Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The right to life

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 9:38:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's something for Ren:

I find the right to life dubious. We take it for granted that it's a bad idea to kill people, it's deeply ingrained in the moral/societal fiber. I'm not talking about killing people through direct action.

I posit, not all life is equal. The main argument for granting these social services to the general public, despite the fact that they don't do anything to actually earn it, is that it somehow contributes overall to society in general. We're under the impression that alleviating need throughout the world is a moral good.

The fact of the matter is that the method of alleviation involves the use of collected resources. Finite resources. As we contribute money to the societal pool, we allow the population of people who don't contribute to expand by taking care of the needs that would have killed them.

The question becomes: What evil comes from allowing people to die through deprivation of services they don't contribute to? Is there a legitimate evil being done to individual people? Do we care about that compared to the good we can use those other resources for?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2012 10:15:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Are you talking about a positive right to life, as in others must make sure that you don't die, or a negative right to life, in that they may not kill you?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 10:34:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 9:38:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Here's something for Ren:

I find the right to life dubious. We take it for granted that it's a bad idea to kill people, it's deeply ingrained in the moral/societal fiber. I'm not talking about killing people through direct action.

I posit, not all life is equal. The main argument for granting these social services to the general public, despite the fact that they don't do anything to actually earn it, is that it somehow contributes overall to society in general. We're under the impression that alleviating need throughout the world is a moral good.

The fact of the matter is that the method of alleviation involves the use of collected resources. Finite resources. As we contribute money to the societal pool, we allow the population of people who don't contribute to expand by taking care of the needs that would have killed them.

The question becomes: What evil comes from allowing people to die through deprivation of services they don't contribute to? Is there a legitimate evil being done to individual people? Do we care about that compared to the good we can use those other resources for?

So, essentially, you woke up one day and saw the true wickedness of man staring you in the face and you decided to adapt by accepting the possibility that truth is relative?

You're probably a happier person than me, so I can't judge you; but, deep down inside, you I and both know that we see the same thing, and if nothing else, it makes what we realize we truly deserve for the future quite terrifying.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 3:25:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 10:34:43 AM, Ren wrote:
At 5/21/2012 9:38:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Here's something for Ren:

I find the right to life dubious. We take it for granted that it's a bad idea to kill people, it's deeply ingrained in the moral/societal fiber. I'm not talking about killing people through direct action.

I posit, not all life is equal. The main argument for granting these social services to the general public, despite the fact that they don't do anything to actually earn it, is that it somehow contributes overall to society in general. We're under the impression that alleviating need throughout the world is a moral good.

The fact of the matter is that the method of alleviation involves the use of collected resources. Finite resources. As we contribute money to the societal pool, we allow the population of people who don't contribute to expand by taking care of the needs that would have killed them.

The question becomes: What evil comes from allowing people to die through deprivation of services they don't contribute to? Is there a legitimate evil being done to individual people? Do we care about that compared to the good we can use those other resources for?

So, essentially, you woke up one day and saw the true wickedness of man staring you in the face and you decided to adapt by accepting the possibility that truth is relative?

You're probably a happier person than me, so I can't judge you; but, deep down inside, you I and both know that we see the same thing, and if nothing else, it makes what we realize we truly deserve for the future quite terrifying.
That was a very condescending response that added absolutely nothing to the conversation and addressed nothing that was posted.
I miss the old members.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 3:39:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/21/2012 10:15:11 PM, mongoose wrote:
Are you talking about a positive right to life, as in others must make sure that you don't die, or a negative right to life, in that they may not kill you?

Positive. I believe that inherently, we should not act to kill other people. However, I don't believe we should shoulder the burden of shelling out our own resources to extend the lives of others.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 3:40:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/22/2012 10:34:43 AM, Ren wrote:
So, essentially, you woke up one day and saw the true wickedness of man staring you in the face and you decided to adapt by accepting the possibility that truth is relative?

You're probably a happier person than me, so I can't judge you; but, deep down inside, you I and both know that we see the same thing, and if nothing else, it makes what we realize we truly deserve for the future quite terrifying.

I have no idea what this means. All I can identify is that it's not relevant to my topic so I'm just going to wait until you translate it.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 3:47:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 3:39:07 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/21/2012 10:15:11 PM, mongoose wrote:
Are you talking about a positive right to life, as in others must make sure that you don't die, or a negative right to life, in that they may not kill you?

Positive. I believe that inherently, we should not act to kill other people. However, I don't believe we should shoulder the burden of shelling out our own resources to extend the lives of others.

So why are you against killing others? If millions of people in the US were to die, we'd have a whole lot more resources, since they'd be less people consuming resources, and more capital resources would be available and would increase the wages of everyone.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 3:55:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 3:47:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So why are you against killing others? If millions of people in the US were to die, we'd have a whole lot more resources, since they'd be less people consuming resources, and more capital resources would be available and would increase the wages of everyone.

For the same reason I can bring myself to eat a steak, but not butcher a cow. It just feels better.

However, if you're looking for arguments:

Gradually cutting back social services allows the people to adjust. Bottomfeeders should be given a chance to see if they can make things work. If they can, then it would have been a waste to kill them. If they can't, then they'll have died what I call a natural death.

Furthermore, this method is far more efficient. We can't exactly decide who to kill because it would require extensive information to weed out the exceptions. Simply cutting back on social programs will eventually lead to the death of those who rely on them most.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:05:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 3:55:47 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 6/2/2012 3:47:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So why are you against killing others? If millions of people in the US were to die, we'd have a whole lot more resources, since they'd be less people consuming resources, and more capital resources would be available and would increase the wages of everyone.

For the same reason I can bring myself to eat a steak, but not butcher a cow. It just feels better.

This justifies why you personally wouldn't want to kill others. This does not justify why you wouldn't want others . As long as you, your family and friends are categorically exempt, what would be wrong with people killing others.

However, if you're looking for arguments:

Gradually cutting back social services allows the people to adjust. Bottomfeeders should be given a chance to see if they can make things work. If they can, then it would have been a waste to kill them. If they can't, then they'll have died what I call a natural death.

Furthermore, this method is far more efficient. We can't exactly decide who to kill because it would require extensive information to weed out the exceptions. Simply cutting back on social programs will eventually lead to the death of those who rely on them most.

How are you determining your information on who to kill? If the bases is on maximizing wealth for yourself, it shouldn't matter so much. Don't kill off the people with valuable propriety information, or the incredibly gifted scientists. But after that, it really shouldn't matter. The skill sets and potential ability of humans are pretty much the same. And since your killing people off randomly, all the desired skill sets should remain anyways.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:14:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you are going to starve them to death/subject them to violence, why not just administer painless poisons to them? Why torture them to death? At least they wouldn't suffer . . .
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:19:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 4:14:13 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
If you are going to starve them to death/subject them to violence, why not just administer painless poisons to them? Why torture them to death? At least they wouldn't suffer . . .

We can make the painless poisons an option.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:21:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 4:05:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
This justifies why you personally wouldn't want to kill others. This does not justify why you wouldn't want others . As long as you, your family and friends are categorically exempt, what would be wrong with people killing others.

How are you determining your information on who to kill? If the bases is on maximizing wealth for yourself, it shouldn't matter so much. Don't kill off the people with valuable propriety information, or the incredibly gifted scientists. But after that, it really shouldn't matter. The skill sets and potential ability of humans are pretty much the same. And since your killing people off randomly, all the desired skill sets should remain anyways.

Nah, my way is still better. It requires less action and allows more time for adaptation.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:24:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 4:21:35 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 6/2/2012 4:05:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
This justifies why you personally wouldn't want to kill others. This does not justify why you wouldn't want others . As long as you, your family and friends are categorically exempt, what would be wrong with people killing others.

How are you determining your information on who to kill? If the bases is on maximizing wealth for yourself, it shouldn't matter so much. Don't kill off the people with valuable propriety information, or the incredibly gifted scientists. But after that, it really shouldn't matter. The skill sets and potential ability of humans are pretty much the same. And since your killing people off randomly, all the desired skill sets should remain anyways.

Nah, my way is still better. It requires less action and allows more time for adaptation.

I still don't understand your full purpose of killing or allowing others to die.

Don't know why "more time for adaption" is a good thing either.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:30:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 4:24:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I still don't understand your full purpose of killing or allowing others to die.
Don't know why "more time for adaption" is a good thing either.

Essentially, I think that society is doing itself a disservice by making it too easy for people who don't do anything for society to live out their lives.

The main cause of this is a very large and complex safety net of social programs that all people can draw upon regardless of what they put in. This allows for the population to be much, much larger than what it would be naturally.

I argue that by slowly removing these social programs, we can eventually reduce population size and redistribute the resources in a more fair way. The less resources we have available for bottom feeders, the less bottom feeders we will need to provide for. Over a period of 100 years, we can probably curb our population and virtually eliminate the lower class.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:35:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 4:30:52 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 6/2/2012 4:24:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I still don't understand your full purpose of killing or allowing others to die.
Don't know why "more time for adaption" is a good thing either.

Essentially, I think that society is doing itself a disservice by making it too easy for people who don't do anything for society to live out their lives.

The main cause of this is a very large and complex safety net of social programs that all people can draw upon regardless of what they put in. This allows for the population to be much, much larger than what it would be naturally.

I argue that by slowly removing these social programs, we can eventually reduce population size and redistribute the resources in a more fair way. The less resources we have available for bottom feeders, the less bottom feeders we will need to provide for. Over a period of 100 years, we can probably curb our population and virtually eliminate the lower class.

You do realize that prices and the existence of the "lower class" is relative? Eliminating the indigent will not eliminate the problem. It will just cause inflation because costs are relative and people will have a greater deal of money. Are we going to eliminate the newly created lower class as well? This plan is just a suicidal idea.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:40:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 4:35:26 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
You do realize that prices and the existence of the "lower class" is relative? Eliminating the indigent will not eliminate the problem. It will just cause inflation because costs are relative and people will have a greater deal of money. Are we going to eliminate the newly created lower class as well? This plan is just a suicidal idea.

You haven't thought out what prices would go up and what prices would go down. The lower class tends not to worry about things like food, shelter, and health care because those things are free for them. That's why they spend what little money they get on luxury items, which drives up the price.

Eliminating the lower class as well as social programs would redistribute wealth and cause the prices of food, shelter, and especially health care to go down while the costs of luxury items will go way, way up.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:47:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 4:40:49 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 6/2/2012 4:35:26 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
You do realize that prices and the existence of the "lower class" is relative? Eliminating the indigent will not eliminate the problem. It will just cause inflation because costs are relative and people will have a greater deal of money. Are we going to eliminate the newly created lower class as well? This plan is just a suicidal idea.

You haven't thought out what prices would go up and what prices would go down. The lower class tends not to worry about things like food, shelter, and health care because those things are free for them. That's why they spend what little money they get on luxury items, which drives up the price.

Tell that to the next homeless person you see. Things like TANF benefits are only applicable for five years anyways.

Can you provide any evidence that the indigent spend funds on luxury items?

The price will go up anyways. The indigent only have a certain amount of funds, and if you create a society of people with more wealth, corporations will increase prices because they can expect to make more profits among the monied.
Eliminating the lower class as well as social programs would redistribute wealth and cause the prices of food, shelter, and especially health care to go down while the costs of luxury items will go way, way up.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 4:48:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 4:30:52 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 6/2/2012 4:24:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I still don't understand your full purpose of killing or allowing others to die.
Don't know why "more time for adaption" is a good thing either.

Essentially, I think that society is doing itself a disservice by making it too easy for people who don't do anything for society to live out their lives.

The value that someone contributes to society =/= the money they make. Your death of you might be "benficial" to society, since you consume a lot of stuff that other people could've had if it weren't alive. You are of value to me because I find your philosophy to be entertaining, as well as your debates, and your forum posts. However, you did not recieve monetary compensation for it. If you decide never to post on DDO again, f*ck if i care if your dead or alive.

Really it doesn't make sense to say to "these people don't contribute to society" when they are a part of the society. If you allow these people to die, you are harming society.

The main cause of this is a very large and complex safety net of social programs that all people can draw upon regardless of what they put in. This allows for the population to be much, much larger than what it would be naturally.

The whole you put into society as much as you take out is such a zero-sum game fallacy and is pretty much as bad as the merchanism philosophy.

I argue that by slowly removing these social programs, we can eventually reduce population size and redistribute the resources in a more fair way. The less resources we have available for bottom feeders, the less bottom feeders we will need to provide for. Over a period of 100 years, we can probably curb our population and virtually eliminate the lower class.

Class structures will always exist. It's inherent in any society. Population size can be reduced through the simple "one child policy". I don't think killing the poor would work. It would cause a slight decrease in the poor, but really the amount resources it takes to keep a child alive are pretty low by modern standards.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 5:00:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 3:40:16 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 5/22/2012 10:34:43 AM, Ren wrote:
So, essentially, you woke up one day and saw the true wickedness of man staring you in the face and you decided to adapt by accepting the possibility that truth is relative?

You're probably a happier person than me, so I can't judge you; but, deep down inside, you I and both know that we see the same thing, and if nothing else, it makes what we realize we truly deserve for the future quite terrifying.

I have no idea what this means. All I can identify is that it's not relevant to my topic so I'm just going to wait until you translate it.

The human construct has three basic constituents that allow it to operate in the way that it does, in terms of economy, interaction, and progress.

1. Cooperation. Humans cannot possibly maintain the living arrangement that we've contrived without cooperating on an extremely large scale.

2. The dissemination of resources. It is impossible to maintain our way of life without extending our access to resources. They are just too far spread across the earth for any group of people on a given body of land to sustain in isolation without forgoing resources or advancement to which they currently have access.

3. Control. Without dividing control over people in such a way that one can easily navigate large numbers as an inherent part of the everyday human construct, the other two necessities would be at risk.

However, unfortunately, humans seem to be attached to rather unwholesome incentives, such as greed, lust, or pride. Accordingly, this corrupts control, leading to the misallocation of resources, and cooperation through force.

So, your assertion that there are people that don't contribute to resources is fallacious. Everyone contributes to resources, or it wouldn't work.

The fact is, though, is that there are those that provide input without receiving anything in proportion in return, to make it possible for some to receive more output than the input they provide.

As a result, you have situations such as more food on the face of the planet than it would require for everyone on the world to eat, but people still dying of starvation. Naturally, these are most often those people that live on bodies of land that yield the most natural resources, because those that lived in places with the least natural resources found it necessary to cooperate on a greater scale or begin capitalizing on others earlier (or at all).

However, you're smart enough to see this, and instead of rejecting a way of life you can no longer separate yourself from, you've found it more comfortable to deny what you know to be the difference between right and wrong, then compromise your interpretations of those concepts to align with the human construct currently maintained. It makes sense to the degree that it's indistinguishable from actual morality on the level of the human construct, but universally, which may or may not be relevant to you, it's fallacious.

Hope that cleared it up for ya. ^_^
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 5:01:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 3:25:59 PM, Atheism wrote:

Pretty sure you misunderstood me, but depending on how you see things, you may be right on the mark in terms of condescension; however, it was entirely relevant.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 5:41:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 4:47:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
Tell that to the next homeless person you see. Things like TANF benefits are only applicable for five years anyways.

Subsidized housing, food stamps, unemployment, welfare, all of these things can be enrolled in time and time again, provided that they do the necessary legwork and paperwork. The population on these things is so large that even if they are temporary, the effect on society is as if though it were permanent.

Can you provide any evidence that the indigent spend funds on luxury items?

About three years of service in an inner city pharmacy, and a couple months working the outpatient pharmacy at an inner city hospital. The cliche of a woman with an iPad/iPhone, designer bags, designer heels and a medicaid card has become a running joke among my fellow classmates. Too many to count, and too many similar stories among other pharmacy workers in different states. Pharmacy is a small world and there's a general dislike of medicaid recipients because they tend to be very, very irritable.

The price will go up anyways. The indigent only have a certain amount of funds, and if you create a society of people with more wealth, corporations will increase prices because they can expect to make more profits among the monied.

For luxury items, yes. Not for basic needs. Demand would drop precipitously because it doesn't need to be provided to a huge population, and we know what happens when demand drops. Also, I'm not creating a society of people who simply have more wealth. I'm creating a society where people generate more wealth.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 5:56:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And, I don't even want to get into how much more expensive pharmaceuticals are than designer clothing or midrange smartphones.

Or, the degree to which such items are constantly thrown at a starving and deeply envious lower class.

I mean... I don't even want to get into the moral implications of your trade in specific.

You clearly couldn't have any positions on taking from society without giving anything in return, especially considering that the companies you work for actually take from society, while hurting it in return.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 6:38:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 5:56:12 PM, Ren wrote:
And, I don't even want to get into how much more expensive pharmaceuticals are than designer clothing or midrange smartphones.

Or, the degree to which such items are constantly thrown at a starving and deeply envious lower class.

I mean... I don't even want to get into the moral implications of your trade in specific.

You clearly couldn't have any positions on taking from society without giving anything in return, especially considering that the companies you work for actually take from society, while hurting it in return.

So don't.

Ren, this site is ludicrously simple and I'm going to try to stop a habit you're starting to develop. The OP is what the OP is. You read it, you argue either for or against it. End of story. Personal commentary is unnecessary. Especially when nothing of any relevant intellectual substance follows it.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 6:54:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 6:38:51 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 6/2/2012 5:56:12 PM, Ren wrote:
And, I don't even want to get into how much more expensive pharmaceuticals are than designer clothing or midrange smartphones.

Or, the degree to which such items are constantly thrown at a starving and deeply envious lower class.

I mean... I don't even want to get into the moral implications of your trade in specific.

You clearly couldn't have any positions on taking from society without giving anything in return, especially considering that the companies you work for actually take from society, while hurting it in return.

So don't.

Ren, this site is ludicrously simple and I'm going to try to stop a habit you're starting to develop. The OP is what the OP is. You read it, you argue either for or against it. End of story. Personal commentary is unnecessary. Especially when nothing of any relevant intellectual substance follows it.

Well, here's the thing.

This site is for conversation. Along with intellectual discourse, you're going to get personal commentary.

I mean... it keeps things interesting, among other things. I would invite people to do the same to me, but that would be extraneous, because they already do, including yourself.

That said, everything I've said is entirely relevant to your position. However, you don't like the implications it makes, so you want to argue things on your terms.

However, your terms, which regards the economic habits of people from lower income neighborhoods vis a vis what they receive from society, is fallacious, and evidences a complete lack of understanding of the American economic dynamic.

So, instead of trying to tell you everything you need to know in order to understand my argument against that, I'm fostering doubt in your conception of how you contribute to your own interpretations, such as the fact that it's from the vantage of a pharmacist, or the fact that there needn't be a lower class in the first place.

You can take it or leave it. You can even curse me out; it wouldn't make the conversation any less interesting.

Or, you can read up on economics and anthropology, or even better, try to delve into the experience yourself, and we will likely end up having a much more fluid conversation.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 7:04:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And, you're right -- this is something that's been gradual for me. I know it seems elitist or whatever, but that sincerely isn't what I'm trying to be.

See, the thing is, too often, I end up in conversations were, no matter how much I try to share with everyone else, no matter how much information I spread or how patient I attempt to be, someone ends up calling me condescending or they simply begin ignoring me.

Not to derail, but take Affirmative Action for instance. I don't know how many times I've copy/pasted the actual litigation, or presented official arguments for it, or indicated laws against what some people purport are manifestations of it, and the same arguments keep arising, while people completely reject everything I state.

The one, single user who's posts seem to evidence the slightest understanding of Affirmative Action is Danielle, and unfortunately, she's spoken on the subject the least.

So, it's frustrating to come on here and take people all seriously and try to speak on what I know, to have people reject what I say by claiming I'm just being an assshole or ignoring me.

I'd rather have discussions involving actual interest and real information about a subject.

I don't think that's impossible for anyone here (scholar.google.com; wikipedia.org; standford.edu), and I don't think that raising the bar a little bit is outrageous.

I'm sorry if that makes me come off as a douche, but there's a lot of biitching always going on about the quality of the posts on this site. I don't see it change much, personally, but we really feel that way, that's one thing that can be done.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 7:06:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 6:54:17 PM, Ren wrote:
Well, here's the thing.

This site is for conversation. Along with intellectual discourse, you're going to get personal commentary.

I mean... it keeps things interesting, among other things. I would invite people to do the same to me, but that would be extraneous, because they already do, including yourself.

I don't mind the personal commentary. The problem is when your most is composed of nothing but.

That said, everything I've said is entirely relevant to your position. However, you don't like the implications it makes, so you want to argue things on your terms.

However, your terms, which regards the economic habits of people from lower income neighborhoods vis a vis what they receive from society, is fallacious, and evidences a complete lack of understanding of the American economic dynamic.

^You see, this is what I want to hear. Not "Oh....*whine* your profession abuses the poor *whine*." Now if you'd only expand, we can have a real conversation.

So, instead of trying to tell you everything you need to know in order to understand my argument against that, I'm fostering doubt in your conception of how you contribute to your own interpretations, such as the fact that it's from the vantage of a pharmacist, or the fact that there needn't be a lower class in the first place.

You can take it or leave it. You can even curse me out; it wouldn't make the conversation any less interesting.

Or, you can read up on economics and anthropology, or even better, try to delve into the experience yourself, and we will likely end up having a much more fluid conversation.

^In other words, you really don't have anything to say. You're just going to post a judgmental quip and pop right out of the conversation, under the guise of being a "wise, hands off educator".

You're not fostering any doubt in me. You're fostering my doubt in you. Disagreement is what this site is all about, as is correcting one's views. The problem is that I've been here long enough to see a lot of ego stroking in the form of "Pssh, you're wrong, but I'm not going to correct you. You go educate yourself and we'll talk later".

Which is precisely what your comments read as.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 7:13:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 7:04:52 PM, Ren wrote:
And, you're right -- this is something that's been gradual for me. I know it seems elitist or whatever, but that sincerely isn't what I'm trying to be.

See, the thing is, too often, I end up in conversations were, no matter how much I try to share with everyone else, no matter how much information I spread or how patient I attempt to be, someone ends up calling me condescending or they simply begin ignoring me.

Then it seems like you need to figure out why it is that you're doing this.

Not to derail, but take Affirmative Action for instance. I don't know how many times I've copy/pasted the actual litigation, or presented official arguments for it, or indicated laws against what some people purport are manifestations of it, and the same arguments keep arising, while people completely reject everything I state.

The one, single user who's posts seem to evidence the slightest understanding of Affirmative Action is Danielle, and unfortunately, she's spoken on the subject the least.

So, it's frustrating to come on here and take people all seriously and try to speak on what I know, to have people reject what I say by claiming I'm just being an assshole or ignoring me.

I'd rather have discussions involving actual interest and real information about a subject.

I don't think that's impossible for anyone here (scholar.google.com; wikipedia.org; standford.edu), and I don't think that raising the bar a little bit is outrageous.

I'm sorry if that makes me come off as a douche, but there's a lot of biitching always going on about the quality of the posts on this site. I don't see it change much, personally, but we really feel that way, that's one thing that can be done.

It's not the quality of the posting that's off. It's the quality of the discussions. The problem with you, Ren, is that you care too much and argue too little. Nobody appreciates the implication that they aren't worthy of your posts. Whether you are consciously implying that or not, that's what ends up happening. If you can't bring someone up to speed to a level enough to respond to your posts, that's not necessarily the fault of your opponent. That may very well be an indication that you're not very good at breaking down information necessary to sustain a discussion.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 7:15:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here, I'll make it even *easier* for you.

1. If you can legitimately argue with someone, do so.
2. If you cannot for any reason, then do not hint that you can, but choose not to.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2012 7:27:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/2/2012 7:06:47 PM, Kleptin wrote:

You're not fostering any doubt in me. You're fostering my doubt in you. Disagreement is what this site is all about, as is correcting one's views. The problem is that I've been here long enough to see a lot of ego stroking in the form of "Pssh, you're wrong, but I'm not going to correct you. You go educate yourself and we'll talk later".

Which is precisely what your comments read as.

Okay, okay, okay.

You win.

Let's start with:

However, your terms, which regards the economic habits of people from lower income neighborhoods vis a vis what they receive from society, is fallacious, and evidences a complete lack of understanding of the American economic dynamic.

^You see, this is what I want to hear. Not "Oh....*whine* your profession abuses the poor *whine*." Now if you'd only expand, we can have a real conversation.

There's two issues at hand, here. There's the imperfect perception borne of the experience of the lower class, and there's the system that provokes these perceptions.

The imperfect perceptions are twofold. First, being poor sucks asss. It makes it difficult to maintain stability, which is stressful. This reflects poorly on health and mentality. Chemicals like cortisol decrease well-being, while, for example, increasing blood glucose levels, which add to the fact that the only food they have access to due to their financial limitations is generally high in glucose, as well. Poor quality food also reflects poorly on well-being and mentality, compounding the situation.

Add to this perceptions of the upper class, as well as social distinctions between each class. This adds an emotional component, whereby the lower class desires to be the upper class. As a result, they pursue what they interpret as indications of membership of the upper class, which is largely useless commodity, as things of real substances usually aren't immediately apparent, and are largely out of reach, since there's really no knock-offs for healthcare and decent nutrition.

These issues also make it exceedingly more difficult to perform in their occupations, for which they are almost invariably underpaid. Moreover, employers almost always take advantage of employees that "need their jobs" -- I have direct experience with this.

This is taxing on all aspects of human-conceived life, such as social interaction and education. So, inasmuch as you may not consider yourself altogether privileged, you are purely on the basis that you have an internet connection and you know when and how you will get your next meal.

Then, there's the system that provokes these perceptions, such as that those that have lower incomes are lazy. It's impossible to be lazy when you're poor. If you're lazy, you will not eat and you will end up homeless. It is far easier to be lazy when you're middle class, because you have financial and social wiggle room.

There's also the perception that they're not worth as much as members of other classes, when our blue-collar class is almost entirely lower class. Without the blue collar class, no one eats -- not even the rich.

However, without the rich, we'd still be just fine. Think on that.

I think that'll suffice as a starting point. :)