GENIUS FORUMS

vicdan wrote:you still think that this is about me hating unemployment... You have to think so, because otherwise you will have to face the fact that my opposition to your views is about freedom, not protestant work ethic.

No-one is free in the sense you seem to be suggesting other than, perhaps, those living a subsistence lifestyle. Modernity chains us by its very nature. There are some things that can't be helped and some that can.

Right. So if I offer you a fishing spear on a deserted island, you refuse to use it, and then I refuse to share the fish I caught with you, i am enslaving you, even though all I have done is offer you a free tool, and not one bit of violence or coercion. I enslave you by my mere presence.

Yep, you sure do. But this view depends on a moral framework you don't share and can't be expected to understand - the idea that you do your best to help your fellow man regardless of his perspective. If he won't fish, he won't fish. That's just the plain fact of it. That doesn't give you moral license to just throw your hands up and say "then let him starve."

I would point here to the infamous question of Cain, biblically portrayed as the first murderer, when confronted about the location of his slain brother: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

He, like you, did not feel he was his brother's keeper, and that is one of the important spiritual lessons implied in portraying him as the father of murder. The bible isn't totally full of shit, you know, and I assure you that wording was not chosen by accident. Those who contemptuously ask "am I my brother's keeper" are still murdering today all over the world through their self-serving inaction.

There's a free Sunday School lesson for you, which I'm sure you and your new pal Nietzsche will just lerrrrrve. Hehehe.....

Dan wrote:My only and ultimate moral question, remains: do they have DSL?

Sure. You will get DSL in the forced labor camp. It will be a shared line though -- shared with the other 999 indolent dickwads.

But there will be no politics, no head games... just work. And DSL.

Are you game?..

Unidian wrote:Yep, you sure do. But this view depends on a moral framework you don't share and can't be expected to understand - the idea that you do your best to help your fellow man regardless of his perspective.

No, kiddo, what you are missing is that moral people help others because they choose to, not because they are obligated to.

You wouldn't understand. You are cognitively stunted -- just as a sociopath lacks a sense of empathy, you lack a sense of fairness. You lack one of the three cognitive features which seem to undergird any human society -- empathy, fairness, reciprocal altruism.

You are as mentally defective as a sociopath, just less dangerous -- and too weak and impotent to do much damage, except to those within the swinging proximity of your fists, in those moments when you get frustrated and angry enough with me, or someone else, to actually perform some action.

If he won't fish, he won't fish. That's just the plain fact of it. That doesn't give you moral license to just throw your hands up and say "then let him starve."

Sure it does. it's your choice not to fish. You make the informed free conscious choice, you live with the consequences. I did not coerce you into not fishing.

I would point here to the infamous question of Cain, biblically portrayed as the first murderer, when confronted about the location of his slain brother: "Am I my brother's keeper?"

Great. Then i, as your keeper (see? again you call yourself a slave!) will force you to fish at spearpoint. For your own good of course. I am kind like that. If you say I enslave and coerce you anyway, by my mere existence, then at least this way i will be guilty of what you accuse me of -- and once I stab you in the ass with spear for slacking off, you will understand what coercion and slavery really are.

P.S. it's funny and telling to see you fall back on xianity, the ultimate in slave morality.

You are truly clueless, huh? you still think that this is about me hating unemployment...

No, not at all. You've already told me once before that you are lazy, and I don't believe you care about unemployment per se one way or the other. I've haven't said anything in this thread to suggest I think that is what your position is about, and if you think I have, your cognitive filters are as thick as everyone knows they are. Rather, I've stated repeatedly that I think your position is about a profoundly distorted view of "libertarianism" which disregards actual liberty and promotes a ridiculously amoral/immoral and caricatured version thereof.

Real libertarians, who actually care about freedom in principle (rather than only as it pertains to their own self-serving perspective), recognize that "positive rights" are integral to the establishment of genuine liberty - the kind that actually means something in people's lives. The kind that liberates unwilling workers from the enslavement that dominates their entire waking lives, for example.

Needless to say, there are few libertarians of this type. They are vastly outnumbered by the "other" libertarians (yours) - the ones who think that keeping the "work or starve" gun pointed at people's heads promotes freedom. LOL.

BTW, I'm curious. How do you like Ron Paul?

You are as mentally defective as a sociopath, just less dangerous, and too weak and impotent to do much damage, except to those within the swinging proximity of your fists.

And yet, capable of causing you to reflexively enter every thread on this subject in which I am involved. Funny, that. If I'm so impotent, why do you get so enraged? This tactic won't work, because it's obvious you are very afraid of my perspective. So afraid of it that you feel compelled to try to dissuade the audience from taking it seriously at every opportunity.

People like you are plenty scared - always have been. You know very well that the luxuries you self-indulgently lavish upon yourselves are unrightfully stolen from the common ownership which is every man's birthright, and you know that time after time, history has shown that the people take back what is rightfully theirs.

Like any other CEO wallowing in your accumulated stockpile of what rightfully belongs to every man, you are shaking in your boots and will spend your entire life doing so. Enjoy it, and do understand that not only will my own personal vision come to pass soon enough, that of all those who have longed for a more just and equitable society in other regards will know relief as well.

Progress, baby! That's what it's all about!

P.S. it's funny and telling to see you fall back on xianity, the ultimate in slave morality.

And it's funny to see you getting all hot and bothered for Nietzsche, who helped inspire the Third Reich. Like I said, fascism will soon have a fine asset in you. But I'm starting to believe my original estimate of 10 years was way too generous. I'm thinking 5 at best now.

Sure. You will get DSL in the forced labor camp. It will be a shared line though -- shared with the other 999 indolent dickwads.

Okay, I hate to admit it, but this was pretty funny. I LOLed.

vicdan wrote:

Dan wrote:My only and ultimate moral question, remains: do they have DSL?

Sure. You will get DSL in the forced labor camp. It will be a shared line though -- shared with the other 999 indolent dickwads.

Sounds like my kinda place.

But there will be no politics, no head games... just work. And DSL. Are you game?..

What sort of work?

Unidian wrote:Needless to say, there are few libertarians of this type. They are vastly outnumbered by the "other" libertarians (yours) - the ones who think that keeping the "work or starve" gun pointed at people's heads promotes freedom. LOL.

yeah, those silly libertarians, they have no idea what libertarianism is really like!

BTW, I'm curious. How do you like Ron Paul?

Certainly more than any other GOP candidate. However, my #1 choice is Gore, and my #2 is Obama.

And yet, capable of causing you to reflexively enter every thread on this subject in which I am involved.

hahahahahahaha!

You fucking idiot!

This is the first thread with you i have entered in a very long time. i don't give a fuck about you -- but i do care about your asshole ethical assertions.

I guess 'once in many months' now constitutes 'every thread on this subject'...

Funny, that. If I'm so impotent, why do you get so enraged?

Because I hate bad reasoning and i hate ethical corruption. You advocate both.

This tactic won't work, because it's obvious you are very afraid of my perspective. So afraid of it that you feel compelled to try to dissuade the audience from taking it seriously at every opportunity.

Afraid? No. i despise it, the same way i despise xian fundamentalism for example.

People like you are plenty scared - always have been. You know very well that the luxuries you self-indulgently lavish upon yourselves are unrightfully stolen from the common ownership which is every man's birthright, and you know that time after time, history has shown that the people take back what is rightfully theirs.

Ah yes, now I am the rich fat cat executive living off of the wrongful gains! :)

You are pathetically transparent.

Like any other CEO wallowing in your accumulated stockpile of what rightfully belongs to every man, you are shaking in your boots and will spend your entire life doing so. Enjoy it, and do understand that not only will my own personal vision come to pass soon enough, that of all those who have longed for a more just and equitable society in other regards will know relief as well.

Wow, what a quick transformation. From socially responsible to an evilt CEO (it's CTO BTW; I am a techie, not a manager)... you are really desperately grasping for straws, eh?..

And it's funny to see you getting all hot and bothered for Nietzsche, who helped inspire the Third Reich.

That just shows how little you know about Nietzsche, kiddo.

Like I said, fascism will soon have a fine asset in you. But I'm starting to believe my original estimate of 10 years was way too generous. I'm thinking 5 at best now.

Going once... going twice...

yeah, i am a regular nazi, allowing you to make your own choices while refusing you a chance to coerce me into assuming responsibility for them. Yup, that's me!

vicdan wrote:Why should the society accommodate iyou, while you are unwilling to accommodate it back?..

It's the role of society to accommodate its inhabitants, not the other way around, well at least a reasonable society.

vicdan wrote:i don't give a fuck if you work, idiot. I just give a fuck if you demand that I support your voluntary indolence.

I'm not demanding anything. I'm just making a valid point that if someone doesn't want to participate in societies irrationalities then it should be viewed as reasonable to afford them a modest and civilized way of life. If I lived on a planet where you had to get fucked in the butt in order to make a living, and me and all my butt fucking buddies encountered a man who didn't want to participate in our butt fucking, I would see that as a reasonable request and not require him to participate in our butt fucking while affording him a modest means of living. It's called compassion, something obviously amiss in our current society. The problem is, when people value irrational behavior, they are necessarily irrational, making it highly unlikely they would accomidate someone who is in fact rational. Irrationality can't see outside of itself.

Dan,

What sort of work?

Building the Great Reich that will last a millenium would be my guess. Fur Fuhrer, Volk, und Vaterland!

And, above all, for FREEDOM!

Ueah, dude, that's exactly it. We Ubermensch will exercise our compassion to save you slaves from yourselves, by forcing you to work, since obviously you aren't willing to save yourself on your own.

All for your own good of course.

Unidian wrote:Dan,

What sort of work?

Building the Great Reich that will last a millenium would be my guess. Fur Fuhrer, Volk, und Vaterland!

And, above all, for FREEDOM!

Well, why didn't he say so from the start. Sign me up. But now I demand Cable.

Dan Rowden wrote:

vicdan wrote:

Dan wrote:My only and ultimate moral question, remains: do they have DSL?

Sure. You will get DSL in the forced labor camp. It will be a shared line though -- shared with the other 999 indolent dickwads.

Sounds like my kinda place.

Did i mention that each computer will run Windows Vista on 256MB of RAM?..

What sort of work?

Sorting M&Ms into Ms, W, E, and 3s.

Nick Treklis wrote:[It's the role of society to accommodate its inhabitants, not the other way around, well at least a reasonable society.

Society consists of individuals. You demand that individuals accommodate your indolence, while you are refusing to accommodate their hatred of mooching.

vicdan wrote:If I lived on a planet where you had to get fucked in the butt in order to make a living, and me and all my butt fucking buddies encountered a man who didn't want to participate in our butt fucking, I would see that as a reasonable request and not require him to participate in our butt fucking while affording him a modest means of living.

You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with buttfucking -- and an unhealthy inability to think.

vicdan wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:

Sure. You will get DSL in the forced labor camp. It will be a shared line though -- shared with the other 999 indolent dickwads.

Sounds like my kinda place.

Did i mention that each computer will run Windows Vista on 256MB of RAM?..

Surely there's some sort if International humanitarian convention against such a thing?

What sort of work?

Sorting M&Ms into Ms, W, E, and 3s.

Ok, so long as I don't have to eat any.

hahahahahahaha!

You fucking idiot!

This is the first thread with you i have entered in a very long time. i don't give a fuck about you -- but i do care about your asshole ethical assertions.

Clearly. Like I said, you are afraid of them. No mystery about that.

BTW, this being the first thread you have entered with me in a long time is irrelevant. My assertion was that you have entered every thread I have created about this topic that you knew of. And you have - because you are afraid of this perspective. You want to shout it down, because you recognize that if it were taken seriously, you might have to surrender some of your excess.

Same reason all phony "libertarians" try to shout it down, in fact. Whoopty-doo.

Because I hate bad reasoning and i hate ethical corruption. You advocate both.

You advocate allowing people to starve. That is not so much "ethical corruption" as it is "undeveloped morality." You just aren't morally advanced enough to hang with this. That's okay - like I said, practically nobody is... yet.

Ah yes, now I am the rich fat cat executive living off of the wrongful gains! :)

You are pathetically transparent.

I'm letting my inner commie run free just for kicks. I very much believe in my heart that "property is theft." But society is even less ready for that than it is ready for a leisure class.

And of course, the predictable reply will simply be that I only think property is theft because I don't have any. "Just jealous" and so on. Libertarian / Republican knee-jerk replies 101.

Wow, what a quick transformation. From socially responsible to an evilt CEO (it's CTO BTW; I am a techie, not a manager)... you are really desperately grasping for straws, eh?..

There's no contradiction. Lots of people do valuable work for immoral reasons. In fact, almost all work of any kind (socially valuable or otherwise) is done for such reasons - namely, garden-variety materialistic desires. Or "greed," as it was known before self-justifying Libertarians and Republicans managed to erase the word from American consciousness.

Hell, practically the whole thrust of advancing technology is fueled by individual materialism. High-tech careers pay well. The delicious irony is that such greed-fueled advancement will finally make possible a society which will be communist in all but name. I get fairly giddy just thinking about the sublime humor in that.

yeah, i am a regular nazi, allowing you to make your own choices while refusing you a chance to coerce me into assuming responsibility for them. Yup, that's me!

No, you are a regular Nazi preferring your own ideology to human life. But you will lose, and in the process of losing you will inadvertently make possible the ultimate triumph of my kind. But that's a couple of centuries ahead, and I will need some new shoes next week. For now, it will suffice to just work for me.

So go forth and make a lot of money, oh majestic CEO. Every little bit helps, you know. :)

vicdan wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:[It's the role of society to accommodate its inhabitants, not the other way around, well at least a reasonable society.

Society consists of individuals. You demand that individuals accommodate your indolence,[....]

I demand a plebiscite! All those in favour of accommodating my indolence vote now by sending me $20! All in the name of democracy and freedom! All those not in favour send Victor $20 that he can donate to charity. Namely, the QSR Indolence Fund Inc.

Wow, over 300 posts in one week.

Dan,

I demand a plebiscite! All those in favour of accommodating my indolence vote now by sending me $20! All in the name of democracy and freedom! All those not in favour send Victor $20 that he can donate to charity. Namely, the QSR Indolence Fund Inc.

You know, why don't we just send Victor back the nickel he will personally contribute to us as individuals over our lifetimes? I think we can take up a collection in the Ubermensch forced labor camp and come up with a nickel between us, indolent dickwads that we are.

Unidian wrote:Dan,

I demand a plebiscite! All those in favour of accommodating my indolence vote now by sending me $20! All in the name of democracy and freedom! All those not in favour send Victor $20 that he can donate to charity. Namely, the QSR Indolence Fund Inc.

You know, why don't we just send Victor back the nickel he will personally contribute to us as individuals over our lifetimes? I think we can take up a collection in the Ubermensch forced labor camp and come up with a nickel between us, indolent dickwads that we are.

Sure, we can certainly do that. I used to carry a five cent coin in my pocket wherever I went that I could give to people who chastised me for taking their money. Of course, if we reimburse Victor he will simply attack us for taking other people's money, whose welfare he seems to care about whilst assuming their attitude.

Part of me, however, would rather just keep Victor's nickel. Mounted in the wall in a really expensive frame, of course.

Question for all working people who don't support universal welfare:

Okay, so we know you have all sorts of objections to paying to keep people who choose not have jobs from starving. So what do you think about paying for bullets to shoot little children in Iraq, or perhaps burn them alive with white phosphorus? How outraged are you about the far larger share of your income which makes that possible? How about the portion of your hard-earned income that funds the war machine which will carry out the next war after Iraq and the next one after that, just as it massacred legions in Vietnam a generation ago? And don't just give me lip service, show me some threads in which you've vented your disgust and outrage about it. Show me discussions where you've attacked it with the vehemence you've attacked the idea of not allowing the voluntarily unemployed to starve. Show me discussions where you've rebuked and belittled those who promote it with the vigor and persistence shown here.

And after that, show me your letter of resignation from your workplace, stating that you refuse to further support the morally unconscionable travesty of unjust war.

I'll be waiting.

Maybe they would argue that whilst they are impotent to stop the funneling of their money into those things, on this issue they can at least address those like us who promote universal welfare, because, well, here we are.

Well, at least maybe those who've written to their local Congressman about the aforementioned death and mayhem could say that.

I don't know whether this would mean much in Austrailia, but being an American I do take some satisfaction in the thought that every dollar I collect is one less which can be spent on war, imperialism, and other such follies. Of course, in fairness, it is also one less dollar which can be spent on something like education, but since far more dollars are spent on war and imperialism than on human services (excluding entitlement programs), draining the system of funds remains a form of public service.

Entitlement programs are obviously excluded because it makes no sense to talk about draining the system of funds which could be used to pay benefits to oneself. And what's more, most entitlement programs are open-ended in the sense that there is not a fixed sum of money which must be divided between all beneficiaries. In most cases, the law dictates that additional funds must be allocated as new enrollees are added, so the objection "you are taking it from someone who really deserves it" has no merit. This is not true of the war machine, to which fixed sums are allocated - sums which can be theoretically reduced by draining total available resources. In other words, wherever entitlement programs (such as Social Security) are protected by law, war funding will necessarily be affected by a lack of funds before entitlements will.

Unless, of course, they change the law, which (tragically) Americans would probably sit still for. But that's another issue...

We watched a documentary tonight about people who commit suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate bridge. So many jumped off due wholly or in part to lost jobs and similar issues. I consider these people murder victims, and individuals like Victor are entirely to blame for their deaths. The mentality my opponents promote here does not kill only by starvation, freezing, or homelessness. It also kills by robbing people of their self-worth.

One of the suicide notes contained the statement "I am a loser." The same note also contained "no money" and "no career" as two of the four stated reasons for suicide. What a waste.

One can predict what the social Darwinist answer to all this might be. Good riddance, they were obviously too weak to live. Having relentlessly driven these people off the side of a bridge, such advocates of inhumanity would also taunt them in their graves. And yet some of them have the nerve to lecture others about "morality." In this regard, even the sociopathic ones who reject morality outright are the superiors of those who promote all sorts of evil and call it good. At least the amoral ones are self-aware and consistent.

And, as a final note, if philosophy is good for nothing else, at least it might have saved a few of the dead from the fate their "mainstream" peers had in mind for them. It has certainly ensured that (much to some people's chagrin), I will never be jumping off the side of a bridge. Had I never found philosophy and therefore never developed the intellectual tools to realize the emptiness of such labels as "loser," I might have been gone years ago.

The response to this observation is also quite predictable.

I really wanted to post a reply to this thread, but it's going too fast for me. I also have 13 files to translate, and don't have the time and energy for a real post.

I'll probably get to post during the weekend. For now, it's been fun enough just reading the posts. Good discussion now that most heavy-duty insults are out of the way.

I'll be back. Not that I think anybody cares.

-