The following is the precursor that lead to this thread about Libertarianism and Socialism and any other  form of government others wish to add to the discussion. 

Views: 5179

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

A person who made $22 an hour won't work 2 or 3 jobs paying $9 an hour because they don't want to, not because they can't.



Can you back that up with evidence as it sounds like an emotional response of loathing and resentment on your behalf?

Check out my 23 hours ago response to Alice. I do not live anywhere special in the US. There are thousands and thousands of such places. Shit, my dad, swept hair, put asbestos in gloves and spray-painted speed limit signs to support his family while taking the bus when he could afford a piece of shit car. But, that's probably because of the great economy in the 1950's and not his self-reliance, right?

You do know your country is in its worst state economically ever right?

As in it could not possibly be any worse, it owes more money than it can even pay the interest on. I don't think you are comparing apples with apples when you compare current conditions to the 1950's as in the 1950's america had just financially indebted the entire world to it during world war 2. 

I know the economy was better then in terms of debt. It just doesn't matter. He worked shit jobs that paid shit and saved. You can do that now. I'm just saying, I call bullshit on the no jobs thing. I see them everywhere. It's bullshit propaganda spit out by the politicians, media and pundits. Anyway, I don't think it is the job of the government to provide jobs.

You are in a period of total economic collapse, Fortuantely your industry would be one of the last to suffer. The Auto industry gone, The heavy industry manufacturing...gone, your last remaining decent petroleum sources...gone, your light industrial machinery manufacturing...gone. Some people are in so much debt from fat cat real-estate shonks that any amount of money they earned would just keep one more sheriff off the door step of the park they live in. I think you truly have no understanding of adversity. You are obviously very lucky and have had a great education along with a good family life, I don't think you understand what its like to be a person in any other position. What if you were beaten as a child, abused by drunken parents, not had clothes purchased for you to go to school, had your medical conditions ignored by both your parents and the state. All this and yet you manage to somehow get a job, buy a house and then it is all taken away from you because of corrupt bankers. You are now living on a park bench, no clothes for job interviews, you smell like crap and are hungry. I wonder how your own comments would sound then..........you are fortunate don't assume you know the depths of others misfortune....

bump

Kacie Tsao,

It is not an appeal to emotion. You are straw manning me here. Because someone else like Glen Beck wants to whine and cry about nostalgia, that is not what I am talking about.

We are now continually, less and less, still reaping the benefits of a government based on individual rights, despite our ever increasing socialist tendencies, is all I'm saying. You came up with that feeling shit, likely because of some emotional response you have to my position.

MCT,

Freedom and individual rights, the greatest good. Ok. But I think you mean to say freedom from the tyranny of the masses not freedom for the masses. You cannot be that educated and yet so naive to believe the shit you spout. Your hyper-sensitivity for infringement of your freedom and rights vs. disdain for the rest of humanity. So I think maybe you have a eugenic solution in mind. Your system is an abject failure based on the nature of man so you intend to change the species. Right?

BTW in an earlier post you were talking thoroughbreds to illustrate singularity vs. dependency. I know more than a little about thoroughbreds and great thoroughbreds develop under the tutelage of trainers. Bad trainers ruin potential champions. Perhaps you have heard of Seabiscuit.

Glen,

I'm not sure if I have the right conversation in mind, but are you referring to the horse does not owe anything to the other horses argument? I don't get your point.

Right, masses of people should not have freedom or rights or any moral consideration. Only the individual should have freedom, rights and consideration as it pertains to government. People may associate in groups all they want, great, just not to influence government.

I do believe the shit I spout.

How can you say my system is an abject failure? It has never existed.

The species will eventually become extremely diversified, I think, and when we leave here or build new countries on water, we may accomplish a more moral society where people are free and value achievement and liberty instead of need and sacrifice.

"Have you ever completed a psycopathy test?.,.....I think there is a good chase you are a psychopath or at least a sociopath. Maybe also look into narcissistic personality disorder."

-OK, this should be apparent as nothing more than an emotional ad hominem attack, but just in case it is not clear, let me explain.

It is my job, to ascertain the the medical decision making capacity and autonomy of my patients in the emergency room as part of the informed consent for treatment process. I am being published this year in a medical ethics book on the subject as it pertains to altered mental status. They do not let just any psychopath evaluate and care for the brains and bodies of people coming in for emergency care at a large university level I trauma center. I have been given medical licenses by the states of Ohio, Illinois and Missouri. Sure, it is theoretically possible that they all missed that I am a raging serial killer, but I have made no delusional comments or shown evidence to that end. None of my claims about myself are exaggerated. I commit no serious crimes and I have not here demonstrated a propensity to do so. But, I do abhor the culture of sacrifice in the world. In other words, there is no reason to say that I am a psychopath or a sociopath, other than to insult out of frustration, immaturity and a lack of argument.

And as for suggesting that I have narcissistic personality disorder, let's know what we are talking first. One with a personality disorder has the problem of not being able to reflect on their personality traits and taper them to a situation. A person with narcissistic personality disorder, will ignore how they relate to other people, certainly not describe their rational egoism in a long explicit formal description of their morality. They have no reciprocity during conversations and this affects and causes problems in multiple areas of their life including work, family and play. This does not describe me. I do, however, have narcissistic personality traits, that I have the ability to control, mitigate and amend, such as grandiosity and a sense of superiority. I do not have others such as preoccupation with myself or an inflated sense of self-importance. Describing with confidence an explicit morality of rational self-interest is not the same a narcissism, it's not really even close.

MCT - what do you think it is then - why do your comments upset many?  why do they appear to many as being lacking in empathy?  I'm very curious.....

Pretty much all my theories on this matter lead me to thinking that there is something amiss with you.......  but I accept that this is an emotional rather than rational assessment.

You must have had this before when expressing your views on such matters - what are your thoughts on the reactions you get?

When a new perception or conception comes into our awareness (disregarding what goes on in the brain that it is not aware of, for now), we necessarily have an emotional reaction. How we have previously stored objective concepts from subjective perceptions creates a state that can react fast without having to take the time to process all of the info. The very basic is reflex (completely built in), then instinct, then emotion and finally, in humans, which makes then distinct and unique, is our ability to reason (completely learned/programmed from sensory input) through perceptual and conceptual stimuli over time integrating it properly.

These more primitive forms of guidance are very useful for us to live, we need them all, lest we could not act appropriately and would break down, if not die, quickly. Our brain constantly is laying out a prediction of what the future will be like, in this case, I refer to the entire brain, continually predicting that the chair we are sitting on will stay still, or that things go according to our little mini-plan for the universe around us in the very near future, so that when it changes from our plan we can recognize it and deal with it, like avoiding a banana peel as we are walking (our brain 'says' "Hey, that's not supposed to be there"). When we are presented with a new stimulus, if it matches our goals for our personal values, we have a positive emotion. If it is something that does not integrate well with our predicted worldview we have a negative emotion. These occur by very real and causal connections from the central nervous system to our autonomic nervous system to our somatic nervous system back to our brains where these physiologic changes are interpreted by our cortices as feelings. These emotions are a guide that help us act when we haven't fully integrated a stimulus properly or fully. You cannot rely on these feelings for knowledge. Something is not known until it is processed by reason, the art of noncontradictory integration of perceptual evidence.

Right 'off the bat', you guys have a negative emotional response because you have stored concepts in your head with non-essential characteristics and it messes up your ability to properly integrate new information. Like, always attaching, negative characteristics to selfishness, when they are not necessarily part of that concept, or thinking that one can possibly judge inappropriately, or that the process of trade between consenting parties is a source of suffering, or that sacrifice is good, or that groups of people are entities with rights, or that morality is something outside the brain other than a set of principle to guide an individual's actions. The brain forms proper concept a particular way and when you don't follow it correctly and embrace it, you fall back to emotion, because it keeps you safe in your experience. We have been taught from this at times harsh reality that reverting back to our emotions is safe. Our reflexes to curl up into the fetal position or appeals to mommy's compassion by crying are ingrained in all of us, some more than others. It is the same structural phenomenon of telling a theist there is no god and why they cannot magically re-conceptualize many of the first several thousand concepts they've learned. In my experience, only if a very little amount of re-conceptualization is needed to achieve a clearer understanding can it be done. But I have, myself, and seen others, over longer periods of time succumb to reasons inevitable triumph. Reason sticks because it is supported by reality. All other misconceptions come and go, eventually. Think about the last few thousand years, reason has been, and will always be, the only pervasively functional tool to gain knowledge.

My ideas make people feel bad because they directly oppose what is beaten into all of us by, well everyone else not able to embrace rationality and be as intellectually honest as possible. A couple thousand years of worshiping sacrifice will do that to a planet.

That's why.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service