BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Jay wrote:

Why do you deserve it if you can't pay for it?

It's a philosophical question. If you have provided value to society, you receive payment in return in the form of money. If you've provided no value, you receive no money. By this reasoning, those who earn less money provide less benefit to society as a whole. Because they provide less, they have less access to services etc. Need for money is what keeps people on the hamster wheel and drives our entire society. If you give them free money you destroy the entire system by making people less motivated. Again, it's all philosophical, and it was the entire premise for my argument back then. I don't actually think people should starve in the gutters.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Why do you deserve it if you can't pay for it?

It's a philosophical question. If you have provided value to society, you receive payment in return in the form of money. If you've provided no value, you receive no money. By this reasoning, those who earn less money provide less benefit to society as a whole. Because they provide less, they have less access to services etc. Need for money is what keeps people on the hamster wheel and drives our entire society. If you give them free money you destroy the entire system by making people less motivated. Again, it's all philosophical, and it was the entire premise for my argument back then. I don't actually think people should starve in the gutters.

No, that's just one of the most retarded statements i've ever read. 

Your worth to society is based on your net worth/earnings?  Are you fucking stupid?  So a person has zero net benefit to society until they become a wage-earner?  Dude, you are off the deep end my friend.  Bat-shit insane if that's really your worldview.

Need for money may be what drives you to be a better person.  It sure as hell isn't what motivates me.  And I'm pretty confident saying I've grossed more income than you have at this point even though we're the same age.  No wonder you're so worried about income, wages, your stock portfolio, assets, etc.  According to your logic you're absolutely nothing without them.  What a sad, pathetic way to live a life.

Philosophically speaking, of course.

Last edited by Jay (2012-09-12 18:56:45)

Jay wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uhh, I guess you don't care about free speech...

Where exactly did I say anything about the pastor?  What kind of shithole universe do you live in?

The message issued by the Obama administration basically apologized for free speech. I think they should've been criticized for that, and they were. It's even more silly because the attacks had nothing to do with any video or speech or anything.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Romney moments after the speech accusing the Obama admin of sympathising with the attackers on the embassy:

Kind of a telling moment.

Why? This is supposed to capture Romney snickering to himself because he just made the other guy look bad? Yes, we can clearly draw that conclusion based on this candid snapshot. For all we know he could be laughing because he ripped a fart right before this photo was taken. Don't be so intellectually dishonest.

jsnipy wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

No, that's just one of the most retarded statements i've ever read. 

Your worth to society is based on your net worth/earnings?  Are you fucking stupid?  So a person has zero net benefit to society until they become a wage-earner?  Dude, you are off the deep end my friend.  Bat-shit insane if that's really your worldview.

Need for money may be what drives you to be a better person.  It sure as hell isn't what motivates me.  And I'm pretty confident saying I've grossed more income than you have at this point even though we're the same age.  No wonder you're so worried about income, wages, your stock portfolio, assets, etc.  According to your logic you're absolutely nothing without them.  What a sad, pathetic way to live a life.

Philosophically speaking, of course.

How many lives do you touch in a day? Maybe 100 tops, yes? Would society as a whole miss you if you were gone? It's not about money, money is just a representation of impact.

I know, thinking like that completely fucks over millions of peoples egos.

You are atheist correct?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

a picture of him moments after his speech is "kind of a telling moment" even though it shows nothing other than him smiling? grimacing? who the fuck knows?

so is the fact that he used an unfortunate incident where 4 people died to his political advantage a telling moment, or is the picture you posted the telling moment?  Because you mentioned one in your first post but not the other.

Jay wrote:

But society as a whole cares nothing for that or they wouldn't worship pop celebrities and politicians. Society judges people by their impact, money being the easiest representation.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Looks like Muslims are pissed off again. Why bother going to the expense of parking destroyers off their coasts and wasting bullets, bombs and troops inside their countries? Just sprinkle them with pics-of-Mohammed media and watch their civilization collapse under a suffocating layer of righteous fury.

Superior Mind wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Money is not the only representation of impact.

No, of course not. Some people eschew money altogether (Mother Theresa comes to mind).


Look ken, stop getting your panties in a twist. I don't value a person by their paycheck. I have a whole slew of values that I judge people by: loyalty, being good at heart, not fucking people over etc. But society as a whole cares nothing for that or they wouldn't worship pop celebrities and politicians. Society judges people by their impact, money being the easiest representation. And that is why I believe in small government libertarianism. No one really gives a fuck about anyone outside of their own locale, and you're less likely to screw over your neighbor and get away with it. Large democracies do not work well. Small ones can. I prefer a million small ones to one giant cesspool.

If society were structured like that, a million local and independent democracies, we would have to contend with the potential for tribal warfare/"Greek on Greek" fighting. Due to our present thirst for fast information and goods exchange, each independent group would be forced to have constant contact with others. Trusting each other not to devolve into bandits and raiders would be hard. Societies cannot be forced to be insular or self sufficient unless there are geographic barriers between them and others. Since the Eastern forest is mostly cut down in the US and we have highways everywhere, there is no hope of becoming a land of city states or the like. The only way would be in the case of massive decrease in the population.