08 Sep 2019, 7:32 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
blazingstar wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
blazingstar wrote:
That is not what I said. Please do not twist my meaning. I am not going to argue with you about what I meant.
Otoh, if you want to have a discussion with me, then by all means go ahead.
Otoh, if you want to have a discussion with me, then by all means go ahead.
I see things from a freedom perspective.
Your accusation that "it's shameful" is an anti-freedom perspective, as it means something should have been done to STOP these people from ending up as derelicts. However, to STOP them, then you have to implement anti-freedom measures.
Like, ban these people from using drugs, or implement rent control (so they can afford an apartment) , require employers pay them a "living wage", or a hundred other anti-freedom measures.
I say you should be proud you live in a country that lets these people have the freedoms to become derelicts.
So, I have been thinking about your statements and I have a few questions that may clarify things, if you don't mind.
1. Do we have a choice about where we are born, ie, which country, town, rural, slums, detention camps, etc?
2. Do we have a choice about who are parents are, ie what genetic makeup we are born with?
3. If your mother were dying, hypothetically, and had no insurance, would you let her live with you? Would you help pay her medical bills? Would you look for other sources of help, such as donations?
4. Same question as above, but your mother could live if someone paid her medical expenses?
5. Save question as above, but what if it was your child, your sibling, your cousin.
6. If I haven't reach the limit of your willingness to sacrifice for the benefit of family, how far out would you go? Would you donate a kidney to someone who is not a relative, but you are an exact match for this stranger who will die without a donated kidney? Would you want to help a neighbor? A friend? Someone of your same race, religion, ethnicity?
I understand that you are not willing for theoretical reasons to spend money on the poor or uninsured.
I think we all have ideas about how far out our definitions of family or "who we would help" is and it is worth consideration of what yours (now editorially) might be. I know what Fnord's are because he has posted it in the past. Fnord has a committed system of ethics by which he lives his life and I respect him for that.
What are yours, lovenothate?
There is more to talk about but this is a good start. If you don't feel comfortable answering these questions, that's okay. We can move on to the theoretical. Just let me know. Please. I do appreciate your responses.
You decided to make it personal -- about me -- this is very common for liberal members here.
It comes off as being dishonest.
You don't appear to want to confront the reality of what you propose, so you try and make it seem like I'm a horrible person.
1. Can you specifically show how any member in this thread was dishonest?
2. Can you specifically show how any member in this thread made it personal. What are you talking about? What do you mean by this?
3. Blazingstar asked some legitimate questions. The point I think she is trying to make is that your starting point, your starting deck of cards or genetic allotment, environment, etc impacts and influences the choices one makes and the outcomes one will be in.
So, do we have a choice in what we do and where we will be at or are there other things that are outside of our control that influences what we do and where we will be at? Are we capable as flawed human beings knowing what all of our possible choices are and how it will impact ourselves and others around us?
LoveNotHate, you're making things seem simple when they're more complicated then you think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
Read about Phineas Gage and get back to me and explain in concrete and specific how choice and personal responsibility holds up to the extent that you and other conservatives and personal responsibility advocates claim they do?
08 Sep 2019, 7:48 pm
LoveNotHate wrote:
Blazingstar wrote:
What are yours, lovenothate?
There is more to talk about but this is a good start. If you don't feel comfortable answering these questions, that's okay. We can move on to the theoretical. Just let me know. Please. I do appreciate your responses.
There is more to talk about but this is a good start. If you don't feel comfortable answering these questions, that's okay. We can move on to the theoretical. Just let me know. Please. I do appreciate your responses.
You want to know my ethics.
First, this is a very complicated question, because, I don't even think people choose their ethics.
My base ethics are a form of "egoism", IMO, "psychological egoism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism
However, I think everyone's base ethics are a form of egoism, so that doesn't tell you much.
I value FREEDOM over SLAVERY.
I value the INDIVIDUAL over the COLLECTIVE.
So, if faced with the ethic dilemmas you concocted, it's easy for me to decide.
I would NOT FORCE others into SLAVERY to save myself or my mom.
Would you?
Why does it have to be one vs the other?
And, how is it slavery (unless one is not allowed to leave like the Soviet Union of old) if by the simple fact of being here, taking advantage of society's benefits and "freedoms" you have signed on to an implicit contract with society to follow the rules, laws, values, etc.
We have put into place what is called a Constitutional Republic which replaced the Articles of Confederation. One of the requirements of the Articles of Confederation was unanimous consent by all of the states before anything was done. Nothing was able to be done and the government at the time was not able to pay its debts.
This established president when our Constitution was formed. It established as precedent not only in our government but within our society that unanimous does not work and is no longer required. One hundred percent or unanimous consent is no longer required to make decisions as to what is good for society as a whole.
With this being established, comes the idea of the implicit contract. By being here you consent to whatever our society and our elected representatives decide. So, you're trying to claim that welfare, etc, etc is slavery. It can't be slavery if your implied consent is there. And, you can rescind your consent by leaving. You can go live in the woods somewhere and build your libertarian, capitalistic utopia. You can choose to live in antartica and/or you can choose to go to a different nation that fits more to your beliefs. No one is keeping you here. So, you're not enslaved and it is not slavery. It's pure, unadulterated libertarian and randdroid BS talking points which are WRONG!! !
08 Sep 2019, 7:59 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
08 Sep 2019, 8:11 pm
08 Sep 2019, 8:14 pm
08 Sep 2019, 9:35 pm
08 Sep 2019, 9:36 pm
08 Sep 2019, 9:45 pm
08 Sep 2019, 9:46 pm
08 Sep 2019, 9:48 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
08 Sep 2019, 9:57 pm
08 Sep 2019, 10:00 pm
08 Sep 2019, 10:04 pm
08 Sep 2019, 10:05 pm
08 Sep 2019, 10:09 pm
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,157
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
08 Sep 2019, 10:23 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| SCOTUS - Trump can deport people anywhere |
23 Jun 2025, 6:48 pm |
| Trump accuses South Africa of genocide against white people |
22 May 2025, 6:34 pm |
| Fear of medical procedures |
08 May 2025, 9:03 pm |
| Do you have unexplained medical issues? |
29 Jun 2025, 8:25 pm |
