maybe this has to do with the diminished gray matter?!), but they're actually not at all "rambling".

The first four paras are solely fillers :/

No, actually they could be called set up.

For all who tl;dr'ed the post- basically he's saying that we are not entitled to live a better life than our fellow human beings, because we are all born equal.

Correction, what I'm saying, essentially, is that we're all equally entitled to enjoy the best quality of life available, owing to the fundamental equality of worth, goodness, and dignity of all human beings.

Even though we might have better skills, and talent than our fellow companions- god intended us to be equal (?), he gave us the same life, thus striving for betterment is immoral. Basically the same sh!tty socialism arguments.

Correction, actualizing our creative skills, talents, and potentialities is our very telos, our raison d'etre in the universe. We should all be about the business of striving to better ourselves and to better life. But not out the egoistic ambition to "earn" our way to a higher socioeconomic status. And, furthermore, we should not make the egoisitc error of judgmentally thinking in terms of the poor being poor because they supposedly haven't developed the skills and talents to earn a taste of the good life. This is not because we buy into what you're scatologically terming the "sh!tty" arguments of socialism, it's because we recognize that our current economic system, a form of capitalism, produces very real conditons of poverty and economic disenfranchisement that keep a great many people trapped at a lower station in life and unable to fully develop the creative and joyful possibilities of being a human being.

Reply: Equality is a desirable attribute in an economy- something that every economy does strive for.

I'm glad that you recognize equality as a value to strive for. However, your claim that every form of economy strives to actualize more equality is untrue and naive. Capitalism, for instance, is geared to promote classism, racism, and the rule of the capitalist elite, not socioeconomic equality!

However, incentivising better production is something that leads to Growth of an economy. Once there is no incentive to produce better, there is a dampness in economic growth- which has severe economic consequences.

I actually deal with this potential criticism of my thesis, and with the "free rider" problem in my OP. The creative values and the ethos of community, as well as the institution of full employment, would all help promote and ensure productivity in an equalitarian economy in which individuals are no longer egoistically driven by the desire to "earn" a selfish form of "success".

Also your argument is based on entitlement- which is a flawed concept.

Not all entitlements are merely the fancies and figments of wannabe "free riders", human beings do in fact all have an inherent and inalienable and quite equal entitlement to a decent and dignified quality of life, this just isn't recognized under capitalism and its axiological zeitgeist of shallow materialism, selfish economism, and "libertarian" narcissism.

Oh well, thank you for a reply containing some substance and that is not merely a critique of my style of self-expression.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 12:42:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 9:29:32 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
If he were more concise, I would be more inclined to read his posts. This is an internet forum, not a thesis.

I refer you to my above comments about popcorn brain. But you could prove me wrong by summoning the cognitive wherewithal to actually read the OP and contribute some substantive feedback.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 12:45:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 10:42:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I also wouldn't have a problem reading a post that long, but its always just a bunch of ad homenium attacks and confirmation biases, that its not worth reading. If someone like wnope or roylatham were to write a post that long I'd read it. But If I'm going to spend a long time reading it, there better be a good justification for it.

Excuses, excuses.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 12:46:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 6:44:22 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/25/2012 5:15:06 PM, thett3 wrote:
How does it feel to know that until I posted this, 86% of the posts in this thread were from you?

lol

Wow, what valuable feedback. NOT!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 12:49:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/25/2012 11:25:31 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 4/25/2012 11:23:50 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 4/25/2012 5:15:06 PM, thett3 wrote:
How does it feel to know that until I posted this, 86% of the posts in this thread were from you?


Perhaps it's simply the case that the economic section receives less traffic, or perhaps the lack of response thus far is due to the fact that my radical rejection of the concept of earning a living, and my aspheterism (the view that private ownership is a phantasm that only seems real because so many of us are culturally conditioned to buy into it; i.e., that the right to private property is a veritable canard, an egoistic convention masquerading as a right) is too radical for conservative folks to wrap their minds around and mount an intellectual attack against? Well, perhaps time will tell.

Haha, pick a topic any time you want and we can debate it and see who's mind really has the trouble with concepts.

You're pretty confident in your superior intellectuality for someone who doesn't even read my posts.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 12:55:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Before I respond in full, I'd like to ask you a single question: would the world be better if everyone were equally poor, or unequally rich?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 12:58:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 12:09:52 AM, Cermank wrote:
... Seriously?

You won't address the response of the only person who addressed the points made by you, but you can try to finger point at people who made fun of your long post? No wonder no one replies to you.

You spoke too soon. I was in fact in the process of addressing your points when you typed and sent this bit of premature and unfair flak my way.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2012 1:28:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/26/2012 12:55:16 AM, mongeese wrote:
Before I respond in full, I'd like to ask you a single question: would the world be better if everyone were equally poor, or unequally rich?

Morally speaking, human beings are better off when they enjoy equality. This is because inequality denies and is injurious to the human dignity and sense of worth of the less-fortunate; and also to the human and moral decency and dignity of the more-fortunate, whose superior well-being and status degrades them with complicity in an injustice.

Also, I might point out, it's not merely socialist semantics to say that inequality = injustice and victimization. Inequality is never a benign state of affairs for the poor, it always entails injustices and crimes being visited upon those lower down the socioeconomic food chain, it would therefore be necessary to know what the injustices and crimes entailed by inequality in your hypothetical scenario of a society in which people are unequally rich would be, and to somehow quantify the suffering caused by them to determine how the social and material lot of an unequally rich population and an equally poor population would stack up against each other.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.