Good video btw, nice to hear someone whos pissed off and sees through the bullshit. But yes I hear you; its a kind of moral low ground, if you dont give to charity youre a bad person bla bla, its anti-citizen propaganda. Gvernment fucks the world up and we are supposed to pay for it.
If you believe it is the states responsibility to pick your brothers and sisters up and brush the dirt off them when they fall you do not believe in your fellow man. Goodwill towards man? Is that what is playing out in the middle east? The moneychangers told of in the bible have monetized compassion. Compassion is not money nor is money a measure of equality. The fairness I hear spoke of is this a level of happiness you are trying to ensure with money? Try Jobs w personal value.
@OneSmileyDude You wouldnt need charity if the governement wasnt opressive. Its a symptom of we make the economic mess and you people sort it out. That doesnt mean I dont help people, I dont believe I should be morally forced to give money out to something intrinsically not my fault but that of the state because of the way it creates the circumstances
@OneSmileyDude And charity is an industry. You think that if charity was honest, it would still exist? Besides, the management that run charities suck up most of it anyway. Its preying on peoples guilt and good will. Pretty disgusting.
If you are Christian, Buddhist....whatever no matter....if you are simply wise. It can be realized that if a source of happiness is giving...more precisely compassion. To have that taken away...high taxation, social programs, loss of liberties, .....the pursuit of happiness is oppressed. Too many times the pursuit of happiness is equated to a w2 or a title @ work. That is not what it meant and that is what is being stifled and what he is referring to imo.
To put our collective free will into the hands of people who have as a life quest pursued a position of power is a suspect arrangement. Especially when power and money are substitutes for true happiness. Integrity of those in these positions of power is the only way this works as it was intended. Good Luck....
Pathos in printed text. Haha. USSA...conjured up the demonized USSR. But then what? To give freely wo expecting in return is a source of happiness. To be taxed and to outsource that act compassion is no longer free will but oppression.
@OneSmileyDude No, idiot, giving freely is equivalent to THEFT. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Donations are the recipients' STEALING, because they did not pay for it. By definition, a free lunch or something received without proper compensation is theft.
I swear, people comment, but they don't actually watch/pay attention to the video. When did I condemn people who's homes were destroyed getting help, hmm? I specifically stated that it's the coercion I have a problem with. So how about you actually watch a video before commenting on it, alright?
Forced charity is no charity at all. It is theft and benefits nobody. It is destructive. It is not motivated by love but by jealousy, envy, covetousness, bitterness and hate. It is ugly, nasty, destructive and totally negative.
Forced "charity" destroys real charity because we all have less money and incentive to help. Welfare makes people dependent zombies. It destroys lives.
Because people wouldn't help each other if the state didn't make them. Even though the argument for the state here stems from an emotional desire to see people who need help get it. XD
There are poor children who are suffering, what more convincing do you need? A poor child who has bone cancer and needs $10,000 treatments every week. No charity can handle that. Do you want that child to skip a treatment to come to convince everyone she's dying in excruciating pain?
For every American there are some things they like about their tax dollars and some things they don't. I find it amazing that one of your top priorities is justifying healthcare for the poor.
Here we go. Are you finished? Didn't I say in the video that just because I am against the state extorting people, does not mean I am against what the extorted money goes to pay?
And yes, a charity can handle that. If the government was not interfering in the free market, health care would be insanely cheaper.
I am also amused that the very first thing I said in my video is how people use guilt to attempt to control others, and statism is no different. You then proceed to attempt to beat me about the head with your emotional appeals with the sole intent of making me feel guilty so I will affirm the broken system. I said it in the video, I refuse to be made the bad guy because I don't want to be stolen from. I can be extorted with violence, but I will not be guilted into obeying.
You already pay for other people's healthcare with higher rate's when they go to the hospital without insurance. You are not a island. It will lower your rates with group buy or bulk buy. AH DUUUUUHHHHH! And you do have a choice ... you vote right? Stop being a little bitch about it.
If me and ten of my buddies come over, and all twelve of us vote on what to do with your house, do you have a choice? When you're suggesting a libertarian has choice - that's the situation you claim constitutes choice.
@blackacidlizzard I dont want to be included in your group and being so doesn't prove your point. That is a argument that is based on a fictional situation and one the could never, likely, exist. So it is pointless. And we ALL have a choice. libertarian or not... What the fuck does ones view point have to do with the choices that they have? A fucking vegan will eat meat to survive... that does not mean that the vegan's view point is any lest valid.
Are you saying that you don't want to be subject to the vote of a group you dislike but have been made a part of ?
A libertarian has the choice to vote and be massively overruled by those who disagree with him. So who are you to bitch about it if I make you a member of a democratic group which will consistently work against you?
"A fucking vegan will eat meat to survive"
You're getting ahead in the script, in about two more exchanges I'm supposed to say that to you
@blackacidlizzard well are you? Of course not but you are leaning to the side that wants to be one... yet the fact remains that you are not. Tell me how "group buy" is bad?
Sorry, dude. While there are people who oppose all government based upon a stance of the primacy of the individual, I am not one of them, and I have not seen any indication that the person who made this video is either.
It seems you may be confusing opposition to one type of collective for opposition to all collectives.
Not sure what you mean by "group buy," perhaps something I said above answers that question.
So I see you fell for the voting trick? Tell me, where do I get to vote for people to leave me out of their coercive monopolistic system? By voting, you are giving the system your approval, and answering an opinion poll. The people have no coercive power over the state, quite unlike the reverse.
@FearsEdge voting trick? weed was legalized because of my vote. so fuck your it doesn't matter bullshit. My vote was stricken down by god fucks for equal right about marriage.so please continue with it doesn't matter you fucktard.
Are you done? Are you seriously telling me that if you hadn't added your single vote, it would not have happened?(by the way, the federal government will ignore that and prosecute anyway when given a reason).
There should never have been a vote on it in the first place. Both examples you give, gay marriage(a private, voluntary arrangement between 2 adults) and possession of weed are private matters, that the public at large has no business interfering in.
So if you are trying to impress me by saying that the majority affirmed the rights of others that were only in question because of the horrible statist system that the majority affirms, you are wasting your time.
By the way, if you notice in my video, I am merely talking about FEDERAL taxes and such. Tell me, what does my vote matter? No one I ever would want to be a temporary ruler would ever be elected, I would have to pick from the ones every one else wants. Then, when they get to congress, they have to convince other representatives to go along with them, or vice versa, or it does not happen. That's if they actually do what they said they would do, which is up in the air.
Um, Why are you defending yourself here. If they have a beef about something you do....fuck them, they can go fuck themselves, you dont have to defend who you are to any of the guilt inducing cunts out there.
You don't get it. There is NO FREE WILL. You should not have the right to your wealth at the expense of others. You think you should "own" the money in which, by luck, you had the causality to obtain. BS. You should not have the right to "decide" to help others or NOT. Helping others needs to be mandatory.
If you do not like where the government places the money....fight that. I'm all for fighting that through legal means. Just don't think you are more deserving of the wealth you have.
"You should not have the right to your wealth at the expense of others."
But nobody does. That is already illegal. But apparently you want to go beyond that. Instead of allowing people to create wealth for them selves you want to make everyone equally poor. By forcibly removing the wealth that others create, you create a disincentive to make something valuable to society and increase incentive to be poor.
" you create a disincentive to make something valuable to society and increase incentive to be poor."
The notion of requiring "incentive" to be productive is based on a harmful free will psychology. This is just the thing that I am looking to move away from. Certainly we can create "incentive" in the meantime...but we must understand that we are only doing that to curve irrational, emotional beings that think they have free will ...
and that they are able to make free decisions that make them more worthy than others (even though that is entirely hogwash).
Economics is a balancing act between incentive for illogical people to stay productive, and equalization as much as we can and still hold such "incentives". And until people realize that they should not need "incentive" to be productive and helpful...sure...we need to have "incentive"...but only to the degree that they will be productive ...
Bullshit. Incentives work regardless of the belief in free will. I don't believe in free will but if someone was going to pay me more to do the same job, then I am going to go with them. That how incentives work. If you look at an incentive layout, then you will see EXACTLY how humans will behave.
That is based entirely on your selfish, illogical psychology. If you do not believe in free will, you cannot believe that you are more deserving of such "incentives". If you do...then you do not understand the logic of what it means to not have free will.
Again...I never said that was not how humans behave. That does not make such behavior rational or logical.
Everyone maximizes his or her utility. It isn't about "deserving" anything. You are full of rhetoric and buzz words. Just labeling what you don't like (e.g. being controlled by emotional rhetoric) as "irrational" or "illogical" , without any justification what-so-ever. Oh the irony.
No...it is "everyone maximizes his or her utility AT THE sake of another's utility". The lack of free will is not compatible with ethical egoism, it is more compatible with ethical utilitarianism. The only way to get to the ethical egoist state logically is to imply that person A or more deserving of X than person B. If they are not more deserving, logic follows that the fairest state is one that equalizes A and B.
In other words, it has nothing to do with what I like or do not like, and everything to do with the logical implication of not having free will...and holding to a logical consequentialist ethic that is entirely compatible with such understanding.
I have much justification to say what I have if you hold to these logically incompatible beliefs.
Bullshit. As I said it is not a zero-sum game. People gain utility all the time by co-operation. I refuse to talk to someone that is closed-minded and pig-ignorant as you.
Sorry but "Bullshit. As I said it is not a zero-sum game" is not a logical argument. Call me whatever names you want, but what I said is logically consistent.
If you have any understanding of the concept of fairness, and you understand we lack free will (noone is more deserving), you must understand the logical direction of the fairness is not to the individual. It has nothing to do with a "zero sum" game but rather an "equal sum" game - which is entirely different.
Just another way to stick your fingers in your ears and not hear how you are wrong. Either way, the assumptions that support your arguments are false. Therefore, your argument is false. I need not to hurt anyone to improve my own condition.
"I need not to hurt anyone to improve my own condition"
I never said ANYTHING about not improving ones condition. Talk about sticking fingers in ears. You are just making up shit.
What I suggested...more than once...is that the focus should be on equalization as you are NOT MORE DESERVING of your condition than anyone else. Period. I am not saying to "reduce your conditions" unless such reduction helps others increase their own up to your level.
I am not saying not to improve your condition when you can. I am only saying that your condition is not a DESERVED condition, and hence it is subject to decrease for the sake of increasing others that are much lower than your condition.
So stop putting words in my mouth and get the facts of what i am saying straight - because you are not making a logical case what-so-ever.
And who gets to decide its "deserved"? Go to mom and pops stores if it is your feeling that big companies aren't supposed make that money. Nobody is forcing you.
"because you are not making a logical case what-so-ever."
Oh the irony. I just pointed out that you rely on the assumption that wealth is a zero-sum game and it is not. It is clearly false. And I AM THE ONE who is not making a "logical case". Don't make me laugh.
Do I need to say it again. The idea of deservingness needs to be abandoned.
“I just pointed out that you rely on the assumption that wealth is a zero-sum game and it is not”
I never said anything about a “zero-sum game” – those are your words. There is a difference between one 20 and one 0, and two 10’s…and guess what, two 10’s is not the same thing as two 0’s (which would be a “zero-sum” game).
And NO, "I never said ANYTHING about not improving ones condition" does NOT contradict "everyone maximizes his or her utility AT THE sake of another's utility".
The fact that you think it does means you need some lessons in logic and having such a discussion is probably pointless.
Actaully - I scratch the comment about "zero-sum" game as I was unaware that just means equaling out, but not literally equaling "zero". In this case you make no case for it not being a zero-sum game.
LOL, you can't get any clearer contradiction. So the one that needs logic lessons is you. You cannot improve your condition without utility. It is a prerequisite.
I never said one should not seek utility, just that one does so at the sake of other utility. My complaint has to do with those complaining about the reduction of utility after they obtain it - for the sake of increasing utility to others less fortunate. Again, there is no contradiction.
Not directly but it was implied. But when you state that the existence of the rich harms everyone else by them having more resources, then that implies a zero-sum game. That is unavoidable in your argument. And since that is false, your argument fails.
"Do I need to say it again. The idea of deservingness needs to be abandoned."
LOL, From the very binging I refuse "deservingness" in favor of maximizing ulity. (and no I wasn't talking about ethics, *rolls eyes*). YOU'RE the one who said that no one deserves to be a billionaire. Your whole emotional outrage of an argument is predicated on the fact that you count on people to agree that no on deserves to be a billionaire. The end, your too inconsistent with yourself.
Lets get this part straight. Not in favor of "maximizing utility" but rather in favor of "maximizing utility for oneself". A huge difference. One is egoism (for the self), the other is utilitarianism (no one person over another)
"Your whole emotional outrage"
Emotional outrage? My whole outrage is based on your usage of namecalling. I am all for civil discourse when people are civil at me.
"people to agree that no on deserves to be a billionaire."
Did you or did you not agree with me that no one is more deserving? Certainly the billionaire could have plenty of "utility" as a millionaire, and increase the utility for people that have nothing. And since the billionaire does not deserve her wealth over those others, the billionaire ought not have a right to it.
I don't follow what point you are trying to make here. Do you have some kind of problem with people responding to incentives, or something? I am at a loss.
Yes, our current psychology is one of a selfish incentive base based on the notion of free will. I certainly have a problem with how people think about these things.
This is just absurd. Your problem is not with me, your problem is with reality. People respond to incentives, don't get angry with me about it. I know for a fact that you as a person respond to incentives, so I can't possibly see what your point is.
Oh..and one more thing: "But nobody does. That is already illegal."
That is a bunch of bull as well. The very act of living in places like the US, as consumers, means that we use valuable resources, hurt the environment, and indirectly harm others. It is anything but "illegal" to do so. And someone that holds on to extreme wealth reduces the value of the dollar for everyone else, in affect harming them.
Noone "deserves" to be a billionaire, no matter what lucky thing they have done in their life...or how hard they have worked. That is all money that could help people in harm...that do not deserve such har.
Economics is not a zero-sum game. You cannot be billionaire without generating more work and economic activity. The money doesn't come to someone for no reason. Now I agree that people should be payed more and the CEO less. But the overall system has been demonstrated to create more prosperity for all.
And meanwhile almost all wealth is held by less than 1% of the population. Sorry, billionaires do not generate more work and economic activity, productive people do. The workers do. Billionaires just sap the income from those workers.
"The money doesn't come to someone for no reason"
Yeah, people are born into it. That is the "reason".
"But the overall system has been demonstrated to create more prosperity for all."
"demonstrates that people move up the class brackets."
And? Not sure what you are making a case for except that people move up in brackets. Certainly not making a case that the overall system of 1% of the population holding almost all of the wealth creates more prosperity for all.
Compensation per hour increasing has to do with inflation, not "increased prosperity". It means the value of the dollar bill is lower, usually due to wealthy horders.
*facepalm* back...and this makes the case for Billionaires increasing productivity and not increasing inflation how?
The growth rate is currently much less than the inflation rate. We are in a decline. Uuugh. Nevermind. Even if we were not in a decline, it is entirely meaningless to your point that somehow extreme wealth helps the economy instead of hinters it.
It is also meaningless to my original point in my first comment.
"it is entirely meaningless to your point that somehow extreme wealth helps the economy instead of hinters it."
Meaningless? It completely refutes your entire premise. If people are allowed to invest and work as they deem fit, then that is capitalism, which allows that 1% to exist. As the graphs shows from 1950s, the standard of living has only been increasing for everyone. That cannot happen according to what you say.
My premise is that people have derived a free will psychology, and that is why capitalism is needed. If people understood that they were not more deserving than others of their utility, they would strive to be fair in their utility and also understand the importance of being productive members in society. Instead, people are illogical, and hence need a cookie to keep the production of selfishness going.
... which seems to be what you are arguing against.
I suggested it was designed for illogical people. I even said we have to keep in order to keep people productive, at least until they have become more rational and logical and start to remove the free will psychology they have embedded since birth.
"---> I never said capitalism does not work <----.
... which seems to be what you are arguing against."
*headdesk*
You cannot have capitalism AND redistribution of wealth. Both propose very different concepts of property. You still seem to not be understanding what I say and going in the same circles over and a over.
“You cannot have capitalism and redistribution of wealth.”
Since when does “I never said capitalism doesn’t work” equal “I support capitalism”? I am saying it works because it aligns with irrational, illogical, and egocentric people. It would be better if the people were rational, logical, and cared about what is fair in a world where there is no free will.
And until people become rational enough to realize they are not more deserving than others, I think (a degree of) capitalism a necessary evil to keep them productive. That being said, we can have partial capitalism, partial democratic socialism (sort of like we do now). This is the economic weighing we can do in the meantime that is acceptable by most.
But no, I guess we should be able to horde this money we think we deserve, and maybe, if we “feel like it”, shell some out to those that cannot afford healthcare. But only if we feel like it, because we earned our money and deserve it over those people. If I’m buying a new boat, those others may just be out of luck.
So instead of your snarky “*headdesk*” or “*facepalm*” comments, I’d appreciate it if you try to read what I am actually saying. You seem to have a tendency to equate certain (clear and parse-able) sentences with something they do not imply or mean.
This is what you said: "You cannot have capitalism AND redistribution of wealth."
As if I ever made such a claim. And you say it right after quoting my "I never said capitalism does not work" comment, suggesting you think I have endorsed capitalism with my quote (which I did not), and I yet still want redistribution of wealth.
You have not "dealt" with any statement I made. You have only dealt with some delusion of what you think I have said, and you hold to that delusion even when shown it. You really should get that checked out. I'm worried about you. An MRI might be called for.
You're right. How could have dealt with anything you have said? Because you said nothing substantive at all. I on the other prove studies that back up what I have said, you on the other hand deny and ramble on about the irrationality of rational self-interest. Silly me.
Oh, so when I provide the studies you DID NOT call "entirely meaningless"? And that you never inferred that capitalism or looking out for your own well being is irrational? *Wipes head* Woo. For a moment there I was starting to think that you where a total crackpot. Of course I am delusional, because only a moron would suggest that "free will" can only lead to capitalism, and that they should be stripped of what they own because it more "rational". Silly me.
One of the delusions is you thinking the so called "study" had anything on what I was arguing. The other is you thinking you made any argument against my claim about requiring the idea of deservingness (one deserving the money they acquire over others that do not), which is illogical if there is no free will. Only a delusional moron would think that they have a right to something over another person even though they are not more deserving of that something. Silly you.
We can keep playing these unproductive games I suppose. You know, me making fun of your illogical comments, and you making fun of some made up delusional notion of illogical comments that I never said.
I still think it would be better for you to get an MRI. Seriously, could be a tumor or something. I hope you have health care.
Only a delusional fool would think that I wouldn't notice a strawman. As I told you before I don't subscribe to "deservingness". If you didn't listen twice before, then I am not going to tell you again for the 3rd time. I made the claim that capitalism increase prosperity over time for everyone. They proved that, thus debunking your entire assumption of a zero-sum game. Which means, Game over for you.
God damn you are dense. Even if it increased prosperity for everyone (which your "study" does NT show btw) , does not mean that it is done equally and fairly. You miss my very point that, if it does, it does so illogically based on a free will psychology people hold. Again, you saying you don't subscribe to deservingness, and then saying that some should be wealthier than others with no reason - is quite idiotic.
You keep saying the same garbage over and over without addressing my point. So please, do not say it a 4th time, because it misses everything I have said completely. My "zero-sum game" is what SHOULD happen for the sake of fairness, a fairness derived from the only possible understanding of lacking free will.
Please, address my point or leave me alone. You are getting on my nerves with your obtuse rhetoric that has nothing to do with what I am saying.
"My "zero-sum game" is what SHOULD happen for the sake of fairness, a fairness derived from the only possible understanding of lacking free will."
1) You still don't understand what zero-sum game entails. If you want EVERYONE to prosper, then that is exactly what it must NOT be. Because if it was, then somebody has to suffer for others to gain.
2) Fairness has nothing to do with free will. So "fairness derived from the understanding of lack of free will" makes no sense. Fairness is simply distributing the goods each according to his/her work. No concept of free will needed.
"obtuse rhetoric"
Fool please. You don't understand what your argument entails. You make baseless and nonsensical claims. You rattle on about free will and deservedness, yet we both don't have issue with those points...
Denial is not a logical argument. Those two studies show that 1) compensation per hour has been increasing over time, it includes benefits and accounts for inflation. Which means the average workers buying power has been increasing. 2) That majority of people move up in the brackets over a life time. Which means not everyone stays in poverty. Also, that the 1% don't hinder anyone else.
"You miss my very point that, if it does, it does so illogically based on a free will psychology people hold."
That not a point at all. I see no support that capitalism is based on "free will psychology". So any claims of its "illogic" are ignored as the naked assertion they are. How do you expect me to respond to that when you haven't made a case at all?
"Again, you saying you don't subscribe to deservingness, and then saying that some should be wealthier than others with no reason - is quite idiotic."
No, what is idiotic is that you as well don't subscribe to "deservingness" and yet keep talking about it and "fairness". You haven't replaced it at all. You simply make it subservient to fairness. Unless you prove that someone is rich specifically because of ill gotten gains or deception, I see no reason to take it by force.
1) I never said I want everyone to prosper. Some people do not require more "property" (back to the billionaire). I want to equalize. And if reducing a billionaire to a millionaire makes them suffer, you need to look at what increasing someone in poverty does and weigh such.
2) Understanding that we lack free will has implications for the concept of fairness. And your "distribution" policy goes against those implications.
You want more distributed to those that DO NOT DESERVE MORE!...when there are others that DO NOT DESERVE LESS!!! That is your distribution policy. That is what you deem "fair" policy. At least fearsedge is somewhat consistent by stating he thinks hes more deserving (when really he is not).
We are both repeating, you saying I don't get it, and I saying you don't get it. I think we will get no where. Talking to you is a waste of time. I hate un-civil communication.
It really is not worth it if you cannot understand the basic point that someone that does not deserve a better situation should not get a better situation if another person that does not deserve a worse situation has a worse situation. It really is simple what is fair given that single fact
I think we ought end our back and fourth. Sorry if I came of nasty in my comments. It was due to frustration and truly is out of character for me.
You misunderstand. I'm not saying the word "deserving" does not exist. I'm saying that saying someone is more deserving than another is a concept that needs to be abandoned. I'm saying that people are NOT deserving - the opposite of saying they ARE deserving.
"t really is not worth it if you cannot understand the basic point"
Fuck you ignorant motherfucker. I have proven that YOU don't understand what YOU are saying. That is pathetic! You think I am being more harsh than I should but it is because you don't listen or care to. You are essentially promoting communism which has been the biggest failure and the biggest murder of the 20th century. You can't even be bothered to at least make a good argument. Fuck off.
Consistently inconsistent, No matter how many times I point it out YOU'RE the one that keeps talking about "deserve" then you turn around and say that it does not exist. Thus, defeating your entire emotional appeal. Either way as I pointed out, your entire concept of "deserve" is simply subservient to fairness and even that seems to be fucked up.
1) Again, that is NOT zero-sum game. Billionaire to millionaire isn't quite bad. Either way it is obvious by now that you don't understand what you are saying. "I never said I want everyone to prosper." and "I want to equalize." conflict, it either means you want everyone to suffer (which I doubt) or as I said you are consistently inconsistent. You don't know how to elucidate your own position.
2) Denial is not a logical argument. Either demonstrate those "implications" or GTFO. Until then you will be ignored because it is axiomatic in a society that people own their own work. PERIOD.
I rest my case about you missing the entire point. The fact that you think I would support communism given the current psychology people hold proves that you cannot comprehend basic points I have made. I wish we could get an impartial judge to go through this entire comment thread, because you would lose miserably.
Anyway, I am done with your abuse and I am done trying to explain why all of your nonsense is a tangent, and in no way invalidates my initial comment. You can keep saying it does, but again, you don’t even understand the (logical) point being made. It is ok. You were causally led to the illogical state you are in. Maybe some day you will grow up.
Pathetic. I have read every comment you make and I point out your inconsistencies. As I said before, you use "logical" as buzzwords for your nonsensical bullshit. I do not in any way accept free will, and yet capitalism is A-Okay with me. Thus refuting your entire premise of that capitalism and free will are linked. You can beat your own skull in with how free will is illogical all you want, what you seek to change however will not connect A to B.
And I rest my case that you don't understand what the fuck you are promoting. Any form of equitable wealth distribution is communism. Period. And since you cannot even understand what you are presenting, you will be forever curse with people that "miss the point" every time. Even though the only missing the point is YOU.
I said it over and over and over again. Over and over and over again. I am promoting a mindset change first. Over and over and over again. And that capitalism is a necessary evil in the meantime. Over and over and over again. Meaning that equalization will fail if there are a bunch of people who think they are more deserving than others. Over and over and over again. Done.
"You can beat your own skull in with how free will is illogical all you want, what you seek to change however will not connect A to B."
Yeah, because the free will debate has no connection to blame-worthiness and deservingness. And those things have nothing to do with why one person thinks they should have more than another. Naww...not at all. Those things don't lead to egotism....naww.
Nope, and its time that you realize it. It is about voluntary interactions and agreements. Your whole argument of "free will", "deservingness", and "egoism" does not effect that what-so-ever. As I have said, A does not connect to B. Your entire argument is one big non-sequitur.
What is the difference between a "voluntary interaction" and an "interaction"? Did you have the free will to decide not to have or not to have such interaction? There can be any number of illogical or unethical "agreements", that does not mean people should have a right to them. There are many "agreements" that are unfair agreements, and our idea of fairness needs to be logical. Interactions and agreements that are unfair (as what you propose) is what we need to deal with.
"What is the difference between a "voluntary interaction" and an "interaction"?"
Coercion or deception. If they take place, then it is not voluntary.
"Did you have the free will to decide not to have or not to have such interaction?"
All I know that all the processes in my brain happen by natural laws. That is enough to make me a determinist. Regardless of that I still have to decide my own life. YOU nor anyone can do that for me.
"There can be any number of illogical or unethical "agreements", that does not mean people should have a right to them."
What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you saying that people shouldn't be able to make mistakes? If so, then that is the most moronic thing I have ever heard. People will never learn that way. Now if someone was taken advantage of via deception or coercion, then as I said from the start, that is already illegal.
Say again. I don't care, it is not anymore valid that it was before. It matter not if capitalism is a transitory state for you. Your main points agaisnt it are still invalid. So you can pout and stomp you feet cry like a little baby "IT NOT FAIR!" You have present anything consistent enough to be a cogent argument and will be dismissed as such.
I gave you my cogent arguments and you just say "no" with no rebuttal against it. You just say "voluntary interaction and agreements" is the reason without displaying why those things are what derive a fair economy. You have no logical conception of fairness. Or maybe you just think fairness is not important to the equation? If that is the case then you win. Your system works perfectly unfairly.
@trick0171 All you have done so far is repeat certain claims over and over again. That not the same as making a cogent argument. You need logic and evidence to support your claims before it is considered cogent. You claimed : that be rich denies others of resources, that it is better to remove those resources by force(implied) and spreed the wealth, finally such state of fairs is stable if only people don't believe in free will.
Yet NONE of those claims are supported by evidence or a reasoned argument. All you done is assert that they are true. The first one is wrong because economic is not a zero-sum game. The second one is simply immoral. Third is wrong by history. No communist regime ever created wealth only sucked away. Yeah, they were equal but equally poor.
The only claim I support is that, if one is not more deserving of their resource than another (which you agree with), and if another person is not to blame for not having such resource, no one person should not have a right to it at the expense of another. It is really quite simple. You are somehow claiming a person should have the right to such even though they do not deserve it, without giving what your conception of fairness is based on.
And again, you site failing communist regimes without taking into account what needs to change first. Just as a complete free market would fail miserably without a complete mindset change. You fail to understand that, until such time as a change happens (if ever), I support democratic socialism, or any system that balances fair equality with stone age psychology of "mine".
You have made no case as to why a person has a right to X at expense of another, without being deserving of X.
"You have made no case as to why a person has a right to X at expense of another, without being deserving of X."
You fail. I have already told you before that I don't accept your premise of "deservingness". I also demonstrated that "at expense of another" doesn't happen either. So your claims of it being "unfair" fail unless you can demonstrate that such acquisition happens under coercion or deception. But neither actually happens.
"And again, you site failing communist regimes without taking into account what needs to change first."
You just can't fine tune communism and think it will work. MANY of it flaws are FATAL. One of those fatal flaws is price setting. Instead of letting the market decide the price they fix it instead, thus causing shortages despite they done so to "help" the poor because its "unfair". It is not a mindset problem, its a logistics problem.
What “premise” of deservingness don’t you accept? That no-one is more deserving than another? I might be confused but I thought you accepted that?
You did not explain that “at the expense of another” does not happen, you just say it doesn’t. If someone can only have a good quality of life with a 4 -- If someone has a 2 and another a 6, if we can take 2 from the 6 and give to the 2, not doing so is at the expense of the person with the 2.
And back to the “deservingness premise”, if you accept that no one person is more deserving than another, if the person that has a 6 is not more deserving of the 6 than the person with the 2, and the person with the 2 is not to blame for having less – why should the person with a 6 have a ‘right’ to the 6 at the EXPENSE of the person with a 2?
They are only fatal due to the psychology people hold. It has nothing to do with fixed prices, but rather lack of incentive to produce product. I don’t deny this, that is why I would never suggest a communist system unless everyone was on board with a specific productivity psychology.
A good democratic socialist system is what I would promote. Every economic system has logistical problems, the worst being that of a complete free market. Talk about a logistical nightmare!
"What “premise” of deservingness don’t you accept?"
The WHOLE concept. I have already told you what concept I substitute it for. But because you have the classic case of head-up-ass you never payed it any mind nor showed what you understood it. Unlike you I am not going to repeat my self over and over. Just go back an read again.
WHAT premise? State it because you are as clear as mud. What are you not accepting?
Actually, just answer this one question: Can one person be more deserving than another?
It isn't a premise, it is a question. Answer it. It is easy, either YES or NO. Try answering it instead of avoiding with "I don't except your premise of deservingness". What does that even mean. Is that a "NO" to the question above? It is a parse-able question.
I like I said, you have head-up-ass syndrome. I have already answered the question. Problem is when I told you what it was, you thought I was talking about ethics, which I wasn't. So you don't understand it anyways. But it doesn't matter at this point because you've demonstrated that if the evidence shows that this isn't about psychology, then you are not intellectually honest enough to admit that. So I wave goodbye to you as you kiss reality ah-due.
The evidence does not show that, and you not answering a simple YES/NO question shows your intellectual dishonesty. You certainly do not have a logical case for holding more for one person over another when the one is not more deserving. It's entirely a psychological case you make.
An intellectually honest person would go back a read previous comments when the other person references them and says that they are not going to repeat themselves. You did not do that. An intellectually honest person wouldn't claim that some people are not deserving in one sentence then in the next state that "deservingness" should be abandoned. You did. Conclusion, an intellectually honest person is what trick0171 isn't.
No, an intellectually honest person would answer the YES/NO question, not make another person try to funnel back through a hundred comments just to find out that the answer given was just as vague as he currently gives.
"deservingness should be abandoned" does not mean "the word deservingness should be abandoned". Only an intellectually dishonest person would try to make that absurd claim.
Leave already because you are just making yourself look as dumb as you really are.
A smart person who realize that I am not playing your game. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Is a yes/no question. A smart person would realize that is a loaded question. But anyways you already have your answer, all you have to do is see my previous answers to "deservingness" . Fuck, I have given you enough hints, but you're not interested in actually knowing. You just want to play your little word game.
Yeah, because "CAN one person be more deserving than another?" is a loaded question. It implies something about you like "Have you stopped beating your wife?". Talk about complete and utter disgusting dishonesty. You seriously sicken me. I'd rather debate with a creationist.
When are you going to do what you promised and leave? Please, do me a favor. I'm not used to dealing with assholes. It's just not at all enjoyable.
As I said, you are just nothing but emotional rhetoric. All your arguments from outrage and no logic. I told you I reject "deserving" whole sale. Its not possible answer yes/no because I have to accept there is such a thing. "Deserving" isn't about logic or a good argument it is nothing more than a set up for a emotional appeal to "IS NOT FAIR!" I knew this from the start. So yes, go "debate" a creationist. Maybe they would understand your emotional substances-less argument.
" Its not possible answer yes/no because I have to accept there is such a thing"
There is a definition for the word "deserve", look it up. And either it applies to people, or it does not, which is my very question. So fine, your answer is "no" - even though you for some reason could not answer it yourself. God, I feel like I am talking to a 13 year old troll.
You use words like "emotional rhetoric" with no foundation for such claim.
You making the statement "emotional rhetoric" does not make it so. The concept of "fairness" is not an emotional one. It is a logical one. But since you do not understand that, obviously you have no concept of fairness. In which case, like I said earlier, you win. The system you want is the unfairest there is, and it works to keep the economy going. Good job.
"The concept of "fairness" is not an emotional one."
Hey, what do you know, your actually talking about an actual psychological issue!!! To bad your still false. Fairness is nothing more than emotional impulse in the moral part of our brains.
"So fine, your answer is "no" "
So your still beating your wife then? The actual answer is not applicable. Your to much of an ass to realize that.
No, it is a concept. Ever hear of that word before? I know it is new to you.
You actually have to explain logically why an answer is not applicable. I can tell you that I do not have a wife and never beat her, and hence that question does not apply. You cannot do that with my question.
You have got to be the biggest asshole I have ever debated, and the most illogical. I take it you are not going to do what you said 5 comments ago and leave me alone? So I gotta keep fielding your idiocy because i just cannot let it go when some
Good video btw, nice to hear someone whos pissed off and sees through the bullshit. But yes I hear you; its a kind of moral low ground, if you dont give to charity youre a bad person bla bla, its anti-citizen propaganda. Gvernment fucks the world up and we are supposed to pay for it.
infinitesimotel 8 months ago
If you believe it is the states responsibility to pick your brothers and sisters up and brush the dirt off them when they fall you do not believe in your fellow man. Goodwill towards man? Is that what is playing out in the middle east? The moneychangers told of in the bible have monetized compassion. Compassion is not money nor is money a measure of equality. The fairness I hear spoke of is this a level of happiness you are trying to ensure with money? Try Jobs w personal value.
OneSmileyDude 8 months ago
@OneSmileyDude You wouldnt need charity if the governement wasnt opressive. Its a symptom of we make the economic mess and you people sort it out. That doesnt mean I dont help people, I dont believe I should be morally forced to give money out to something intrinsically not my fault but that of the state because of the way it creates the circumstances
infinitesimotel 8 months ago
@OneSmileyDude And charity is an industry. You think that if charity was honest, it would still exist? Besides, the management that run charities suck up most of it anyway. Its preying on peoples guilt and good will. Pretty disgusting.
infinitesimotel 8 months ago
If you are Christian, Buddhist....whatever no matter....if you are simply wise. It can be realized that if a source of happiness is giving...more precisely compassion. To have that taken away...high taxation, social programs, loss of liberties, .....the pursuit of happiness is oppressed. Too many times the pursuit of happiness is equated to a w2 or a title @ work. That is not what it meant and that is what is being stifled and what he is referring to imo.
OneSmileyDude 8 months ago
To put our collective free will into the hands of people who have as a life quest pursued a position of power is a suspect arrangement. Especially when power and money are substitutes for true happiness. Integrity of those in these positions of power is the only way this works as it was intended. Good Luck....
OneSmileyDude 8 months ago
Free will is the will of every person's spirit.
OneSmileyDude 8 months ago
Pathos in printed text. Haha. USSA...conjured up the demonized USSR. But then what? To give freely wo expecting in return is a source of happiness. To be taxed and to outsource that act compassion is no longer free will but oppression.
OneSmileyDude 8 months ago
@OneSmileyDude No, idiot, giving freely is equivalent to THEFT. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Donations are the recipients' STEALING, because they did not pay for it. By definition, a free lunch or something received without proper compensation is theft.
UnmaskedTuxedo 6 months ago
United Socialist States of America....
OneSmileyDude 8 months ago
Lets keep this in mind when you got your hand out cause a tornado just destroyed the trailer park you live in.
Atheistprimate 8 months ago
@Atheistprimate
I swear, people comment, but they don't actually watch/pay attention to the video. When did I condemn people who's homes were destroyed getting help, hmm? I specifically stated that it's the coercion I have a problem with. So how about you actually watch a video before commenting on it, alright?
FearsEdge 8 months ago
Forced charity is no charity at all. It is theft and benefits nobody. It is destructive. It is not motivated by love but by jealousy, envy, covetousness, bitterness and hate. It is ugly, nasty, destructive and totally negative.
Forced "charity" destroys real charity because we all have less money and incentive to help. Welfare makes people dependent zombies. It destroys lives.
Love and respect you.
carcabe 8 months ago
SAY GOODNIGHT TO DA BADGUY!!!!
Because people wouldn't help each other if the state didn't make them. Even though the argument for the state here stems from an emotional desire to see people who need help get it. XD
dannypantsgm 8 months ago
@dannypantsgm
Gotta love Scarface.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
Good video. Maybe next time don't take a year break? HA HA.
b3rtne 8 months ago
Sadly people are so brain washed that they think that the only way for charity to happen is through the state.
Those 10000 dollar cancer treatments would probably be cheaper if the government wasn't paying for them.
bflanagan57 8 months ago
Excellent video.
bflanagan57 8 months ago
I would say that the faceless-ness of it kinda is annoying too. But yeah, I can see this.
sabertooth1980 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
There are poor children who are suffering, what more convincing do you need? A poor child who has bone cancer and needs $10,000 treatments every week. No charity can handle that. Do you want that child to skip a treatment to come to convince everyone she's dying in excruciating pain?
For every American there are some things they like about their tax dollars and some things they don't. I find it amazing that one of your top priorities is justifying healthcare for the poor.
lynchmobb2000 8 months ago
@lynchmobb2000
Here we go. Are you finished? Didn't I say in the video that just because I am against the state extorting people, does not mean I am against what the extorted money goes to pay?
And yes, a charity can handle that. If the government was not interfering in the free market, health care would be insanely cheaper.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@lynchmobb2000
I am also amused that the very first thing I said in my video is how people use guilt to attempt to control others, and statism is no different. You then proceed to attempt to beat me about the head with your emotional appeals with the sole intent of making me feel guilty so I will affirm the broken system. I said it in the video, I refuse to be made the bad guy because I don't want to be stolen from. I can be extorted with violence, but I will not be guilted into obeying.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
You already pay for other people's healthcare with higher rate's when they go to the hospital without insurance. You are not a island. It will lower your rates with group buy or bulk buy. AH DUUUUUHHHHH! And you do have a choice ... you vote right? Stop being a little bitch about it.
dude12nothin 8 months ago
@dude12nothin
If me and ten of my buddies come over, and all twelve of us vote on what to do with your house, do you have a choice? When you're suggesting a libertarian has choice - that's the situation you claim constitutes choice.
blackacidlizzard 8 months ago
@blackacidlizzard you plus your ten buddies equal 11 you fucktard.
dude12nothin 8 months ago
@dude12nothin
Way to read carefully dumbass. Me + my ten friends + you = 12.
You get to vote too. That's kind of the whole point.
When you gain the ability to read a statement within the context of a conversation, please come back and give more feeble attempts at argumentation.
blackacidlizzard 8 months ago
@blackacidlizzard I dont want to be included in your group and being so doesn't prove your point. That is a argument that is based on a fictional situation and one the could never, likely, exist. So it is pointless. And we ALL have a choice. libertarian or not... What the fuck does ones view point have to do with the choices that they have? A fucking vegan will eat meat to survive... that does not mean that the vegan's view point is any lest valid.
dude12nothin 8 months ago
@d12n
Are you saying that you don't want to be subject to the vote of a group you dislike but have been made a part of ?
A libertarian has the choice to vote and be massively overruled by those who disagree with him. So who are you to bitch about it if I make you a member of a democratic group which will consistently work against you?
"A fucking vegan will eat meat to survive"
You're getting ahead in the script, in about two more exchanges I'm supposed to say that to you
blackacidlizzard 8 months ago
@dude12nothin
This is too funny! Way to prove our point for us! Hahahah! "I don't want to be included in your group"
Isn't that MY line? Do you fail to see how this theoretical situation applies to the subject at hand?
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge ps fuck you for not addressing my points. ARE YOU A ISLAND?!
dude12nothin 8 months ago
@dude12nothin
No one here is pushing an atomistic viewpoint.
What, in your view, is the political relevance of the fact that we exist socially?
blackacidlizzard 8 months ago
@blackacidlizzard well are you? Of course not but you are leaning to the side that wants to be one... yet the fact remains that you are not. Tell me how "group buy" is bad?
dude12nothin 8 months ago
@dude12nothin
Sorry, dude. While there are people who oppose all government based upon a stance of the primacy of the individual, I am not one of them, and I have not seen any indication that the person who made this video is either.
It seems you may be confusing opposition to one type of collective for opposition to all collectives.
Not sure what you mean by "group buy," perhaps something I said above answers that question.
blackacidlizzard 8 months ago
@dude12nothin
So I see you fell for the voting trick? Tell me, where do I get to vote for people to leave me out of their coercive monopolistic system? By voting, you are giving the system your approval, and answering an opinion poll. The people have no coercive power over the state, quite unlike the reverse.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge voting trick? weed was legalized because of my vote. so fuck your it doesn't matter bullshit. My vote was stricken down by god fucks for equal right about marriage.so please continue with it doesn't matter you fucktard.
dude12nothin 8 months ago
@dude12nothin
Are you done? Are you seriously telling me that if you hadn't added your single vote, it would not have happened?(by the way, the federal government will ignore that and prosecute anyway when given a reason).
There should never have been a vote on it in the first place. Both examples you give, gay marriage(a private, voluntary arrangement between 2 adults) and possession of weed are private matters, that the public at large has no business interfering in.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@dude12nothin
(contd)
So if you are trying to impress me by saying that the majority affirmed the rights of others that were only in question because of the horrible statist system that the majority affirms, you are wasting your time.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@dude12nothin
By the way, if you notice in my video, I am merely talking about FEDERAL taxes and such. Tell me, what does my vote matter? No one I ever would want to be a temporary ruler would ever be elected, I would have to pick from the ones every one else wants. Then, when they get to congress, they have to convince other representatives to go along with them, or vice versa, or it does not happen. That's if they actually do what they said they would do, which is up in the air.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge "and such" is how i know that your are a fucktard. deny realistically facts and truths all that you want but...
dude12nothin 8 months ago
you're awesome and i totally agree
OneDayWeAreFree 8 months ago
Um, Why are you defending yourself here. If they have a beef about something you do....fuck them, they can go fuck themselves, you dont have to defend who you are to any of the guilt inducing cunts out there.
TheCaptainLulz 8 months ago
@TheCaptainLulz
This is my way of venting.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
Good stuff!
KagarBeardtooth 8 months ago
You don't get it. There is NO FREE WILL. You should not have the right to your wealth at the expense of others. You think you should "own" the money in which, by luck, you had the causality to obtain. BS. You should not have the right to "decide" to help others or NOT. Helping others needs to be mandatory.
If you do not like where the government places the money....fight that. I'm all for fighting that through legal means. Just don't think you are more deserving of the wealth you have.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
"You should not have the right to your wealth at the expense of others."
But nobody does. That is already illegal. But apparently you want to go beyond that. Instead of allowing people to create wealth for them selves you want to make everyone equally poor. By forcibly removing the wealth that others create, you create a disincentive to make something valuable to society and increase incentive to be poor.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
" you create a disincentive to make something valuable to society and increase incentive to be poor."
The notion of requiring "incentive" to be productive is based on a harmful free will psychology. This is just the thing that I am looking to move away from. Certainly we can create "incentive" in the meantime...but we must understand that we are only doing that to curve irrational, emotional beings that think they have free will ...
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
and that they are able to make free decisions that make them more worthy than others (even though that is entirely hogwash).
Economics is a balancing act between incentive for illogical people to stay productive, and equalization as much as we can and still hold such "incentives". And until people realize that they should not need "incentive" to be productive and helpful...sure...we need to have "incentive"...but only to the degree that they will be productive ...
(MORE 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
and until we can move them away from such poor psychology based on the illogical idea of free will.
(END 3)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
Bullshit. Incentives work regardless of the belief in free will. I don't believe in free will but if someone was going to pay me more to do the same job, then I am going to go with them. That how incentives work. If you look at an incentive layout, then you will see EXACTLY how humans will behave.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
That is based entirely on your selfish, illogical psychology. If you do not believe in free will, you cannot believe that you are more deserving of such "incentives". If you do...then you do not understand the logic of what it means to not have free will.
Again...I never said that was not how humans behave. That does not make such behavior rational or logical.
(END)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
Everyone maximizes his or her utility. It isn't about "deserving" anything. You are full of rhetoric and buzz words. Just labeling what you don't like (e.g. being controlled by emotional rhetoric) as "irrational" or "illogical" , without any justification what-so-ever. Oh the irony.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago 4
@TheAtheistPaladin
"Everyone maximizes his or her utility."
No...it is "everyone maximizes his or her utility AT THE sake of another's utility". The lack of free will is not compatible with ethical egoism, it is more compatible with ethical utilitarianism. The only way to get to the ethical egoist state logically is to imply that person A or more deserving of X than person B. If they are not more deserving, logic follows that the fairest state is one that equalizes A and B.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
In other words, it has nothing to do with what I like or do not like, and everything to do with the logical implication of not having free will...and holding to a logical consequentialist ethic that is entirely compatible with such understanding.
I have much justification to say what I have if you hold to these logically incompatible beliefs.
(END 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
Bullshit. As I said it is not a zero-sum game. People gain utility all the time by co-operation. I refuse to talk to someone that is closed-minded and pig-ignorant as you.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
Sorry but "Bullshit. As I said it is not a zero-sum game" is not a logical argument. Call me whatever names you want, but what I said is logically consistent.
If you have any understanding of the concept of fairness, and you understand we lack free will (noone is more deserving), you must understand the logical direction of the fairness is not to the individual. It has nothing to do with a "zero sum" game but rather an "equal sum" game - which is entirely different.
Peace
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
Just another way to stick your fingers in your ears and not hear how you are wrong. Either way, the assumptions that support your arguments are false. Therefore, your argument is false. I need not to hurt anyone to improve my own condition.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
"I need not to hurt anyone to improve my own condition"
I never said ANYTHING about not improving ones condition. Talk about sticking fingers in ears. You are just making up shit.
What I suggested...more than once...is that the focus should be on equalization as you are NOT MORE DESERVING of your condition than anyone else. Period. I am not saying to "reduce your conditions" unless such reduction helps others increase their own up to your level.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
I am not saying not to improve your condition when you can. I am only saying that your condition is not a DESERVED condition, and hence it is subject to decrease for the sake of increasing others that are much lower than your condition.
So stop putting words in my mouth and get the facts of what i am saying straight - because you are not making a logical case what-so-ever.
(END 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
And who gets to decide its "deserved"? Go to mom and pops stores if it is your feeling that big companies aren't supposed make that money. Nobody is forcing you.
"because you are not making a logical case what-so-ever."
Oh the irony. I just pointed out that you rely on the assumption that wealth is a zero-sum game and it is not. It is clearly false. And I AM THE ONE who is not making a "logical case". Don't make me laugh.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
"I never said ANYTHING about not improving ones condition."
contradicts
"everyone maximizes his or her utility AT THE sake of another's utility"
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
"And who gets to decide its "deserved"?"
Do I need to say it again. The idea of deservingness needs to be abandoned.
“I just pointed out that you rely on the assumption that wealth is a zero-sum game and it is not”
I never said anything about a “zero-sum game” – those are your words. There is a difference between one 20 and one 0, and two 10’s…and guess what, two 10’s is not the same thing as two 0’s (which would be a “zero-sum” game).
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
And NO, "I never said ANYTHING about not improving ones condition" does NOT contradict "everyone maximizes his or her utility AT THE sake of another's utility".
The fact that you think it does means you need some lessons in logic and having such a discussion is probably pointless.
Take care.
(END 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
Actaully - I scratch the comment about "zero-sum" game as I was unaware that just means equaling out, but not literally equaling "zero". In this case you make no case for it not being a zero-sum game.
trick0171 8 months ago
(and no, by misunderstanding of the terminology you were using in not a case against my logic - so don't think it is)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
You do not understand what a zero-sum game is. It means for someone to "win" someone else has to "lose".
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
"You do not understand what a zero-sum game is."
Yes - sorry about that. I misunderstood what was implied with the term usage (as I said)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
LOL, you can't get any clearer contradiction. So the one that needs logic lessons is you. You cannot improve your condition without utility. It is a prerequisite.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
I never said one should not seek utility, just that one does so at the sake of other utility. My complaint has to do with those complaining about the reduction of utility after they obtain it - for the sake of increasing utility to others less fortunate. Again, there is no contradiction.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
"I never said anything about a “zero-sum game”
Not directly but it was implied. But when you state that the existence of the rich harms everyone else by them having more resources, then that implies a zero-sum game. That is unavoidable in your argument. And since that is false, your argument fails.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
This was my mistake with understanding the terminology used.Now that I understand - yes - I am in support of such "zero-sum game".
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
"Do I need to say it again. The idea of deservingness needs to be abandoned."
LOL, From the very binging I refuse "deservingness" in favor of maximizing ulity. (and no I wasn't talking about ethics, *rolls eyes*). YOU'RE the one who said that no one deserves to be a billionaire. Your whole emotional outrage of an argument is predicated on the fact that you count on people to agree that no on deserves to be a billionaire. The end, your too inconsistent with yourself.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
" in favor of maximizing ulity. "
Lets get this part straight. Not in favor of "maximizing utility" but rather in favor of "maximizing utility for oneself". A huge difference. One is egoism (for the self), the other is utilitarianism (no one person over another)
"Your whole emotional outrage"
Emotional outrage? My whole outrage is based on your usage of namecalling. I am all for civil discourse when people are civil at me.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
"people to agree that no on deserves to be a billionaire."
Did you or did you not agree with me that no one is more deserving? Certainly the billionaire could have plenty of "utility" as a millionaire, and increase the utility for people that have nothing. And since the billionaire does not deserve her wealth over those others, the billionaire ought not have a right to it.
(END 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
People respond to incentives. This is a basic fact of reality.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
People respond to religious dogma. This is a basic fact of reality.
People like the taste of meat. This is a basic fact of reality.
People hold illogical beliefs. This is a basic fact of reality.
People hold psychologies that do not follow logical or rational understanding. This is a basic fact of reality.
Well, there you have it. No sense in changing poor mindsets people hold, after all, it is a basic fact of reality that they hold them.
Thanks.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
I don't follow what point you are trying to make here. Do you have some kind of problem with people responding to incentives, or something? I am at a loss.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
Yes, our current psychology is one of a selfish incentive base based on the notion of free will. I certainly have a problem with how people think about these things.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
This is just absurd. Your problem is not with me, your problem is with reality. People respond to incentives, don't get angry with me about it. I know for a fact that you as a person respond to incentives, so I can't possibly see what your point is.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
Oh..and one more thing: "But nobody does. That is already illegal."
That is a bunch of bull as well. The very act of living in places like the US, as consumers, means that we use valuable resources, hurt the environment, and indirectly harm others. It is anything but "illegal" to do so. And someone that holds on to extreme wealth reduces the value of the dollar for everyone else, in affect harming them.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
Noone "deserves" to be a billionaire, no matter what lucky thing they have done in their life...or how hard they have worked. That is all money that could help people in harm...that do not deserve such har.
(END 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
Economics is not a zero-sum game. You cannot be billionaire without generating more work and economic activity. The money doesn't come to someone for no reason. Now I agree that people should be payed more and the CEO less. But the overall system has been demonstrated to create more prosperity for all.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
And meanwhile almost all wealth is held by less than 1% of the population. Sorry, billionaires do not generate more work and economic activity, productive people do. The workers do. Billionaires just sap the income from those workers.
"The money doesn't come to someone for no reason"
Yeah, people are born into it. That is the "reason".
"But the overall system has been demonstrated to create more prosperity for all."
Sorry...not buying it.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005
Report of the
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
November 13, 2007
demonstrates that people move up the class brackets.
And
Nonfarm Business Sector: Real Compensation Per Hour (COMPRNFB)
proves that I am right of about the increased prosperity.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
"demonstrates that people move up the class brackets."
And? Not sure what you are making a case for except that people move up in brackets. Certainly not making a case that the overall system of 1% of the population holding almost all of the wealth creates more prosperity for all.
Compensation per hour increasing has to do with inflation, not "increased prosperity". It means the value of the dollar bill is lower, usually due to wealthy horders.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
*facepalm* LOL, that what exactly it demonstrates. BTW, it is adjusted for inflation.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
*facepalm* back...and this makes the case for Billionaires increasing productivity and not increasing inflation how?
The growth rate is currently much less than the inflation rate. We are in a decline. Uuugh. Nevermind. Even if we were not in a decline, it is entirely meaningless to your point that somehow extreme wealth helps the economy instead of hinters it.
It is also meaningless to my original point in my first comment.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
"it is entirely meaningless to your point that somehow extreme wealth helps the economy instead of hinters it."
Meaningless? It completely refutes your entire premise. If people are allowed to invest and work as they deem fit, then that is capitalism, which allows that 1% to exist. As the graphs shows from 1950s, the standard of living has only been increasing for everyone. That cannot happen according to what you say.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
My premise is that people have derived a free will psychology, and that is why capitalism is needed. If people understood that they were not more deserving than others of their utility, they would strive to be fair in their utility and also understand the importance of being productive members in society. Instead, people are illogical, and hence need a cookie to keep the production of selfishness going.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
---> I never said capitalism does not work <----.
... which seems to be what you are arguing against.
I suggested it was designed for illogical people. I even said we have to keep in order to keep people productive, at least until they have become more rational and logical and start to remove the free will psychology they have embedded since birth.
(END 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
"---> I never said capitalism does not work <----.
... which seems to be what you are arguing against."
*headdesk*
You cannot have capitalism AND redistribution of wealth. Both propose very different concepts of property. You still seem to not be understanding what I say and going in the same circles over and a over.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
“You cannot have capitalism and redistribution of wealth.”
Since when does “I never said capitalism doesn’t work” equal “I support capitalism”? I am saying it works because it aligns with irrational, illogical, and egocentric people. It would be better if the people were rational, logical, and cared about what is fair in a world where there is no free will.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
And until people become rational enough to realize they are not more deserving than others, I think (a degree of) capitalism a necessary evil to keep them productive. That being said, we can have partial capitalism, partial democratic socialism (sort of like we do now). This is the economic weighing we can do in the meantime that is acceptable by most.
(MORE 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
But no, I guess we should be able to horde this money we think we deserve, and maybe, if we “feel like it”, shell some out to those that cannot afford healthcare. But only if we feel like it, because we earned our money and deserve it over those people. If I’m buying a new boat, those others may just be out of luck.
(MORE 3)
trick0171 8 months ago
So instead of your snarky “*headdesk*” or “*facepalm*” comments, I’d appreciate it if you try to read what I am actually saying. You seem to have a tendency to equate certain (clear and parse-able) sentences with something they do not imply or mean.
Thanks.
(END 4)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
*HEADDESK*
Take your own advice, and try to read what I am actually saying. I never said you supported capitalism! Just forget it. Fuck off already.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
This is what you said: "You cannot have capitalism AND redistribution of wealth."
As if I ever made such a claim. And you say it right after quoting my "I never said capitalism does not work" comment, suggesting you think I have endorsed capitalism with my quote (which I did not), and I yet still want redistribution of wealth.
Bye bye now. Hug.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
Consistently inconsistent, I will give you that. No matter what statement I will deal with you will have the contrary to fall back on.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
You have not "dealt" with any statement I made. You have only dealt with some delusion of what you think I have said, and you hold to that delusion even when shown it. You really should get that checked out. I'm worried about you. An MRI might be called for.
Thanks.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
You're right. How could have dealt with anything you have said? Because you said nothing substantive at all. I on the other prove studies that back up what I have said, you on the other hand deny and ramble on about the irrationality of rational self-interest. Silly me.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
All that headdesk banging. Your delusions are getting worse. Please...MRI.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
Oh, so when I provide the studies you DID NOT call "entirely meaningless"? And that you never inferred that capitalism or looking out for your own well being is irrational? *Wipes head* Woo. For a moment there I was starting to think that you where a total crackpot. Of course I am delusional, because only a moron would suggest that "free will" can only lead to capitalism, and that they should be stripped of what they own because it more "rational". Silly me.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
One of the delusions is you thinking the so called "study" had anything on what I was arguing. The other is you thinking you made any argument against my claim about requiring the idea of deservingness (one deserving the money they acquire over others that do not), which is illogical if there is no free will. Only a delusional moron would think that they have a right to something over another person even though they are not more deserving of that something. Silly you.
trick0171 8 months ago
We can keep playing these unproductive games I suppose. You know, me making fun of your illogical comments, and you making fun of some made up delusional notion of illogical comments that I never said.
I still think it would be better for you to get an MRI. Seriously, could be a tumor or something. I hope you have health care.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
Only a delusional fool would think that I wouldn't notice a strawman. As I told you before I don't subscribe to "deservingness". If you didn't listen twice before, then I am not going to tell you again for the 3rd time. I made the claim that capitalism increase prosperity over time for everyone. They proved that, thus debunking your entire assumption of a zero-sum game. Which means, Game over for you.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
God damn you are dense. Even if it increased prosperity for everyone (which your "study" does NT show btw) , does not mean that it is done equally and fairly. You miss my very point that, if it does, it does so illogically based on a free will psychology people hold. Again, you saying you don't subscribe to deservingness, and then saying that some should be wealthier than others with no reason - is quite idiotic.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
You keep saying the same garbage over and over without addressing my point. So please, do not say it a 4th time, because it misses everything I have said completely. My "zero-sum game" is what SHOULD happen for the sake of fairness, a fairness derived from the only possible understanding of lacking free will.
Please, address my point or leave me alone. You are getting on my nerves with your obtuse rhetoric that has nothing to do with what I am saying.
(END 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
"My "zero-sum game" is what SHOULD happen for the sake of fairness, a fairness derived from the only possible understanding of lacking free will."
1) You still don't understand what zero-sum game entails. If you want EVERYONE to prosper, then that is exactly what it must NOT be. Because if it was, then somebody has to suffer for others to gain.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
2) Fairness has nothing to do with free will. So "fairness derived from the understanding of lack of free will" makes no sense. Fairness is simply distributing the goods each according to his/her work. No concept of free will needed.
"obtuse rhetoric"
Fool please. You don't understand what your argument entails. You make baseless and nonsensical claims. You rattle on about free will and deservedness, yet we both don't have issue with those points...
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
"God damn you are dense"
*Holds up mirror*
"which your "study" does NT show btw"
Denial is not a logical argument. Those two studies show that 1) compensation per hour has been increasing over time, it includes benefits and accounts for inflation. Which means the average workers buying power has been increasing. 2) That majority of people move up in the brackets over a life time. Which means not everyone stays in poverty. Also, that the 1% don't hinder anyone else.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
"You miss my very point that, if it does, it does so illogically based on a free will psychology people hold."
That not a point at all. I see no support that capitalism is based on "free will psychology". So any claims of its "illogic" are ignored as the naked assertion they are. How do you expect me to respond to that when you haven't made a case at all?
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
"Again, you saying you don't subscribe to deservingness, and then saying that some should be wealthier than others with no reason - is quite idiotic."
No, what is idiotic is that you as well don't subscribe to "deservingness" and yet keep talking about it and "fairness". You haven't replaced it at all. You simply make it subservient to fairness. Unless you prove that someone is rich specifically because of ill gotten gains or deception, I see no reason to take it by force.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
@TheAtheistPaladin
1) I never said I want everyone to prosper. Some people do not require more "property" (back to the billionaire). I want to equalize. And if reducing a billionaire to a millionaire makes them suffer, you need to look at what increasing someone in poverty does and weigh such.
2) Understanding that we lack free will has implications for the concept of fairness. And your "distribution" policy goes against those implications.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
You want more distributed to those that DO NOT DESERVE MORE!...when there are others that DO NOT DESERVE LESS!!! That is your distribution policy. That is what you deem "fair" policy. At least fearsedge is somewhat consistent by stating he thinks hes more deserving (when really he is not).
We are both repeating, you saying I don't get it, and I saying you don't get it. I think we will get no where. Talking to you is a waste of time. I hate un-civil communication.
(MORE 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
It really is not worth it if you cannot understand the basic point that someone that does not deserve a better situation should not get a better situation if another person that does not deserve a worse situation has a worse situation. It really is simple what is fair given that single fact
I think we ought end our back and fourth. Sorry if I came of nasty in my comments. It was due to frustration and truly is out of character for me.
Take care.
(END 3)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
This is funny.
"someone that does not deserve a better situation should not get a better situation if another person that does not deserve a worse situation"
I thought deservingness wasn't real? What's this about someone NOT deserving this or that?
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
You misunderstand. I'm not saying the word "deserving" does not exist. I'm saying that saying someone is more deserving than another is a concept that needs to be abandoned. I'm saying that people are NOT deserving - the opposite of saying they ARE deserving.
Thanks.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
I'm saying you are wrong. That people absolutely deserve what someone else freely gives them in a voluntary arrangement.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@trick0171
"t really is not worth it if you cannot understand the basic point"
Fuck you ignorant motherfucker. I have proven that YOU don't understand what YOU are saying. That is pathetic! You think I am being more harsh than I should but it is because you don't listen or care to. You are essentially promoting communism which has been the biggest failure and the biggest murder of the 20th century. You can't even be bothered to at least make a good argument. Fuck off.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
Consistently inconsistent, No matter how many times I point it out YOU'RE the one that keeps talking about "deserve" then you turn around and say that it does not exist. Thus, defeating your entire emotional appeal. Either way as I pointed out, your entire concept of "deserve" is simply subservient to fairness and even that seems to be fucked up.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
1) Again, that is NOT zero-sum game. Billionaire to millionaire isn't quite bad. Either way it is obvious by now that you don't understand what you are saying. "I never said I want everyone to prosper." and "I want to equalize." conflict, it either means you want everyone to suffer (which I doubt) or as I said you are consistently inconsistent. You don't know how to elucidate your own position.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
2) Denial is not a logical argument. Either demonstrate those "implications" or GTFO. Until then you will be ignored because it is axiomatic in a society that people own their own work. PERIOD.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@AtheistPaladin
I rest my case about you missing the entire point. The fact that you think I would support communism given the current psychology people hold proves that you cannot comprehend basic points I have made. I wish we could get an impartial judge to go through this entire comment thread, because you would lose miserably.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
Anyway, I am done with your abuse and I am done trying to explain why all of your nonsense is a tangent, and in no way invalidates my initial comment. You can keep saying it does, but again, you don’t even understand the (logical) point being made. It is ok. You were causally led to the illogical state you are in. Maybe some day you will grow up.
Take care.
(END 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
Pathetic. I have read every comment you make and I point out your inconsistencies. As I said before, you use "logical" as buzzwords for your nonsensical bullshit. I do not in any way accept free will, and yet capitalism is A-Okay with me. Thus refuting your entire premise of that capitalism and free will are linked. You can beat your own skull in with how free will is illogical all you want, what you seek to change however will not connect A to B.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
And I rest my case that you don't understand what the fuck you are promoting. Any form of equitable wealth distribution is communism. Period. And since you cannot even understand what you are presenting, you will be forever curse with people that "miss the point" every time. Even though the only missing the point is YOU.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
I said it over and over and over again. Over and over and over again. I am promoting a mindset change first. Over and over and over again. And that capitalism is a necessary evil in the meantime. Over and over and over again. Meaning that equalization will fail if there are a bunch of people who think they are more deserving than others. Over and over and over again. Done.
trick0171 8 months ago
"You can beat your own skull in with how free will is illogical all you want, what you seek to change however will not connect A to B."
Yeah, because the free will debate has no connection to blame-worthiness and deservingness. And those things have nothing to do with why one person thinks they should have more than another. Naww...not at all. Those things don't lead to egotism....naww.
Yaaawnnnn.
trick0171 8 months ago
*egoism
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
Nope, and its time that you realize it. It is about voluntary interactions and agreements. Your whole argument of "free will", "deservingness", and "egoism" does not effect that what-so-ever. As I have said, A does not connect to B. Your entire argument is one big non-sequitur.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
What is the difference between a "voluntary interaction" and an "interaction"? Did you have the free will to decide not to have or not to have such interaction? There can be any number of illogical or unethical "agreements", that does not mean people should have a right to them. There are many "agreements" that are unfair agreements, and our idea of fairness needs to be logical. Interactions and agreements that are unfair (as what you propose) is what we need to deal with.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
"What is the difference between a "voluntary interaction" and an "interaction"?"
Coercion or deception. If they take place, then it is not voluntary.
"Did you have the free will to decide not to have or not to have such interaction?"
All I know that all the processes in my brain happen by natural laws. That is enough to make me a determinist. Regardless of that I still have to decide my own life. YOU nor anyone can do that for me.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
"There can be any number of illogical or unethical "agreements", that does not mean people should have a right to them."
What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you saying that people shouldn't be able to make mistakes? If so, then that is the most moronic thing I have ever heard. People will never learn that way. Now if someone was taken advantage of via deception or coercion, then as I said from the start, that is already illegal.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
Say again. I don't care, it is not anymore valid that it was before. It matter not if capitalism is a transitory state for you. Your main points agaisnt it are still invalid. So you can pout and stomp you feet cry like a little baby "IT NOT FAIR!" You have present anything consistent enough to be a cogent argument and will be dismissed as such.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
I gave you my cogent arguments and you just say "no" with no rebuttal against it. You just say "voluntary interaction and agreements" is the reason without displaying why those things are what derive a fair economy. You have no logical conception of fairness. Or maybe you just think fairness is not important to the equation? If that is the case then you win. Your system works perfectly unfairly.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171 All you have done so far is repeat certain claims over and over again. That not the same as making a cogent argument. You need logic and evidence to support your claims before it is considered cogent. You claimed : that be rich denies others of resources, that it is better to remove those resources by force(implied) and spreed the wealth, finally such state of fairs is stable if only people don't believe in free will.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
Yet NONE of those claims are supported by evidence or a reasoned argument. All you done is assert that they are true. The first one is wrong because economic is not a zero-sum game. The second one is simply immoral. Third is wrong by history. No communist regime ever created wealth only sucked away. Yeah, they were equal but equally poor.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
The only claim I support is that, if one is not more deserving of their resource than another (which you agree with), and if another person is not to blame for not having such resource, no one person should not have a right to it at the expense of another. It is really quite simple. You are somehow claiming a person should have the right to such even though they do not deserve it, without giving what your conception of fairness is based on.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
And again, you site failing communist regimes without taking into account what needs to change first. Just as a complete free market would fail miserably without a complete mindset change. You fail to understand that, until such time as a change happens (if ever), I support democratic socialism, or any system that balances fair equality with stone age psychology of "mine".
You have made no case as to why a person has a right to X at expense of another, without being deserving of X.
(END 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
"You have made no case as to why a person has a right to X at expense of another, without being deserving of X."
You fail. I have already told you before that I don't accept your premise of "deservingness". I also demonstrated that "at expense of another" doesn't happen either. So your claims of it being "unfair" fail unless you can demonstrate that such acquisition happens under coercion or deception. But neither actually happens.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
"And again, you site failing communist regimes without taking into account what needs to change first."
You just can't fine tune communism and think it will work. MANY of it flaws are FATAL. One of those fatal flaws is price setting. Instead of letting the market decide the price they fix it instead, thus causing shortages despite they done so to "help" the poor because its "unfair". It is not a mindset problem, its a logistics problem.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
What “premise” of deservingness don’t you accept? That no-one is more deserving than another? I might be confused but I thought you accepted that?
You did not explain that “at the expense of another” does not happen, you just say it doesn’t. If someone can only have a good quality of life with a 4 -- If someone has a 2 and another a 6, if we can take 2 from the 6 and give to the 2, not doing so is at the expense of the person with the 2.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
And back to the “deservingness premise”, if you accept that no one person is more deserving than another, if the person that has a 6 is not more deserving of the 6 than the person with the 2, and the person with the 2 is not to blame for having less – why should the person with a 6 have a ‘right’ to the 6 at the EXPENSE of the person with a 2?
(MORE 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
“Many flaws are fatal”
They are only fatal due to the psychology people hold. It has nothing to do with fixed prices, but rather lack of incentive to produce product. I don’t deny this, that is why I would never suggest a communist system unless everyone was on board with a specific productivity psychology.
(MORE 3)
trick0171 8 months ago
A good democratic socialist system is what I would promote. Every economic system has logistical problems, the worst being that of a complete free market. Talk about a logistical nightmare!
:)
(END 4)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
ROLF. I laughed so hard I think I scared the dog. Clearly you are completely divorced from reality.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
*Buzzzz** Sorry, that wrong answer. Shortages is NOT psychological. If you can't face reality, then I really have no further use talking to you.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@trick0171
"What “premise” of deservingness don’t you accept?"
The WHOLE concept. I have already told you what concept I substitute it for. But because you have the classic case of head-up-ass you never payed it any mind nor showed what you understood it. Unlike you I am not going to repeat my self over and over. Just go back an read again.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
WHAT premise? State it because you are as clear as mud. What are you not accepting?
Actually, just answer this one question: Can one person be more deserving than another?
It isn't a premise, it is a question. Answer it. It is easy, either YES or NO. Try answering it instead of avoiding with "I don't except your premise of deservingness". What does that even mean. Is that a "NO" to the question above? It is a parse-able question.
Your other 2 comments arent worth my time.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
I like I said, you have head-up-ass syndrome. I have already answered the question. Problem is when I told you what it was, you thought I was talking about ethics, which I wasn't. So you don't understand it anyways. But it doesn't matter at this point because you've demonstrated that if the evidence shows that this isn't about psychology, then you are not intellectually honest enough to admit that. So I wave goodbye to you as you kiss reality ah-due.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
The evidence does not show that, and you not answering a simple YES/NO question shows your intellectual dishonesty. You certainly do not have a logical case for holding more for one person over another when the one is not more deserving. It's entirely a psychological case you make.
Good riddance!
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
An intellectually honest person would go back a read previous comments when the other person references them and says that they are not going to repeat themselves. You did not do that. An intellectually honest person wouldn't claim that some people are not deserving in one sentence then in the next state that "deservingness" should be abandoned. You did. Conclusion, an intellectually honest person is what trick0171 isn't.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
No, an intellectually honest person would answer the YES/NO question, not make another person try to funnel back through a hundred comments just to find out that the answer given was just as vague as he currently gives.
"deservingness should be abandoned" does not mean "the word deservingness should be abandoned". Only an intellectually dishonest person would try to make that absurd claim.
Leave already because you are just making yourself look as dumb as you really are.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
A smart person who realize that I am not playing your game. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Is a yes/no question. A smart person would realize that is a loaded question. But anyways you already have your answer, all you have to do is see my previous answers to "deservingness" . Fuck, I have given you enough hints, but you're not interested in actually knowing. You just want to play your little word game.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
Yeah, because "CAN one person be more deserving than another?" is a loaded question. It implies something about you like "Have you stopped beating your wife?". Talk about complete and utter disgusting dishonesty. You seriously sicken me. I'd rather debate with a creationist.
When are you going to do what you promised and leave? Please, do me a favor. I'm not used to dealing with assholes. It's just not at all enjoyable.
Thanks.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
As I said, you are just nothing but emotional rhetoric. All your arguments from outrage and no logic. I told you I reject "deserving" whole sale. Its not possible answer yes/no because I have to accept there is such a thing. "Deserving" isn't about logic or a good argument it is nothing more than a set up for a emotional appeal to "IS NOT FAIR!" I knew this from the start. So yes, go "debate" a creationist. Maybe they would understand your emotional substances-less argument.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
" Its not possible answer yes/no because I have to accept there is such a thing"
There is a definition for the word "deserve", look it up. And either it applies to people, or it does not, which is my very question. So fine, your answer is "no" - even though you for some reason could not answer it yourself. God, I feel like I am talking to a 13 year old troll.
You use words like "emotional rhetoric" with no foundation for such claim.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
You making the statement "emotional rhetoric" does not make it so. The concept of "fairness" is not an emotional one. It is a logical one. But since you do not understand that, obviously you have no concept of fairness. In which case, like I said earlier, you win. The system you want is the unfairest there is, and it works to keep the economy going. Good job.
Now please leave. Thanks.
(END 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
"The concept of "fairness" is not an emotional one."
Hey, what do you know, your actually talking about an actual psychological issue!!! To bad your still false. Fairness is nothing more than emotional impulse in the moral part of our brains.
"So fine, your answer is "no" "
So your still beating your wife then? The actual answer is not applicable. Your to much of an ass to realize that.
TheAtheistPaladin 8 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
No, it is a concept. Ever hear of that word before? I know it is new to you.
You actually have to explain logically why an answer is not applicable. I can tell you that I do not have a wife and never beat her, and hence that question does not apply. You cannot do that with my question.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
You have got to be the biggest asshole I have ever debated, and the most illogical. I take it you are not going to do what you said 5 comments ago and leave me alone? So I gotta keep fielding your idiocy because i just cannot let it go when some