|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Not that I like Paul on all topics (cf sex), but that particular verse is invariably taken out of context. In context he's way less of a shithead. What I heard was that it was Paul upbraiding Christians who were abandoning their roles in society because they were convinced the end was nigh.
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I think the idea is that money is only worthwhile if the only way to get it is by adding value to society, and that its purpose is perverted otherwise. Your example is questionably in service to your argument. There's plenty of super-high end and luxurious private healthcare forming in countries with assistance programs that reduce or remove cost for the poors. From true universal HC like Britain's NHS to Switzerland's superior implementation of, basically, Medicaid. About the only thing that'd eliminate your Koch example from the face of the earth would be full communism/literally erasing all classes. Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:39
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Cingulate posted:Hm. I am very surprised by the intensity of the responses. Is it possible some here have read me as saying something like: Here's what you actually said: Cingulate posted:That's the point. But maybe you're playing Activity or writing your thesis in continental philosophy. And then later: Cingulate posted:There Seele to be a fundamental misunderstanding here - I have no idea what you're talking about. These are actually two different positions. The former position is that money is how society assigns value (or "caring") to people, actions, things, etc. In that world, a person with more money is more valuable to society than a person with less money. And by "value" I don't mean dollar value. As an example, if there was a single man who was responsible for keeping the entire West Coast US electrical grid working, and no one else could do his job, his value to society would be immeasurable but he probably wouldn't make the same kind of income as Bill Gates (why not? Because people are rarely ever paid what their work is actually worth). The latter post just says that people with more money can buy more stuff. This doesn't mean that society "values" that person more, so it doesn't really fit with the prior post. "Society will care more about you" is kind of a vague statement. If you're at the grocery and you have twice as much income as the guy behind you, the clerk isn't going to treat you twice as well or bag your groceries twice as fast. To further portray the differences between your posts, I'll do what someone else did and bring up a mugger. In the former post, the mugger breaks the hypothesis; thievery is not a valuable service to society yet it can still pay extremely well. In the latter post, the mugger fits the hypothesis just fine; the mugger has more money and can buy more stuff with it. The reason that so many people are responding to you is that a common thread in libertarian/neoconservative thought includes the idea that people with more money are intrinsically more valuable to society, and that's the idea to which (most) posters are responding. But you've professed that you don't agree with this, so whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:What I heard was that it was Paul upbraiding Christians who were abandoning their roles in society because they were convinced the end was nigh. I think that was a different passage but I might be misremembering. I do enjoy citing that idea in a vague sense, the end has been nigh for well over two thousand years. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Your example is questionably in service to your argument. There's plenty of super-high end and luxurious private healthcare forming in countries with assistance programs that reduce or remove cost for the poors. From true universal HC like Britain's NHS to Switzerland's superior implementation of, basically, Medicaid. About the only thing that'd eliminate your Koch example from the face of the earth would be full communism/literally erasing all classes. Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Your example is questionably in service to your argument. There's plenty of super-high end and luxurious private healthcare forming in countries with assistance programs that reduce or remove cost for the poors. From true universal HC like Britain's NHS to Switzerland's superior implementation of, basically, Medicaid. About the only thing that'd eliminate your Koch example from the face of the earth would be full communism/literally erasing all classes. Good luck. I'm not saying that someone having the spare cash for a huge arbitrary donation ought to be impossible, but the idea that philanthropy or "voluntary taxation" would make up for an actual system, or somehow absolves robber barons of responsibility for hoarding wealth, is clearly absurd yet constantly parroted by the conservative outlets-that-be. I meant that the American health system gets less social bang for its buck not just because of endowments misaligned with public health needs, but because we have the biggest best facilities that you can totally get the best care if your name is Mr. Mahfouz, but if you're poor then you don't even get to wait in line. I just lost my train of thought in my previous post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Here's what you actually said: "money is a means of quantifying how much value society places on a good, service, or even human being" "the point of money is to quantify how much society cares about something." (These are the same) "society will treat you better if you're richer" (This is a different, but very related and entirely compatible thing.) I don't know man, I appreciate that you seemingly actually read my posts and bothered to respond to it in detail, but I don't think it's a very good reply. E.g. you say: QuarkJets posted:""Society will care more about you" is kind of a vague statement. Cingulate posted:here I was super vague and half assed Or QuarkJets posted:If you're at the grocery and you have twice as much income as the guy behind you, the clerk isn't going to treat you twice as well or bag your groceries twice as fast. This is of course not all about money - there is class, and race, and so on - but money is a huge part of it. So you're correct that one could bring forward an absolutely incompetent and idiotic reading of my half-assed vague post - like "in every aspect of life, how society treats you is a linear function of your income" - and then one would have provided an absolutely incompetent and idiotic reading of my half-assed vague post. But I'm a bit at a loss of why one wold put in the effort. And after that, I still don't get why you're talking about the hypothetical, parallel-universe, moustached Cingulate who said "people who have more money are inherently morally superior" (e.g. all the mugging examples). I really don't mean any of this in a disrespectful way. I guess I just don't quite get the dynamics of this thread, and what people are concerned with. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
It's not a great mystery, your statement was ambiguous and people, me included, inferred a stronger interpretation than it turns out you meant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's not a great mystery, your statement was ambiguous and people, me included, inferred a stronger interpretation than it turns out you meant. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:No, and I know you know better than this. It is true that this is not a linear function, but if you earn more, you'll shop in nicer shops, people won't suspect you of trying to rob the store, people will generally treat you with more respect, and eventually, if you earn way too much, society will pressure other people into buying your groceries for you. And these people will, in turn, be treated with less respect than you. That's a good point, I can shop at the Food 4 Less or Wal-Mart near my house and get some items for as much as half off what I would pay at Ralph's, but sometimes I like to drive out to Ralph's because it just feels nicer to be there, doesn't feel like a factory farm for people, etc. Also you have to phrase things carefully and use lots of qualifiers on D&D or people will think you're batting for the wrong team.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:That's probably the most level-headed response to any of my political posts I've seen in a long time. Maybe it's because you're pretty abrasive and must always be right??? Just a thought
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Maybe it's because you're pretty abrasive and must always be right??? Stinky_Pete posted:That's a good point, I can shop at the Food 4 Less or Wal-Mart near my house and get some items for as much as half off what I would pay at Ralph's, but sometimes I like to drive out to Ralph's because it just feels nicer to be there, doesn't feel like a factory farm for people, etc. I think there's even harder examples than yours - places with a security guard or three in front of it. Places in gated communities. And the maximal contrasts, some dirty rear end store in a ghetto. How much you earn determines if society allows you to buy at places where you're very unlikely to get stabbed or buy spoiled food that will kill your 3 year old.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:That's probably the most level-headed response to any of my political posts I've seen in a long time. VitalSigns summed up what I was trying to say but in just one sentence. That makes me pretty mad. VitalSigns you're a poo poo! Cingulate posted:? They're substantially different even if they're related. The former two sentences represent ideas used by "might makes right" and just world fallacy idiots (case in point, fringe libertarians are terrible about doing this), and that's what people were responding to. "Having more money allows you to buy more stuff and receive better service" isn't really controversial at all. It's easy to see how wording can allow someone to interpret that you meant one when you actually meant the other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:In principle, that's what I wanted to say and the smiley was sad reflective me, but just for you, I'll throw in a "maybe we're all a bit wrong". Goddamn you sound like South Park rear end in a top hat in this post
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:VitalSigns summed up what I was trying to say but in just one sentence. That makes me pretty mad. Also, it's not just about having purchasing power. It runs deeper. I don't think I'm actually telling you anything new here, but just think about class. You will be treated preferentially just for having (or, to make it more graspable, looking like you have) money, even if you don't spend it. Even if you don't bribe the cop/buy expensive stuff at the store, you will be treated better simply because you dress like money and talk like ivy league and smell like your wife, or her house staff, operate a very good washing machine. If you look like enough money, people won't tell you to buy stuff or leave, so you're actually free to not spend money on virtue of having money to spend. Twerkteam Pizza posted:Goddamn you sound like South Park rear end in a top hat in this post
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Oh, I totally see how the sentences in question totally allow all of these terrible readings. I'm just surprised that that's how they were read. It just feels uncharitable. You're always nice to me in the Python thread IIRC. No just the viewers who take their opinions from that piece of poo poo show "Maybe everyone's wrong" is a loving stupid ideological basis for them
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:No just the viewers who take their opinions from that piece of poo poo show
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Oh, I totally see how the sentences in question totally allow all of these terrible readings. I'm just surprised that that's how they were read. It just feels uncharitable. You're always nice to me in the Python thread IIRC. This is the libertarian thread, when someone says something here that could be interpreted as laissez-faire assholism then in 99% of cases that was the intended interpretation. quote:Also, it's not just about having purchasing power. It runs deeper. I don't think I'm actually telling you anything new here, but just think about class. I think that's actually a perfect example of how "society values you more if you have more wealth" is proven false; merely having the appearance of wealth is sufficient to receive better treatment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This is the libertarian thread, when someone says something here that could be interpreted as laissez-faire assholism then in 99% of cases that was the intended interpretation. Isn't it just a readjustment to "society values the idea of wealth"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Oh, I totally see how the sentences in question totally allow all of these terrible readings. I'm just surprised that that's how they were read. It just feels uncharitable. You're always nice to me in the Python thread IIRC. I wasn't trying to be a dick; I like you. I assumed the stronger interpretation because it bears some similarity to common conservative and libertarian arguments so I brought up some counterexamples. Your actual meaning didn't occur to me because "people with more money tend to get treated better" is pretty obvious and there doesn't seem to be much point in just stating it by itself but whatever data storage is cheap these days so why not. I suppose if I really wanted to I could contend that what you meant isn't strictly true either and there are intervening factors, black people often don't get the same treatment as similarly dressed white people in department stores for example, but that'd be kinda pedantic of me if you're not using that statement as the basis for some greater conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I think that's actually a perfect example of how "society values you more if you have more wealth" is proven false; merely having the appearance of wealth is sufficient to receive better treatment. You can sell me an overpriced good, but that doesn't mean money is not something we use to buy things by exchanging tiny sheets of printed paper whose labels sum up to roughly the asking price. It just means the system is fallible. Also, the important interpretation of the quote goes in the other direction; it's not about what the value of something is, but what the purpose of money is. Think of money as a tool. A tool for what? Simplifying the logistics of trade (so you don't have to actually bring your cow to exchange for my cloth)? Okay, that's a good hypothesis. But how about this hypothesis: the purpose of money is to quantify the value society places on something. I won't stand tooth and nail by it, but it seems fairly enlightening at first sight. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This is the libertarian thread, when someone says something here that could be interpreted as laissez-faire assholism then in 99% of cases that was the intended interpretation. VitalSigns posted:I wasn't trying to be a dick; I like you. But here's the angle: one might think of money as something like gold, or virtue, or bus tickets. But actually, it's primarily in the same category as race, sex and class. Money is not primarily a means of obtaining goods or such. It rather is one of the measures society puts up to people (or stuff) to decide how to treat them, just as it takes the standard of race or sex or beauty to people and punishes them if they don't live up to the standard. It also makes it a bit easier to handle the logistics of obtaining goods and services, of course. Is that the best, or necessarily correct, way of looking at things? Probably not. But I think it's an interesting angle. And it's probably really different from how somebody who wants to get back to the gold standard thinks about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Maybe I'm not paying sufficient attention, but I don't actually think there's any actual libertarian posting presence here. Not at the moment, no
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Literally everyone is wrong though. you mean in that specific argument or in social philosophies overall? The latter is applied to south park dipshits
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Not at the moment, no *solemnly flips the next page on the "Days Since Last JRod Post" chart*
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:*solemnly flips the next page on the "Days Since Last JRod Post" chart* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zLfCnGVeL4
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:Speaking of which, it's one thing to attack unemployed people for not being able to work during a strong economy, but what about during recessions when businesses don't want to hire? There are (if my personal acquaintances are anywhere near a decent sample) a loooot of people who believe that 100% employment is always possible if people simply want it bad enough. Their delusion is abetted by McDonald's keeping "help wanted" signs up all the time so they can have high employee turnover and thus minimize job security.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Literally everyone is wrong though. I think you can support both theories, frankly
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Depending on how you mean this, either some people are... heh... LESS wrong than others, and we are thus becoming less wronger over time, hopefully, OR human commnication is a black and meaningless gulf in which we howl ultimately empty phrases at each other to gussy up what is, at best, elementary ape behavior, and at worst, simple nihilism. But that would certainly be a day very, very far away, and until then, we have a lot of pointless bickering to be done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
People who think marking yourself with the liberal flag means you absolutely tow the Democratic party line on every issue...
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The scariest thing would be if actually one day, we might know everything there is to know. Then, we'd know the day of our (collective) death, and that there is nothing to be done but screw and watch TV until the cosmic lights go out. Don't worry, even if we collectively learn everything there is to know, and even if it was possible for one person to learn all of it, and even if every act of creative expression has been performed, willful ignorance will always be with us, like a lovely stubborn angel.  fake edit: wait, do you think we can conclusively know our theories about the universe are true? Aren't you a strict Popperian?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Don't worry, even if we collectively learn everything there is to know, and even if it was possible for one person to learn all of it, and even if every act of creative expression has been performed, willful ignorance will always be with us, like a lovely stubborn angel. Or maybe science will simply stop regardless. I'm not saying this is likely, and I consider a more traditionally Popperian outlook more probable I guess, but it's fundamentally not impossible that science will end. That doesn't mean we know everything about the world - we understand it in full; just that we know everything knowable. Super depressing. Also, lmao@lovely stubborn angel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
I never really "got" Kuhn, but this is probably a conversation better suited to the Philosophy thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The scariest thing would be if actually one day, we might know everything there is to know. Then, we'd know the day of our (collective) death, and that there is nothing to be done but screw and watch TV until the cosmic lights go out. code:
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:I never really "got" Kuhn, but this is probably a conversation better suited to the Philosophy thread.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Yes, the libertarian thread should be unambiguous Popper/Lakatos terrain. Give jrod half an hour and he'll write a post citing Feyerabend to show that science only advances in a stateless society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
wherefore we can look upon the depiction of the Nazi's and their super science in popular media, if only there were less regulations on medical testing, and the best speakers commanded production, we could advance more quickly as a society, source: wolfenstein
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Gahmah posted:wherefore we can look upon the depiction of the Nazi's and their super science in popular media, if only there were less regulations on medical testing, and the best speakers commanded production, we could advance more quickly as a society, source: wolfenstein Is a man not entitled to his something something you get the reference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
"Follow the NAP" is so vague that you can justify literally anything with it, so I'd be curious to see if a libertarian has used it to justify Nazi medical experiments. Something like "if a person is low on money and signs a contract then I see no issue with removing their limbs in an attempt to induce a regenerative response, it sounds like a win-win for the person and for medical science!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
"Follow the NAP!" I shouted as I unloaded my gun on the trespassing prospector.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:32
|
|
