Unemployment: Best Indicator of Integrity

[Dan Rowden]

Nat,

But one does not have status nor is entitled to self-esteem if one is not working and trying to "better" oneself. That is the prevailing western ethos, most perfectly manifest in America for reasons I will explain when I post my thread on American culture and neuroses. It's that mentality that makes employment something to be shunned by intelligent people. One should "work" - and work hard - against the insanity underlying such things.

Screw herd morality! What would they know? They clearly know next to nothing about their own circumstances.

[Imadrongo]

Yeah, seriously, they made that argument. They demonized Mister Freaking Rogers. That's what it has come to.

I would too. The guy brainwashes kids.

[Dan Rowden]

He simply makes the same mistake that his opposers do: that self-esteem means something.

[Imadrongo]

He simply makes the same mistake that his opposers do: that self-esteem means something.

I'm sure this higher knowledge and understanding boosts yours. :-)

[Dan Rowden]

I don't have any. What would I do with such a witless thing?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Uni: ugh, I know... I'd just like to mention that there are contradictions in Disney films, and Bambi was never a real deer.

[Unidian]

I don't mind the Disney stuff too much. While it is undeniably simplistic and it panders to popular values, at least it tries to guide young people in some vaguely moral direction. That's more than we can say for a lot of what passes for "entertainment" nowdays, and it's certainly preferable to the blatantly and unapologetically materialistic amorality promoted in recent phenomena like Paris Hilton. I'd rather kids watch Bambi than Growing up Gotti.

Incidentally, I recently saw an old Disney special about life on Mars from the 1950's, and its content was sophisticated enough to have easily passed for an adult program on today's Discovery channel. It reminded me that the "dumbing down" of America is no myth.

[Katy]

You're incorrect about the value of $30 to everyone who drives.
After I pay my rent and other unavoidable bills I have $13 a week to buy gas and food with.
Since Statesboro has no public transit system, driving is not optional.
I assure you that an extra $30 a month would be a significant amount in my budget.

You're making the mistake of dichotomizing. Everyone is
A. Exactly the same as me
OR
B. Rich

When the reality of the situation is that's just not true. Hell, you're richer than I am, since you own the land your trailer is on, and aren't paying $440 a month in rent...

[Philosophaster]

LOL.

Looky who decided to drop by, Part 2.

[Unidian]

Ah... it just gets better and better.

First off, are you happy with what you've caused here? You know what I'm talking about. Has it been entertaining? I'd assume so, but it's always polite to check.

Secondly... <sighs> oh heavens, how to even address this? Let's just say that your family's financial background is well-known, and to say that your type of poverty compares with mine is... well, everyone knows what it is. I don't believe for a minute that a call to Dad couldn't get you out of whatever real trouble you might be in, if you ever got into any.

Why would you even post in this thread? I don't get it. Oh well, why not. Might as well go for the gold.

[Katy]

Seriously? I've been coming to this board more frequently than the two of you for almost a year. Though I've mostly turned my attention elsewhere, I have been reading here every 2-3 days all semester.

I'm not denying that a call to Dad could get me out of real trouble. I'm not talking about an emergency. I'm talking about $30 a month on a repeating basis - something my parents wouldn't bail me out of on a regular basis. Besides, I'm far from alone in being able to drive but still not rich.

I've been avoiding replying in this thread, and I'll still avoid the question of ethics. I don't want to get involved in it. I'm just pointing out that it's fallacious to assume that everyone who drives can afford $30 to cover themselves in case you hit them driving.

[Unidian]

I've been avoiding replying in this thread, and I'll still avoid the question of ethics. I don't want to get involved in it.

No, you wanted Victor to get involved in it instead and shit all over me for your entertainment. Was it satisfying? Do you feel like you've gotten even?

I'm just pointing out that it's fallacious to assume that everyone who drives can afford $30 to cover themselves in case you hit them driving.

I never said everyone could, and would never say that. It would be very silly to say that. But on average, most people can.

[Dan Rowden]

As Rousseau, I believe, pointed out, wealth can be judged by the lack of a person's wants as much if not more by their ability to attain that which they desire. By that measure, how wealthy are any of us?

[Unidian]

Absolutely, and the Tao Te Ching echoes that sentiment as well. "He who has enough and knows it is rich."

I consider myself pretty wealthy in that sense. Certainly considerably more well-off than the majority, whose material desires are, for all intents and purposes, bottomless.

[Dan Rowden]

I've been avoiding replying in this thread, and I'll still avoid the question of ethics. I don't want to get involved in it.

No, you wanted Victor to get involved in it instead and shit all over me for your entertainment. Was it satisfying? Do you feel like you've gotten even?

Point made. This dimension of the thread ends here. If not, it gets locked. It'd be nice if at least one person here respected my stated desire that this not becomes a days of our lives episode. Why ruin a perfectly good topic?

[Dan Rowden]

Absolutely, and the Tao Te Ching echoes that sentiment as well. "He who has enough and knows it is rich."

I consider myself pretty wealthy in that sense. Certainly considerably more well-off than the majority, whose material desires are, for all intents and purposes, bottomless.

Precisely. Our normal measure of wealth is foolish in the extreme. How can one's wealth mean anything if it cannot satisfy?

[Unidian]

The poorest are those with the greatest material desires. They have so little of what they think they need. I often feel sorry for them.

Well... no, maybe not "often." But whenever they are not actively abusing and belittling me for holding such views, which (given that the TV is on in my house all day) is almost never.

[Dan Rowden]

The poorest are those with the greatest material desires. They have so little of what they think they need. I often feel sorry for them.

Yes, they feel constantly deprived. Yet, this is their lot more or less in any nation that functions on the basis of a material ethos, a "success" ethos (tied to materialism). Deny that ethos and you deny your right to be considered fairly, seemingly.

[Katy]

you guys should really use tv-links. Every TV show ever made and a huge number of movies ... no commercials. Available free with your internet connection. With this new discovery, I'm almost never subjected to ads that I have to hear. If I am, it's in a social setting and we're usually talking over them anyway unless we're mocking the stupidest ones.


By Dan's definition, I'm fairly wealthy, I guess. I was recently asked by a whole bunch of people what I wanted for my birthday and aside from replacing a bag that broke (which I'd had for 12 years prior) I couldn't come up with anything except food.

[Unidian]

Yes, they feel constantly deprived.

Yeah. That's the part I try to cultivate compassion for, although it's an uphill battle. They really do suffer for their "lack," and all so needlessly. If they simply changed their attitude their worries would evaporate - but they can't. Cultural indoctrination has truly enslaved them. How miserable.

Yet, this is their lot more or less in any nation that functions on the basis of a material ethos, a "success" ethos (tied to materialism).

Yes, of course. It's all created and sustained by those who benefit from it, as I explain in my essay Freedom, Capitalism, & Work.

Deny that ethos and you deny your right to be considered fairly, seemingly.

And your very right to exist, according to some of them. It's a situation which starkly affirms the First Noble Truth.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Uni,

While it is undeniably simplistic and it panders to popular values, at least it tries to guide young people in some vaguely moral direction.

According to Mulan, feminism began somewhere around the same time as a horde of Mongols invaded China.

That's more than we can say for a lot of what passes for "entertainment" nowdays, and it's certainly preferable to the blatantly and unapologetically materialistic amorality promoted in recent phenomena like Paris Hilton. I'd rather kids watch Bambi than Growing up Gotti.

Agreed.

To add to that, in the Mulan example, when the last 3 Mongols broke into the Imperial Palace and held the Emperor of China hostage -- and then were thwarted by their penises as 3 Chinese soldiers dressed as women and seduced them -- you can tell that the people who wrote the thing had at least some relationship with reality.

[Unidian]

trevor,

According to Mulan, feminism began somewhere around the same time as a horde of Mongols invaded China.

Huh? What does feminism have to do with any of this? I have a feeling I'll be sorry I asked, but hey... ;)

Agreed.

To add to that, in the Mulan example, when the last 3 Mongols broke into the Imperial Palace and held the Emperor of China hostage -- and then were thwarted by their penises as 3 Chinese soldiers dressed as women and seduced them -- you can tell that the people who wrote the thing had at least some relationship with reality.

Amusing, but I can't imagine how this is relevant to anything I said. Is Mulan a Disney movie? If so, I haven't seen it.

[Shahrazad]

Most entertaining thread here since Kevin's coming back home thread.

Carry on, please.

.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Uni: Mulan is, despite everything my sisters might claim, the single worst Disney movie ever created. It is about a girl who becomes a soldier and who then sings songs about the trouble of pretending to be a big mean stinky man. Third wave feminism in ancient China.

I'd hoped you had some familiarity with this movie, since it gives perfect expression to the dumbed-down cartoons that are designed solely to appeal to popular sentiment. I mean, Disney was creating racist films for Southern Americans, and anti-Jew films for the Nazis... it's no surprise that they'd create films for modern feminists.

But yeah, nothing I'm saying has anything to do with the thread. But this thread doesn't seem to have any interesting content otherwise. :)

Also, I really really hate Mulan. I liked Lion King, though.

[David Quinn]

Neil,

NM: I really thought it was quite logical. Sages believe life is meaningless. They do not want to participate in something meaningless because that would be delusional -- hence they are necessarily passive, since to be active is cast as "delusional".

DQ: If you replace "life" with "deluded life", you would be getting closer to the mark.

I personally think that deluded life is meaningless, since it involves thoughts and aims which are contradictory in nature. Coherence is thereby eliminated.

Deluded life is like a moth approaching a flame in the belief that it will bring it happiness.

NM: A moth approaching a flame in the belief that it will bring happiness is not incoherent or contradictory in nature pal. Perhaps the moth will actually be quite happy before he burns.

That's what it keeps thinking as it approaches the flame again and again and again, despite the fact that it gets horribly burnt each time.

The lack of memory and consciousness, and the lack of coherency in its behaviour, makes its life meaningless. That is how I see nearly all people.

The point is that he has some goal in life and since life is inherently meaningless to have a goal is to be deluded. To be active is to have a goal. Therefore the sage should be necessarily passive.

Realizing that life doesn't have any meaning in an objective sense doesn't mean that one cannot formulate subjective goals. For it involves realizing that subjective goals are the only goals there can ever be.

You're still being taken in by the metaphysical belief that one's goals are only meaningful or undeluded if they conform with Nature's goals. Ah, the irony of our discussions .....

DQ: So what do you think of my emphasis on masculinity then?

Neil: Your version of masculinity isn't a bully or a dominator. He is just unemotional, completely rational, and has no goals or values in life.

A bully is simply someone who passively submits to his own insane fears and shies away from dealing with them directly.

-