(Recommended for actual atheists... And yes, I've been watching what's up with Randy.)
I propose the idea that we are not all equal, and though this will involve plenty of nuance, exceptions, and just flat out stupid statements that may be recanted due to the nature of this question. Now, on to the actual evidence.
1. People cannot, and have never been EXACTLY the same.
This is what started this little sprout. There is simply too many possibilities for types people to create a person that is exactly like someone else. This is further compounded by the fact that both time, geography, and even a name of a person will make people both act, and respond differently to that person.
2. People are not perfectly equal in strengths.
Strength is what an individual has that is "a good or beneficial quality or attribute of a person or thing." However, some of us can already point out some instances of inequality in strengths. For instance, Some Machiavellian forum dwellers will agree that a strong amount of kindness in a person is a strength, but does not compare to the strength of high levels of charisma or intellect.
Now, I will add my own opinions into the matter, which will likely be subject to a level of scrutiny that is greater than normal due to the nature of this dialogue. "Give it your best shot," but do mind that we can always disagree or simply drop a specific subsection of this discussion. Onto my opinions and what they mean.
1. Personal Values.
Remember my Venn Diagram? That's basically it. TL;DR? I prefer people who work, are good at work, and have that work benefit others in some way.
2. Expansion of Personal Values.
What I can conclude from my value of work is that work ethic is (at the very least), an important trait, (and at most), the most important trait. For this topic I will assume the former and not the latter. Work ethic is an important trait because without it, people could not have survived to this point. For example, Say there was a lazy ape and a diligent ape. Who is going to get more food for their group?
3. Expansion of Work Ethic.
My largest assumption will be that Work Ethic can be quantified, if not at least put into a spectrum. However, Work Ethic is an almost universal good, and the majority of goods in the world can be quantified to a fair extent. For instance, just as we measure happiness through one's self-opinion in addition to other behaviors such as lifestyle, we can measure work ethic by the ratio of hours worked to hours used for recreation.
4. Spectrums.
My second largest assumption is that this system would be ethical. My only evidence, which is much more like rhetoric, is as follows. "Why give a lazy person equal rights to one who is diligent?"
Its not about being equal. Its about being treated equally. Its about the presumption of equality.
Quote from: Nonsensei on May 12, 2016, 06:25:18 PM
Its not about being equal. Its about being treated equally. Its about the presumption of equality.
Ah, thank you for pointing that out.
Here's what I posted before at the end: "Why give a lazy person more rights than one who is diligent?"
And After: "Why give a lazy person equal rights to one who is diligent?"
Alright. Now, after that revision... Counter that example?
Seriously. This is an instance where I think it is perfectly ethical to give less rights to a person: When they cannot muster enough will to work, or even worse... Absolutely refuse to.
Everyone is totally unequal. You today are not equal to you ten years ago.
The presumption is life is like a fair card game, and while we are dealt the same number of cards, we aren't dealt equal hands. And the rules of the game don't depend on what cards you have (other than that some cards are better than others) or who you are. That is egalitarianism. not equalitarianism.
The other influence is tribal values. In the tribe, everyone gets a piece of the deer, no matter who brings it back to camp. The food or resources are shared equally at least family to family, if not adult individual to adult individual, with appropriate adjustment for how many children you have to feed. Society for the last 2500 years, in the civilized part of the West, isn't like that. Back then the people partlally moved to the city (10%) and established a new city way of doing things. The other 90% stayed on the farm, in bucolic paradise. These country folk in Latin were called "pagani". Of course back then, and all the way to today, the city folk exploit the agricultural folk. They expropriate an disproportionate amount of resources, per capita, in return for certain services. Often this consisted of "protection". This system is the one that still makes it possible for Americans to consume 4x per capita compared to the world average ... partially because we are now 90% city and 10% agriculture ... and there just aren't enough agriculturalists to vampire on.
Quote from: dtq123 on May 12, 2016, 06:32:53 PM
Ah, thank you for pointing that out.
Here's what I posted before at the end: "Why give a lazy person more rights than one who is diligent?"
And After: "Why give a lazy person equal rights to one who is diligent?"
Alright. Now, after that revision... Counter that example?
Seriously. This is an instance where I think it is perfectly ethical to give less rights to a person: When they cannot muster enough will to work, or even worse... Absolutely refuse to.
In the early Roman republic, this was taken care of by the "pater familias" aka god-father. If you didn't work, you didn't eat, and if necessary you were beaten until you did work. No goldbricking in early Rome. Ma-fia = my family. The "pater families" was also responsible for suppressing or conducting vendettas. If you did something to another clan, that the "pater familias" didn't like, then he might punish you, to preclude retaliation by the other clan, or might turn you over to the other clan for punishment (less likely). If the other clan wasn't sufficiently satisfied, they might declare a vendetta to get their pound of flesh.
So, you are looking for a job as a task master on a plantation? Why not be the cotton picker. The man dignifies the work, the work doesn't dignify the man.
Quote from: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 06:39:43 PM
In the early Roman republic, this was taken care of by the "pater familias" aka god-father. If you didn't work, you didn't eat, and if necessary you were beaten until you did work. No goldbricking in early Rome. Ma-fia = my family. The "pater families" was also responsible for suppressing or conducting vendettas. If you did something to another clan, that the "pater familias" didn't like, then he might punish you, to preclude retaliation by the other clan, or might turn you over to the other clan for punishment (less likely). If the other clan wasn't sufficiently satisfied, they might declare a vendetta to get their pound of flesh.
So, you are looking for a job as a task master on a plantation? Why not be the cotton picker. The man dignifies the work, the work doesn't dignify the man.
What are you getting at here? I approve of "Pater familias" if that's how it worked. As for your second statement, I have a quote for you.
"Individual commitment to a group effort - that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work."
-Vince Lombardi
(A friend at school told me about him. He was a good person.)
I am not dismissing the end of slavery. If you prove yourself diligent and not given equal rights, you take those rights for yourself. However, we are talking about the present, where countless of people in the first world are wasting resources that people who work hard just to get to the next meal could use.
Quote from: Baruch on May 12, 2016, 06:35:58 PM
Everyone is totally unequal. You today are not equal to you ten years ago.
The presumption is life is like a fair card game, and while we are dealt the same number of cards, we aren't dealt equal hands. And the rules of the game don't depend on what cards you have (other than that some cards are better than others) or who you are. That is egalitarianism. not equalitarianism.
First off, pardon the odd order, I have last post as first because it feels more natural that way.
Anyway, I guess it's time to just say it. I don't believe in equal rights. There.
I believe that one's rights should be proportional to the amount of work ethic a person has combined with the actual work a person does in relation to recreational time, and how many people it benefits.
Quote from: dtq123 on May 12, 2016, 06:18:05 PM
"Why give a lazy person equal rights to one who is diligent?"
At first blush, I would agree. The problem arises when one tries to pin down what 'lazy' means. Who determines what that is? What may appear to be 'lazy' may be a disability that is uncontrollable. Or the lack of a certain skill. Or any number of other things. Who gets to make up the definition of what lazy is? The same with 'diligent'--who gets to determine what that is exactly?
Quote from: dtq123 on May 12, 2016, 06:52:23 PM
What are you getting at here? I approve of "Pater familias" if that's how it worked. As for your second statement, I have a quote for you.
"Individual commitment to a group effort - that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work."
-Vince Lombardi
(A friend at school told me about him. He was a good person.)
I am not dismissing the end of slavery. If you prove yourself diligent and not given equal rights, you take those rights for yourself. However, we are talking about the present, where countless of people in the first world are wasting resources that people who work hard just to get to the next meal could use.
I strongly approve of your OP. There is too little reality and too many ideals in such discussions.
Yes, we are conspicuous consumers. This was part of the Cold War strategy. See the Robin Williams movie, Moscow On The Hudson. But today, there is no Soviet Union ... so all consumers are useless eaters, since they are no longer necessary for propaganda. Of course in socialist countries today, like Venezuela ... there is on overly lean consumer situation. Standing in lines for hours to get your allocation of toilet paper. Communism is the modern version of tribalism. Everyone is equal in a sense, but society can't make everyone rich, so it makes everyone poor. This is very unfortunate. I really wish the idealists were right, and would stop smoking all that ganja.
Of course we are only talking about sharing in small geographic areas, between the more and less fortunate. Food will quickly spoil when shipped to Africa from N America. American trash dumpsters have it better than most Africans. Of course racists will claim this is because the Africans are unworthy. But the real reason is we have the biggest military, and like the Mafia we are ... make others pay "protection".
So, this thread is about welfare reform? I'm glad it's not trashing equal rights or opportunity. Working retail, I know some ppl are taking advantage of the system. I surmise that most these ppl had a rough life. I know it's hard to overcome my bizarre past, so I understand. It's a cycle of abuse.
Equal opportunity and/or equal ability. There are too many variables in both for true equality. Smart ambitious people can succeed from small beginnings, children born rich can squander it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 12, 2016, 07:20:34 PM
At first blush, I would agree. The problem arises when one tries to pin down what 'lazy' means. Who determines what that is? What may appear to be 'lazy' may be a disability that is uncontrollable. Or the lack of a certain skill. Or any number of other things. Who gets to make up the definition of what lazy is? The same with 'diligent'--who gets to determine what that is exactly?
I agree, but there is some things that people agree that is lazy. Let's try to use that as a jumping point.
As for gentle_dissident... That's basically it. Kinda. I do think that lazy people shouldn't get the right to due process and stuff like that, but you're talking hard working people here so I'ma let it slide.
Quote from: dtq123 on May 12, 2016, 08:23:32 PMI do think that lazy people shouldn't get the right to due process and stuff like that, but you're talking hard working people here so I'ma let it slide.
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."
Unless he's lazy. As determined by me.
In my line of work, i solely have clients living of mother government's teat.
Do a numbers of them scam society be being too lazy to really get out of their empoverished situations. I'd say yes.
However, i frequenly come across countrymen who label all of them or, if they are generous, 90% of them as lazy parasites. Which is just wrong. So i'm not keen on
Quote from: dtq123 on May 12, 2016, 08:23:32 PM
I agree, but there is some things that people agree that is lazy. Let's try to use that as a jumping point.
Vote of popularity does not make something true.
I also often think people confuse poverty with lazyness. If you don't have any options, live in slums, got a deadbeat alcoholic dad mooching off you and bailifs and lawyers keep sucking you dry; yeah i don't think you're going to get much done. But on The surface, from our relatively in control lives and decent appartments, it's easy to say; (s)he Should just get a job. It's harder if that only gets you a hundred euro's more a month and raised your expenses a little an cuts The time you need to handle all that non-work shit.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on May 12, 2016, 07:43:36 PM
So, this thread is about welfare reform? I'm glad it's not trashing equal rights or opportunity. Working retail, I know some ppl are taking advantage of the system. I surmise that most these ppl had a rough life. I know it's hard to overcome my bizarre past, so I understand. It's a cycle of abuse.
I take it, this OP is about resource wasting away inefficiently and unfairly. Particularly food supplies. This is easy to solve. Know a poor person, don't hide from them in your gated community. Assist him/her if they will let you. The best way to assist is to hire them to do something, not give them a handout. Even handicapped people can work, and they do ... stop making excuses for not hiring people because they aren't Superman. You need to stop acting like Batman.
Yes, we are all abused ... and we cycle the abuse generation to generation, community to community, individual to individual. But you are responsible for your own actions now, not what people did to you in the past. Wife beaters need a bullet to the head ... not commiseration over their prior child abuse.
I am not concerned so much about poor people or even kleptos doing a little shop lifting. The company president stealing millions is doing more damage.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 12, 2016, 08:47:50 PM
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."
Unless he's lazy. As determined by me.
dtq123 needs to become a pater, before he can be clan head (pater familias). Then he can discipline his clan, make wars on other clans, and try not to be killed by disgruntled clan members ... aka to be President of the USA.
Rights have nothing to do with being lazy or diligent. Rights are a humanitarian thing. And every one deserves equal human rights period.
As for in other area's then sure lazy people get about what they deserve and are probably happy with it or they'd do something different. Unless it's effecting you directly and even then sometimes there's not much you can do to change it.
One last food for thought
How do you determine who is lazy and who is just incompetent? What's your opinion on stupid people. it's not their fault they aren't mentally capable of the same things you are. Do they deserve any less human rights than you do?
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 12, 2016, 08:47:50 PM
"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."
Unless he's lazy. As determined by me.
Though I do admire the satirical pun at the end, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is one of several things wrong with your "claim" as you will. As the majority of the confusion for my arguments came from myself, let me give some definitions.
Work: The total product of a person's value through their work-ratio.
Work-Ratio: The amount of time spent on the wellbeing of others or one's self in relation to recreational acts.
(Basically Hours of actions that benefit your survival or the community's survival compared to Hours of actions that solely are for recreational purposes.)
Now with some definitions pinned down, I would also like to address the fact that I myself will not personally sit down and rate everyone of a "Work Ethic" Scale. That would require countless amount of logs and monitors to supervise in addition to too much subjective work.
As for Mr.Obvious, I think my expanded definition means we have no more problems?
"Living off" and "Waste" are two different things. People can still be productive even if not employed.
Again, my apologies for any confusion.
::UPDATE AS OF 5:21 DOORKNOB HAS POSTED::
And I was about to end my post too.
Let me ask you a quick questions. Would you rather give medicine to a scientist who intends to help you and other people out, or help two people who have no interest in passing out medicine and want to go back to playing games in a basement?
I am also willing to admit that my brother is very stupid, with less than par grades. What matters is that he helps around the house and wants me to help him with his homework and is doing all sorts of things to help his work. Especially letting me reduce his playtime online from 6 to 4 hours.
Baruch said it best, "Even handicapped people can work, and they do ... stop making excuses for not hiring people because they aren't Superman."
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 13, 2016, 02:31:25 AM
In my line of work, i solely have clients living of mother government's teat.
Do a numbers of them scam society be being too lazy to really get out of their empoverished situations. I'd say yes.
However, i frequenly come across countrymen who label all of them or, if they are generous, 90% of them as lazy parasites. Which is just wrong. So i'm not keen onVote of popularity does not make something true.
I also often think people confuse poverty with lazyness. If you don't have any options, live in slums, got a deadbeat alcoholic dad mooching off you and bailifs and lawyers keep sucking you dry; yeah i don't think you're going to get much done. But on The surface, from our relatively in control lives and decent appartments, it's easy to say; (s)he Should just get a job. It's harder if that only gets you a hundred euro's more a month and raised your expenses a little an cuts The time you need to handle all that non-work shit.
I totally agree with this. And add to that the feeling of hopelessness and helplessness, which adds to the burden. I don't know about anybody else, but I do my best work when I believe people will appreciate it and I feel I'm capable of it and I feel I can build onto something. Emotional wellness is huge in this area.
Quote from: dtq123 on May 13, 2016, 08:28:37 AM
Though I do admire the satirical pun at the end, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is one of several things wrong with your "claim" as you will. As the majority of the confusion for my arguments came from myself, let me give some definitions.
Work: The total product of a person's value through their work-ratio.
Work-Ratio: The amount of time spent on the wellbeing of others or one's self in relation to recreational acts.
(Basically Hours of actions that benefit your survival or the community's survival compared to Hours of actions that solely are for recreational purposes.)
Now with some definitions pinned down, I would also like to address the fact that I myself will not personally sit down and rate everyone of a "Work Ethic" Scale. That would require countless amount of logs and monitors to supervise in addition to too much subjective work.
As for Mr.Obvious, I think my expanded definition means we have no more problems?
"Living off" and "Waste" are two different things. People can still be productive even if not employed.
Again, my apologies for any confusion.
::UPDATE AS OF 5:21 DOORKNOB HAS POSTED::
And I was about to end my post too.
Let me ask you a quick questions. Would you rather give medicine to a scientist who intends to help you and other people out, or help two people who have no interest in passing out medicine and want to go back to playing games in a basement?
I am also willing to admit that my brother is very stupid, with less than par grades. What matters is that he helps around the house and wants me to help him with his homework and is doing all sorts of things to help his work. Especially letting me reduce his playtime online from 6 to 4 hours.
Baruch said it best, "Even handicapped people can work, and they do ... stop making excuses for not hiring people because they aren't Superman."
You sound like a Puritan.
Quote from: Baruch on May 13, 2016, 07:24:31 AM
Wife beaters need a bullet to the head ... not commiseration over their prior child abuse.
Well, so much for reform. Let's do away with therapy and make prison rape mandatory.
Quote from: dtq123 on May 13, 2016, 08:28:37 AM
Though I do admire the satirical pun at the end, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is one of several things wrong with your "claim" as you will. As the majority of the confusion for my arguments came from myself, let me give some definitions.
Work: The total product of a person's value through their work-ratio.
Work-Ratio: The amount of time spent on the wellbeing of others or one's self in relation to recreational acts.
(Basically Hours of actions that benefit your survival or the community's survival compared to Hours of actions that solely are for recreational purposes.)
Now with some definitions pinned down, I would also like to address the fact that I myself will not personally sit down and rate everyone of a "Work Ethic" Scale. That would require countless amount of logs and monitors to supervise in addition to too much subjective work.
As for Mr.Obvious, I think my expanded definition means we have no more problems?
"Living off" and "Waste" are two different things. People can still be productive even if not employed.
Again, my apologies for any confusion.
::UPDATE AS OF 5:21 DOORKNOB HAS POSTED::
And I was about to end my post too.
Let me ask you a quick questions. Would you rather give medicine to a scientist who intends to help you and other people out, or help two people who have no interest in passing out medicine and want to go back to playing games in a basement?
I am also willing to admit that my brother is very stupid, with less than par grades. What matters is that he helps around the house and wants me to help him with his homework and is doing all sorts of things to help his work. Especially letting me reduce his playtime online from 6 to 4 hours.
Baruch said it best, "Even handicapped people can work, and they do ... stop making excuses for not hiring people because they aren't Superman."
So you're basically saying you want to be god and judge over people. You sound very young and niave. Stop assuming every thing is black or white.
No one can ever really know what another is going through. There was a time when I was a basement gamer and thinking back on it that's all I could handle mentally and stress wise. I'm getting better mentally but not stress wise. Because I have mental illness I appear just fine you can't see what's broken while a guy missing an arm is easy to spot. I'd rather not be judged on appearances. You don't know what I'm struggling with or what's going on inside me.
It's also easy to say drug addicts are worthless kill them all which many people do. But I've been there too and it's not a simple matter of will power. And how they became a drug addict isn't always a persons fault. Many women who are sex slaves are made addicts as a way to control them. It runs in families and so on. Some people are born addicts aka mother was a pregnant crack head.
So unless you are personally involved in each and every persons life there is no way to do what you propose. Who could be responsible enough to handle such a job? You ? I think not. You over simplify things and are quick to judge. Where you see laziness I see a serious poverty problem that is complex and not fully understood until experienced for one's self.
Quote from: dtq123 on May 13, 2016, 08:28:37 AM
Though I do admire the satirical pun at the end, I wholeheartedly disagree.
There is one of several things wrong with your "claim" as you will. As the majority of the confusion for my arguments came from myself, let me give some definitions.
Work: The total product of a person's value through their work-ratio.
Work-Ratio: The amount of time spent on the wellbeing of others or one's self in relation to recreational acts.
(Basically Hours of actions that benefit your survival or the community's survival compared to Hours of actions that solely are for recreational purposes.)
Now with some definitions pinned down, I would also like to address the fact that I myself will not personally sit down and rate everyone of a "Work Ethic" Scale. That would require countless amount of logs and monitors to supervise in addition to too much subjective work.
As for Mr.Obvious, I think my expanded definition means we have no more problems?
"Living off" and "Waste" are two different things. People can still be productive even if not employed.
Again, my apologies for any confusion.
::UPDATE AS OF 5:21 DOORKNOB HAS POSTED::
And I was about to end my post too.
Let me ask you a quick questions. Would you rather give medicine to a scientist who intends to help you and other people out, or help two people who have no interest in passing out medicine and want to go back to playing games in a basement?
I am also willing to admit that my brother is very stupid, with less than par grades. What matters is that he helps around the house and wants me to help him with his homework and is doing all sorts of things to help his work. Especially letting me reduce his playtime online from 6 to 4 hours.
Baruch said it best, "Even handicapped people can work, and they do ... stop making excuses for not hiring people because they aren't Superman."
Well, bar from the suggestions of taking away people's rights, I'm not saying we ever had problems.
Let me clarify. I understand that what you are getting at isn't the total productivity of someone towards society, but more in the lines of productivity of someone towards society relative to their capabilities en opportunities. I've always understood that in your posts. And in part, I don't disagree. Strong shoulders, imo, should bare more weight. But this does not excuse everyone from doing their bit. And while I don't follow you in taking away things like the right to due process, I get the feeling we are in agreement in that we all have a responsibility to our fellow man and society as a grander whole and that it's reasonable in expecting people to put some effort into that.
However, not counting that in your utopian society one could be declared lazy and thus, for example, be outlawed without due process wether or not one actually is lazy (as someone who is concidered lazy does not have right to due process...), the problem I mentioned before still stands.
You yourself say that you wouldn't be the one declaring who is lazy and who isn't. So it doesn't matter that you concider someone's work-worth in accordance to their personal situation. The problem is that a lot of people don't think in that nuance. And that as such, popular opinion on what can and can't be concidered lazy or selfish, which in my experience is wrong, would be the judgement that counts. Not yours personally.
Is everyone to get a psychology-test every now and again to see how much they can bare? Are we going to quantify someone's living-situation, depression and all manner of everyday problems and personal history? Problem isn't that you don't think people have value unless they work and provide. Problem is that the general populus can think like that. And that until you get to know the person behind the statistic, it's all to easy to dismiss poverty of opportunities as lazyness. Problem isn't the utopian society you are painting (except, again, the bit about taking away people's rights), it's the distopian atrocity I think it would become if you were to leave fantasy and try to execute the idea in reality.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on May 13, 2016, 12:32:20 PM
Well, so much for reform. Let's do away with therapy and make prison rape mandatory.
No prison necessary ... just shoot them. Prisons don't reform, and psych doesn't reform. People don't reform. They start out as babies, and develop in countless ways. Some ways we like, some ways we don't like. People continue to develop, but with some conditions, particularly old age ... they regress at bit or a lot. The judicial model of reality is simply society getting its sadism on. This is not to say that I approve of locking anyone up for any particular reason. And my suggestion to shoot people ... because they are too annoying (Billy the Kid did this to a guy who was snoring once) ... is hyperbolic. Puritans and SJW are all nut cases.
If you want to reform prison, let all the inmates out ... and put the politicians in ;-)
Quote from: doorknob
You sound very young and naive.
You don't know what I'm struggling with or what's going on inside me.
I agree. I am very young and naïve. That's why I post. I don't know what you struggle with. I want to try to understand.
Quote from: doorknob
So unless you are personally involved in each and every persons life there is no way to do what you propose. Who could be responsible enough to handle such a job? You? I think not. You over simplify things and are quick to judge. Where you see laziness I see a serious poverty problem that is complex and not fully understood until experienced for one's self.
1. I wholeheartedly agree that it would require a person or being with a large amount surveillance capabilities to make this a reality.
2. I would like to have a computer do the job, but that's most likely not going to happen in my lifetime.
3. I understand that poverty is an issue, and that basement gaming is sometimes a necessity.
I feel enlightened by your response. I think the key issue is the amount of effort from those who already have the capacity to do things, such as the middle and upper classes. Fact is, the majority of lower class families are more hard working that those above them.
I am sorry if I frustrate and/or confuse you. My doctor example was a poor one. Too many implicit assumptions there.
Edit:
Drug addicts are a fine example of great people who are stigmatized by the current society, but will get better stance in the society I proposed. Even with drug addiction, they still attempt to move on with life as if nothing happened. It's amazing most addicts are alive if they hadn't killed themselves after seeing the true horror of drugs.
As for basement dwellers? I would like to call them "Ludophiles," for they give the world something that cannot be done with the traditional sense of work: Creativity and Happiness. Most "Basement Dwellers" I know are actually decent people who simply cannot handle social pressure of the outside world. If we learn to value gaming a bit more, we'd all see them as hermits who love gaming... Or you know.... Ludophiles.
Mr. Obvious: Think Psycho-Pass except it's an actually good society with a single AI.
Mike_Cl: I am overstressed as of late, so do mind that I may regret this. I also lost my counselor due to them moving to a different department and waiting for a new one now. So this is basically a mind dump of sorts. Except I legitimately think it might work.
gentle_dissident & Baruch: What now?
dtq123 you are trying or want to create a utopia. Those are nice. I have spent time trying to mentally craft one or two. And I also like to read about them. What I have learned, though, is that they never work. Humans are just not that easy to understand nor put into neat little boxes or packages where they are easily controlled.
As a young teacher I worked with a guy for a year that commuted about 2 hrs one way--he lived in Willits, CA, in a commune in which all were equal--in as many aspects as possible. He lived in a tipi, as did most of the others. They shared all they had in value--all property, real and personal (except for the very personal stuff like underwear and mementos and stuff like that). He even gave up his entire paycheck to them. They ate in a communal area, shared in the grunt work, the garden, the sanitation, and the like. He was with our school for a year. And he lasted in the commune one more year--left for he grew tired of others not pulling their weight. At one time communes were everywhere. As far as I know very few, if any, still exist.
If you have the chance read 1984, Brave New World and/or Anthem. They are all short and are even considered classic. It will just give you a different view of 'value'.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 13, 2016, 06:17:08 PM
dtq123 you are trying or want to create a utopia. Those are nice. I have spent time trying to mentally craft one or two.
>.> Basically it. I'm just discussing the ethical nature of what I am proposing.
Quote from: dtq123 on May 13, 2016, 06:24:36 PM
>.> Basically it. I'm just discussing the ethical nature of what I am proposing.
Then reading those who have tried to craft them could be of help. Brave New World is a fiction dealing with that question. Anthem is Ayn Rand's short fictional work dealing with the "I" vs "We" of society. And Stranger In A Strange Land, by Heinlein, is a much longer classic dealing with the ills of society. It would be a service to your quest if you read them all.
Quote from: dtq123 on May 13, 2016, 06:09:14 PM
Mr. Obvious: Think Psycho-Pass except it's an actually good society with a single AI.
Mike_Cl: I am overstressed as of late, so do mind that I may regret this. I also lost my counselor due to them moving to a different department and waiting for a new one now. So this is basically a mind dump of sorts. Except I legitimately think it might work.
gentle_dissident & Baruch: What now?
FDR was satan incarnate ... we must never do anything that FDR did, especially if it worked ;-) They had CCC camps ... one of my grandfathers survived in one. Bring them back, put people to work. If the corporations won't hire the people we got, then the government needs to hire them and put them to work at what they are capable of. Then tax the hell out to the rich and the corporations. If the corporations want to only hire foreigners ... drop their registration in this country, or just nuke Delaware ... Apple becomes a Chinese company ... then tariff the heck out of anything they want to import to the US. That is the way it was done the only way it can be done. We are not responsible for employing all the people in China and India ... unless I get free little young Chinese/Indian ladies to clean my house and massage my back for free. Oh, and Apple can pay all its taxes ... so we hold their board and executives hostage in "rape prison" until they pay up. Most of the Fortune 500 need to be handled this way, including my employer ... not just Apple.
PS ... if you really want to move every job on the planet to China and India ... and replace all non-management jobs in N America with robots, you get the Morlock award. Please read Time Machine also, while there is still time.
Quote from: Baruch on May 13, 2016, 01:02:16 PM
People don't reform.
I get the feeling you don't get out much. Or, was the winky at the last paragraph connected to the 1st?
Quote from: dtq123 on May 12, 2016, 06:18:05 PM
(Recommended for actual atheists... And yes, I've been watching what's up with Randy.)
I propose the idea that we are not all equal, and though this will involve plenty of nuance, exceptions, and just flat out stupid statements that may be recanted due to the nature of this question. Now, on to the actual evidence.
1. People cannot, and have never been EXACTLY the same.
This is what started this little sprout. There is simply too many possibilities for types people to create a person that is exactly like someone else. This is further compounded by the fact that both time, geography, and even a name of a person will make people both act, and respond differently to that person.
2. People are not perfectly equal in strengths.
Strength is what an individual has that is "a good or beneficial quality or attribute of a person or thing." However, some of us can already point out some instances of inequality in strengths. For instance, Some Machiavellian forum dwellers will agree that a strong amount of kindness in a person is a strength, but does not compare to the strength of high levels of charisma or intellect.
Now, I will add my own opinions into the matter, which will likely be subject to a level of scrutiny that is greater than normal due to the nature of this dialogue. "Give it your best shot," but do mind that we can always disagree or simply drop a specific subsection of this discussion. Onto my opinions and what they mean.
1. Personal Values.
Remember my Venn Diagram? That's basically it. TL;DR? I prefer people who work, are good at work, and have that work benefit others in some way.
2. Expansion of Personal Values.
What I can conclude from my value of work is that work ethic is (at the very least), an important trait, (and at most), the most important trait. For this topic I will assume the former and not the latter. Work ethic is an important trait because without it, people could not have survived to this point. For example, Say there was a lazy ape and a diligent ape. Who is going to get more food for their group?
3. Expansion of Work Ethic.
My largest assumption will be that Work Ethic can be quantified, if not at least put into a spectrum. However, Work Ethic is an almost universal good, and the majority of goods in the world can be quantified to a fair extent. For instance, just as we measure happiness through one's self-opinion in addition to other behaviors such as lifestyle, we can measure work ethic by the ratio of hours worked to hours used for recreation.
4. Spectrums.
My second largest assumption is that this system would be ethical. My only evidence, which is much more like rhetoric, is as follows. "Why give a lazy person equal rights to one who is diligent?"
The question is not equality.
The question is fairness.
Our horrendous system allows a tiny handful of individuals to live in unconscionable luxury, while the mass of humanity suffers, sweats, and bleeds to pay for it.
That's the problem. That is what needs to be addressed. A few thousand people owning everything while billions sink into abysmal poverty just won't do.
Quote from: dtq123 on May 13, 2016, 08:28:37 AMWork: The total product of a person's value through their work-ratio.
Work-Ratio: The amount of time spent on the wellbeing of others or one's self in relation to recreational acts.
(Basically Hours of actions that benefit your survival or the community's survival compared to Hours of actions that solely are for recreational purposes.)
Now with some definitions pinned down, I would also like to address the fact that I myself will not personally sit down and rate everyone of a "Work Ethic" Scale. That would require countless amount of logs and monitors to supervise in addition to too much subjective work.
Yet, you have stated that you wish to deprive rights based on such a measure. Whether or not you personally rate those affected is irrelevant. In your system, people are somehow rated and suffer consequences from those ratings, such as the deprivation of basic liberties like due process. Liberty abrogated at a whim. I'm
sure moderately somewhat confident your intentions are noble, but do you honestly not notice the horrible consequences of such a system?
QuoteLet me ask you a quick questions. Would you rather give medicine to a scientist who intends to help you and other people out, or help two people who have no interest in passing out medicine and want to go back to playing games in a basement?
How could anyone possibly know the future? For all we know, the scientist could be disgraced tomorrow and the two people become a best-selling children's author and renown conservationist. There are quite a few very good reasons why ERs don't decide who lives and who dies like you suggest.
Also, I'm sensing a "kick the bums out" mentality where "good" people should be helped by society and "bad" people should be punished. Like I said before, the end result of this sort of thing is fairly obvious.
I'm flabberghasted - I can't believe the number people who are casually adopting NAZI programs. All over the Internet, on boards, everywhere, one sees people coming up w/plans for these "Utopias" where a fascist state cracks down on "miscreants", usually murdering them in one way or another. It's not even a century since Hitler tried to rid Germany of the group of people whom he blamed for Germany's problems. "Oh, but the Jews didn't ..." Exactly. The so-called "miscreants" haven't, either. The problems have complex causes that no one group of people can be picked out and blamed for. No one group of people caused any one problem that our society has. The one group that could go a long way to solving the problems, though, is the rich. But they won't lift a finger. So, if you're really out to get somebody ...
Pardon if I missed this being addressed somewhere, but what about mental illness? I've quit 6 jobs in the last 3 years (including 3 in the last few months alone) because of my horrible anxiety and depression. I give it my all - if I didn't, I wouldn't keep applying every time I "freak out" and have to walk away from a position. I hate the fact that something inside of me just makes it impossible to hold down a steady job. It puts a burden on my wife, medication side effects make things 10x worse, and I've sporadically done therapy.
In a world where "work ethic" is "the most important quality" in a human, what am I? Worthless? Can I contribute in other ways, like being a good person, a good friend, etc.? Just curious...
Edit: Also, what kind of rights should I have, if they're dependent on your "contribution?" Less rights than someone without mental illness? And what kind of rights would I be losing? I get slightly pissed when this topic comes up because it always reminds me of that garbage right wing paranoia where everyone assumes the world is trying to "take the easy way out" and get a handout to be lazy if they're not a card-carrying workforce member. I've worked with adults with mental illness in my last job, for a company that houses them for low rates (usually 30% of SSI/SSD). So you can imagine the people trying to get in there to just mooch. I could tell. But for every freeloader, there were 10 people who seriously needed the program. Yet when this kind of stuff comes up in the real world, everyone throws their hands up and says "well we can't take care of people, they need to take care of themselves! Pull yerself up by them thar bootstraps! This is Murca!"
Sorry for the rant.
Quote from: FrogMan on May 14, 2016, 08:51:01 AM
Pardon if I missed this being addressed somewhere, but what about mental illness? I've quit 6 jobs in the last 3 years (including 3 in the last few months alone) because of my horrible anxiety and depression. I give it my all - if I didn't, I wouldn't keep applying every time I "freak out" and have to walk away from a position. I hate the fact that something inside of me just makes it impossible to hold down a steady job. It puts a burden on my wife, medication side effects make things 10x worse, and I've sporadically done therapy.
In a world where "work ethic" is "the most important quality" in a human, what am I? Worthless? Can I contribute in other ways, like being a good person, a good friend, etc.? Just curious...
Edit: Also, what kind of rights should I have, if they're dependent on your "contribution?" Less rights than someone without mental illness? And what kind of rights would I be losing? I get slightly pissed when this topic comes up because it always reminds me of that garbage right wing paranoia where everyone assumes the world is trying to "take the easy way out" and get a handout to be lazy if they're not a card-carrying workforce member. I've worked with adults with mental illness in my last job, for a company that houses them for low rates (usually 30% of SSI/SSD). So you can imagine the people trying to get in there to just mooch. I could tell. But for every freeloader, there were 10 people who seriously needed the program. Yet when this kind of stuff comes up in the real world, everyone throws their hands up and says "well we can't take care of people, they need to take care of themselves! Pull yerself up by them thar bootstraps! This is Murca!"
Sorry for the rant.
I'm mentally ill. I go to a program. While I don't suffer from anxiety (I'm autistic w/Major Depression and Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder), I know several people who do. They are not moochers. They contribute to our Program every day and are - pardon the pun - very anxious to do so. You cannot take this Utopian nonsense seriously. The World is filled w/people of all sorts, and every sort has its detractors - and, for every sort, there is another sort that would gladly send that sort to the gas chambers. Luckily, most people are not insane, are not monsters; this will not happen - not again. These juvenile little Hitlers can rant all they want on these boards, but they will not get their ways.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on May 13, 2016, 09:00:00 PM
I get the feeling you don't get out much. Or, was the winky at the last paragraph connected to the 1st?
I don't think I inter-winky. Not between posts or even within a post ... too complicated to go full Derrida.
People claim to reform ... which is egomania ... but they do change ... for whatever psyche reason they do so. For example ... I could stop being an alcoholic for for example, because I coincidentally went to a 12 Step Group. Or maybe there is some other reason why I stopped being an alcoholic ... maybe a close friend died in the gutter on Skid Row. All of our cause/effect talk is rationalization. Since 90% of what people do, is because of their unconscious mind ... this is not a surprise. The word "reform" also carries a moralistic tone. I am not sure that being an alcoholic isn't a good idea ... no matter what moralizers poo poo about it. The world often is terrible, and a good stiff drink might help.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 13, 2016, 09:44:42 PM
The question is not equality.
The question is fairness.
Our horrendous system allows a tiny handful of individuals to live in unconscionable luxury, while the mass of humanity suffers, sweats, and bleeds to pay for it.
That's the problem. That is what needs to be addressed. A few thousand people owning everything while billions sink into abysmal poverty just won't do.
This is the way people have lived for the last 5000 years. History shows that nobody takes this as a serious problem, or we would do something about it. As Rom said on an episode of Deep Space Nine ... "We don't imagine eliminating oppression, we imagine becoming the oppressor" Or substitute "financial corruption" for "oppression".
You may not have noticed yet ... but life is unfair. Part of this is because everyone in unequal, all the time. I would hazard a guess, that if we were all identical sterile worker clone bees ... we would still be unequal, because we can't all stand in the hive in the same place at the same time to dance the same dance. The desire for uniformity perhaps comes from out of the realization that reality isn't solipsism, but we wish it were. Same name, same age, same body, same gender etc ... all copies of wonderful me, not that asshole over there ;-)
Quote from: marom1963 on May 14, 2016, 03:01:29 AM
I'm flabberghasted - I can't believe the number people who are casually adopting NAZI programs. All over the Internet, on boards, everywhere, one sees people coming up w/plans for these "Utopias" where a fascist state cracks down on "miscreants", usually murdering them in one way or another. It's not even a century since Hitler tried to rid Germany of the group of people whom he blamed for Germany's problems. "Oh, but the Jews didn't ..." Exactly. The so-called "miscreants" haven't, either. The problems have complex causes that no one group of people can be picked out and blamed for. No one group of people caused any one problem that our society has. The one group that could go a long way to solving the problems, though, is the rich. But they won't lift a finger. So, if you're really out to get somebody ...
The default political position of people is to be conservative and moralistic in a corrupt way. Also we are materialistic. Call it original sin if you wish. As people gravitate back to normal (which isn't liberal revolution) they naturally graduate to Trumpism. Unfortunately, temporarily eliminating the upper class, only produces a new upper class. Sort of like a Catch 22.
I really am not misanthropic ... but I do read history ... and find human group behavior ... very interesting, but stupid! (take that Nazi on a trike)
Quote from: marom1963 on May 14, 2016, 10:54:13 AM
I'm mentally ill. I go to a program. While I don't suffer from anxiety (I'm autistic w/Major Depression and Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder), I know several people who do. They are not moochers. They contribute to our Program every day and are - pardon the pun - very anxious to do so. You cannot take this Utopian nonsense seriously. The World is filled w/people of all sorts, and every sort has its detractors - and, for every sort, there is another sort that would gladly send that sort to the gas chambers. Luckily, most people are not insane, are not monsters; this will not happen - not again. These juvenile little Hitlers can rant all they want on these boards, but they will not get their ways.
For folks who are psyche challenged .. I hear you and wish I had a magic wand. Life is a spectrum disorder, like autism ;-) I don't really know anyone who doesn't suffer mentally to some degree, though not all are under professional care. If you are, I hope it is working for you. Most people self-medicate.
Between psyche differences and physical differences and opportunity differences (education and other resources) ... we are all very unequal, but can share a common misery, a common challenge.
Please read all of my posts to get a sense of how my views have changed over the past couple of days. Thanks.
Quote from: dtq123 on May 14, 2016, 12:02:11 PM
Please read all of my posts to get a sense of how my views have changed over the past couple of days. Thanks.
That you have an open mind is a good thing. An open mind does not mean you will accept everything you hear or read. Just that you are willing to consider points of view different from yours at the moment. It means you are willing to change your mind in the presence of compelling evidence. I think you will find that as you gain experience and learn how to better gather and evaluate data and evidence for/against something, your mind will change often. Mine did, and I hope I can manage to keep my mind open.
Quote from: dtq123 on May 14, 2016, 12:02:11 PM
Please read all of my posts to get a sense of how my views have changed over the past couple of days. Thanks.
I am not telling you to change, or even grow up. But if you keep good company, it might rub off ;-)