GENIUS FORUMS

Nick Treklis wrote:Since nobody consulted me before I was born into this fucked up society I have absolutely no problem seeing a fellow wise man living off of it.
...
Are they obligated to pay me or anyone else? Objectively, no, but that's a pretty meaningless statement. Subjectively from my perspective, yes they should pay me. Why you say? Because it's the fair thing to do. If I don't want to play their childish games then they should at least have the common courtesy to say, alright we'll accommodate you since you obviously didn't choose to involve yourself in our pig sty

Oh man, this sounds so much like the stereotypical teenage 'I did not ask to be born!' shit, it's not even funny.

And uni makes the exact same petulant 'I did not ask to be born!' argument.

These losers are the people who consider themselves the mature ones?!. This is the fucking epitome of a pathetic childish whine!

I did not ask to be subject to gravity. Does that mean the society owes me a jet-pack?

You fucking take what you got, and you run with it, kids.

Alright imagine you are a heterosexual for a moment. Say you were born the only heterosexual man on Planet Butt-Fuck, where the only way to get by in society was to get fucked in the butt 8 hours a day 5 days a week. Being that you are a heterosexual in this situation and would not want to participate in this activity; don't you think it would be fair if you were given a modest budget, at least enough to provide yourself with necessities? It's obviously the reasonable thing to do.

When you need to get butt-fucked to grow corn or raise cattle, let me know. Until then, you are just spinning.

Think about the difference between those two, dude. Think real hard.

vicdan wrote:When you need to get butt-fucked to grow corn or raise cattle, let me know. Until then, you are just spinning.

Needless to say you missed the point. This isn't about not wanting to grow corn and raise cattle. It's about rational people who want to survive rationally without selling their soul to a corporation. This isn't the old days where you can simply go out and build yourself a log cabin and live off the land. Banks, corporations, citizens and the government own ALL the land. There is no unclaimed land left, even though there is plenty of it to go around. Lets look a little deeper at just what kind of prison we are actually born into. First, all land is claimed, it is pure slavery to think that humans who are born from the earth they stand on have to purchase for ourselves a piece of land from a bank! WTF!?!?! We are then put into schools that teach us nothing about surviving in the natural world, how to grow and hunt our own food, or even which wild plants are safe to eat. They only teach us how to survive in corporate culture, grooming us for our life of corporate servitude no doubt. On top of all this our money continues to be worth less and less due to inflation, the vast majority of wealth lies in the hands of a few corporations, and we are robbed by the government through income taxes. The money of which is used only to pay off the national debt caused by the over spending withing the military-industrial complex by puppet politicians, and the interest on the money that the federal reserve LOANS us (I mean why would we make our own money interest free when we can have a handful of bankers create money for us out of nothing at an interest right? /end sarcasm). If that's not getting fucked in the butt, I don't know what is!

Nick Treklis, boy thinker wrote:Alright my turn,

Since nobody consulted me before I was born into this fucked up society

Dramatic but mere conjecture: ultimately you don't know. But either way would convey no debt by life to you. I hope you realize that.

I have absolutely no problem seeing a fellow wise man living off of it.

Fellow sage, you flatter yourself too kindly.

If I qualified for anything more than food stamps when it comes to welfare I would do it too.

Hell yeah, kick society in the ass, wise bro.

To hell with society and to hell with all of its irrational beliefs and greed driven values.

Yeah, to hell with society. I'm with you. Let's run with the wolves and eat off the land.

If they want to run around pretending to be adults while they act like ego-maniacal little children seeing who has the biggest cock their whole lives then fine, but don't get your panties in a bunch when I don't participate

Hell yeah, I'm not participating either. We'll run free with the wolves and bed down under the fucking stars. Born to be wild, man.

and call you out on your childish behavior.

Right, frickin' babies. Who needs 'em.

Are they obligated to pay me or anyone else? Objectively, no,

Right on. "Objectively, no," I love the philosophical touch. It's like "Hell no, and furthermore OBJECTIVELY NO!"

but that's a pretty meaningless statement.

Whoops. Slippage.

Subjectively from my perspective, yes they should pay me.

Whoops. *Scottish accent* I cannot hold her, Captain. She'll blow apart. We're losing Warp Speed.

Why you say? Because it's the fair thing to do. If I don't want to play their childish games then they should at least have the common courtesy to say, alright we'll accommodate you since you obviously didn't choose to involve yourself in our pig sty,

Huh? What happened to our stalwart philosopher. He's become a mewling cat waiting for a shot of milk from the farmer pulling the cow's teat in the barn. Total transformation.

(a pig sty, a.k.a "corporate culture" which has monopolized the entire country and beyond leaving no room for the rational and wise).

Oh Boo Hoo!

But society still has a ways to go before it even matures to this point, so in the mean time I'm forced play their games.

Oh for fuck's sake. The poor philosopher will never be free because he's forced to play other people's games. Forced. You sound like one of the babies you decry, Nick.

Nick Treklis wrote:

vicdan wrote:When you need to get butt-fucked to grow corn or raise cattle, let me know. Until then, you are just spinning.

Needless to say you missed the point. This isn't about not wanting to grow corn and raise cattle. It's about rational people who want to survive rationally without selling their soul to a corporation. This isn't the old days where you can simply go out and build yourself a log cabin and live off the land. Banks, corporations, citizens and the government own ALL the land. There is no unclaimed land left, even though there is plenty of it to go around. Lets look a little deeper at just what kind of prison we are actually born into. First, all land is claimed, it is pure slavery to think that humans who are born from the earth they stand on have to purchase for ourselves a piece of land from a bank! WTF!?!?! We are then put into schools that teach us nothing about surviving in the natural world, how to grow and hunt our own food, or even which wild plants are safe to eat. They only teach us how to survive in corporate culture, grooming us for our life of corporate servitude no doubt. On top of all this our money continues to be worth less and less due to inflation, the vast majority of wealth lies in the hands of a few corporations, and we are robbed by the government through income taxes. The money of which is used only to pay off the national debt caused by the over spending withing the military-industrial complex by puppet politicians, and the interest on the money that the federal reserve LOANS us (I mean why would we make our own money interest free when we can have a handful of bankers create money for us out of nothing at an interest right? /end sarcasm). If that's not getting fucked in the butt, I don't know what is!

Oh Boo the fuck Hoo, Nick. Grow up and take responsibility for yourself.

Carl that was quite a long winded response with out refuting a single point I made. Are you sure you ought to be at a philosophy forum?

Come on, Carl. Nothing but mockery? No substance at all? I know you could have done better.

Oh Boo the fuck Hoo... Grow up and take responsibility for yourself.

Do you hear yourself? Couldn't we have just as easily heard this cliched slogan spouted on Fox News? Pretty disappointing.

Is that really all you have?

The trusty "grow up" sawhorse is being bandied about quite liberally, even after I posted an excerpt from my essay that specifically predicted it would be, which is actually kind of amusing. Psychic Friends Network! So let me slap that paragraph up again, in hopes that maybe something will "click" this time:

Pointing to the inherent unfairness of imposing a sense of obligation on individuals for taking part in a life they never chose is not a denial of life's value, as some may suppose. The aim is not to complain about being alive, but to question the assumption that life is something we have to "earn." It is common to hear life described as a "gift," but what kind of gift comes with an obligation? If supporters of the capitalist "work ethic" were consistent, they would describe life as a "sale." We are sold the right to live in exchange for a lifetime of labor. There is clearly no "gift" element to be found in this - at least not once we leave the shelter of childhood and enter the adult world, where we expected to begin discharging our debt to the world - and insisting that those who question this "need to grow up" simply dodges the whole issue.

Nick Treklis wrote:Carl that was quite a long winded response with out refuting a single point I made. Are you sure you ought to be at a philosophy forum?

What point did you make, other than you are a complainer.

Nat, the idea of self responsibility is hard to refute philosophically. Are you really going to try?

What's wrong with complaining, Carl? Do you imagine that any progress in human history has ever been made without somebody complaining first? Nope, not even one little shred, ever. Complainers are people who notice that something is wrong and point it out. Without them, human society would be hopelessly stagnant.

Look around you and notice every good and useful thing mankind has accomplished. Then find a complainer and thank him.

Nat, the idea of self responsibility is hard to refute philosophically. Are you really going to try?

The idea of "self-responsibility" is trivial to refute philosophically. It is refuted by cause and effect.

How hard was that?

Nick Treklis wrote:Needless to say you missed the point. This isn't about not wanting to grow corn and raise cattle. It's about rational people who want to survive rationally without selling their soul to a corporation.

Then don't. Start a small farm or a small business. Go into subsistence agriculture. Join a co-op or a commune. There are countless ways to survive without working for the corporate world.

This isn't the old days where you can simply go out and build yourself a log cabin and live off the land.

Actually, yes, you can. You are just too used to the comforts of civilization. There are plenty of places around USA which will give land away -- just come and settle there!

Banks, corporations, citizens and the government own ALL the land. There is no unclaimed land left, even though there is plenty of it to go around.

hahaha, you fucking dumb loser. you didn't even look, didja? All you are interested is justifying yourself, not actually finding ways stay away from the corporate world. There are plenty of places in USA where you can have land for free.

Here's the very first hit in the google search for free land: Kansas Free Land. That search is full of places giving away land for free -- just come and settle there!

Come on, start coming up with new excuses! You can do it!

We are then put into schools that teach us nothing about surviving in the natural world, how to grow and hunt our own food, or even which wild plants are safe to eat.

So fucking learn! The information is easily available; but you don't want to learn, do you? you just want to whine.

They only teach us how to survive in corporate culture, grooming us for our life of corporate servitude no doubt. On top of all this our money continues to be worth less and less due to inflation, the vast majority of wealth lies in the hands of a few corporations, and we are robbed by the government through income taxes. The money of which is used only to pay off the national debt caused by the over spending withing the military-industrial complex by puppet politicians, and the interest on the money that the federal reserve LOANS us (I mean why would we make our own money interest free when we can have a handful of bankers create money for us out of nothing at an interest right? /end sarcasm). If that's not getting fucked in the butt, I don't know what is!

You are fucking yourself. Instead of trying to solve the problems, you pathetic loser, you just whine about how everything sucks. There are countless ways for a man or woman these days to live a life not dependent on the corporate world -- but you will never find any of them if what you are looking for is excuses to whine and complain.

You are just a loser with a sense of entitlement, but no desire to actually solve your problems. Blaming everyone and everything is so much easier than actually acting, no?..

And before you accuse me of being classist -- no, you aren't a loser because you are poor. You are a looser because you would rather whine than solve the problems you are whining about. Same with Unidian.

Unidian wrote:What's wrong with complaining, Carl? Do you imagine that any progress in human history has ever been made without somebody complaining first?

you see, dude, those who had progress in history, they acted to solve the problems they pointed out. You just whine and moan and bewail your slavish fate.

Nope, not even one little shred, ever. Complainers are people who notice that something is wrong and point it out. Without them, human society would be hopelessly stagnant.

hooray to losers sitting in their armchairs complaining about how the world is mean to them!

Wow, what a tool you are.

The idea of "self-responsibility" is trivial to refute philosophically. It is refuted by cause and effect.

How hard was that?

Right, Nat, self responsibility is trumped by cause and effect.

*rolls eyes*

So why do anything? Everything is a big "whatever."

Right, Nat, self responsibility is trumped by cause and effect.

*rolls eyes*

So why do anything? Everything is a big "whatever."

That's a "Philosophy 101" sort of objection to determinism. I'm not trying to belittle you, but it just is.

We do things because we are caused to do them, of course. "Why" is a meaningless question in this context, because the semantic framework from which you are asking it presumes the view (free will) which has been rejected. It's fine to ask why we do anything in the sense of "what are our causes for doing anything," but to ask "why" in some existential sense is nonsense.

Why do anything? Because we have no choice. We will do what we are caused to do, period. The idea that this means "everything is a big whatever" is also a very remedial response to determinism. All that has been removed is something that was never there to begin with - the fiction of "free will."

If a person doesn't want to engage the prevailing values of a society it is perfectly reasonable for them to advocate for a moral system, a welfare system, that keeps them alive in a basic way. As has already been noted, we do this already for criminals who want to harm us. How on earth can it be a ethical stretch to ask society to extend this basic welfare to people who do not feel they can work? If a person cannot work, per se, then they suffer an obvious pathology and ought be regarded as disabled. If their inability to be employed is ethic-based, then I see no reason to deny them the essentials of life. We do this for children and they contribute nothing save future potential. Not only does a conscientious work objector contribute the same future potential, but they contribute arguably worthwhile social criticisms right now. Are we so filled with vanity that we can't recognise this? Is the arguability of their critiques an argument against funding them? Our criteria for social legitimacy seem stupid beyond measure. We will fund without complaint the antics of an academic studying the role of the clitoris in orgasm - in a philosophy department no less - but we argue against providing a modest stipend to a person who provides legitimate reason why they feel they cannot be employed. When said people move to define what they regard as a civilised and compassionate and reasonable society they are accused of moral extortion. Get real. It's all extortion if you want to see it that way. We have created a social structure which denies people the ability to fend for themselves. When people talk about going off and living on the land and so forth they are speaking fantasy-world nonsense. Whose land, exactly?

What Nat advocates for is a system where no-one gets left behind, even when they feel they cannot contribute directly (at least economically) to the economy that supports them. What's the big deal? Every cent of a welfare recipient's budget goes back into local economies anyway.

I can see no moral or economic objection to such a system that isn't based in silly Protestant work ethics of a bygone era.

vicdan wrote:hooray to losers sitting in their armchairs complaining about how the world is mean to them!

You mean people like Bertrand Russell? Yeah, you're right, he was certainly a tool.

Dan Rowden wrote:If a person doesn't want to engage the prevailing values of a society it is perfectly reasonable for them to advocate for a moral system, a welfare system, that keeps them alive in a basic way. As has already been noted, we do this already for criminals who want to harm us.

We do it because we strip them of the ability to sustain themselves, so we take upon ourselves the obligation to sustain them instead. Nobody is stripping you or Uni of ability to sustain yourselves.

How on earth can it be a ethical stretch to ask society to extend this basic welfare to people who do not feel they can work?

Very easily. Being unwilling to work is not the same as being unable to work. QED.

We will fund without complaint the antics of an academic studying the role of the clitoris in orgasm - in a philosophy department no less - but we argue against providing a modest stipend to a person who provides legitimate reason why they feel they cannot be employed.

provide a legitimate reason to believe that you contribute to society, and you too can get a research grant, a study grant, an art grant, whatever.

But you can't, can you? You can only whine.

We have created a social structure which denies people the ability to fend for themselves. When people talk about going off and living on the land and so forth they are speaking fantasy-world nonsense. Whose land, exactly?

The one given away for free all over the place. See my link above. They give it away -- just come and live there!

What Nat advocates for is a system where no-one gets left behind, even when they feel they cannot contribute directly (at least economically) to the economy that supports them. What's the big deal?

That they try to blackmail everyone else. Duh.

I can see no moral or economic objection to such a system that isn't based in silly Protestant work ethics of a bygone era.

I am sure you can't.

Dan Rowden wrote:

vicdan wrote:hooray to losers sitting in their armchairs complaining about how the world is mean to them!

You mean people like Bertrand Russell? Yeah, you're right, he was certainly a tool.

he was gainfully employed, you fucking idiot, despite being a nobleman. He was also a world-famous mathelogician, and he won a Nobel in literature. He did not demand that society sustain him in his indolence.

isn't it amazing how all these indisputably great philosophers didn't share your and Unidian's sense of entitltement?.. No matter who you take -- Aristotle or Diogenes, Aquinas or Kant, Nietzsche or Sartre, Quine or Popper -- none of them proclaimed that the society owed them a living.

This fact makes Unidian's whine about how work is incompatible with serious philosophy all the more insanely dumb.

Dan wrote:

vicdan wrote:

We have created a social structure which denies people the ability to fend for themselves. When people talk about going off and living on the land and so forth they are speaking fantasy-world nonsense. Whose land, exactly?

The one given away for free all over the place. See my link above. They give it away -- just come and live there!

Don't be a dag, Victor. Those places are for people otherwise fiscally endowed who basically want to drop out of society. Yeah, all you welfare bludgers!, pack up all your belongings, hitchhike to your free land in hicksville and plant grass seeds with your hands.

You'll do swell up until you begin to starve and are forced back on welfare. Two weeks, max.

Dan Rowden wrote:If a person doesn't want to engage the prevailing values of a society it is perfectly reasonable for them to advocate for a moral system, a welfare system, that keeps them alive in a basic way. As has already been noted, we do this already for criminals who want to harm us. How on earth can it be a ethical stretch to ask society to extend this basic welfare to people who do not feel they can work? If a person cannot work, per se, then they suffer an obvious pathology and ought be regarded as disabled. If their inability to be employed is ethic-based, then I see no reason to deny them the essentials of life.

Of course you don't see any reason why not. But put yourself in their shoes. When you announce to the people who are going to be supporting you that they are immoral (this is implied in your ethical stance), do you think they are going to a) believe you and comply to your wishes as if you are their superior? or b) consider you mentally ill? It really is a no brainer. People are not going to want to grant a free ride to people they consider sane until these people realize the ego is evil.

Dan,

I saw the quoted bit about losers in armchairs. He's really getting mean-spirited now, isn't he? Just hurling outrage in all directions. People who point out social problems and pave the way for progress are to be shat upon now, too? Wow. I wrote something elsewhere that I think might be worth sharing at this point:

More than anyone else, Victor reminds me of a Bill Kristol in training. A brilliant intellectual with no conscience, willing to smugly allow all sorts of atrocities and injustices in the name of his egotistical and self-congratulatory values. Every time I read Vickie, I think of Billy Boy. The Randian social and economic Darwinism is already well in place and is only getting stronger. All that is needed is some time to simmer. As I told Dan in a PM, give it ten years and the neo-fascist wing of the Republican party is going to have quite an asset in him. His hatred of truly progressive values will gradually cleanse the remaining humanity out of him with age. Just like with Bill Kristol, all the lip service will still be about "freedom" and "liberty." But the actual message will be (and in fact already is) something very different indeed. Watch and see.

I think its pretty hard to argue that I'm not onto something here, wouldn't you agree? I haven't even seen the bulk of what he's written, but just the parts other people have quoted indicate a really deep, seething hatred and a level of vitriol toward people with different values that is profoundly inconsistent with a progressive mindset.

I think these discussions of employment over the last year or two have pretty well finished him off as a progressive liberal in the public eye. I can't imagine any serious leftie considering him one of our own after these abusive tantrums.

Dan Rowden wrote:Don't be a dag, Victor. Those places are for people otherwise fiscally endowed who basically want to drop out of society. Yeah, all you welfare bludgers!, pack up all your belongings, hitchhike to your free land in hicksville and plant grass seeds with your hands.

Why not? people did it for centuries. What makes you unable to do so?

You'll do swell up until you begin to starve and are forced back on welfare. Two weeks, max.

So stay on welfare until your first crop comes in, and then you're good to go. Subsistence agriculture! Shit in the woods! no indoor plumbing! Ah, but you want the comforts...

What a bunch of whiny losers you guys are.

Unidian wrote:I think its pretty hard to argue that I'm not onto something here, wouldn't you agree? I haven't even seen the bulk of what he's written, but just the parts other people have quoted indicate a really deep, seething hatred and a level of vitriol toward people with different values that is profoundly inconsistent with a progressive mindset.

No, just a deep, seething hatred of the voluntary slaves who blackmail the society with their whining.

Live free or die!
It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!

Remember me saying these things years ago? my values haven't changed -- but you plunged head-first into utter immoral douchebaggery.

I think these discussions of employment over the last year or two have pretty well finished him off as a progressive liberal in the public eye. I can't imagine any serious leftie considering him one of our own after these abusive tantrums.

hahaha

Dude, you can't imagine your way out of a wet paper bag.

I had never claimed anything but that i am half-way between a liberal and libertarian. As i had been saying for years, if the Libertarian party were actually sane, I would be a registered Libertarian.

Your pathetic whining does not improve with time.

P.S. it is interesting to know that even in the time you had seen nothing of me, you were still preoccupied with me.