I can see where it could be considered that way. I don't really care though. People making poor choices is not my problem nor anyone else's. I don't think bailing idiots out by giving them money for their poor choices will fix anything other than the guilt you feel over ruined lives. It won't stop a moron from being a moron.
Civility is highly subjective and you couldn't refute that even if you wanted to. There are always going to be gray areas in "civility" so accepting some values and not others is the norm. While I wouldn't straight up kill a child, I also don't feel it my personal responsibility to save all of them from poor circumstances. I don''t think that is uncivil, just not as civil as you would like hence the subjectivity.
Indeed. FFL? lol
You already know what my answer would be. lol Take care of your business barring any physical/mental ailment that makes it impossible for you to do so. If crazy good healthcare is what you are worried about, then make that a higher priority than say, the iphone 12. Prioritize your funds so that the things you need are taken care of. get a better job. What you should not do, is expect others to pick up the slack for the choices you have made.
And it's a huge drain on the economy especially when there have only been a few social programs that actually work.
Their lives could also be improved if they turned the aid they already are entitled to into opportunities for themselves. Instead, you get people that live off of this because you don't have to put forth any effort to survive.
Where has this been proven? The Finland experiment failed horribly from what I understand and it is supposedly one of the biggest social program countries in the world. It has helped the economically poor countries somewhat, but that was private organizations and the actual proof that it could be sustained was still not known.
I am not educated enough in economics (even took 3 classes on it in college but I still feel woefully ignorant of it) to explain this but I will say that the research that is available, the economy actually improves so the net effect is more money is being made and spent on average.
What I don't know is if this is due to a greater work-force participation or that people are actually getting paid more, on average, OR if it is a combination of the 2.
If your taxes includes things for universal healthcare (it does) and basic income for the poor (it does), then you pay it and you do it honestly (if you're a Christian or wish to participate in a civilized society).
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Yes, that doesn't mean that any form of taxation is ethical, just that if you live in society you should pay your taxes. That doesn't mean the government has an excuse to tax us for any reason.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
You're arguing from the position of fringes. This is not what the research shows us happens in UBI systems. Just the opposite. Sure, there will always be the lazy leeches. They will exist before and after a UBI system. The good news is, the leeches seem to be fewer in UBI systems. So you support UBI, now, right? Because it reduces those freeloaders you despise, right?
So you don't care about the elderly and the children: whether they live or die? Then you do not want to participate in a civilization. You want anarchy.
And, no, you're wrong about the "civilization" as that's the definition of civilization:
If you are not civilized, you're not a civilization. A "system" where no one takes care of the other and every person for themselves is anarchy: the exact opposite of a civilization.
If you wish to make your society more civil, you civilize:
to bring out of a savage, uneducated, or rude state; make civil; elevate in social and private life; enlighten; refine:
And to be civil:
adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy:
You cannot claim to be civil if you do not want to be part of a civilization, by the definition. If you disagree that we should get to live in a civilization, that's fine. Maybe you like anarchy and prefer that type of system: that is your political belief. And we can agree to disagree. I prefer civility and living in a civil civilization.
Then let's cancel the following:
1. Welfare.
2. Medicare.
3. Medicaid.
4. All government subsidies.
5. All of government.
Because your proposal is not possible unless you implement anarchy. Every person for themselves. Every person must take care of themselves. No governments because government exist, especially the United States government, to create "a more civil union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."
Again, it has been shown that the greater drains on the economy are poor healthcare and shitty welfare system. It's not a none or none system. Our current system is a "poorly some" system that could be made better into a "much more but costs everyone less" system.
Why care so much about the fringes, though? Why detriment and throw out the entire system simply to spite the fringes? What about everyone else who will benefit?
But now we aren't talking about my original point anymore. We just simply got you to agree that taxes are not charity and that Jesus taught to pay your taxes. Since we agree there, do you want to revisit the original point we were discussing? We got off on this tangent because you were stating that taxes were charity and that the bible does not teach to forcefully make people pay charity.
This actually hasn't been shown to decrease anything as it hasn't happened anywhere long enough to have any proper backing. It failed in Finland. So, no, I don't support it.
Are you upset? It seems like you are upset.
I don't feel it is my responsibility to support other people's children or the elderly in a fiscal sense. That is not the same as not caring about them living or dying and it most certainly not anarchy. lol Your exaggerating immensely to try and push your point.
Civilization:
1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
(We are good there)
2.those people or nations that have reached such a state.
(Good here)
3.any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group:Greek civilization.
(the "any" part supports the subjectivity as cultures are very different.)
4. the act or process of civilizing, as by bringing out of a savage, uneducated, or unrefined state, or of being civilized : Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.
(The Romans also did ****ed up shit, so again, civility is subjective no?)
5.cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation:
The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.
(no issues here)
6.cities or populated areas in general, as opposed to unpopulated or wilderness areas:
The plane crashed in the jungle, hundreds of miles from civilization.
(Good here too)
7. modern comforts and conveniences, as made possible by science and technology:
After a week in the woods, without television or even running water, the campers looked forward to civilization again.
(This doesn't state that it should be given to you, merely that it be available)
None of the above definition refutes my statement.
Since I'm not in favor of anarchy and that is simply something you made up about me this whole thing falls flat.
I have stated in other threads that i am not opposed to welfare and other social services as long as the recipient is willing to work for them and try to lift themselves up to a point where they no longer need it.
To me it is more humane and civil to get people to work and educate them to help themselves while becoming productive members of society rather than just giving them shit. You know, help them progress our civilization and not just give me the warm fuzzies.
And there was a decline in employment for two demographics: new mothers and young men (who completed secondary education through grade 12 and attended college more often compared to the control group).
Also, your point about failing in Finland, I already addressed it. It was not actual UBI and so few participated that it can't even be considered "science." Let's be clear that it was sensationalized as UBI but actually was not UBI.
This is a very odd question to ask so randomly.
No, not at all. I am enjoying this conversation. Why would you ask if I'm upset? Is it because I'm cutting to the core problem of your perspective being indistinguishable from anarchy? Does it seem like my argument is a bit harsh and difficult to digest? If so, I can try to soften the arguments a bit so it does not seem so harsh.
Okay, I'll try now: from my perspective, your position seems no different than anarchy. I can directly quote you 3 times, now, making statements that are no different than Pure Anarchy. Forgive me if that is offensive or you feel that mischaracterizes your position: I cannot distinguish your perspective from anarchy and I have asked you at least once in this conversation to flesh out your perspective a bit better because the line you're drawing seems either be a terrible slippery slope or anarchy.
Then what are taxes for? You do realize that taking care of the less fortunate, through your taxes, is a benefit to you, right? Why don't you realize that you live in a civilization and what happens to the least among you impacts you, economically?
Your position is anarchy. It is not distinguishable from anarchy. Maybe you think anarchy is derogatory but many don't. Many hold your position. Even very educated, published, academics hold anarchist beliefs and they can support their positions quite well.
They do and you pretending like the definitions of civilization don't exist does not help your case. I've demonstrated that there is no word game necessary. As is defined by the myriad definitions of civilization, failing to treat your fellow civilians with civility is to fail to be civilized. Else it ceases being:
the act or process of civilizing, as by bringing out of a savage, uneducated, or unrefined state, or of being civilized :
an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
You tried but failed to make this a word game about "civilization" or "civilized" simply because I used it in a very solid argumentation construct. But you are arguing from a position of anarchy which is the opposite of civilization. You're trying very hard to make this a philosophical debate about the definition of a particular word but is that actually being honest at all? Do you dislike the idea of being civilized (as I've clearly argued) so you must play a word game instead of arguing against the point of social constructs? Be honest. Do not keep playing word games as it is unnecessary to do with me. Don't try to avoid making a proper rebuttal (in your defense, your last point is a proper rebuttal, and, unsurprisingly, we agree and it leads us both to the same conclusion). Actually stick to the topic instead of drowning in a meaningless word debate that clearly indicates you're not honestly participating in a discussion. Anyone can keep swimming down the hole of "it's all subjective" and that, from my experience, is the sign that a person does not have an argument. They (and you're included) think it is philosophical sophistry but it is actually sophomoric debate at best and obvious perfidiousness at worse.
Now, if you wish to continue this word game, we can put it to bed. I am very clearly talking about a specific definition of "civilization." I am referring to the civility and social well-being that is inherit with highly civilized human organizations. Perhaps this fits the British definition:
"a human society that has highly developed material and spiritual resources and a complex cultural, political, and legal organization; an advanced state in social development"
But because you're making me have to go look at dictionaries to find a definition that clearly fits with what any reasonable and normal person would already understand, you can see how your argument about "it is all just subjective and no one can truly define what civilization means" is just silly. If you do not want to have any responsibility towards others, do not live in a civilization. Start an anarchical thunderdome and battle for your riches. If you prefer civilization, pay your taxes and keep responsibility towards your fellow citizens. Then watch as your money goes to people and organizations that did not work for it.
Then you are in direct favor of the UBI that I advocate and others in this thread have touched on. In fact, no reasonable person has suggested a UBI that works like I believe you think it works. It is always a graduated system that works like a larger, but graduated, welfare system. The welfare system would be scrapped completely. The system I believe that is best is the Fair Tax. It has a few problems, of course, but it fixes the tax system and implements a form of UBI.
Then based on what you're stating here and the results of some of the UBI research, you advocate and support UBI because the research shows people are able to get educations and that they work more often thus being more educated and working more often: your personal and subjective definition of high-civilization.
So we agree. You want the type of UBI that I want. You want the UBI that Backfire discussed. You want the UBI that Robtard talked about. We want the same thing. Have you now changed your mind and agree that we agree?
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
There was very little evidence, one way or the other amittedly, to prove if it works or not. You know this to be true. They stated there was very little evidence they could gather at all. Not to mention they cited that the fact that all volunteers knew it was temporary could have been the reason no one stopped working.
Finland tried a basic income plan and it failed. If you want to discount it because it does not fit your narrative, meh, okay.
It just seemed to go from "this is a great talk" to "you're a ****ing anarchist bro" pretty quick. lol I would like to thank you have had enough discourse with me to know that I'm not really offended by anything, but in case you didn't, I am not offended.
I'm confused as to what pure anarchy is to be honest with you because from what I have read, it is a broad and diverse train of thought.
To be clear, I don't want to remove government completely. It is necessary imo, but I would like to limit their involvement in several areas (mainly business).
I'm not against taxes. They are necessary to fund road systems, police force, militaries, etc.
I am against giving people money while receiving nothing in return. Therefore, I would support a welfare system that actually required recipients to receive a trade school education (or even college education) while performing undermanned jobs. You know, something useful for the money we dole out. I don't see how that's bad.
It would benefit me if they did something other than just survive from the welfare. See comment above. Them just being alive doesn't necessarily benefit me at all. You can say that if they have money they will spend it but it was actually money that we could have spent ourselves regardless. If they died, all that happens is we don't have to pay for their upkeep any longer if you want to go the economic route.
I see my way as more economically fruitful in the long run and more civilized.
So call it what is bro, nobody truly knows what a civilization is unless they agree with your absolute idea of it, no? Civilization, and to be civil, are highly subjective, whether you choose to agree or not. How many barbaric civilizations have there been that thought they were civilized? Just because I don't want to give my money away for free doesn't mean I'm not "civilized". I simply think there are better ways of going about helping my community. Believe what you want though.
I am not in favor of it as you have explained it. i'm not okay with just giving people money. If, say, this money has to go to education to better yourself, then sure I'll play along. If you have to perform high demand skilled labor for said income then I'll play along, but if you want to just hand it out so people can do with it what they will, then no, I don't support that.
__________________
Last edited by socool8520 on Oct 21st, 2017 at 01:58 AM
I don't think this tests morality or whatever. it's simple. a baby is something you can physically see...it's emotions and all that. it's much easier to have feelings towards something you can hear cry and physically see and interact with than a life form still in the womb.
it's equivalent to people being more emotionally disturbed by seeing someone shot dead in front of their face rather than seeing people die on the news. You can see 100 people die by firing squad on the news but it won't illicit the same response as even personally seeing a person lose a limb.
so this hypothetical proves nothing.
__________________ QUANCHI112:In between the passes Khan will tear out the orca teeth and use them as an offensive weapon. Khan has crushed a skull before so tearing a tooth off a whale should be no issue.
[QUOTE=16370589]Originally posted by Bentley 1 Child vs 5 Old people (over 80)
Go! [/QUOTE
depends on the child. if we are coming at this from the perspective of who may better serve the world and be less of a burden than five 80 year olds may serve more purpose than a child with downs who will only be a drain on others. the child may offer happiness to their parents but they will be a net drain to society.
i'm not saying I live my life thinking like this...but we need a basis to come from to answer your question. morality doesn't have a singular definition
__________________ QUANCHI112:In between the passes Khan will tear out the orca teeth and use them as an offensive weapon. Khan has crushed a skull before so tearing a tooth off a whale should be no issue.
intellectually honest from our individual point of view? this all depends on the viability and potential of the embryos compared to the child if I was coming at this as a person with no connection to the already born child
__________________ QUANCHI112:In between the passes Khan will tear out the orca teeth and use them as an offensive weapon. Khan has crushed a skull before so tearing a tooth off a whale should be no issue.
I like how you did this. you're one of the few who try to examine this from different schools of thought
__________________ QUANCHI112:In between the passes Khan will tear out the orca teeth and use them as an offensive weapon. Khan has crushed a skull before so tearing a tooth off a whale should be no issue.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 20th, 2017 10:30 PM
