Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

My Beef with "Social Responsibility"

Page 6 of 9 [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 5:27 pm

JWC wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

Wait you admitted some human emotion...why do you want your kids to have a good chance of surviving, what good will that do you? I mean its wonderful you care enough to help them but how do you benefit exactly? I think your kids might benefit more from you giving them that good chance of survival.

.


I love my kids. I don't love yours.

ruveyn


Oh alright I was under the impression you were arguing that the only reason you would do anything for anyone else is if you personally benefit from it. But I think maybe its that you love your kids that might be more of the reason you would save them...not personal gain.


But isn't it still personal gain? His children are something that he values. By protecting their lives isn't he also protecting something that he values. If his children were to die, wouldn't that be a personal loss? Hence, having his children alive is a personal gain.


I still think his children would benefit more from him saving them then he would benefit from saving them. But yes that is a fair point indeed.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 5:29 pm

edgewaters wrote:
JWC wrote:
But isn't it still personal gain? His children are something that he values. By protecting their lives isn't he also protecting something that he values. If his children were to die, wouldn't that be a personal loss? Hence, having his children alive is a personal gain.


Well ... what if the society is something that you value? Then it's personal gain to do anything that benefits it, but that renders the distinction meaningless.


This society can go to hell for all I care, not really sure why I want things to be good for the collective...rather then each individual competing over the resources. But I know I don't value this society so it can't be that.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

24 May 2012, 5:31 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
I still think his children would benefit more from him saving them then he would benefit from saving them. But yes that is a fair point indeed.


You're correct, but the question wasn't concerning the quantification of the benefit, only its existence.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

24 May 2012, 5:32 pm

All this thread proves is that arguing with rock-ribbed rugged individualists is pointless. I just wish that the politicians who agree with this philosophy would be honest with the public and admit that their primary agenda is rugged individualism and social darwinism, instead of pretending they have a clue how to fix the economy.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 5:35 pm

JWC wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I still think his children would benefit more from him saving them then he would benefit from saving them. But yes that is a fair point indeed.


You're correct, but the question wasn't concerning the quantification of the benefit, only its existence.


Yeah like I said, you've destroyed the foundation for which I was trying to make my point with. I was thinking I could keep going a little longer with my flawed line of reasoning before anyone caught on. I realized it was flawed a bit ago. :twisted: But that strictly applies to the specific thing with the children benefiting more from being saved as proof people don't only act on self interest......for now the rest still stands.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

24 May 2012, 5:45 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
This society can go to hell for all I care, not really sure why I want things to be good for the collective...rather then each individual competing over the resources. But I know I don't value this society so it can't be that.


Well, you seem to value it, just not in its present (unhealthy) form.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 5:52 pm

edgewaters wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
This society can go to hell for all I care, not really sure why I want things to be good for the collective...rather then each individual competing over the resources. But I know I don't value this society so it can't be that.


Well, you seem to value it, just not in its present (unhealthy) form.


Well if it was not in its present unhealthy form it would not be the same society. Maybe I value the potential for a better society.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

24 May 2012, 5:53 pm

marshall wrote:
The "nuclear family" is a very artificial arrangement. It only works well when survival is relatively easy due to prosperity and advanced technology. That breaks down considerably when survival becomes harder due to poverty and economic depressions. Psychologically it's not natural at all.


Very true. I am always amused when I hear people complain about how long their kids are staying home now, as if it's something new. These people obviously don't know very much about history, or even other cultures around the world, which still practice the age-old norm of extended families living in the same home for generation after generation. This was how it worked for literally thousands of years, pretty much all of human history. It became a practice among the disenfranchised during the industrial era because they didn't own any land like their feudal predecessors did, but even then, they still practiced it when they could and of course, people of means continued to do so. It's really only after WW2 that it became a universal norm and so far has only lasted for about 3-4 generations before that habitation model seems to be breaking down.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 May 2012, 7:14 pm

JWC wrote:

But isn't it still personal gain? His children are something that he values. By protecting their lives isn't he also protecting something that he values. If his children were to die, wouldn't that be a personal loss? Hence, having his children alive is a personal gain.


Smart as paint, ye arrre. You catch on fast.

ruveyn



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 7:16 pm

ruveyn wrote:
JWC wrote:

But isn't it still personal gain? His children are something that he values. By protecting their lives isn't he also protecting something that he values. If his children were to die, wouldn't that be a personal loss? Hence, having his children alive is a personal gain.


Smart as paint, ye arrre. You catch on fast.

ruveyn


If you'd kept up you'd know this has already been addressed and I already understand the lack of logic in my argument. :twisted:


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

24 May 2012, 7:17 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
This society can go to hell for all I care, not really sure why I want things to be good for the collective...rather then each individual competing over the resources. But I know I don't value this society so it can't be that.


Well, you seem to value it, just not in its present (unhealthy) form.


Well if it was not in its present unhealthy form it would not be the same society. Maybe I value the potential for a better society.


The optimist is out of the closet now ...



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 7:32 pm

edgewaters wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
This society can go to hell for all I care, not really sure why I want things to be good for the collective...rather then each individual competing over the resources. But I know I don't value this society so it can't be that.


Well, you seem to value it, just not in its present (unhealthy) form.


Well if it was not in its present unhealthy form it would not be the same society. Maybe I value the potential for a better society.


The optimist is out of the closet now ...


The optimistic pessimist, yes of course :lol:


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

24 May 2012, 11:08 pm

edgewaters wrote:
I did, that's how I knew it was a strawman to characterize it as some sort of "collective" coming to take your things because they don't like you (which is precisely what you said).

The inference is pretty clear. "Because" points to a cause. You said taxation (presumably) is seen as permissable "because the collective doesn't like you". Cause = not being liked; that's not even an inference, that's just plainly stated. The only inference involved is whether you were talking about taxation or not. Were you talking about something else? In context with Sweet's post it certainly looks like taxation was the issue.

No. We are talking about ruveyn specifically. Sweetleaf stated that ruveyn does not deserve his private property because the collective does not find him friendly or pleasant. There is nothing in my post that infers that the collective does or should take your things (or tax you) because they don't like you.

Do I need to explain myself further? This is getting annoying.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 11:19 pm

Burzum wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
I did, that's how I knew it was a strawman to characterize it as some sort of "collective" coming to take your things because they don't like you (which is precisely what you said).

The inference is pretty clear. "Because" points to a cause. You said taxation (presumably) is seen as permissable "because the collective doesn't like you". Cause = not being liked; that's not even an inference, that's just plainly stated. The only inference involved is whether you were talking about taxation or not. Were you talking about something else? In context with Sweet's post it certainly looks like taxation was the issue.

No. We are talking about ruveyn specifically. Sweetleaf stated that ruveyn does not deserve his private property because the collective does not find him friendly or pleasant. There is nothing in my post that infers that the collective does or should take your things (or tax you) because they don't like you.

Do I need to explain myself further? This is getting annoying.


And where the hell did I state that? I already explained the actual point I was making...and I don't see how you get 'you don't deserve your private property because the collective does not like you.' out of I would hate to have someone all about 'me me me' in charge of where the tax money goes which is more what I was implying. Oh and there was the observation if he was the kid who never shared others probably did not find him to friendly...but that is hardly the same thing as saying someone does not deserve to own their property.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

24 May 2012, 11:30 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
I would hate to have someone all about 'me me me' in charge of where the tax money goes

Tax money doesn't go anywhere or even exist until it is taken from someone. And in this very sentence you have admitted that you believe ruveyn doesn't deserve his private property (or the collective's fair share of it, if you will).



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

24 May 2012, 11:37 pm

Burzum wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I would hate to have someone all about 'me me me' in charge of where the tax money goes

Tax money doesn't go anywhere or even exist until it is taken from someone. And in this very sentence you have admitted that you believe ruveyn doesn't deserve his private property (or the collective's fair share of it, if you will).


Oh I've already gone over how I feel about taxes...I don't see it as stealing Ruven does, maybe you do to, that is up to you. But I never stated Ruven does not deserve his private property nor do I believe that. Quit trying to put words in my mouth and beliefs in my head, it wont work.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.