lowing, how could you possibly say that about him? He is hands down the most rational, calm and intelligent debater I have ever seen on this site. He challenges you like no one has ever, and all I see you do is try and twist his post and words to suit you. A.K.A cherry pick. You have no credibility at this point, bc Rooster has won in many peoples eyes.lowing wrote:
you are speaking in circles, and I believe purposely confusing the issue and now you make no sense whatsoever.RoosterCantrell wrote:
What you quoted from me there and what you said are not the same.lowing wrote:
"some people may not be mentally healthy or physically healthy enough". <------- Yeah, ya are.
I am speaking about people with problems or situations, you said "Who can't take responsibility" as if they are dodging responsibility. That's where I said "no".
After all I said, I am pretty clear on that. I try to give examples and situations, but it seems to have come back to that old stereotype. slicing and picking is easy. it's the WHOLE post or paragraph that is important. You're cutting out key aspects that better explain my idea.Or, doing it your waylowing wrote:
Nope, I said the lazy and and the parasites love liberalsim and benefit the most from its ideology. Are you really going to deny that?So, lowing, are you saying you love liberalism and benefit the most from its ideology???? I think you are.....lowing wrote:
Nope, I said the lazy and and the parasites love liberalism and benefit the most from its ideology. Are you really going to deny that?
I endorse helping those that help themselves, less people with certain disabilities or children. If this is what he is saying, then he does not need a full page post stating it. Also if this is his belief then we are in agreement. I have made my position clear as a bell on this issue for several years now. If he agrees with me then why the epic posting?destruktion_6143 wrote:
lowing, how could you possibly say that about him? He is hands down the most rational, calm and intelligent debater I have ever seen on this site. He challenges you like no one has ever, and all I see you do is try and twist his post and words to suit you. A.K.A cherry pick. You have no credibility at this point, bc Rooster has won in many peoples eyes.lowing wrote:
you are speaking in circles, and I believe purposely confusing the issue and now you make no sense whatsoever.RoosterCantrell wrote:
What you quoted from me there and what you said are not the same.lowing wrote:
"some people may not be mentally healthy or physically healthy enough". <------- Yeah, ya are.
I am speaking about people with problems or situations, you said "Who can't take responsibility" as if they are dodging responsibility. That's where I said "no".
After all I said, I am pretty clear on that. I try to give examples and situations, but it seems to have come back to that old stereotype. slicing and picking is easy. it's the WHOLE post or paragraph that is important. You're cutting out key aspects that better explain my idea.Or, doing it your waylowing wrote:
Nope, I said the lazy and and the parasites love liberalsim and benefit the most from its ideology. Are you really going to deny that?
So, lowing, are you saying you love liberalism and benefit the most from its ideology???? I think you are.....
I think we need to realize something very important here:
Those who label themselves liberals in this country, those who have kidnapped the term here, are not liberals in the classical sense or likely in the sense of those outside the US.
That is the wall you are all beating your collective heads against. The people that lowing can't stand are not the same ones the others are defending, in general. The labels mean different things here and elsewhere...thus the descriptions used are far more important than the labels.
Those who label themselves liberals in this country, those who have kidnapped the term here, are not liberals in the classical sense or likely in the sense of those outside the US.
That is the wall you are all beating your collective heads against. The people that lowing can't stand are not the same ones the others are defending, in general. The labels mean different things here and elsewhere...thus the descriptions used are far more important than the labels.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I don't know where this is coming from but yes, liberals in the classical sense means libertarian. The label liberal in the US means socialist or left, but I would hardly call the liberals here in the US socialist, they more like a middle right conservative party.FEOS wrote:
I think we need to realize something very important here:
Those who label themselves liberals in this country, those who have kidnapped the term here, are not liberals in the classical sense or likely in the sense of those outside the US.
That is the wall you are all beating your collective heads against. The people that lowing can't stand are not the same ones the others are defending, in general. The labels mean different things here and elsewhere...thus the descriptions used are far more important than the labels.
From what I've read in these post, I fail to see any confusion on these points. I think most people know what an American style liberal is.
What I do see is however, is Lowing's narrow arguments faltering. You introduce a speck of reality and magically, poof, his arguments vanish into a cauldron of contempt for the least among us, who he lovingly refers to as "lazy parasites." IMO Lowing will never be happy with American politics because no govt since Hitler, or possibly Stalin could pacify his contempt. If I had to term Lowing's politics I think it could best be best categorized as a form of socio-economic darwinism where its survival of the fittest based on personal responsibility/ability with only a very narrow silver of mercy to be shown for the truly disabled. In any respect its a pretty harsh way to deal with people and why ideas like his would never ever be implimented in a western style democracy. Anyway, I sure wouldn't want to have to count on Lowing's merciful side, or any tyrant's for that matter, because it might just be spelt "gulag" or "auschwitz"... that's the way I see it .
The key area where Lowing's politics fall apart is that its in large part dependant on the notion that only cream rises to the top. Unfortunately we all know that scum also rises to top. And of course what is scum and what is cream can be endlessly debated and you would be better off beating your head against a wall....
quoted for the truth.FEOS wrote:
I think we need to realize something very important here:
Those who label themselves liberals in this country, those who have kidnapped the term here, are not liberals in the classical sense or likely in the sense of those outside the US.
That is the wall you are all beating your collective heads against. The people that lowing can't stand are not the same ones the others are defending, in general. The labels mean different things here and elsewhere...thus the descriptions used are far more important than the labels.
Labels suck.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
The terms Republican and Liberal have been kidnapped, as has Socialism.
Here's the kicker.
In the global economy, Australia, which is socialist/social democrat with a dose of capitalism, is doing OK.
Germany, which is similar, is one of the few Western countries with a trade surplus and is doing OK.
Even communist China isn't doing too bad, having overtaken the USA in GDP.
People working together as a team can achieve more than paranoids mailing bombs from mountain-top shacks.
Here's the kicker.
In the global economy, Australia, which is socialist/social democrat with a dose of capitalism, is doing OK.
Germany, which is similar, is one of the few Western countries with a trade surplus and is doing OK.
Even communist China isn't doing too bad, having overtaken the USA in GDP.
People working together as a team can achieve more than paranoids mailing bombs from mountain-top shacks.
Fuck Israel
that's actually the response i got when i tried describing lowing's viewpoint to a friend (i didn't mention names ofc) - i didn't repeat it here because it seemed a tad harsh.socio-economic darwinism
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Yeah yeah yeah, I am a Nazi, got it.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I don't know where this is coming from but yes, liberals in the classical sense means libertarian. The label liberal in the US means socialist or left, but I would hardly call the liberals here in the US socialist, they more like a middle right conservative party.FEOS wrote:
I think we need to realize something very important here:
Those who label themselves liberals in this country, those who have kidnapped the term here, are not liberals in the classical sense or likely in the sense of those outside the US.
That is the wall you are all beating your collective heads against. The people that lowing can't stand are not the same ones the others are defending, in general. The labels mean different things here and elsewhere...thus the descriptions used are far more important than the labels.
From what I've read in these post, I fail to see any confusion on these points. I think most people know what an American style liberal is.
What I do see is however, is Lowing's narrow arguments faltering. You introduce a speck of reality and magically, poof, his arguments vanish into a cauldron of contempt for the least among us, who he lovingly refers to as "lazy parasites." IMO Lowing will never be happy with American politics because no govt since Hitler, or possibly Stalin could pacify his contempt. If I had to term Lowing's politics I think it could best be best categorized as a form of socio-economic darwinism where its survival of the fittest based on personal responsibility/ability with only a very narrow silver of mercy to be shown for the truly disabled. In any respect its a pretty harsh way to deal with people and why ideas like his would never ever be implimented in a western style democracy. Anyway, I sure wouldn't want to have to count on Lowing's merciful side, or any tyrant's for that matter, because it might just be spelt "gulag" or "auschwitz"... that's the way I see it .
The key area where Lowing's politics fall apart is that its in large part dependant on the notion that only cream rises to the top. Unfortunately we all know that scum also rises to top. And of course what is scum and what is cream can be endlessly debated and you would be better off beating your head against a wall....
This latest "argument" is as almost as fucked up as your re-defined welfare argument.
I value less govt. involvement, I endorse personal freedom, I believe in holding oneself accountable for their actions, and you call me a Nazi. Hate to, yet again, break it to ya, but nothing of what I believe or value is remotely close to that of a fascist Nazi regime. Sorry.
You mean being accountable for yourself and your actions is "socio-darwinism". Are you sure you didn't kinda evil me up a bit?Spark wrote:
that's actually the response i got when i tried describing lowing's viewpoint to a friend (i didn't mention names ofc) - i didn't repeat it here because it seemed a tad harsh.socio-economic darwinism
Well, I don't think you would ever be happy in a western style democracy, because your politics are too harsh, so the nearest thing that ever existed that actually enacted a solutions for lazy parasites would be Germany or the USSR or UK's poor houses, OR US's depression work camps or perhaps there is something else like a third world country that doesn't have the tax base to support a welfare state. You see when I try to envision the world you are describing, I see Mumbai or Calcutta where you have some people doing very well and then you have vast slum lands. And I really can't see how that preferable to what we have now.lowing wrote:
Yeah yeah yeah, I am a Nazi, got it.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I don't know where this is coming from but yes, liberals in the classical sense means libertarian. The label liberal in the US means socialist or left, but I would hardly call the liberals here in the US socialist, they more like a middle right conservative party.FEOS wrote:
I think we need to realize something very important here:
Those who label themselves liberals in this country, those who have kidnapped the term here, are not liberals in the classical sense or likely in the sense of those outside the US.
That is the wall you are all beating your collective heads against. The people that lowing can't stand are not the same ones the others are defending, in general. The labels mean different things here and elsewhere...thus the descriptions used are far more important than the labels.
From what I've read in these post, I fail to see any confusion on these points. I think most people know what an American style liberal is.
What I do see is however, is Lowing's narrow arguments faltering. You introduce a speck of reality and magically, poof, his arguments vanish into a cauldron of contempt for the least among us, who he lovingly refers to as "lazy parasites." IMO Lowing will never be happy with American politics because no govt since Hitler, or possibly Stalin could pacify his contempt. If I had to term Lowing's politics I think it could best be best categorized as a form of socio-economic Darwinism where its survival of the fittest based on personal responsibility/ability with only a very narrow silver of mercy to be shown for the truly disabled. In any respect its a pretty harsh way to deal with people and why ideas like his would never ever be implemented in a western style democracy. Anyway, I sure wouldn't want to have to count on Lowing's merciful side, or any tyrant's for that matter, because it might just be spelt "gulag" or "auschwitz"... that's the way I see it .
The key area where Lowing's politics fall apart is that its in large part dependant on the notion that only cream rises to the top. Unfortunately we all know that scum also rises to top. And of course what is scum and what is cream can be endlessly debated and you would be better off beating your head against a wall....
This latest "argument" is as almost as fucked up as your re-defined welfare argument.
I value less govt. involvement, I endorse personal freedom, I believe in holding oneself accountable for their actions, and you call me a Nazi. Hate to, yet again, break it to ya, but nothing of what I believe or value is remotely close to that of a fascist Nazi regime. Sorry.
Anyway every time you post I learn a little more because IMO there are more people out there who think like you. They get real angry when you challenge them, but they won't open up to tell you their politics or their reasoning.... perhaps because because to talk about it would cause them public embarrassment or something.
So I'm not going to label you nazi or stalinist, I am going to label you a socio-economic darwinist, survival of the fittest. Personally I understand the idea of having incentives, negative incentive is the flip side of personal responsibility. The question is how far do you need to go with the incentives and for what reasons. Do you need to drive masses of people into abject poverty and starvation in order to achieve the necessary level of incentive for your society to work? Is it that you see a failing society today and so more incentive or more harsh treatment of lazy parasites is required? Because at that point I would have to state that perhaps society is failing for another reason (and I'll refer back to my previous post) that being that scum also rises to the top ie wall street fiascoes.
Man, you are quite the drama queen. I beleive in personal responsibility and holding individuals accountable for their actions ( umm I include my self in that belief by the way) and you take it to survival of the fittest and my endorsing people starving and dying in the streets while driving the masses into poverty so I might, alone mind you, be the sole surviver of my own kingdom.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Well, I don't think you would ever be happy in a western style democracy, because your politics are too harsh, so the nearest thing that ever existed that actually enacted a solutions for lazy parasites would be Germany or the USSR or UK's poor houses, OR US's depression work camps or perhaps there is something else like a third world country that doesn't have the tax base to support a welfare state. You see when I try to envision the world you are describing, I see Mumbai or Calcutta where you have some people doing very well and then you have vast slum lands. And I really can't see how that preferable to what we have now.lowing wrote:
Yeah yeah yeah, I am a Nazi, got it.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I don't know where this is coming from but yes, liberals in the classical sense means libertarian. The label liberal in the US means socialist or left, but I would hardly call the liberals here in the US socialist, they more like a middle right conservative party.
From what I've read in these post, I fail to see any confusion on these points. I think most people know what an American style liberal is.
What I do see is however, is Lowing's narrow arguments faltering. You introduce a speck of reality and magically, poof, his arguments vanish into a cauldron of contempt for the least among us, who he lovingly refers to as "lazy parasites." IMO Lowing will never be happy with American politics because no govt since Hitler, or possibly Stalin could pacify his contempt. If I had to term Lowing's politics I think it could best be best categorized as a form of socio-economic Darwinism where its survival of the fittest based on personal responsibility/ability with only a very narrow silver of mercy to be shown for the truly disabled. In any respect its a pretty harsh way to deal with people and why ideas like his would never ever be implemented in a western style democracy. Anyway, I sure wouldn't want to have to count on Lowing's merciful side, or any tyrant's for that matter, because it might just be spelt "gulag" or "auschwitz"... that's the way I see it .
The key area where Lowing's politics fall apart is that its in large part dependant on the notion that only cream rises to the top. Unfortunately we all know that scum also rises to top. And of course what is scum and what is cream can be endlessly debated and you would be better off beating your head against a wall....
This latest "argument" is as almost as fucked up as your re-defined welfare argument.
I value less govt. involvement, I endorse personal freedom, I believe in holding oneself accountable for their actions, and you call me a Nazi. Hate to, yet again, break it to ya, but nothing of what I believe or value is remotely close to that of a fascist Nazi regime. Sorry.
Anyway every time you post I learn a little more because IMO there are more people out there who think like you. They get real angry when you challenge them, but they won't open up to tell you their politics or their reasoning.... perhaps because because to talk about it would cause them public embarrassment or something.
So I'm not going to label you nazi or stalinist, I am going to label you a socio-economic darwinist, survival of the fittest. Personally I understand the idea of having incentives, negative incentive is the flip side of personal responsibility. The question is how far do you need to go with the incentives and for what reasons. Do you need to drive masses of people into abject poverty and starvation in order to achieve the necessary level of incentive for your society to work? Is it that you see a failing society today and so more incentive or more harsh treatment of lazy parasites is required? Because at that point I would have to state that perhaps society is failing for another reason (and I'll refer back to my previous post) that being that scum also rises to the top ie wall street fiascoes.
The truth is far less dramatic. I want to hold people accountable for their actions because no one else is.
I posted this before and it is what killed the thread, I assume because it made sense and could not be argued against.
There are at least 2 rules in society that are flawless.
1. the golden rule. Do onto others as you would have done onto you.
2. accept responsibility for yourself and your actions.
Now, if everyone adhered to these rules, would our society wind up like you suggest, starvation and death of the masses piling up in the streets, or something a little better?
Believe it or not, those 2 rules, define my core beliefs. I try to treat others as I would want to be treated, and I do accept responsibility for myself and my actions. What I find so amazingly funny, and the reason I hate liberalism, is those ideas are revolting to your ideology, so much to the extent you feel the need to insult me and label me some sort of heartless animal for suggesting it..
I live by one moral... IMO its the prime moral from which all other morals are derived and its respect. Respect for yourself, respect for everyone and everything.lowing wrote:
Man, you are quite the drama queen. I beleive in personal responsibility and holding individuals accountable for their actions ( umm I include my self in that belief by the way) and you take it to survival of the fittest and my endorsing people starving and dying in the streets while driving the masses into poverty so I might, alone mind you, be the sole surviver of my own kingdom.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Well, I don't think you would ever be happy in a western style democracy, because your politics are too harsh, so the nearest thing that ever existed that actually enacted a solutions for lazy parasites would be Germany or the USSR or UK's poor houses, OR US's depression work camps or perhaps there is something else like a third world country that doesn't have the tax base to support a welfare state. You see when I try to envision the world you are describing, I see Mumbai or Calcutta where you have some people doing very well and then you have vast slum lands. And I really can't see how that preferable to what we have now.lowing wrote:
Yeah yeah yeah, I am a Nazi, got it.
This latest "argument" is as almost as fucked up as your re-defined welfare argument.
I value less govt. involvement, I endorse personal freedom, I believe in holding oneself accountable for their actions, and you call me a Nazi. Hate to, yet again, break it to ya, but nothing of what I believe or value is remotely close to that of a fascist Nazi regime. Sorry.
Anyway every time you post I learn a little more because IMO there are more people out there who think like you. They get real angry when you challenge them, but they won't open up to tell you their politics or their reasoning.... perhaps because because to talk about it would cause them public embarrassment or something.
So I'm not going to label you nazi or stalinist, I am going to label you a socio-economic darwinist, survival of the fittest. Personally I understand the idea of having incentives, negative incentive is the flip side of personal responsibility. The question is how far do you need to go with the incentives and for what reasons. Do you need to drive masses of people into abject poverty and starvation in order to achieve the necessary level of incentive for your society to work? Is it that you see a failing society today and so more incentive or more harsh treatment of lazy parasites is required? Because at that point I would have to state that perhaps society is failing for another reason (and I'll refer back to my previous post) that being that scum also rises to the top ie wall street fiascoes.
The truth is far less dramatic. I want to hold people accountable for their actions because no one else is.
I posted this before and it is what killed the thread, I assume because it made sense and could not be argued against.
There are at least 2 rules in society that are flawless.
1. the golden rule. Do onto others as you would have done onto you.
2. accept responsibility for yourself and your actions.
Now, if everyone adhered to these rules, would our society wind up like you suggest, starvation and death of the masses piling up in the streets, or something a little better?
Believe it or not, those 2 rules, define my core beliefs. I try to treat others as I would want to be treated, and I do accept responsibility for myself and my actions. What I find so amazingly funny, and the reason I hate liberalism, is those ideas are revolting to your ideology, so much to the extent you feel the need to insult me and label me some sort of heartless animal for suggesting it..
Love, honesty, good comercial relations, handling property, handling wildlife, sexual orientation, race relations.... everything distills down to respect. you see something, you pick it up to look at it, you put back in its place. To me its the prime moral.
On the self responsiblity for yourself and your actions, the issue there goes back to the incentive and disincentive. I think that when you talk about lazy parasites and welfare what you are saying is that people take advantage of welfare therefore welfare is a disincentive to hard work and worse its an incentive for sloth and laziness... Correct?
On the other hand, myself and others would look at withholding welfare/public assistance as the creation of disincentive or the removal of a needed safety net... and when children are involved I would say that that disincentive goes too far... its like threatening a person by threatening that person's child with harm in order to get them to do something you want them to do. So to me when you state and I'm paraphrasing "welfare for moms, well that's tough, they should have taken personal responsiblity and not had kids" at that point you would be ignoring the plight of the child and that just does not seem very respectful to me. Hence you do come off as an ogor.
So how does your desire for "holding everyone personal accountable" balance with the "do until others as you would have them do unto you" when a person with children is in need. Because I don't see a lot of respect for the child nor do I think that you would want your child in to be put in similar circumstances so you really wouldn't want someone to do that unto you, or would you?
I know you don't want leachers but in reality kids are leachers, they leach off of you right up until (and sometimes after) reaching adulthood. And if an adult is unable, or even unwilling to look after the kid, then society must. So a certain segment of the population by defnintion are leachers and that's just part of the natural order of things. The respectful thing to do is to ensure that kids don't starve, even if its the taxpayer that has to foot the bill.
So while I might appear to be coming off as a bit of an ogor myself, I am trying to circle in on what exactly the boundaries are of your robust statements, but I have to tell you what I don't have patience for is intolerance... because if a person doesn't show respect, then IMO he is asking for none in return.
there's no such thing as a flawless society, since they all involve people, and people are about as flawed as it's possible to be. Unless Lowing has managed to do what centuries of political philosophers and geniuses have failed to do...lowing wrote:
There are at least 2 rules in society that are flawless.
you reading what you want to see again lowing?lowing wrote:
You mean being accountable for yourself and your actions is "socio-darwinism". Are you sure you didn't kinda evil me up a bit?Spark wrote:
that's actually the response i got when i tried describing lowing's viewpoint to a friend (i didn't mention names ofc) - i didn't repeat it here because it seemed a tad harsh.socio-economic darwinism
Um. Er. Dude.lowing wrote:
You mean being accountable for yourself and your actions is "socio-darwinism". Are you sure you didn't kinda evil me up a bit?Spark wrote:
that's actually the response i got when i tried describing lowing's viewpoint to a friend (i didn't mention names ofc) - i didn't repeat it here because it seemed a tad harsh.socio-economic darwinism
Don't mistake me here.
I didn't say that. I said I thought it was a bit harsh.
I only mentioned it because diesel mentioned it, and it sprung to mind at the time.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Liberals aren't social leechers. Fucking hippies and welfare collectors are. /thread
Good post, however, I believe respect is EARNED, ( there is that word again) not bestowed. As far any conflict between the golden rule and holding people accountable, I see none. I guess yo missed the part in mypostings all of these years that I fully endorse taking care of people that are unable to take care of themselves including children.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I live by one moral... IMO its the prime moral from which all other morals are derived and its respect. Respect for yourself, respect for everyone and everything.lowing wrote:
Man, you are quite the drama queen. I beleive in personal responsibility and holding individuals accountable for their actions ( umm I include my self in that belief by the way) and you take it to survival of the fittest and my endorsing people starving and dying in the streets while driving the masses into poverty so I might, alone mind you, be the sole surviver of my own kingdom.Diesel_dyk wrote:
Well, I don't think you would ever be happy in a western style democracy, because your politics are too harsh, so the nearest thing that ever existed that actually enacted a solutions for lazy parasites would be Germany or the USSR or UK's poor houses, OR US's depression work camps or perhaps there is something else like a third world country that doesn't have the tax base to support a welfare state. You see when I try to envision the world you are describing, I see Mumbai or Calcutta where you have some people doing very well and then you have vast slum lands. And I really can't see how that preferable to what we have now.
Anyway every time you post I learn a little more because IMO there are more people out there who think like you. They get real angry when you challenge them, but they won't open up to tell you their politics or their reasoning.... perhaps because because to talk about it would cause them public embarrassment or something.
So I'm not going to label you nazi or stalinist, I am going to label you a socio-economic darwinist, survival of the fittest. Personally I understand the idea of having incentives, negative incentive is the flip side of personal responsibility. The question is how far do you need to go with the incentives and for what reasons. Do you need to drive masses of people into abject poverty and starvation in order to achieve the necessary level of incentive for your society to work? Is it that you see a failing society today and so more incentive or more harsh treatment of lazy parasites is required? Because at that point I would have to state that perhaps society is failing for another reason (and I'll refer back to my previous post) that being that scum also rises to the top ie wall street fiascoes.
The truth is far less dramatic. I want to hold people accountable for their actions because no one else is.
I posted this before and it is what killed the thread, I assume because it made sense and could not be argued against.
There are at least 2 rules in society that are flawless.
1. the golden rule. Do onto others as you would have done onto you.
2. accept responsibility for yourself and your actions.
Now, if everyone adhered to these rules, would our society wind up like you suggest, starvation and death of the masses piling up in the streets, or something a little better?
Believe it or not, those 2 rules, define my core beliefs. I try to treat others as I would want to be treated, and I do accept responsibility for myself and my actions. What I find so amazingly funny, and the reason I hate liberalism, is those ideas are revolting to your ideology, so much to the extent you feel the need to insult me and label me some sort of heartless animal for suggesting it..
Love, honesty, good comercial relations, handling property, handling wildlife, sexual orientation, race relations.... everything distills down to respect. you see something, you pick it up to look at it, you put back in its place. To me its the prime moral.
On the self responsiblity for yourself and your actions, the issue there goes back to the incentive and disincentive. I think that when you talk about lazy parasites and welfare what you are saying is that people take advantage of welfare therefore welfare is a disincentive to hard work and worse its an incentive for sloth and laziness... Correct?
On the other hand, myself and others would look at withholding welfare/public assistance as the creation of disincentive or the removal of a needed safety net... and when children are involved I would say that that disincentive goes too far... its like threatening a person by threatening that person's child with harm in order to get them to do something you want them to do. So to me when you state and I'm paraphrasing "welfare for moms, well that's tough, they should have taken personal responsiblity and not had kids" at that point you would be ignoring the plight of the child and that just does not seem very respectful to me. Hence you do come off as an ogor.
So how does your desire for "holding everyone personal accountable" balance with the "do until others as you would have them do unto you" when a person with children is in need. Because I don't see a lot of respect for the child nor do I think that you would want your child in to be put in similar circumstances so you really wouldn't want someone to do that unto you, or would you?
I know you don't want leachers but in reality kids are leachers, they leach off of you right up until (and sometimes after) reaching adulthood. And if an adult is unable, or even unwilling to look after the kid, then society must. So a certain segment of the population by defnintion are leachers and that's just part of the natural order of things. The respectful thing to do is to ensure that kids don't starve, even if its the taxpayer that has to foot the bill.
So while I might appear to be coming off as a bit of an ogor myself, I am trying to circle in on what exactly the boundaries are of your robust statements, but I have to tell you what I don't have patience for is intolerance... because if a person doesn't show respect, then IMO he is asking for none in return.
Didn't say there was, I mantain the 2 rules I adhere to are flawless.ruisleipa wrote:
there's no such thing as a flawless society, since they all involve people, and people are about as flawed as it's possible to be. Unless Lowing has managed to do what centuries of political philosophers and geniuses have failed to do...lowing wrote:
There are at least 2 rules in society that are flawless.
You talked about my beliefs, and then I was described as practicing "socio-economical-darwinism" based on your description. This is why I ask if you kinda eviled me up a bit.Spark wrote:
Um. Er. Dude.lowing wrote:
You mean being accountable for yourself and your actions is "socio-darwinism". Are you sure you didn't kinda evil me up a bit?Spark wrote:
that's actually the response i got when i tried describing lowing's viewpoint to a friend (i didn't mention names ofc) - i didn't repeat it here because it seemed a tad harsh.
Don't mistake me here.
I didn't say that. I said I thought it was a bit harsh.
I only mentioned it because diesel mentioned it, and it sprung to mind at the time.
I guess there is where the problems is, because how can a rock, or animal or a stranger earn respect without you first knowing that they earned your respect. To me the fact that they exist means that you approach them with respect and deal with them with respect. I don't think that morality that is taken to a persons core is left to their subjective opinion. So if you follow "when you do unto others," to me you are supposed to bestow respect, because morally, how can you look for something that you are unwilling to show to another person. To me its reciprocal.lowing wrote:
Good post, however, I believe respect is EARNED, ( there is that word again) not bestowed. As far any conflict between the golden rule and holding people accountable, I see none. I guess yo missed the part in mypostings all of these years that I fully endorse taking care of people that are unable to take care of themselves including children.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I live by one moral... IMO its the prime moral from which all other morals are derived and its respect. Respect for yourself, respect for everyone and everything.lowing wrote:
Man, you are quite the drama queen. I beleive in personal responsibility and holding individuals accountable for their actions ( umm I include my self in that belief by the way) and you take it to survival of the fittest and my endorsing people starving and dying in the streets while driving the masses into poverty so I might, alone mind you, be the sole surviver of my own kingdom.
The truth is far less dramatic. I want to hold people accountable for their actions because no one else is.
I posted this before and it is what killed the thread, I assume because it made sense and could not be argued against.
There are at least 2 rules in society that are flawless.
1. the golden rule. Do onto others as you would have done onto you.
2. accept responsibility for yourself and your actions.
Now, if everyone adhered to these rules, would our society wind up like you suggest, starvation and death of the masses piling up in the streets, or something a little better?
Believe it or not, those 2 rules, define my core beliefs. I try to treat others as I would want to be treated, and I do accept responsibility for myself and my actions. What I find so amazingly funny, and the reason I hate liberalism, is those ideas are revolting to your ideology, so much to the extent you feel the need to insult me and label me some sort of heartless animal for suggesting it..
Love, honesty, good comercial relations, handling property, handling wildlife, sexual orientation, race relations.... everything distills down to respect. you see something, you pick it up to look at it, you put back in its place. To me its the prime moral.
On the self responsiblity for yourself and your actions, the issue there goes back to the incentive and disincentive. I think that when you talk about lazy parasites and welfare what you are saying is that people take advantage of welfare therefore welfare is a disincentive to hard work and worse its an incentive for sloth and laziness... Correct?
On the other hand, myself and others would look at withholding welfare/public assistance as the creation of disincentive or the removal of a needed safety net... and when children are involved I would say that that disincentive goes too far... its like threatening a person by threatening that person's child with harm in order to get them to do something you want them to do. So to me when you state and I'm paraphrasing "welfare for moms, well that's tough, they should have taken personal responsiblity and not had kids" at that point you would be ignoring the plight of the child and that just does not seem very respectful to me. Hence you do come off as an ogor.
So how does your desire for "holding everyone personal accountable" balance with the "do until others as you would have them do unto you" when a person with children is in need. Because I don't see a lot of respect for the child nor do I think that you would want your child in to be put in similar circumstances so you really wouldn't want someone to do that unto you, or would you?
I know you don't want leachers but in reality kids are leachers, they leach off of you right up until (and sometimes after) reaching adulthood. And if an adult is unable, or even unwilling to look after the kid, then society must. So a certain segment of the population by defnintion are leachers and that's just part of the natural order of things. The respectful thing to do is to ensure that kids don't starve, even if its the taxpayer that has to foot the bill.
So while I might appear to be coming off as a bit of an ogor myself, I am trying to circle in on what exactly the boundaries are of your robust statements, but I have to tell you what I don't have patience for is intolerance... because if a person doesn't show respect, then IMO he is asking for none in return.
So from what I gather now, you are for moms with kids getting welfare if it keeps their kids from starving? And there is a place for a welfare state in your political lexicon.
It really isn't all that difficult, rule number 1 states that you treat people as you would want to be treated. With respect. If they dis-earn that respect through personal action or irresponsibility it is on them not you. I do not respect a rapist, child molester, murderer, thief, or no, not a person who does not work to try and provide a decent living for their kids. A life long welfare mom does not apply. I take care of the kids because of my desire to take care of people that can not help themselves, and kids apply in that category.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I guess there is where the problems is, because how can a rock, or animal or a stranger earn respect without you first knowing that they earned your respect. To me the fact that they exist means that you approach them with respect and deal with them with respect. I don't think that morality that is taken to a persons core is left to their subjective opinion. So if you follow "when you do unto others," to me you are supposed to bestow respect, because morally, how can you look for something that you are unwilling to show to another person. To me its reciprocal.lowing wrote:
Good post, however, I believe respect is EARNED, ( there is that word again) not bestowed. As far any conflict between the golden rule and holding people accountable, I see none. I guess yo missed the part in mypostings all of these years that I fully endorse taking care of people that are unable to take care of themselves including children.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I live by one moral... IMO its the prime moral from which all other morals are derived and its respect. Respect for yourself, respect for everyone and everything.
Love, honesty, good comercial relations, handling property, handling wildlife, sexual orientation, race relations.... everything distills down to respect. you see something, you pick it up to look at it, you put back in its place. To me its the prime moral.
On the self responsiblity for yourself and your actions, the issue there goes back to the incentive and disincentive. I think that when you talk about lazy parasites and welfare what you are saying is that people take advantage of welfare therefore welfare is a disincentive to hard work and worse its an incentive for sloth and laziness... Correct?
On the other hand, myself and others would look at withholding welfare/public assistance as the creation of disincentive or the removal of a needed safety net... and when children are involved I would say that that disincentive goes too far... its like threatening a person by threatening that person's child with harm in order to get them to do something you want them to do. So to me when you state and I'm paraphrasing "welfare for moms, well that's tough, they should have taken personal responsiblity and not had kids" at that point you would be ignoring the plight of the child and that just does not seem very respectful to me. Hence you do come off as an ogor.
So how does your desire for "holding everyone personal accountable" balance with the "do until others as you would have them do unto you" when a person with children is in need. Because I don't see a lot of respect for the child nor do I think that you would want your child in to be put in similar circumstances so you really wouldn't want someone to do that unto you, or would you?
I know you don't want leachers but in reality kids are leachers, they leach off of you right up until (and sometimes after) reaching adulthood. And if an adult is unable, or even unwilling to look after the kid, then society must. So a certain segment of the population by defnintion are leachers and that's just part of the natural order of things. The respectful thing to do is to ensure that kids don't starve, even if its the taxpayer that has to foot the bill.
So while I might appear to be coming off as a bit of an ogor myself, I am trying to circle in on what exactly the boundaries are of your robust statements, but I have to tell you what I don't have patience for is intolerance... because if a person doesn't show respect, then IMO he is asking for none in return.
So from what I gather now, you are for moms with kids getting welfare if it keeps their kids from starving? And there is a place for a welfare state in your political lexicon.
Anyway, I appreciate the more calm, rational, less grating posts. thank you
Last edited by lowing (2009-10-18 16:18:35)
Well, I guess the moral of this story is easy, if you want to send a liberal back into the wood work start talking about respect and personal responsibility. The krptonite of liberalism.
Lowing. You criticize people for blanketing all conservatives under one definition a.k.a neocon christian loving power freakslowing wrote:
Well, I guess the moral of this story is easy, if you want to send a liberal back into the wood work start talking about respect and personal responsibility. The krptonite of liberalism.
So quit fucking blanketing all liberals together. There are varying degrees of the political spectrum, I know not all Cons are as far right as you, and i dont view them as such. And not all Libs are as far left as your theory of "MY money YOUR money"
THAT is the moral of the story.
Yet you can not show me that this is a fact. Show me in your ideology that you do not feel that wealth is to be shared, re-distributed,forcibly by the govt. Give me one example where liberalism as it is in the US, does not believe that "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."... you will understand if I do not hold my breathdestruktion_6143 wrote:
Lowing. You criticize people for blanketing all conservatives under one definition a.k.a neocon christian loving power freakslowing wrote:
Well, I guess the moral of this story is easy, if you want to send a liberal back into the wood work start talking about respect and personal responsibility. The krptonite of liberalism.
So quit fucking blanketing all liberals together. There are varying degrees of the political spectrum, I know not all Cons are as far right as you, and i dont view them as such. And not all Libs are as far left as your theory of "MY money YOUR money"
THAT is the moral of the story.
PS, actually I have never criticized people for their blanket generalizations, unless it was to prove a point of irony. Most generalizations are founded on truth. Something liberals really need to steer clear from, if their agenda is to succeed before 2010
Last edited by lowing (2009-10-20 14:53:46)
lolol lowing doesn't realize he's the different side of the same coin.destruktion_6143 wrote:
Lowing. You criticize people for blanketing all conservatives under one definition a.k.a neocon christian loving power freakslowing wrote:
Well, I guess the moral of this story is easy, if you want to send a liberal back into the wood work start talking about respect and personal responsibility. The krptonite of liberalism.
So quit fucking blanketing all liberals together. There are varying degrees of the political spectrum, I know not all Cons are as far right as you, and i dont view them as such. And not all Libs are as far left as your theory of "MY money YOUR money"
THAT is the moral of the story.