Jump to content

France Unrest


Recommended Posts

Too many posts to comment this late at night, but what can I do.. Start quoting The conversation has been off track for sometime now(I thought it was about political systems), partly because of me, but certainly you some dudes aren't helping on keeping it on track

Anyway,

quote:

Originally posted by Soback

In capitalism you are free to make the money and to keep it. You are NOT hurting anyone by keeping it.


I disagree. By keeping all the money by yourself, while you could help others, you hurt them by doing so.

Also, let's assume you've build your house and otherwise arranged your life(as well as, say, 10 000 other people has done aswell), because of the factory and jobs around the village, then the owner suddenly shuts the factory(in name of effiency) and kick all 10k of people into unemployment.. The owner of that factory really causes unneccessary suffering to the people of that village.

quote:

And do not try to say how it's the price of living in a society. The price of living in a society is ZERO. That's right, ZERO.


Forgot the police, fire deparment, hospitals and etc. again? Later in your paragraph you admit that fact(basic functions, uphold by goverment), yet you are saying that?

quote:

Originally posted by Prez

First of all, unlike you, I am able to produce posts of a constuctive nature on my own without cutting and pasteing the first stuff I find on a google search...

...

EXCERPT: "A fatal gun accident, particularly when a child is involved, often makes state or national news. This gives the impression that: fatal gun accidents are more prevalent than other fatal accidents, gun accidents are increasing, and civilian gun ownership must be further restricted or regulated.

The reality does not correspond to the perception created by media coverage. Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drownings or burns than from gun accidents. "

(Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).


I'm delighted to see that I have good influence on you.

quote:

The link you posted are worse than useless considering that the country with the highest gun ownership will naturally be the one with the highest accidental death rate due to guns. Is that the best you can come up with?


*yawns*

quote:

Originally posted by Soback

---You must have seen a little too many westerns. Do you know about Europe, there's a little country there called the Swiss. Their gun ownership is unsurpassed even by US.


I decided to quote Soback on that, I bet you believe him better than me and my useless sources. Don't know if it's so that swiss has more guns per ppl..

quote:

Originally posted by Prez

All of the thoughts in the above post are mine. Is that a little intimidating?


Actually it is, I keep seeing nightmares about your logic.

Good night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Seeing as how you still have yet to yield any shred of value to this conversation, I intend to tune out any further nonsense from you. Of course, any time you wish to actually have a serious discourse, I am always game. Until then, I'm sure you'll continue to post what I'm sure you believe to be clever quips instead of anything substantive.

As an aside, I feel I would be doing myself a rather large disservice were I to actually allow you to be an influence on me given your current state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you insane, Volio?

You saying I am hurting them by keeping the money I have made? That's like saying that my next door neighbor is hurting me by making more and having a bigger house. Or the guy with a better car is hurting someone without a car. The fact remains, the money I have made is MINE, and therefore is MINE to keep. Others are free to make money, just like I am. And don't give me the bs about opportunity of jobs, ect...first thing is you can not work at burger king and expect to make 100k a year to buy yourself a house and a car, second you need to be qualified for a high paying job, and third, if there are NO jobs, then start a bussiness and work for yourself or go plow fields, but make NO demands on un-earned wealth. If I chose not to give my property to a bum, I am not hurting him, he has hurt himself. If I chose not to support a single mother with 3 kids, I am not hurting her, it was her decissions that caused the consequences that got her to the end of being single with 3 kids. Do NOT pass on the responsibility of others onto those who are responsible enough to take care of themselfs.

As far as your factory and the factory owners example goes. Whos factory is it? The workers of the owners? Before the owner decided to make an investment, take a risk, and open that factory, there was NO jobs. If he decides to close the factory down, there will be NO jobs again, just like there was before, it is HIS factory, HIS property, and therefore HIS decision on wether to keep the factory open or close it. Those workers are also free to work in that factory, look for another job, or open up their own factory, just like that owner did. It's all about your initiative, ability, and competence that decides how far you will go in life. Those factory workers are not slaves and indentured servants, so stop treating them as such. Freedom means being responsible for your own life, your choices and their consequences, stop treating people like animals, and stop enslaving the most able ones into your guilt trip of "if you are able to take care of yourself, you HAVE to help others". I as a free man, do not HAVE to do anything.

And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?

Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.

You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.

And since you STILL seem to have trouble grasping the concept of ownership. I will explain it to you another way. Since you think it's ok to take what you haven't earned, here's an example. If you were to trespass on my property, and help yourself to what does not belong to you, the second you have violated my rights and forced yourself on what is rightfully mine, you lost your freedom, and your life. Maybe that will make you understand the concept of who hurts whom. I do not hurt you by having more, you hurt me by forcefully taking the product of my labors (I have worked and earned what I have), when you hurt my by doing that, I will put a STOP to it, which means I take what's mine back, plus interest.

The time will come when enough is enough. It has happened before, and it will happen again. Here's a clue though, people with your mentality do not survive such cycles, they only grow in numbers by the end of a cycle, and are almost non existent at the begining of one. Up to you to figure out where they dissapear to.

[ 12-01-2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and Volio. Here's an answer to your "US torture" comments.

"After decades of ignoring that responsibilities and rights go together, it was perhaps inevitable that an under-educated and easily confused generation should include some who do not understand that the rights granted to captured troops by the Geneva Conventions apply to those who have accepted the terms of the conventions. It DOES NOT apply to people who are not troops and who have violated the conventions' framework."

Do you comprehend the meaning of what is stated above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Are you insane, Volio?


Definately, since I'm depating with a lifeform from totally different cultural context. It is said by ethical relativism - We are, by the way, providing perfect text book example on this. - that both opinions considering the ethical disagreement are equally right. Although they are allowed to state directive critisism towards each other, the other ain't obligated to understand that.

Let us proceed tho.. I'll comment the torturing issue first in order to lay way for the original topic issue.

quote:

Quote originally posted by Soback

"After decades of ignoring that responsibilities and rights go together, it was perhaps inevitable that an under-educated and easily confused generation should include some who do not understand that the rights granted to captured troops by the Geneva Conventions apply to those who have accepted the terms of the conventions. It DOES NOT apply to people who are not troops and who have violated the conventions' framework."


I think I understand it. In other words it only means that those applying on agreed rules are justified requiring fair treatment of human rights(which seems not to include civilians or terrorists).

One might ask who's rules are they? Humankind's? God's? But rather than sailing in such deep waters I hang onto more simple issue.

quote:

You are not "free" to go harm another, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.


Based on preceeding quote I assume that you agree on causing pain to other people(unless: he might be requesting it, which may still be immoral) is wrong.

Ethical philosophy has certain concept called Universalation, originating from Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative.

To put it simple: if you say that causing pain to others is wrong, then it is ALWAYS wrong, no matter what. You don't want torturing to become general law. It only applies plausible to moral claims, which question about torturing certainly is.

To illuminate it further so that the most ignorant reader can understand it, I'll put it this way:

If person X states a moral claim in some situation, he must accept that claim in every other possible situation. Otherwise he is conflicting his own morals.

Thats why I claim that torturing in any form and by the cover of any excuse is WRONG!

What comes in the orginal issue, I don't have to comment it any further for preceeding arguments stands firm against the moral justification of capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Voli0:

If person X states a moral claim in some situation, he must accept that claim in every other possible situation. Otherwise he is conflicting his own morals.

So if I consider murder wrong, but somebody breaks into my home, threatens the life of myself and my family, and I end up killing them in self defense, then I MUST accept and admit that I murdered someone and what I did was wrong, otherwise I would be conflicting with my own morals???

Sorry, but not everything in life is black and white. There are many shades of gray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

So if I consider murder wrong, but somebody breaks into my home, threatens the life of myself and my family, and I end up killing them in self defense, then I MUST accept and admit that I murdered someone and what I did was wrong, otherwise I would be conflicting with my own morals??? [Roll Eyes]


In princible yes. If you truly think that murder is wrong, your conscience starts nagging. Although you can justify it to yourself that you had no choice.

Analytical ethic thinking(which universalation rule is)isn't required according to it's innovators on situations that requires instant response. In those situation you must use normative, intuitive moral thinking, based more on your insticts and intuition.

BUT, there are also theories in philosophy that allows you to calculate the relation between morality and immorality but it's problematic because it allows sick occurances.

You can calculate that by killing the assaultant, even that would mean violating your own morals, you would save more lives by wasting him.

I won't say out loud those sick occurances it may allow, instead I wait and see if someone can dug them up by doing little thinking.

Anyway, I've been drinking some beer now and my thinking may go more plurry that it already is, so I will refrain from posting anymore.. Actually, I will be away at least for couple of days. I gonna go seeing my parents and friends in different region now that I finally got few days rest ahead of me,

-v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Beer ? The finnish I knew were better at drinking vodka than beer [Wink] And strange language. Ougro-Finnian if I recall correctly. Common roots with hungarian and basque.


Even tho I were about refrainin' of posting more on my current state I think this is a post I can reply without making utter fool of myself.

I guess I'm breaking some traditions by drinking beer. Actually finns don't drink that much Vodka. We got our tradional grainbooze called Koskenkorva.

Right you are about the language.. Have you ever been in Finland, since you seem to be travelled quite a lot?

quote:

So, except that the US and Switzerland are located on earth, there's not much in common between these systems


Haha, I can buy that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...