Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Social Responsibility

tanapirtle
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 8:18:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Do we (society as a whole) do enough to fulfill our obligations of being socially responsible? I don't think so. You hear way too often about people being abused or killed, with several witnesses, yet nobody bothered to get involved. Too many people today do not want to "get involved." Personally, I think your lack of involvement shows your support for what was happening...but that's just me. Social responsibility is not just about recycling and planting trees! It is an organization or individuals obligation to act for the benefit of society at large. In other words, do the right thing for society as a whole.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 8:19:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 8:18:10 PM, tanapirtle wrote:
Do we (society as a whole) do enough to fulfill our obligations of being socially responsible? I don't think so. You hear way too often about people being abused or killed, with several witnesses, yet nobody bothered to get involved. Too many people today do not want to "get involved." Personally, I think your lack of involvement shows your support for what was happening...but that's just me. Social responsibility is not just about recycling and planting trees! It is an organization or individuals obligation to act for the benefit of society at large. In other words, do the right thing for society as a whole.

Since when was I obligated to do anything?
tanapirtle
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 8:27:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I guess YOU aren't ... so when you are being stabbed to death in the middle of the street nobody should call the police, or try and help you in any way. That is what I am hearing from you. Because we too, are not obligated to help you.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 8:32:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 8:27:18 PM, tanapirtle wrote:
I guess YOU aren't ... so when you are being stabbed to death in the middle of the street nobody should call the police, or try and help you in any way. That is what I am hearing from you. Because we too, are not obligated to help you.

Damn right you are not obligated to help me, Seems like a good idea to surround myself with people who

1) Wont stab me
2) Will come to my aid when I am stabbed
tanapirtle
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 8:38:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Your #2 is exactly what I am talking about. Those people who would "come to your aide" are being socially responsible. They are doing the right thing ....without being forced.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 8:40:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 8:38:04 PM, tanapirtle wrote:
Your #2 is exactly what I am talking about. Those people who would "come to your aide" are being socially responsible. They are doing the right thing ....without being forced.

What is right is subjective. What is socially responsible is subjective.

Glad that other people will slave away for me without being forced. Given I do not believe they were obligated to help me to begin with, that is their burden to take on.
tanapirtle
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 8:51:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It"s obvious you are trying hard not to agree with social responsibility, yet in the same breath admit to wanting to surround yourself with those who are socially responsible. People do not slave away for you, they simply know right from wrong, and act on it. Which, I would hope you would do for someone as well, whether it be a friend or a complete stranger.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:00:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 8:51:43 PM, tanapirtle wrote:
It"s obvious you are trying hard not to agree with social responsibility
Mostly because it does not exist. Do obligations exist either? No.

yet in the same breath admit to wanting to surround yourself with those who are socially responsible.
More like friends and family. Those are the only people you should associate with anyways. The concept of society is perpetrated anyways.

People do not slave away for you, they simply know right from wrong
Again, morality is subjective. It isn't always in your best interests to help someone. I would like to think I could make it worth your while if you help me, therefore I am a good person to help.

Which, I would hope you would do for someone as well, whether it be a friend or a complete stranger.
It honestly depends on the situation
tanapirtle
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:23:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, it is obvious that not everyone believes in social responsibility! This guy is ridiculous!
I found out that there are people do not know, or care, what social responsibility is. This guy wants his family/friends to be responsible, yet he will only be socially responsible if it suits him at the time. He claims he is a good person because if YOU help HIM he will in turn "make it worth your while" ... really??? He also says you should only associate with family and friends...so was he born with a set of friends? Because I'm pretty sure that before they were his friends, they were total strangers!
Black Flags is very contradicting!
smelisox
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:25:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The main problem is the government. Do you know how people who recycle are rewarded? I'd say almost ALL "recycling" in First World countries ACTUALLY goes to an incinerator.

It's useless to do anything.
smelisox
Posts: 850
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:35:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There was a very interesting person I met once who was charged for manslaughter since he tried to save a little girl's life. Her mother was too busy being a stupid whore so the girl wandered off on to the road and the man tried to save her. He tried to push her out but couldn't do it in time so she was run over and he became paraplegic. He was charged with manslaughter.
tanapirtle
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 9:42:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Social responsibility is not always physically stepping in... it covers everything. This guy could have called CPS and that would have been socially responsible. I hate that happened to him, but it does not change the fact that more people should do something when they see someone getting hurt. Simply picking up a phone is something!
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2015 11:58:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 9:23:50 PM, tanapirtle wrote:
Well, it is obvious that not everyone believes in social responsibility! This guy is ridiculous!
That isn't how this site was meant to work. Try explaining why it exists if you want to have a discussion. If you want to preach, there are definitely better sites out there, and I can show you them.

I found out that there are people do not know, or care, what social responsibility is.
I guess the problem from your point of view is that there isn't enough education on social responsibility.

This guy wants his family/friends to be responsible, yet he will only be socially responsible if it suits him at the time.
Responcibility isn't the right word, at least not the way I see it. With friends and family, helping each other is driven out of mutual passion. Responsibility and obligations would better fit a situation in which a complete stranger was involved, and my argument has already been pretty consistent. Obligations to others do not exist.

He claims he is a good person because if YOU help HIM he will in turn "make it worth your while" ... really???
Why would I be wrong for implying that you should expect to receive when you give? That is pretty basic common sense. Helping people is a good way to get influence. When I help someone, I am usually trying to accomplish something for myself, which is totally fine. Not being upfront about your true intentions is what is really immoral. If you claim that you are doing it for any other reason, I would think it was lying.

He also says you should only associate with family and friends...so was he born with a set of friends? Because I'm pretty sure that before they were his friends, they were total strangers!

That is true and a good point, but nonetheless, friends will be made some way or another throughout one's existence. Most people will become your friends because they look up, agree with your views and how act, or just want to get into some mischief with you.

Black Flags is very contradicting!
tanapirtle
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 12:30:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/2/2015 11:58:47 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
Why would I be wrong for implying that you should expect to receive when you give? That is pretty basic common sense. Helping people is a good way to get influence. When I help someone, I am usually trying to accomplish something for myself, which is totally fine. Not being upfront about your true intentions is what is really immoral. If you claim that you are doing it for any other reason, I would think it was lying.

Wow!! I sure hope nobody ever needs this guys help! He will, by his own admittance, only help you if it benefits him in some way! Christmas at his house must be awesome! If I were his wife I would hope for no present on my birthday because he might expect a liver in return! I guess to each their own...but I do not understand people like this! I do not help people expecting something in return. You can say what you want, but you are in a minority sir.
I started this conversation to learn more about what people think about social responsibility, and man did I get a rude awakening!
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 2:14:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 12:30:15 AM, tanapirtle wrote:
Wow!! I sure hope nobody ever needs this guys help! He will, by his own admittance, only help you if it benefits him in some way! Christmas at his house must be awesome! If I were his wife I would hope for no present on my birthday because he might expect a liver in return! I guess to each their own...but I do not understand people like this! I do not help people expecting something in return. You can say what you want, but you are in a minority sir.
I started this conversation to learn more about what people think about social responsibility, and man did I get a rude awakening!

You can be sarcastic during discussions, but it wont get you very far on this site. I have been here a really long time in some form or another.

It would really help if you made an actual case for why my opinions are false, instead of just demeaning them with sarcasm. I wouldn't of been prompted to respond to the thread you created if I didn't want to debate the claim that obligations and social responsibility exist.

Responcibility, by definition, is to be expected or required to do something. A very loose expectation might exist in the eyes of people other than me, but there definitely is not a requirement. Therefore I do not accept the existence of social responsibility.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 1:42:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 2:14:35 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/3/2015 12:30:15 AM, tanapirtle wrote:
Wow!! I sure hope nobody ever needs this guys help! He will, by his own admittance, only help you if it benefits him in some way! Christmas at his house must be awesome! If I were his wife I would hope for no present on my birthday because he might expect a liver in return! I guess to each their own...but I do not understand people like this! I do not help people expecting something in return. You can say what you want, but you are in a minority sir.
I started this conversation to learn more about what people think about social responsibility, and man did I get a rude awakening!

You can be sarcastic during discussions, but it wont get you very far on this site. I have been here a really long time in some form or another.

It would really help if you made an actual case for why my opinions are false, instead of just demeaning them with sarcasm. I wouldn't of been prompted to respond to the thread you created if I didn't want to debate the claim that obligations and social responsibility exist.

Responcibility, by definition, is to be expected or required to do something. A very loose expectation might exist in the eyes of people other than me, but there definitely is not a requirement. Therefore I do not accept the existence of social responsibility.

Are you a member of society? (presuming yes)
Do you make use of societal constructs? (again, assuming yes)
Do you follow some of the most basic of societal laws (again, assuming yes)

Your "acceptance" of the matter doesn't excluded you from the participation you have already contributed. Societal responsibility includes honoring your debts, and being accountable for one's actions. Those whom don't do that are either jailed, or their ability to function in said society is whittled down by means of further social convention to oust said social miscreant.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 4:42:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 1:42:14 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Are you a member of society? (presuming yes)
Do you make use of societal constructs? (again, assuming yes)
Do you follow some of the most basic of societal laws (again, assuming yes)

Your "acceptance" of the matter doesn't excluded you from the participation you have already contributed.
I had the same conversation on edeb8. Participation does not mean consent. If a woman does not say no for whatever reason when being raped, that does not imply consent. My lack of active resistance (and the truth is I resist society all the time), in the same manner, should not imply consent.

Societal responsibility includes honoring your debts,
You would have to accept that the debts exist to begin with. I do not accept any such debts. Even if I did accept such debts, that doesn't necessarily mean I am inclined to pay them back either.

Those whom don't do that are either jailed, or their ability to function in said society is whittled down by means of further social convention to oust said social miscreant.

Which is why I am an anarchist. Jails and organized societal bullying are my two least favorite things.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:05:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 4:42:25 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/3/2015 1:42:14 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Are you a member of society? (presuming yes)
Do you make use of societal constructs? (again, assuming yes)
Do you follow some of the most basic of societal laws (again, assuming yes)

Your "acceptance" of the matter doesn't excluded you from the participation you have already contributed.
I had the same conversation on edeb8. Participation does not mean consent. If a woman does not say no for whatever reason when being raped, that does not imply consent. My lack of active resistance (and the truth is I resist society all the time), in the same manner, should not imply consent.

None of that excludes you from the participation you have already contributed. You have accepted the terms, abided by the terms (for the most part), even though you don't like them. In this variety of equation, you are not being acted upon, it requires your active participation. Unlike rape, where the aggressor seeks out a victim, in this instance, you may excuse yourself at any time.

Societal responsibility includes honoring your debts,
You would have to accept that the debts exist to begin with. I do not accept any such debts. Even if I did accept such debts, that doesn't necessarily mean I am inclined to pay them back either.

From this, it can be surmised you don't use credit, or are actively participating in fraud. (that being you have no inclination pay back what you have accrued).

Those whom don't do that are either jailed, or their ability to function in said society is whittled down by means of further social convention to oust said social miscreant.

Which is why I am an anarchist. Jails and organized societal bullying are my two least favorite things.

Fraudulent folks are mine. ;) You will notice that the results of that "bullying" comes from your participation in society without honoring your responsibilities. You are free to leave at any time.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:10:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:05:41 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
None of that excludes you from the participation you have already contributed. You have accepted the terms, abided by the terms (for the most part), even though you don't like them.
I never accepted the terms. This social contract you are saying exists, was never signed by me.

;In this variety of equation, you are not being acted upon, it requires your active participation.
No, it really doesn't and there is no good argument that it would

Unlike rape, where the aggressor seeks out a victim, in this instance, you may excuse yourself at any time.
Explain how you leave society? Society is just a series of group dynamics. It isn't a formalized register where you have to do everything in order to please the other members.

From this, it can be surmised you don't use credit, or are actively participating in fraud. (that being you have no inclination pay back what you have accrued).
You are right, I do not use credit, because I do have a personal problem with using my I do not possess myself.

That isn't the point though. The debt is only as sincere as I want to make it. There is no reason to believe that I have an obligation to pay back whatever someone else gives me. Why? Because obligations do not exist and are a perpetrated lie.

Fraudulent folks are mine. ;) You will notice that the results of that "bullying" comes from your participation in society without honoring your responsibilities.

You are free to leave at any time.
Leaving, like you already said, means jail time or becoming a victim of societal bullying. Jail is the least free place on earth.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:24:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:10:48 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/3/2015 5:05:41 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

None of that excludes you from the participation you have already contributed. You have accepted the terms, abided by the terms (for the most part), even though you don't like them.

I never accepted the terms. This social contract you are saying exists, was never signed by me.

Your participation says differently. Again, just because you don't find the terms favorable, it doesn't mean you aren't a participant, and doing so by your choice.

;In this variety of equation, you are not being acted upon, it requires your active participation.
No, it really doesn't and there is no good argument that it would

You mean aside from the fact you are making use of a device that works because social responsibility exists? Or d you mean "no there is really no good argument" because you offered up literally no refute or counter claim?


Unlike rape, where the aggressor seeks out a victim, in this instance, you may excuse yourself at any time.
Explain how you leave society?

I believe it was summarized best with "Living in a van down by the river." Matt Foley has a great excerpt on what it looks like.

Society is just a series of group dynamics. It isn't a formalized register where you have to do everything in order to please the other members.

... and? Dude, river, van, get going.


From this, it can be surmised you don't use credit, or are actively participating in fraud. (that being you have no inclination pay back what you have accrued).
You are right, I do not use credit, because I do have a personal problem with using my I do not possess myself.

That isn't the point though. The debt is only as sincere as I want to make it. There is no reason to believe that I have an obligation to pay back whatever someone else gives me. Why? Because obligations do not exist and are a perpetrated lie.

So, yes, fraud. If you borrow, there are terms and conditions one is given.

Fraudulent folks are mine. ;) You will notice that the results of that "bullying" comes from your participation in society without honoring your responsibilities.

You are free to leave at any time.

Leaving, like you already said, means jail time or becoming a victim of societal bullying. Jail is the least free place on earth.

Van. Down by the river. Wander the wilds. Renounce your citizenship, too.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 6:44:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:24:57 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Your participation says differently. Again, just because you don't find the terms favorable, it doesn't mean you aren't a participant, and doing so by your choice.
Once again, explain how silence equals consent, because that is the part I really am not getting.

Also it is quite ridiculous to believe a hypothetical entity controls society, and overrides my own influence over the dynamics that are taking place.

You mean aside from the fact you are making use of a device that works because social responsibility exists? Or d you mean "no there is really no good argument" because you offered up literally no refute or counter claim?

I utilize it, but that wasn't what you were arguing. It sounds like what you are saying, is that just because society does certain things for me, that I owe society certain things back. I thought that was a bs answer.



I believe it was summarized best with "Living in a van down by the river." Matt Foley has a great excerpt on what it looks like.
No. Society doesn't own my home and they do not own my life either. Another outrageous claim, that one must literally leave the premises of all human life in order to get out of social obligations.

The actual truth is that obligations do not exist. Being obligated to do something is a mindset if anything.

So, yes, fraud. If you borrow, there are terms and conditions one is given.
Those terms and conditions do not have to be followed. In that instance, the association is more formal too. There is no actual formal social contract, and if one did exist, I would not sign it.

Before you repeat yourself, just remember I said earlier, that silence does not = consent and that still applies. Living among human life does not mean I am obligated to provide for other humans, and I will also stick by my stance that such a claim is absolutely absurd.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 6:53:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The idea of helping or protecting another is certainly an idea that I think we should support through encouragement and positive reinforcement. It benefits us all to be in a society that values those ideas.

However, we do not want to start mandating those actions as obligatory. A heroic action isn't really heroic if the person had no other reasonable choice. A world where altruism is respected and rewarded is a world I'd like to live in. A world where altruism is required and failure to achieve it is punished is a world I think I'd rather not.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 7:01:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 6:44:13 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/3/2015 5:24:57 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

Your participation says differently. Again, just because you don't find the terms favorable, it doesn't mean you aren't a participant, and doing so by your choice.

Once again, explain how silence equals consent, because that is the part I really am not getting.

You are still here. You don't have to be. Much like your responses to this thread: your reply is your participation, and you don't have to "reply". Just dip out. Leave. Tent in the woods. Live under a bridge. Whatever.

Also it is quite ridiculous to believe a hypothetical entity controls society, and overrides my own influence over the dynamics that are taking place.

Entities, plural. That being the other members of society, and control is a rather strong word.

You mean aside from the fact you are making use of a device that works because social responsibility exists? Or d you mean "no there is really no good argument" because you offered up literally no refute or counter claim?

I utilize it, but that wasn't what you were arguing. It sounds like what you are saying, is that just because society does certain things for me, that I owe society certain things back. I thought that was a bs answer.

Fortunately, your acquiescence to basic societal rules show how compliant you are to that fact. ;)

I believe it was summarized best with "Living in a van down by the river." Matt Foley has a great excerpt on what it looks like.

No. Society doesn't own my home and they do not own my life either. Another outrageous claim, that one must literally leave the premises of all human life in order to get out of social obligations.

Your objection doesn't over-ride the truth of the statement, though. The fact that your life is not owned is not in dispute, and if your home is paid off, and you are living off the grid, sure, your assesments would be correct though I wonder how you even got a piece of technology to reply here without engaging in part of said societal obligation, however the fact that you are still participating in exchanges of goods and services, and expect others to act in good faith shows what obligations you are willing to accept and engage in. By your choice.

The actual truth is that obligations do not exist. Being obligated to do something is a mindset if anything.

Sure. Stop paying some bills and engage in what society calls "theft", and tell me how obligated you are NOT to follow the law.

So, yes, fraud. If you borrow, there are terms and conditions one is given.

Those terms and conditions do not have to be followed.

Assuming you accept the penalty, then. That is the choice of accepting the service, you see. Again, it stems from your choice of participation. If you feel obligations don't exist, fine. But then you shouldn't engage in a circumstance in which other parties are going to hold you accountable for your choice.

In that instance, the association is more formal too. There is no actual formal social contract, and if one did exist, I would not sign it.

Before you repeat yourself, just remember I said earlier, that silence does not = consent and that still applies.

Participation generally does, and... here you are.

Living among human life does not mean I am obligated to provide for other humans, and I will also stick by my stance that such a claim is absolutely absurd.

Only if you assume having no repercussions for stabbing some one to be absurd. That is where a lack of responsibility and obligation ultimately leads: one need not grant the right to personal autonomy or property. Such things are social constructs.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 7:17:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 6:53:16 PM, JMcKinley wrote:
However, we do not want to start mandating those actions as obligatory. A heroic action isn't really heroic if the person had no other reasonable choice. A world where altruism is respected and rewarded is a world I'd like to live in. A world where altruism is required and failure to achieve it is punished is a world I think I'd rather not.

Yes, I agree. I would almost always help someone in need, and you stated one of the two reasons why it should not be obligatory.

The other reason is that obligations simply do not exist, and expecting someone to do something because they are obligated is nonsense, because their obligation only counts for as much as they want to make it.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 7:25:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 7:01:06 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
You are still here. You don't have to be. Much like your responses to this thread: your reply is your participation, and you don't have to "reply". Just dip out. Leave. Tent in the woods. Live under a bridge. Whatever.

Now you are getting repetitive, which is going to make me competitive.

Living among other humans does not equal consent for a social contract. That is very much bs.

Fortunately, your acquiescence to basic societal rules show how compliant you are to that fact. ;)
Where is this rulebook of society? I have argued this whole time that society does not have a rulebook, but you seem to think it does, so please share.

Your objection doesn't over-ride the truth of the statement, though. The fact that your life is not owned is not in dispute, and if your home is paid off, and you are living off the grid, sure, your assesments would be correct though I wonder how you even got a piece of technology to reply here without engaging in part of said societal obligation, however the fact that you are still participating in exchanges of goods and services, and expect others to act in good faith shows what obligations you are willing to accept and engage in. By your choice.
Commiting the same fallacy.

Do you really think that simply communicating with another person means that you are obligated to slave away for them?

Sure. Stop paying some bills and engage in what society calls "theft", and tell me how obligated you are NOT to follow the law.

I am not obligated to break the law, but I have the free will to do so. I break the law a lot, and I wish more people would break the law more often.

Assuming you accept the penalty, then.
I do not have to accept the penalty either.

That is the choice of accepting the service, you see. Again, it stems from your choice of participation. If you feel obligations don't exist, fine. But then you shouldn't engage in a circumstance in which other parties are going to hold you accountable for your choice.
But I do, and it doesn't hurt me either. If people want to hold me accountable, they can do that, but that doesn't mean I am going to abide by their wishes simply because they have that flawed mindset.

Participation generally does, and... here you are.
It generally doesn't. Back to the argument about rape.

Being a victim of rape does not mean that same rape was consensual.

Only if you assume having no repercussions for stabbing some one to be absurd.
There are repercussions. You have already proven my point though. You are already implying that I was never obligated to follow the rules, since by your own admission one actually has the free will to break them and choose different circumstances for themselves.

That is where a lack of responsibility and obligation ultimately leads: one need not grant the right to personal autonomy or property. Such things are social constructs.

Obligations, social contracts, and society itself.

All of those things are also social constructs. Why do you advocate for some social constructs, while dismissing others such as personal autonomy?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,224
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 7:45:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 7:25:27 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/3/2015 7:01:06 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
You are still here. You don't have to be. Much like your responses to this thread: your reply is your participation, and you don't have to "reply". Just dip out. Leave. Tent in the woods. Live under a bridge. Whatever.

Now you are getting repetitive, which is going to make me competitive.

Living among other humans does not equal consent for a social contract.

Correct, it doesn't... if you have no expectations. These include the basics like following through on your word, not having your throat cut for your possessions, etc.

Fortunately, your acquiescence to basic societal rules show how compliant you are to that fact. ;)

Where is this rulebook of society? I have argued this whole time that society does not have a rulebook, but you seem to think it does, so please share.

Sure, where in the world do you live? I can show you the basic rule book. Whats more: I can also show you where there is NO rule book, and consequently, no society. :)

Your objection doesn't over-ride the truth of the statement, though. The fact that your life is not owned is not in dispute, and if your home is paid off, and you are living off the grid, sure, your assesments would be correct though I wonder how you even got a piece of technology to reply here without engaging in part of said societal obligation, however the fact that you are still participating in exchanges of goods and services, and expect others to act in good faith shows what obligations you are willing to accept and engage in. By your choice.

Commiting the same fallacy.

Which one? Do you or do you not expect to be able to leave the grocer with the goods you paid for, not get robbed for said goods in the parking lot, the grocer actually allowing you to leave with said goods after you fork over the cash, etc? These are part of that societal obligation.

Do you really think that simply communicating with another person means that you are obligated to slave away for them?

Of course not, but such hyperbole was not my argument.


Sure. Stop paying some bills and engage in what society calls "theft", and tell me how obligated you are NOT to follow the law.

I am not obligated to break the law, but I have the free will to do so. I break the law a lot, and I wish more people would break the law more often.

Amazingly enough "not breaking the law"... is... you guessed it... part of the "obligation" you fulfill! Yay! And I bet you thought it would be a chore.

Assuming you accept the penalty, then.
I do not have to accept the penalty either.

People rarely do, but that isn't reason enough for their lack of enforcement.

That is the choice of accepting the service, you see. Again, it stems from your choice of participation. If you feel obligations don't exist, fine. But then you shouldn't engage in a circumstance in which other parties are going to hold you accountable for your choice.

But I do, and it doesn't hurt me either. If people want to hold me accountable, they can do that, but that doesn't mean I am going to abide by their wishes simply because they have that flawed mindset.

The flawed mindset that you be accountable to what you agree to? Interesting.

Participation generally does, and... here you are.

It generally doesn't. Back to the argument about rape.

No, about "consent". Rape involves some one forcing their will upon a victim whom is presumably unable to defend themselves, or had their ability to choose robbed from them. You may excuse yourself from current society at any time. You are not being held, and your actions are demonstrating a form of consent. Your choice to participate is intact, and you are using it.:

Being a victim of rape does not mean that same rape was consensual.

And in the instance of rape, some one sought out the victim. You are free to leave, at any time if you don't like what is "happening" to you. The fact that you still participate in society on some level means you enjoy the benefits. It stands to reason that if you stick around, you also contribute. Boo hoo, society is apparently raping you, yet you can leave at any time, but don't. You say you are an anarchist of some variety, but sound like an abused spouse.

Only if you assume having no repercussions for stabbing some one to be absurd.

There are repercussions. You have already proven my point though. You are already implying that I was never obligated to follow the rules, since by your own admission one actually has the free will to break them and choose different circumstances for themselves.

Yes, typically "breaking" rules, depending on which rules is demonstrating your break from society.

That is where a lack of responsibility and obligation ultimately leads: one need not grant the right to personal autonomy or property. Such things are social constructs.

Obligations, social contracts, and society itself.

Mm. I guess I can accept that.


All of those things are also social constructs. Why do you advocate for some social constructs, while dismissing others such as personal autonomy?

Because they aren't dismissed. Personal autonomy can run parallel to such society constructs.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 9:26:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 8:09:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Contracts are useless unless you have an enforcing agent.
+1
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 9:27:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
My arguments are really not getting through, so I usually stop arguing when I notice there is going to be a consecutive trend of saying the same thing over and over.