# The Dangerous I.Q. Debate



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

ae1905 said:


> has science shown neanderthal genes are responsible for iq, much less iq differences?
> 
> 
> and aren't **** sapiens supposed to be smarter than neanderthals?
> ...


That's pretty debatable... neanderthals came from the north and probably evolved during an Ice age. The two populations met and the african HS one was much bigger. It outbred the Neanderthal population both on a micro level (interbreeding) and on a macro level (Intrabreed (HS to HS) ), the decline of the neanderthal probably had very little to do with intelligence. In fact their brains were markedly bigger the HS brains, they may have been smarter, everything else is conjecture as they've found weaving and complex tool usage with HN, and not only that there is clearly a time factor on technology development seperate from intelligence.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

xwsmithx said:


> No one who claims capitalism to be untenable or immoral should *ever* claim to be wise. To say that "all humans should benefit from society equally and not be allowed to benefit from their own functional differences" is to say that the smart and the able should be slaves to the stupid and the useless. Fuck that. You have learned absolutely nothing from history and are about as wise as a four year old child who thinks s/he should get everything s/he wants just because s/he wants it. That's not how the world works, and if you had an ounce of wisdom, you would know that. I don't mean to be harsh, but when I see grown men and women defending or promoting a system (Marxism/socialism/communism) that was responsible for the deaths of 100 million people in one century (1917-2017), I get a little testy.




Now that is one good way to go tangents. LoL.

It's better not to take rigid black and white position in economy for the dichotomy is already obsolete, the opposite of capitalism is not necessarily communism nor that there are only 2 available systems. Also we need to differentiate between economical system against social political system.

I think we shall strive to invent newer system because i found many of the criticism against capitalism are valid and it have been proven that many of its protege such as efficient market, information symmetry, invisible hands, trickling effects, rational **** economicus -in an euphemistic wording- are not entirely accurate. At least, that's what had happened in its current practical form, which imho, is indeed untenable and immoral. 

Albeit i also profit from it but i would just say, hey, it's only a job. 

The entire 7 deadly sins are incorporated inside the current capitalism system with the most pronounced are avarice and gluttony. Dictated by these 2 basic tenets of our current capitalistic form, we have presentvalueing so many future goods into today consumption that we practically had living on a very huge loan, borrowing from our unborn grand grandchildren (or simply rob from them) while torturing our mother earth, extracting and scavenging her resources much faster than she could ever replenish in thousand of years. Ultimate greed for our ultimate indulgement.

We really need to reinvent ourselves or else... our craziness will make us all pay the bills when they due. 

One critic says it best:
_Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone_.

Also always bear in mind what our oldman says: 
_Mother nature is an avengeful bitch_.







_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

contradictionary said:


> I agree that we need to find ways to improve intelligent capacity of those who are disavantaged, let's talk about that, hence this thread. But i disagree when you said nurture contribute about equally since there is no definite research conclusion reach as such.
> 
> Isn't it interesting that the *flynn effect* only applies up to the mid 70s and had been in retrograde ever since? Does it made GenX like me are on average more intelligent than GenY and every generation afterwards? :laugh2:
> 
> ...


It is interesting, and I'd have to say it comes from the parenting styles directly, there's a distinct change in parenting styles as we enter the 80's and the news became more sensationalistic and started spouting negative (and generally irrelevant) statistics about danger outside the house etc. Not only that computers became sitters and looking up knowledge and synthesizing it has become more important then holding onto knowledge (to the detrement of the younger generation. The in between generation that can both hold knowledge and make use of the tech tools is probably the most advantaged) so Yes, long story short the flynn effect is still there and IQ's are dropping because of a tremendous change in environment.


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

Denature said:


> Leftists don't want to accept the genetic heritability of intelligence, so they have to invent or overstate environmental factors to protect their ideology which relies much on Blank Slateism.
> 
> This means focusing on things like education, parenting, and the environment. This serves a larger purpose, because who do leftists believe holds the greatest ability to make decisions regarding these topics?
> 
> ...


That's pretty funny considering The welfare state in many right leaning States. Not to mention the right's dependence on handouts from corporations and banks who they favor... Which is pretty damn funny considering the left is supposed to be the one that is big government. You think the right doesn't favor the big corps? Of course they do, they encourage and allow big government entities run soley by the corporations, These are usually "standards committees" or or the FCC, or the Phramaceutical transactions comittee, ETC, The Republicans are so in the hands of big government it's laughable! yet they hide it in corporate entities.... Now before you think I'm some leftest snob I'm only addressing your obvious misconceptions... The left is just as bad in basically the same way. They main difference between the "left" and the "right" is that the right uses religion to hook its constituency and the left uses social justice to hook its constiuency.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Nicholasjh1 said:


> That's pretty debatable... neanderthals came from the north and probably evolved during an Ice age. The two populations met and the african HS one was much bigger. It outbred the Neanderthal population both on a micro level (interbreeding) and on a macro level (Intrabreed (HS to HS) ), the decline of the neanderthal probably had very little to do with intelligence. In fact their brains were markedly bigger the HS brains, they may have been smarter, everything else is conjecture as they've found weaving and complex tool usage with HN, and not only that there is clearly a time factor on technology development seperate from intelligence.




brain size is not perfectly correlated with intelligence


the animals with the largest brains, for example, are not humans but whales (sperm, orca) and elephants whose brains are considerably larger than ours


even in humans, brain size isn't the only factor in intelligence...the structure of the brain is probably also important, eg, the depth of the cortex, folds in the cortex, etc


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

ae1905 said:


> brain size is not perfectly correlated with intelligence
> 
> 
> the animals with the largest brains are not humans but whales (sperm, orca) and elephants whose brains are considerably larger than ours
> ...


I'm not saying it is, I'm simply saying that most of what "scientist" say about neanderthals is pretty conjecture based, and it's all based on the idea that "we won" so we must be "more fit". The only sense HS was more fit that I can see is that they were adapted and moved into the lushest area and populated quickly. The fact that after such a large population intermixed with Neanderthals and that after so many generations we still have up to 4% neanderthal DNA shows that neanderthal DNA is very adaptive.... as 4% . that's like 1/25 of the DNA... if you know anything about genetics... That's like having a neanderthal as a great great great grandfather... When you consider that the closest pure neanderthal is probably 100x great (I'm not sure the actual number) that must have been extremely adaptive DNA to have survived in the genetic line for so long.


----------



## xwsmithx (Jan 17, 2017)

contradictionary said:


> Now that is one good way to go tangents. LoL.
> 
> It's better not to take rigid black and white position in economy for the dichotomy is already obsolete, the opposite of capitalism is not necessarily communism nor that there are only 2 available systems. Also we need to differentiate between economical system against social political system.
> 
> ...


Black & white thinking is a distinct INTJ trait. And you're wrong, there are only two economic systems, capitalism and everything else. Only capitalism is consistent with freedom. Only capitalism works through voluntary action. Every other economic scheme requires government enforcement at the point of a gun. Only capitalism feeds the world. Only capitalism creates new wealth out of nothing. Only capitalism creates billionaires. Other economic schemes seek to redistribute existing wealth from those who have it to those who don't. But they are ignorant of the source of wealth, which is why all other economic schemes lead to poverty and starvation. No other economic scheme has ever produced new wealth. They cannot because they do not reward risk, innovation, and production. They reward caution, hoarding, and sloth. They take but they cannot make. Only capitalism makes.

During the Cold War, tour guides used to take visitors from Communist countries around to see the sites, but they would always finish in one of the most humble of places, at least to Americans: the grocery store. Always the tourists were blown away by the incredible abundance on display, sitting and waiting for customers to buy. Many of them would break down and cry. Never in their lives had they seen so much food, and we had it everywhere. In Venezuela today, food has all but disappeared. In a country that now has the largest proven oil reserves on the planet, the people are starving, and why? Communism. No, no, my friend, capitalism is not the problem, government is the problem, capitalism is the solution. Even formerly Communist China understands that capitalism works and is growing at 6% a year since reforming its economy. It's about frigging time we in the US realized it.

The seven deadly sins are so much nonsense. And the earth is a planet, not a being. It neither feels nor acts. Most of what takes place on its surface has as little effect on its existence as an ant might on a mountain. As for "using up" natural resources, we're actually going in the opposite direction. We now have more oil available to us than we did 50 years ago thanks to new discoveries and new technologies. We're using fewer trees thanks to computer technology. The prices of most rare substances have fallen since the 1970s in absolute terms. Back in the 1920s, the biggest problem was a lack of resources. Our biggest problem is way too much waste. We're not running out of anything except space to put everything.

As for the wickedest quote, it's been shown that about 20% of corporate CEOs are psychopaths, so yeah, capitalism makes wicked men perform a public service and provides for the improvement of the country and its wealth. Funny that.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Nicholasjh1 said:


> I'm not saying it is, I'm simply saying that most of what "scientist" say about neanderthals is pretty conjecture based, and it's all based on the idea that "we won" so we must be "more fit". The only sense HS was more fit that I can see is that they were adapted and moved into the lushest area and populated quickly. The fact that after such a large population intermixed with Neanderthals and that after so many generations we still have up to 4% neanderthal DNA shows that neanderthal DNA is very adaptive.... as 4% . that's like 1/25 of the DNA... if you know anything about genetics... That's like having a neanderthal as a great great great grandfather... When you consider that the closest pure neanderthal is probably 100x great (I'm not sure the actual number) that must have been extremely adaptive DNA to have survived in the genetic line for so long.




nope


the fact we survived isn't the only reason scientists believe humans are smarter than neanderthals, eg



scientists know for a fact neanderthals had bigger bodies than humans


scientists know for a fact that the part of the brain devoted to motor control and bodily functions scales with body size


scientists know for a fact neanderthals had bigger eyes (maybe because lighting conditions in northern latitudes were worse)


scientists know for a fact the part of the brain devoted to image processing scales with the size of the eyes


scientists know that after accounting for the larger brain mass devoted to bodily control and vision, neanderthals had less brain mass devoted to language and higher cognition


scientists know that language and higher cognition are directly and causally correlated to intelligence



and so on



so there is empirical evidence humans were smarter even though our brains were somewhat smaller


whether our smarts were one of the reasons we survived and neanderthals didn't is still a matter of investigation and, as you say, conjecture


but given the fact humans appear to be smarter and intelligence evolved specifically to enhance survival fitness, it is reasonable to surmise that we survived in part cuz we were smarter


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

xwsmithx said:


> Black & white thinking is a distinct INTJ trait. And you're wrong, there are only two economic systems, capitalism and everything else. Only capitalism is consistent with freedom. Only capitalism works through voluntary action. Every other economic scheme requires government enforcement at the point of a gun. Only capitalism feeds the world. Only capitalism creates new wealth out of nothing. Only capitalism creates billionaires. Other economic schemes seek to redistribute existing wealth from those who have it to those who don't. But they are ignorant of the source of wealth, which is why all other economic schemes lead to poverty and starvation. No other economic scheme has ever produced new wealth. They cannot because they do not reward risk, innovation, and production. They reward caution, hoarding, and sloth. They take but they cannot make. Only capitalism makes.
> 
> During the Cold War, tour guides used to take visitors from Communist countries around to see the sites, but they would always finish in one of the most humble of places, at least to Americans: the grocery store. Always the tourists were blown away by the incredible abundance on display, sitting and waiting for customers to buy. Many of them would break down and cry. Never in their lives had they seen so much food, and we had it everywhere. In Venezuela today, food has all but disappeared. In a country that now has the largest proven oil reserves on the planet, the people are starving, and why? Communism. No, no, my friend, capitalism is not the problem, government is the problem, capitalism is the solution. Even formerly Communist China understands that capitalism works and is growing at 6% a year since reforming its economy. It's about frigging time we in the US realized it.
> 
> ...


Even if that's true our capitalism is perverted by big government in the form of corporate "ways and means" groups. Monopolies may not exist (debatable) but corporations have found a new way to band together and create standards to crowd anything else out. The billionaires you speak of are there because of social constructs created by corporations in order to feed themselves, in otherwords corporate socialism. Our current capitalism is extremely corrupt. By social constructs but it's not how you think, it's a shell game by the republican's and democrats making it look like big government while behind the curtain the corporations who pay off both sides play a completely different game.


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

ae1905 said:


> nope
> 
> 
> the fact we survived isn't the only reason scientists believe humans are smarter than neanderthals, eg
> ...


That sounds like a lot of ego construct by scientist ego to prove HS superiority. Clearly we were superior in some way, it didn't necessarily have to do with intelligence and that is unprovable despite what you say. The "proof" that you put down is basically mumbo jumbo based on anthropomorphising Neanderthals. Obviously they did have a large amount devoted to sight and I'm sure that same amount could be abstracted into visual thinking, so I don't buy that it has anything to do with their level of intelligence. Not only that most studies on brain size vs intelligence are based on NON-humanoid species. In fact apes? are unique in that their brain cell size does not scale with their species size. The cell size of human brain-cells are the same size as the tiniest in the ape? group. I'm not going to look it up, but the fact is that elephants though they have big brains also have big brain cells. Humans have tiny brain cells neurons are packed denser etc, and I'm sure the same is true with Neanderthals. There was probably very little difference in intelligence. My whole point is that the issue is much more complicated then we make it out to be and in fact ever using IQ as a means of control is morally reprehensible and clearly incorrect.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Nicholasjh1 said:


> That sounds like a lot of ego construct by scientist ego to prove HS superiority. Clearly we were superior in some way, it didn't necessarily have to do with intelligence and that is unprovable despite what you say. The "proof" that you put down is basically* mumbo jumbo based on anthropomorphising Neanderthals*. Obviously they did have a large amount devoted to sight and I'm sure that same amount could be abstracted into* visual thinking*, so I don't buy that it has anything to do with their level of intelligence. Not only that most studies on brain size vs intelligence are based on NON-humanoid species. In fact apes? are unique in that their brain cell size does not scale with their species size. The cell size of human brain-cells are the same size as the tiniest in the ape? group. I'm not going to look it up, but the fact is that elephants though they have big brains also have big brain cells. *Humans have tiny brain cells neurons are packed denser etc, and I'm sure the same is true with Neanderthals*. There was probably very little difference in intelligence. My whole point is that the issue is much more complicated then we make it out to be and in fact ever using IQ as a means of control is morally reprehensible and clearly incorrect.




nope


the scaling between eye size and brain matter devoted to visual processing exists across mammals


ditto motor skills and bodily functions


so that evidence is not "anthropomorphising"



and visual thinking is not verbal or language based thinking and doesn't lend itself as naturally to communication and social networking


it isn't a stretch to say that humans who had better language skills--or verbal and social intelligence--were not only more intelligent but had a decisive advantage vis a vis neanderthals



and finally you're contradicting yourself (and anthropomorphising, too)


if the density of neanderthal neurons was comparable to humans' but their brain mass devoted to language and higher cognition was smaller, then it follows that humans were smarter


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

other evidence humans were smarter:


humans discovered agriculture, neanderthals didn't


humans created civilizations, neanderthals didn't


humans created written languages, neanderthals didn't



humans made these advances about 60,000 years after leaving africa


neanderthals, otoh, lived in europe for about 400,000 years, yet did none of these things


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Denature said:


> Just a friendly reminder that they got genocided and are now living in a state of complete decadence because they refused to understand the dynamics of power. Hardly a civilization worth imitating.


Nonsense. Wisdom is lost on the unwise yet love, its source, remains the only eternal truth.

By your admission here, Christ was slain and his word is therefore valueless. That is the essence of your argument, nonsense. Results are not relevant. Consequentialism is a lie. Idealism states clearly as a moral truth: Death is preferable to an immoral choice. Order apologists, pragmatists, cannot fathom or accept that truth.

And if Christ rose from his death, an aspect of eternal love, how not then the truth of these native cultures? You are again, merely, plainly, wrong.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

xwsmithx said:


> No one who claims capitalism to be untenable or immoral should *ever* claim to be wise. To say that "all humans should benefit from society equally and not be allowed to benefit from their own functional differences" is to say that the smart and the able should be slaves to the stupid and the useless.



No, your interpretation is skewed and ACTUALLY unwise. A person DOES benefit from their wise actions and the actions themselves are the benefit. Love ensures this. To desire more than this, external rewards for action, even good actions, is unwise and immoral. This working with and for others is also at the same time working with and for oneself. That truth does not make a slave of anyone who understands proper wisdom. The slave is the one who works for themselves in denial of truth and others and they are enslaved to ego, to immoral delusion. 




xwsmithx said:


> Fuck that. You have learned absolutely nothing from history and are about as wise as a four year old child who thinks s/he should get everything s/he wants just because s/he wants it. That's not how the world works, and if you had an ounce of wisdom, you would know that. I don't mean to be harsh, but when I see grown men and women defending or promoting a system (Marxism/socialism/communism) that was responsible for the deaths of 100 million people in one century (1917-2017), I get a little testy.


Your strawman is noted. Communism did not kill anyone. People did. People making horrible immoral choices. And that is not people choosing Communism, which is fine and more moral at its base than Capitalism ever can be. 

No, the horrible choices were the typical things, that we see in any system, immorality in short. That is to say, people working for their own interests and rewards at the expense of others, who are less competent or wise. Does that sound familiar? It is what you just advocated for and you are simply too unwise to know that this is the case.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

series0 said:


> Nonsense. Wisdom is lost on the unwise yet love, its source, remains the only eternal truth.
> 
> By your admission here, Christ was slain and his word is therefore valueless. That is the essence of your argument, nonsense. Results are not relevant. Consequentialism is a lie. Idealism states clearly as a moral truth: Death is preferable to an immoral choice. Order apologists, pragmatists, cannot fathom or accept that truth.
> 
> And if Christ rose from his death, an aspect of eternal love, how not then the truth of these native cultures? You are again, merely, plainly, wrong.


You can't live honorably if you're dead. It's your moral duty to live honorably and if you die, you leave the world inhabited with nothing but evil. Therefore, practical strategies to remain living are necessary. Results are entirely relevant.

Christ was slain, but his words weren't valueless. I'm not saying that we can't learn from the past (even if many past civilizations died out). I'm saying that we shouldn't model our way of life on the failures of the past. Instead, we should analyze and pick the aspects of the past that are superior and incorporate them into today.

This is essentially the essence of the arguments between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals see the past as a linear progression from the past to today. Conservatives see the past as a continuous process of cultural evolution. Some traditions are worth keeping and some aren't. Conservatives simply often have a problem properly expressing the reasoning behind past wisdom.

It's easy to quote a saying, but it's much more difficult to explain why it applies to today, how it manifested, etc.


----------



## xwsmithx (Jan 17, 2017)

series0 said:


> No, your interpretation is skewed and ACTUALLY unwise. A person DOES benefit from their wise actions and the actions themselves are the benefit. Love ensures this. To desire more than this, external rewards for action, even good actions, is unwise and immoral. This working with and for others is also at the same time working with and for oneself. That truth does not make a slave of anyone who understands proper wisdom. The slave is the one who works for themselves in denial of truth and others and they are enslaved to ego, to immoral delusion.
> 
> Your strawman is noted. Communism did not kill anyone. People did. People making horrible immoral choices. And that is not people choosing Communism, which is fine and more moral at its base than Capitalism ever can be.
> 
> No, the horrible choices were the typical things, that we see in any system, immorality in short. That is to say, people working for their own interests and rewards at the expense of others, who are less competent or wise. Does that sound familiar? It is what you just advocated for and you are simply too unwise to know that this is the case.


I don't think you know what a strawman argument is. It's when you make a claim that someone said something that they never said, simplifying it in such a way that you can knock it down without addressing the real argument. That is in fact what *you* did. Because I never said Communism killed anyone, I said it's a system responsible for 100 million dead. Try arguing against _that_ instead of your ridiculous strawman.

Desiring rewards for your actions is normal and necessary, or nothing would ever get done. Men are not saints, nor should they be required to be. Who would plant crops if he was not going to get to eat them or sell them for profit? Who would mine metals if he was not going to get to use them or sell them for profit? Who would craft products if he was not going to get to use them for his own benefit or sell them for profit? The fundamental _moral_ flaw in communism is that it rewards sloth and punishes productivity. It is _your_ system that is immoral and unwise. Capitalism does not reward people for working at the expense of others, it rewards people for producing goods and services other people want and are willing to pay for. It isn't just a moral system, it is the _only_ moral system, and the only one compatible with a free society. All other economic schemes require government power to enforce. All other economic schemes require dispensing with liberty, and liberty being the most fundamental moral good, all other economic schemes are by necessity _immoral_. Which would you rather be, starving and free or a well-fed slave? But those are not the two choices you actually have, the two choices you have are to be a well fed free man or to be a starving slave. Capitalism produces the first, communism the second.


----------



## xwsmithx (Jan 17, 2017)

Nicholasjh1 said:


> Even if that's true our capitalism is perverted by big government in the form of corporate "ways and means" groups. Monopolies may not exist (debatable) but corporations have found a new way to band together and create standards to crowd anything else out. The billionaires you speak of are there because of social constructs created by corporations in order to feed themselves, in otherwords corporate socialism. Our current capitalism is extremely corrupt. By social constructs but it's not how you think, it's a shell game by the republican's and democrats making it look like big government while behind the curtain the corporations who pay off both sides play a completely different game.


I agree with parts of this and disagree with other parts. But the problem isn't capitalism _per se_, the problem is government. By making government so large and so oppressive, by making the laws and regulations that corporations have to abide by (the _index_ for the list of federal regulations is now thousands of pages long and takes up multiple volumes), and by making the enforcement of all the laws and regulations up to individual enforcement decisions by individual regulators, the corporations are _forced_ to play the government's game, to support those politicians who promise to make things better or at least not make things worse. If we could slice down the size and scope of government and its ridiculous alphabet soup of federal regulatory agencies, corporations could and would spend less money on buying politicians and influence.

Very few existing corporations produce any new billionaires. Jack Welch at GE and Michael Eisner at Disney pop into mind as exceptions, but Welch turned GE around from near irrelevance and Eisner took Disney from a multi-million dollar enterprise to a multi-billion dollar enterprise, so they both deserved their wealth. Most new billionaires come from new products and new companies, such as Microsoft, Facebook, Google, etc. The only other recent billionaires from some other source are/were the offspring of Sam Walton, who all became multi-billionaires when he died.


----------



## Nicholasjh1 (Feb 6, 2018)

xwsmithx said:


> I agree with parts of this and disagree with other parts. But the problem isn't capitalism _per se_, the problem is government. By making government so large and so oppressive, by making the laws and regulations that corporations have to abide by (the _index_ for the list of federal regulations is now thousands of pages long and takes up multiple volumes), and by making the enforcement of all the laws and regulations up to individual enforcement decisions by individual regulators, the corporations are _forced_ to play the government's game, to support those politicians who promise to make things better or at least not make things worse. If we could slice down the size and scope of government and its ridiculous alphabet soup of federal regulatory agencies, corporations could and would spend less money on buying politicians and influence.
> 
> Very few existing corporations produce any new billionaires. Jack Welch at GE and Michael Eisner at Disney pop into mind as exceptions, but Welch turned GE around from near irrelevance and Eisner took Disney from a multi-million dollar enterprise to a multi-billion dollar enterprise, so they both deserved their wealth. Most new billionaires come from new products and new companies, such as Microsoft, Facebook, Google, etc. The only other recent billionaires from some other source are/were the offspring of Sam Walton, who all became multi-billionaires when he died.


So Government is the opressors and corporations are angels? Please! Corporations are no more immune to corruption. And I guarantee That corporations run everything. In fact a BANK owns our money system. a private for profit bank. A bank that let 2007 happen. The reason that there are restrictions and "thousands of pages" of regulations is because corporations want it that way. it makes the barriers to entry higher so that they can eliminate competition. FCC rule changes, insurance exchange rule changes. all attempts by the corporations to make it as expensive as hell to get into the business. so that new business is not able to be profitable without mass volumes, a purposeful action so that it's impossible to start small. Big Corporation is big government and it's completely anti-capitalist.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Denature said:


> You can't live honorably if you're dead.


Not relevant. It is only necessary to live honorably while alive. 



Denature said:


> It's your moral duty to live honorably and if you die, you leave the world inhabited with nothing but evil.


This is complete nonsense. You presume that love and the good are weak? You have no faith. Love and the good are strong and they will be available to all via choice until time ends. Evil is also a choice and it will remain as well, because we do not always choose the good.

But death leaves the universe exactly as it was. Only the cycle of that which is alive and dead changes at all. Death is necessary for the delusion of identity to be shed and a new cycle of suffering to earn wisdom to begin.



Denature said:


> Therefore, practical strategies to remain living are necessary. Results are entirely relevant.


Results are not relevant. Only choices are. Consequentialism is a lie. You do not understand real wisdom.



Denature said:


> Christ was slain, but his words weren't valueless. I'm not saying that we can't learn from the past (even if many past civilizations died out). I'm saying that we shouldn't model our way of life on the failures of the past. Instead, we should analyze and pick the aspects of the past that are superior and incorporate them into today.


If you are aware of the errors of the past, you PRESUME to realize what precisely the error was. I promise you, you conflate good things with errors and vice versa. So your woolgathering is often in error as well. 

You claimed above that death made evil win, and then that Christ died. So did he make evil win? You are being silly throughout these posts now. You do not have a good grasp on this issue. You are an order apologist, tied to pragmatism and death. You are oddly a consequentialist in some senses as well. That means you are far too tied into the reward and punishment paradigm, both immoral aims. 



Denature said:


> This is essentially the essence of the arguments between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals see the past as a linear progression from the past to today. Conservatives see the past as a continuous process of cultural evolution. Some traditions are worth keeping and some aren't. Conservatives simply often have a problem properly expressing the reasoning behind past wisdom.


No, conservatives fear any change and the nature of that fear, order, is the same in each case, although the specifics change in time. Understanding that truth, the fear/order/pragmatism dynamic is the path to wisdom. 

For fear must be restrained amid wisdom and desire and anger given equal sway and restrained as well. All must be maximized and balanced for love and wisdom to flourish.



Denature said:


> It's easy to quote a saying, but it's much more difficult to explain why it applies to today, how it manifested, etc.


No it is not difficult. What saying do you wish me to explain as to how it applies today?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

xwsmithx said:


> I don't think you know what a strawman argument is. It's when you make a claim that someone said something that they never said, simplifying it in such a way that you can knock it down without addressing the real argument.



You walked right into this:




xwsmithx said:


> Because I never said Communism killed anyone, I said it's a system responsible for 100 million dead.



I believe the court of public opinion that even does make sense, would say you just proved yourself wrong. I know that you will claim that this is a nuanced enough difference to be separate. It is not.

Responsible is causal is the agent of the act. Therefore responsible is the chooser, the intenser, the doer. So if Communism is responsible then it did it. But it is not responsible. That is sophistry, and what I just did WAS NOT sophistry.

My claim of your earlier strawman was correct and yours is not.

Communism is a concept of a goal state of government that abolishes private property. It cannot kill or be responsible for killing at all. It CANNOT. That is truth. The people failing to implement it properly can kill and be responsible for the killings. A concept cannot kill.




xwsmithx said:


> Try arguing against _that_ instead of your ridiculous strawman.



YOU will have to learn how to make sense before we can have a real discussion.




xwsmithx said:


> Desiring rewards for your actions is normal and necessary, or nothing would ever get done.



All you have said here is that what is immoral is normal and necessary. I disagree. It is normal, yes, but not necessary. So you are merely wrong.




xwsmithx said:


> Men are not saints, nor should they be required to be.



Suggesting people not do immoral things is NOT a requirement that they not. It is first a statement of wisdom and aims. Do you agree that aiming at perfection is wise? I did not say requiring perfection. You foolish right wingers always conflate that, putting words into the mouths of idealists. We are NOT saying that. Communism as a goal IS NOT Utopian. It is aiming at Utopia, intending for Utopia not with the expectation that it will be a Utopia, but with the understanding amid love and wisdom, that unless we aim at it, we will miss by even more. That pragmatism is nothing more than immorally intending to fail. That also is truth.




xwsmithx said:


> Who would plant crops if he was not going to get to eat them or sell them for profit? Who would mine metals if he was not going to get to use them or sell them for profit? Who would craft products if he was not going to get to use them for his own benefit or sell them for profit?



A loving and wise person would. That is your answer. I would. Because I realize that I will get to use them and eat them also. I also realize that society in love will plan for enough for all and make sure there are not too many people by spreading awareness and wise restraint of desire and using force if need be to insure the fair allocation and access to resources and services for all.




xwsmithx said:


> The fundamental _moral_ flaw in communism is that it rewards sloth and punishes productivity.



Love punishes sloth and rewards productivity. That is all the punishment and reward that is moral. Anything past that is immoral. So you are wrong again, and clearly so.




xwsmithx said:


> It is _your_ system that is immoral and unwise. Capitalism does not reward people for working at the expense of others, it rewards people for producing goods and services other people want and are willing to pay for. It isn't just a moral system, it is the _only_ moral system, and the only one compatible with a free society. All other economic schemes require government power to enforce. All other economic schemes require dispensing with liberty, and liberty being the most fundamental moral good, all other economic schemes are by necessity _immoral_. Which would you rather be, starving and free or a well-fed slave? But those are not the two choices you actually have, the two choices you have are to be a well fed free man or to be a starving slave. Capitalism produces the first, communism the second.


Liberty is just chaos. Freedom is chaos. Order properly understood and wisely understood must balance chaos and therefore balance freedom. Your liberty ends where my needs begin. From each according to ability, to each according to need is a very moral statement from a man who liked to deny the transcendent nature of morality. 

Capitalism is fundamentally immoral. Communism is fundamentally moral.


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

Riddle me this... Socialism?
@contradictionary and @Jamaia


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

contradictionary said:


> I concur with this. Your anaphylactic reaction to the word (communist) seems rather comical, @xwsmithx. You always sound as a balanced thinker to me but this is entirely different reflex from you.
> 
> Balance is everything we all need to grow into. Intj can be very dangerous human if going to extreme introverted route. Hard fact, unless we are living in the wood self sustaining our own life (like Ted Kaczynski did) then we are still social being. And we know how Ted end up, don't we...?


Ted Kaczynski was still a social being, a collective being, whether he wanted to or not, not an island. He was tied to all of humanity as it manifests through specific people just as everyone else is, not necessarily by daily direct interaction but directly through his biology, his personal past, his psyche, his thoughts. And as as part of that whole what he was and had become impacted others whether they wanted to or not. Doesn't mean he doesn't exist also as an individual and have agency in the midst of it, he does, as we all do.



Dalien said:


> Riddle me this... Socialism?
> @contradictionary and @Jamaia


Sorry I don't understand what you are asking, maybe contradictionary will go first.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Dalien said:


> Riddle me this... Socialism?
> @contradictionary and @Jamaia


Is it your way in returning my riddles, @Dalien? 

Ok, let me try. The way we should view all matters is in systemic thinking, that every agents, objects and the interconnection between them are enclosed in a system.

In a system there are always extreme points, when agents and objects travels quite far toward system boundary. It's normal though for on every single moment the system will be in steady state balanced equilibrium. Every parameters in the system works as *tradeoff*, for example:
1. Inside gas chamber, whenever the pressure rises the volume will drop, and vice versa
2. In all work projects i am doing there are speed, quality and cost parameters. No matter how hard i try to maximize all three i can always only get two. If i optimize speed and quality then cost will suffer. If i optimize cost and quality then speed will suffer, and so on
3. In a sociopolitical system if a nation went into tyrannical communist it will suffer, same with going ultra neoliberal capitalist
4. Related to thread title, we cannot expect to have a nation with all the citizens having iq of 140 because system still need hyrarchies and diversitiy to naturally distribute jobs and functions according each.

Bottomline, we should always aim to somewhat balance. I say somewhat because the equilibrium could be optimized to move along its axis into more optimal productivity. In regards to thread topic, all citizens having iq 140 will not work at all but average IQ moved from 100 to 110 could certainly benefit all.

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## xwsmithx (Jan 17, 2017)

contradictionary said:


> I concur with this. Your anaphylactic reaction to the word (communist) seems rather comical, @xwsmithx. You always sound as a balanced thinker to me but this is entirely different reflex from you.
> 
> Balance is everything we all need to grow into. Intj can be very dangerous human if going to extreme introverted route. Hard fact, unless we are living in the wood self sustaining our own life (like Ted Kaczynski did) then we are still social being. And we know how Ted end up, don't we...?
> 
> _Sent sans PC_




Living in the woods and being self-sustaining would indeed be the ideal, IF I had the wife and kids that I want, and a Walmart no more than a ten minute drive away. But I don't have any plans to send out mail bombs, if that's what you're asking.

As I noted above, I try to keep it cool and rational, but this infatuation with communism by people who have benefitted from living in a country that has been capitalistic for 200+ years and thereby become the richest, most powerful nation on earth pisses me off something fierce. One more example for any of you still thick-headed enough to believe in communism but open-minded enough to consider that you might be wrong... North Korea and South Korea have the same ethnic people (sometimes families were split by the 38th parallel), the same natural resources, the same IQ level, and in practically every possible way are identical. But North Korea has been communist since 1945 and South Korea has been capitalist since 1945. Never in history has there been such a pure test of opposing ideological viewpoints as in Korea. Behold the results:









In absolute terms, North Korea is one of the poorest countries in the world while South Korea is one of the richest, and the only difference between them is their economic systems. I am very much an idealist myself, but no matter what your moralistic views may be, the fact that communism ends up with people eating grass while capitalism makes people, communities, and countries rich _must_ take precedence.


----------



## aiyanah (Oct 25, 2018)

you know any communist will just say it's not real communism in north korea.
"if i was in charge that wouldn't be happening"
seen it, heard it, all before


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

xwsmithx said:


> Living in the woods and being self-sustaining would indeed be the ideal, IF I had the wife and kids that I want, and a Walmart no more than a ten minute drive away. But I don't have any plans to send out mail bombs, if that's what you're asking.
> 
> As I noted above, I try to keep it cool and rational, but this infatuation with communism by people who have benefitted from living in a country that has been capitalistic for 200+ years and thereby become the richest, most powerful nation on earth pisses me off something fierce. One more example for any of you still thick-headed enough to believe in communism but open-minded enough to consider that you might be wrong... North Korea and South Korea have the same ethnic people (sometimes families were split by the 38th parallel), the same natural resources, the same IQ level, and in practically every possible way are identical. But North Korea has been communist since 1945 and South Korea has been capitalist since 1945. Never in history has there been such a pure test of opposing ideological viewpoints as in Korea. Behold the results:
> 
> ...


I agree, but it's still also a fact that people are in many important ways much worse off in the so called Capitalistic countries now than they were before. Somethings are going wrong, objectively. Now granted there's a lot going on, the West is not purely Capitalistic and none of the Communistic countries are purely Communistic, so it's not a simplistic Capitalism vs Communism question. But both Capitalists and Communists wouldn't theoretically have expected people to be much worse off if they're more wealthy. Yet they are. It seems reality is not quite how we imagined it to be.

Of course, if you posit accumulating material wealth as #1 goal, then fine, nothing is going wrong for the West. I don't think you're an objectivist though, despite so passionately appealing to Rand. An objectivist wouldn't care if people show gratitude towards others, I think.


----------



## xwsmithx (Jan 17, 2017)

Jamaia said:


> I wasn't arguing for Communism, I was just taken aback by your expression of hatred but I see now.
> 
> The issue with objectivism, in my opinion, is that it's not true that humans are discrete scattered points, existing primarily as separate individuals only and best fulfilled in a self-centered competitive society. I don't think aynrandians think deep down enough to find what the supposed rationality rests upon. There's a personal, childish fantasy of not being dependent on or held back by anything, of being your own creation, say, and imposing that fantasy on the world. Well it's the fantasy behind holding individual freedom or liberty as #1 value and determining any restrictions on liberty as #1 evil.
> 
> ...


I think you're confused. Let me point out the contradictions (to borrow contradictionary's name)...

1. You decry objectivism for being too individual-centered, but then give as _your_ primary goal a system which guides individual growth, that makes people more "fulfilled". How is that not a system that is individual-centered?

2. You say you weren't arguing for communism, but then you gave a very communistic statement of value in your previous post, that liberty ends where needs begin. Certainly no capitalist would ever say that.

3. Your post pretends to intellectual depth and you disparage objectivists as being shallow, but you haven't thought through any of the consequences of your viewpoints. For example, what would be the results of holding _everyone_ accountable for everything and everyone? Does that mean we all get the death penalty for shooting up the crowd in Las Vegas?

4. Treating everyone as discrete points (atomistic, it's called) is indeed the direction that Western society has been taking, but I don't think _anyone_ would agree that Western society has been becoming more objectivist or capitalist as a result. Indeed, just the opposite is true, the West has been trending more and more socialistic while the Eastern nations have embraced capitalism and prospered as a result. It is in fact we traditionalists who have been opposing the increasing atomization of the West, by decrying divorce, abortion, child welfare programs, etc.

5. You start off your last section by saying no system or ism will solve "this" (whatever "this" is), then go on to say it will take A system etc. So which is it?

Ayn Rand used the term "selfishness" because it made the altruists squirm. But when you read what she actually _meant_ by selfishness, _i.e._, acting in your own rational best interest, you realize that she wasn't talking about being selfish at all, she was talking about acting like a rational, thinking human being. The exemplars from her books weren't selfish at all, but they refused to be beholden to the idea that they _owed_ anyone anything.


----------



## xwsmithx (Jan 17, 2017)

Jamaia said:


> I agree, but it's still also a fact that people are in many important ways much worse off in the so called Capitalistic countries now than they were before. Somethings are going wrong, objectively. Now granted there's a lot going on, the West is not purely Capitalistic and none of the Communistic countries are purely Communistic, so it's not a simplistic Capitalism vs Communism question. But both Capitalists and Communists wouldn't theoretically have expected people to be much worse off if they're more wealthy. Yet they are. It seems reality is not quite how we imagined it to be.
> 
> Of course, if you posit accumulating material wealth as #1 goal, then fine, nothing is going wrong for the West. I don't think you're an objectivist though, despite so passionately appealing to Rand. An objectivist wouldn't care if people show gratitude towards others, I think.



How is anyone worse off under capitalism than under communism? The poorest people in the US eat better than 90% of the people of North Korea. Speaking in terms of pure "happiness" levels, it's true that your happiness is much more determined by your _relative_ social standing, that if you're richer than your friends, you will be happy and if you're poorer than your friends, you will be unhappy, but since no system can resolve that issue in a way that makes _everyone_ happy, it's best just to ignore that aspect of society. So no, material wealth is not the #1 goal (which you would know immediately if you saw how I live), but as far as societal goals go, it's a good one.

You're wrong about Objectivists and gratitude. In one of the best scenes in _Atlas Shrugged_, Hank Reardon is hosting a party in his lavish mansion while looking out at a winter landscape, thinking that all these people would be out there in the cold if it weren't for him, but none of them have the decency to even thank him or acknowledge the reality, when Francisco D'Anconia, another exemplar of Rand's philosophy, comes up and does exactly that. Reardon is delighted until he finds out who is doing the thanking.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Allow me to try to explain.



xwsmithx said:


> I think you're confused. Let me point out the contradictions (to borrow contradictionary's name)...
> 
> 1. You decry objectivism for being too individual-centered, but then give as _your_ primary goal a system which guides individual growth, that makes people more "fulfilled". How is that not a system that is individual-centered?


Objectivism deposits a reality of separate identities. Humans at one level are indeed separate individual agents, but on many other levels not. 

I'm sure there's a better word than fulfilled, but can't think of one rn. 



> 2. You say you weren't arguing for communism, but then you gave a very communistic statement of value in your previous post, that liberty ends where needs begin. Certainly no capitalist would ever say that.


Fine. You can think of me as a Communist or no-Capitalist if you like.



> 3. Your post pretends to intellectual depth and you disparage objectivists as being shallow, but you haven't thought through any of the consequences of your viewpoints. For example, what would be the results of holding _everyone_ accountable for everything and everyone? Does that mean we all get the death penalty for shooting up the crowd in Las Vegas?


You're obviously free to call me pretending intellectual depth and who knows, maybe you're right, but I think the axioms of objectivism specifically aren't as well thought through as they could be. That's not necessarily shallow of them, but whatever. You brought up Ayn Rand as someone to better explain why the wants succumbing to needs thing is so deeply immoral, so we're discussing objectivism, but I also said any political/governmental/societal system alone is insufficient. Of course in a "system" where "everyone is held accountable" there would not be any individual who is above the blame and assigning death penalties to others. It means that everyone is responsible to the extent that they've failed to do good and allowed or ignored evil within their own sphere of influence, which we all have, and we should feel responsible as well. The "system" is specifically not a system of law or politics or government, anything that would achieve that feeling of interconnectedness would necessarily operate very differently.



> 4. Treating everyone as discrete points (atomistic, it's called) is indeed the direction that Western society has been taking, but I don't think _anyone_ would agree that Western society has been becoming more objectivist or capitalist as a result. Indeed, just the opposite is true, the West has been trending more and more socialistic while the Eastern nations have embraced capitalism and prospered as a result. It is in fact we traditionalists who have been opposing the increasing atomization of the West, by decrying divorce, abortion, child welfare programs, etc.


Thanks, atomization is a good word. Like I said there's a lot going on, but I think it's obvious our understanding of reality has flattened so much that we (unlike say before the 20th century) now understand human quite much like the objectivists do, primarily a self-contained point in space basically, minding its own business for as long as it is alive and best "fulfilled" when its own needs or indeed wants are met. This has occurred for many reasons and objectivism is just one manifestation of it. I don't think it as a specific movement was hugely revolutionary alone. 

How do you reconcile objectivism and traditionalism? Where do you get the rock to mount your traditionalistic values on if you're on board with objectivism?



> 5. You start off your last section by saying no system or ism will solve "this" (whatever "this" is), then go on to say it will take A system etc. So which is it?


There are systems that deal only with the political or governmental level of reality, and there's plenty of systems that aren't decidedly political/governmental. Perhaps it was unnecessary and confusing to use the word "societal" in that context, if societal simply means anything to do with social relations. I'll take it back.



> Ayn Rand used the term "selfishness" because it made the altruists squirm. But when you read what she actually _meant_ by selfishness, _i.e._, acting in your own rational best interest, you realize that she wasn't talking about being selfish at all, she was talking about acting like a rational, thinking human being. The exemplars from her books weren't selfish at all, but they refused to be beholden to the idea that they _owed_ anyone anything.


Ok.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

xwsmithx said:


> No. And this is where communism is born, is this ridiculous notion that other people exist to serve you, or that the world owes you something because you are here. They don't, and it doesn't.



And this TRIPE is a typical low brow misunderstanding and mis-characterization of Communism. Like most order apologists you assume that Communism will test out the same every time. Thankfully the Wright brothers (and any other worthy inventor) did not think like you, in bear trap mind mode. No, we press on with worthy ideas and we change things until we get it right. 

So to explain directly, it is NOT that the world owes you something. Rather the CORRECT way to think of it is that a wise person, amid moral duty, recognizes that they should care about the needs of others and voluntarily give to ensure at least that others' needs are met. That is only 1 moral tenet involved.

Fairness as a moral tenet means that everyone shares equally in the work effort of everyone, even when those work efforts are unequal. This is mankind as a whole animal, not just the group tier, but the group of groups tier including all mankind. You could even say this includes actual space aliens when they meet us, if they meet us.

Compassion as a moral tenet means that equality of worthiness of life must be respected amid moral duty. This means that inequality of function IS NOT RELEVANT. To disrespect this truth is unwise and immoral. The concept of reciprocation shows clearly that what goes around comes around, meaning NOT the order apologist point of view, that punishment is needed, covered next, but more the karma point of view (for those who understand wisdom). 

Punishment and reward as a moral tenet must be absent. That is because external punihsment and reward are immoral human actions, after the fact, consequentialism in action. Love already includes intrinsic punishments and rewards and thus any effort of humans after the fact is an immoral action on top of something that love is essentially saying, 'I got this' to. Granted only that we must restrain immoral actors that show a pattern using systemic processes and policies that catalyze moral and hinder immoral behavior.




xwsmithx said:


> Your needs do not create any kind of burden on other people to provide for those needs.



Yes they do. Do you mean to say they should not create that burden? 

But they will create that burden. And if they collapse under that burden here revealed is the callousness of order apology allowing personal chaos to destroy chaos-apologists by may of force, e.g. poverty. Isaac Asimov knew this was wrong and dangerous. He programmed in sci fiction the first robots with the maxim, 'You may not through action OR INACTION allow a human to come to harm.' That is how clueless you are. Humans as robots, or do you deny that, programmed with your clueless selfishness, WILL destroy each other. You just think that the ones destroyed are unworthy, and that is your evil, actual evil. A robot coded with Asimov's laws of robotics IS COMMUNIST. You are JUST being unwise and immoral in your choices and judgement.




xwsmithx said:


> You have no _right_ to demand others to provide for you simply because you _need_ it. Read _Atlas Shrugged_ for a much better answer to the claims of "need" than I can give.



Ayn Rand is another clueless selfishness advocate, another dyed in the wool order apologist. Seeing how chaos-apology can go wrong first hand, rather than struggle as a thinker to make it correct, she went full bore order-apology and made the SAME ERROR in reverse. That kind of excuse for thinking is inexcusable (almost - we have to remember forgiveness and her family went through hell). But that is like polling the chickens in the henhouse after a fox raid on the welfare of furry predators. You are not going to get wisdom from that poll, only vengeance motivation.

We all DO have an inalienable right to expect humankind to love us and treat us with love. Your denial of this is immoral. And love is not the order apologist version of self support only. We must support the weak as well as they are us ultimately. Weak in one way is not weak in all ways. And we want the strengths of the so-called weak with us and not hampered by their rather insignificant needs. 



xwsmithx said:


> Karl Marx's famous phrase is the way the poor enslave the rich, the worthless enslave the worthy, the useless enslave the useful. To phrase it more properly, you'd have to say, "Take from those who can and give to those who can't."



Your can and can't is only related to a narrow set of virtues. A maximal balanced virtue set is wise and _instead _focusing on 1 or even 3 virtues like achievement, loyalty, and diplomacy is actually immoral. Wisdom requires the integration of ALL virtues. Leave even 1 virtue out and you are less wise than you could be. 

Order apologists like you advocate for a 'good enough' philosophy aiming at 8 on the archery target instead of the 10 for more efficient efforts. That is why you all always claim that Communism is a Utopia. You just will not aim for the 10. It is actually immoral, and I call that INTENDING TO FAIL. That is your pragmatism. And it is evil.

Granted the wishful thinking lack of personal accountability of the left in general, denying reality, is also immoral and they need to come to terms with that just like the right does with selfishness and greed.




xwsmithx said:


> So then the question becomes, why should those who can, do _anything_ if they aren't going to profit from their effort?



Profiting in earned wisdom is moral. Profiting any other way is external reward and immoral. If an individual profits that is to group stores. In this way, society is built to benefit all, and not an elite. ANY other approach and you get elites. Granted I do favor an elite of tested as wise voters, because wisdom, real wisdom, is the least corruptible trait humanity can show.

If you ask that question, 'why should those who can, do _anything_ if they aren't going to profit from their effort?' you show immorality even in the asking. 'Because it is right, morally.' is your correct answer. Selfishness in that sense is not moral. Actually selfishness can be moral when you realize that you are me and I am you, because then helping all is helping the self, as it is, for real. So be careful with the willful deflation of the term which accompanies an immoral deflection of the truth.




xwsmithx said:


> Might as well be lazy and do nothing like those who can't. Doubters like to say that capitalism is based on greed (William F. Buckley said _all_ economic systems are based on greed), but capitalism works because it rewards effort. Communism's fatal flaw is that it does not reward effort, it rewards laziness and sloth. The less you do, the greater your rewards. The more you do, the greater your punishment. Read _Animal Farm_ for the end results of that system.



This is only said by a person who does not understand wisdom and love. Love intrinsically rewards effort, a job well done. It also punishes lack of effort, laziness. You know that is true. That feeling people get is love in action. THAT just needs to be properly taught to people so they know why they are unhappy when they are lazy. It will work.

What will never work is when you tell MOST kids that they can do it and they see other kids starting in a society that lets people immorally stack up millions of resources in hereditary economies that DO NOT support equality of opportunity no matter what its foolish advocates say. Well fed, well cared for medically, well educated and equally educated, well trained and equally trained, well able to take time off and relax, equally aware of and granted access to ALL of society's services, possessed of equal resources as a guarantee of their society, *IS* equality of opportunity. Anything else touted as such is delusion.




xwsmithx said:


> Now let's take that term, "resources". How many resources are there on the planet? Like how much oil is there? How much gold? What are the main resources that go into most finished products? How much food is there? How much _water_ is there? The correct answer is, "an infinite supply". Why? Because the main resource that goes into most finished and even many unfinished products is human labor. And human labor is infinite in abundance. Did you know that the world's known sources of oil are now *larger* than at any time in our history despite having been burning fossil fuels since the late 1890s? Why? New discoveries (in Venezuela and elsewhere) and new technologies (shale drilling/fracking). At the time of the US's founding, something like 90% of the population had to practice farming in order to sustain the 10% of the population that engaged in other types of occupations. Today that number is 3%, and I have read that US farms have the _capacity_ to feed the entire world's population if it were necessary. And new technology continues to ensure that more and more farmland gets converted to other uses year after year while capacity stays the same or increases. Most of the cost of US food today isn't in the product itself but in the cost of shipping, packaging, labeling, and then shipping again to stores so it can be where we are. How about water? Can water ever be _used up_? Not really. The conservation of matter says no matter what form water takes, it remains forever. It may need cleaning, desalination, etc., but it's always there. You can't "run out" of water, at least on a planetary scale. So this notion of dividing up resources is a nonsequitur. It isn't necessary or desirable to divide up resources because resources are _infinite_. It's only when you start taking from those who _create_ resources and start giving them to those who do nothing that resources start to become finite. Tell me, is the US likely to run out of toilet paper any time soon? No. But toilet paper is in short supply in Venezuela. What's the difference? Capitalism and Communism. Infinite resources and limited resources.



The Neanderthal reasoning here is obvious for all to see. Population increase and Earth's correctly interpreted as finite, not infinite, supply means that resources must be managed for a wise society. Further morally it is clear that individual hoards are immoral. Using resources in the currect haphazard manner is immoral. The wealthy hyper-consume and abuse the resources and the poor mismanage due to incompetence and desperation as well. Society MUST morally control both breeding and resource allotment per capita. It is obvious and there is no other way. Easter Island is the result of belief to the contrary in microcosm.




xwsmithx said:


> Short answer: Slavery is evil, and those who preach slavery are evil as a consequence. Liberty is not an absolute, like you can't go around killing people without consequence, but as a _value_, liberty is #1 or close to it. Ownership of property comes a close second, which is another reason communism is evil.


Love is a tyranny and a proper one. We are FORCED to live amid a universe where love is the law. Morality is law. Happiness is alignment with that law, and unhappiness is a choice not to align.

Are we all slaves of love?

No. The reason why is free will. That means love, in its actual wisdom, releases us to make moral and immoral choices via free will. That means a society should respect that and come into alignment with it. But like love, society should *intrinsically *reward all of its members. This logic of unity, this demand of love, is what you are not in alignment with. You don't get it. That intrinsic reward is quite eloquently stated by Karl Marx - from each according to ability, to each according to need. THAT is intrinsic reward in alignment with love and the only moral choice possible.


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

@contradictionary Thanks for that generalization, but that isn’t what I’m asking. I already believe that we are all the same in that we each have differences in one form or another... we’re human. Levels of IQ will always be and yes we could raise them some (generally). 
What system do you think will balance this? Socialism?

@Jamaia You’re argument is solely on that you think that @xwsmithx ‘s reaction is based on not having the desire to generally care about all people, because he opposes communism. I first asked if you believed communism would do such. Then I asked you socialism?.

Both of you have valid points, but neither of you quite say what you believe to be done about it as in putting it in action. Except showing kindness/care for all/balance. The world is as it is as of now... what is your (each of you) proposal to solve the issues?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

xwsmithx said:


> How is anyone worse off under capitalism than under communism?


I didn't say they were.



> The poorest people in the US eat better than 90% of the people of North Korea. Speaking in terms of pure "happiness" levels, it's true that your happiness is much more determined by your _relative_ social standing, that if you're richer than your friends, you will be happy and if you're poorer than your friends, you will be unhappy, but since no system can resolve that issue in a way that makes _everyone_ happy, it's best just to ignore that aspect of society.


Ha, no it's crucial and should definitely not be ignored just because ignoring it would be convenient.



> So no, material wealth is not the #1 goal (which you would know immediately if you saw how I live), but as far as societal goals go, it's a good one.


Ok, that's a good distinction, but in my opinion accumulating wealth is not a good goal for a society. There has to be a reason for why the wealth is accumulated, and "to make people more wealthy" is not a good enough reason.



> You're wrong about Objectivists and gratitude. In one of the best scenes in _Atlas Shrugged_, Hank Reardon is hosting a party in his lavish mansion while looking out at a winter landscape, thinking that all these people would be out there in the cold if it weren't for him, but none of them have the decency to even thank him or acknowledge the reality, when Francisco D'Anconia, another exemplar of Rand's philosophy, comes up and does exactly that. Reardon is delighted until he finds out who is doing the thanking.


Ah the tragedy! 

So what is the virtue of gratitude based upon? Why is it important to be grateful? Isn't it also true that Reardon would himself be miserable if he was alone in his mansion and never hosted a party for others to attend, and especially if he didn't invite the people in from the cold, whether they're aware enough to be thankful or not? Is it exemplary of Reardon to lament the fact that his efforts weren't appreciated (or that the people didn't understand their fortune, which ever the sentiment was)?


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

Dalien said:


> @Jamaia You’re argument is solely on that you think that @xwsmithx ‘s reaction is based on not having the desire to generally care about all people, because he opposes communism. I first asked if you believed communism would do such. Then I asked you socialism?.
> 
> Both of you have valid points, but neither of you quite say what you believe to be done about it as in putting it in action. Except showing kindness/care for all/balance. The world is as it is as of now... what is your (each of you) proposal to solve the issues?


The only way I think that would begin to solve the issue is developing a more complete understanding of how reality lays itself out and what is the role of an individual. There has to be a transcendent goal beyond the individual himself or the society, one which can be both applied to and align all the levels. Without it any societal practice, system or set of laws or whatever will be empty of meaning and inevitably fail. For a while it may work that the individual serves the society and the society serves the individual, but probably not for long... I think Nationalism works like that. 

Refusing a transcendent goal for the society, which simultaneously touches every member of the society personally, Communism fails by producing people who not just focus on optimizing their own existence but who also find creative ways to abuse, even rig, the system. So will Capitalism and any other political system. Perhaps there's some difference between how obviously or immediately immoral one or another system is, but I don't think it's a big difference. I think there's a lot done right in the West and I really don't like any of the Communistic states. But looking beyond that juxtaposition, the lack of meaning causes us to fall apart internally at the level of society as well as at the level of every smaller unit, despite the unprecedented wealth and prosperity we may have. 

At the level of "what should we do in practice" I think what we really need is people interacting with each other, one to one, for real, so that real issues aren't as easy to ignore. We need language to address reality and not just focus on the immediate everyday life. Outsourcing of care is not good, allowing people to grow intolerant of each other and any distractions or disturbances to their peace, is not good. And I personally don't like that, because I'm lazy and private and I'd rather not bother with others. I quite like someone else taking care of the needy and also the opportunity to send my kids off to daycare for the day.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Dalien said:


> @*contradictionary* Thanks for that generalization, but that isn’t what I’m asking. I already believe that we are all the same in that we each have differences in one form or another... we’re human. Levels of IQ will always be and yes we could raise them some (generally).
> What system do you think will balance this? Socialism?
> 
> @*Jamaia* You’re argument is solely on that you think that @*xwsmithx* ‘s reaction is based on not having the desire to generally care about all people, because he opposes communism. I first asked if you believed communism would do such. Then I asked you socialism?.
> ...


Catering to evil just because people are weak in general is no solution. That is again the general failure of order apology, or pragmatism.

The solution is actually obvious, and has been shown to us many times in stories and wisdom as goal oriented theory. 

We must, as a people, rebuild society in alignment with love. That is not a joke and it is not impossible. We must aim for perfection in order not to be intending to fail.

This would involve:

1) The tacit admission that individual hordes of resources are immoral and that society as a whole, all of humanity, must manage resources for the well being of all. This means underscoring the truth of immoral greed by accepting and teaching the wisdom of the immoral nature of external reward and punishment.

a) In practice this would mean taxing the wealthy more and more as a gradual system of leveling to avoid systemic shock.
b) This would also mean a floor up waiver of costs with respect to all services and need items for the poor. Both a & b working together would stabilize equality of wealth in less than a century, probably sooner. 
c) Menial tasks and such would be meted out on a volunteer basis and assigned if need be. Everyone not deemed functionally critical, like doctors and such whose time is already maxxed at truly needed tasks, would be chosen just like for jury duty to handle such tasks. Amid the equality of wealth status of everyone, there would be no shame in such tasks that was not delusion choice only.
d) Therapy would likely be needed for hard line order apologists who just cannot seem to understand that their work is everyone's. This is an immoral denial of the unity principle, and not in alignment with love. If you would not help your fellow man by choice, and you work in part even to get ahead of others, your effort in that sense was NEVER moral to begin with. A job well done is for the benefit of all only or it is NOT well done.

2) Decisions of society would need to regularly and systematically reflect actual wisdom in their edicts and policies. This means attempting in every way to disregard the known as unwise opinions. This means that society needs to qualify wisdom, to qualify a voting elite, and to qualify candidates for leadership within society as wise. Democracy has to go. 

Both chaos and order apologists are ruining humankind for all of us. They are in a mostly unaware conspiracy of dunces, lacking wisdom, and choosing too much order and too much chaos by turns in an endless and simultaneous cycle. Once we choose to balance that nonsense by systemic action we will enter a real meta phase for humanity, the next real evolution. Wisdom (love) is the only path that can lead to this.

3) The pursuit of perfection in every sense needs to be acknowledged as wisdom and taught to everyone, in alignment with love. This includes a simultaneous acknowledgement that perfection cannot be attained. This robs order apologists of their fallacious argument that that Communism is Utopian in nature. Perfection aiming IS NOT perfection expectant. Perfection aiming is INTENDING TO SUCCEED. That is the GOOD. Anything else is immoral.

4) The over expression of desire and order errors within current society beyond those identified above, must be systematically addressed. The system itself must be modified to catalyze wisdom and wise choices by each and every member of society. This nourishing attitude of equal empowerment enforces equal responsibility and follows up on bad choices with counseling and active action. Problems are no longer expected to solve themselves, but rather it is acknowledged that we as a whole, mankind (and even aliens we meet) will together in wisdom and love actively address all issues.


----------



## aiyanah (Oct 25, 2018)

> We must, as a people, rebuild society in alignment with love. That is not a joke and it is not impossible. We must aim for perfection in order not to be intending to fail.


i find this naive honestly.
what's the opposite of love? cause that will exist in spades in whatever supposed system you have constructed by flawed humans and their own devious motivations. 
so it's hate, can we deal with hatred as a society?
you aren't going to just get rid of it or the other half might as well be made rid off too as it ceases to be useful in the absence of it's own shadow.
think of the worst places that hatred can send someone, the worst things it can inspire them to do, cause that will happen in your society built on love.
why will it happen? cause reality insists on balancing scales.

the list too

1. why should anyone get resources they didn't work for? makes no sense
the only resource this is in relation to is money, why should anyone get money they didn't work for? makes no sense

a) tax the rich some more and don't get upset when they close down their businesses that are paying the citizens.
b) equality of wealth is not a good outcome...at all, i shouldn't have to expound.
c) considering this is extended from b...no again, why shouldn't people just do menial work cause they want to?
d) precisely because my work is everyone's work means i should be compensated correctly for elevating the collective, beyonce does this with each release so i'm comfortable saying you aren't observing reality at this point.

2. how do you fix the experiment when it goes wrong without democracy?
what would stop those you put into power from being corrupted?
they're in power, they are bringing more of value to the society than anyone else, correctly so they will invariably compensate themselves for managing all these monkeys on the streets.

3. perfection isn't attainable by a flawed species, you have seen it sure but you can't reach it again since biting the proverbial apple.
so what should you do? 
recognise that balance is perfection, permit there to be good and evil and suddenly you have a 3-dimensional landscape with which to manipulate instead of attempting to grow one dimension and hoping the other vanishes in sympathy for your efforts.

4. are you permitting people to be free and make their own mistakes in life with this idea or is that no longer an option?
who are you to dictate what is wisdom?
who are you to force someone to take help they might not want?
who are you to decide they even need help?
and who are you to burden me with the rest of mankind when i'm only concerned with my own family?


----------



## xwsmithx (Jan 17, 2017)

series0 said:


> And this TRIPE is a typical low brow misunderstanding and mis-characterization of Communism. Like most order apologists you assume that Communism will test out the same every time. Thankfully the Wright brothers (and any other worthy inventor) did not think like you, in bear trap mind mode. No, we press on with worthy ideas and we change things until we get it right.


Yes, let's not let 100 million dead and billions more suffering stop us from continuing to try a system that has failed now every time it has been tried. Let's not learn anything from others' mistakes. What _you_ fail to understand is that communism is itself flawed and evil in its premise. It simply _cannot_ work because it runs against the natural order of human behavior.



series0 said:


> So to explain directly, it is NOT that the world owes you something. Rather the CORRECT way to think of it is that a wise person, amid moral duty, recognizes that they should care about the needs of others and voluntarily give to ensure at least that others' needs are met. That is only 1 moral tenet involved.


Great. So be a wise person and care about the needs of others and give voluntarily _out of your own fucking pocket and *stay the fuck out of mine.*_



series0 said:


> Fairness as a moral tenet means that everyone shares equally in the work effort of everyone, even when those work efforts are unequal. This is mankind as a whole animal, not just the group tier, but the group of groups tier including all mankind. You could even say this includes actual space aliens when they meet us, if they meet us.


Fairness is not a moral tenet. The world is not fair and it never will be. And _your_ sense of fairness would be terribly _unfair_ to those people who have superior abilities and talents and who can and should be rewarded for their efforts.



series0 said:


> Compassion as a moral tenet means that equality of worthiness of life must be respected amid moral duty. This means that inequality of function IS NOT RELEVANT. To disrespect this truth is unwise and immoral. The concept of reciprocation shows clearly that what goes around comes around, meaning NOT the order apologist point of view, that punishment is needed, covered next, but more the karma point of view (for those who understand wisdom).


So you're not only evil but a fool as well. Here's karma for you: Stalin, who killed between 40 and 60 million people, died of natural causes. Gandhi, the hero saint of India, was assassinated. People are not equally worthy of life, not equally worthy of reward, not equally worthy of punishment.



series0 said:


> Punishment and reward as a moral tenet must be absent. That is because external punihsment and reward are immoral human actions, after the fact, consequentialism in action. Love already includes intrinsic punishments and rewards and thus any effort of humans after the fact is an immoral action on top of something that love is essentially saying, 'I got this' to. Granted only that we must restrain immoral actors that show a pattern using systemic processes and policies that catalyze moral and hinder immoral behavior.


I honestly don't know what to say to such supreme idiocy. People do bad things. They need to be punished for them. Others who are tempted to do bad things need to see bad people being punished to dissuade them from following in their footsteps. Jordan Peterson discussed rewards in one of his videos. He said we pay people to do those things that they do well so that they will continue doing them. People who do things well are what make society work, and the way we make sure that people who do things well keep doing them is by paying them, and if they do them extremely well, we pay them a great deal. To suggest that this is _immoral_ is astounding.



series0 said:


> Yes they do. Do you mean to say they should not create that burden?


They don't. Does one dog's existence create a burden on any other dog to support it? Does one lion's existence create a burden on any other lion to support it? Outside of the extended family, the most likely outcome of a dog or lion coming upon a weak or wounded stranger would be to kill it immediately.



series0 said:


> But they will create that burden. And if they collapse under that burden here revealed is the callousness of order apology allowing personal chaos to destroy chaos-apologists by may of force, e.g. poverty. Isaac Asimov knew this was wrong and dangerous. He programmed in sci fiction the first robots with the maxim, 'You may not through action OR INACTION allow a human to come to harm.' That is how clueless you are. Humans as robots, or do you deny that, programmed with your clueless selfishness, WILL destroy each other. You just think that the ones destroyed are unworthy, and that is your evil, actual evil. A robot coded with Asimov's laws of robotics IS COMMUNIST. You are JUST being unwise and immoral in your choices and judgement.


I agree with you about Asimov. Even as a kid, I found Asimov's understanding of economics and politics ludicrous. And I know so much more now about both than when I was a kid reading Asimov. But it's interesting that you equate the ideal human society with a fictional society of robots.

I still don't know what you mean by "order apologist". You think there's something wrong with _order?_



series0 said:


> Ayn Rand is another clueless selfishness advocate, another dyed in the wool order apologist. Seeing how chaos-apology can go wrong first hand, rather than struggle as a thinker to make it correct, she went full bore order-apology and made the SAME ERROR in reverse. That kind of excuse for thinking is inexcusable (almost - we have to remember forgiveness and her family went through hell). But that is like polling the chickens in the henhouse after a fox raid on the welfare of furry predators. You are not going to get wisdom from that poll, only vengeance motivation.


You obviously understand nothing about Objectivism. Ayn Rand pointed out that capitalism is the very first system based on a third way of ordering society, that throughout human history, two forces have been struggling for supremacy, which she labelled the king and the priest. The king is the force of "might makes right", that the state is supreme and always should be. The priest is the force of "god makes right", that the invisible deities are supreme and always should be. Capitalism overthrows both the king and the priest and installs a new force, the force of free choice. Capitalism is a way of ordering society based on the free and independent choices of everyone in society, that no one can force you to take a job you don't want, to make a product you don't want, to buy a product you don't want. The butcher, the baker, and the breadmaker, unlike the king and the priest, have to give you value for value, they have to provide you with something you want in order to get what they want, your money. The corporation, the law firm, or the sole proprietorship down the street cannot force you to work for them. They have to give you value for value, they have to pay you to get what they want, your labor. Not only is this a beautiful system, not only does it _work_, not only is it the _only_ system that works, it's supremely moral. It treats everyone as an independent actor with free choice and free will. In economics, it's assumed that everyone acts in his own rational best self-interest, and that is the basis for Objectivism. (Now we know it's not true, but that's the assumption.)



series0 said:


> We all DO have an inalienable right to expect humankind to love us and treat us with love. Your denial of this is immoral. And love is not the order apologist version of self support only. We must support the weak as well as they are us ultimately. Weak in one way is not weak in all ways. And we want the strengths of the so-called weak with us and not hampered by their rather insignificant needs.


Pffft. Good luck with that.



series0 said:


> Your can and can't is only related to a narrow set of virtues. A maximal balanced virtue set is wise and _instead _focusing on 1 or even 3 virtues like achievement, loyalty, and diplomacy is actually immoral. Wisdom requires the integration of ALL virtues. Leave even 1 virtue out and you are less wise than you could be.


Government's job is to keep you from acting in an evil fashion, and to punish you if you do. It is not government's job to ensure anyone acts virtuously, and any government that took it upon itself to do so would quickly become the most evil, tyrannical government ever seen on earth.



series0 said:


> Order apologists like you advocate for a 'good enough' philosophy aiming at 8 on the archery target instead of the 10 for more efficient efforts. That is why you all always claim that Communism is a Utopia. You just will not aim for the 10. It is actually immoral, and I call that INTENDING TO FAIL. That is your pragmatism. And it is evil.


I am not a pragmatist, I am a realist. I don't call communism a utopia, I call it hell on earth. You are a leveller, and as someone who stands out from the crowd, someone who is _exceptional_, I take great offense to the idea that I must somehow be brought down to others' level, that I must be enslaved to the wishes and whims of others. To give you an idea of what communism means to me, the elevation of the group over the individual, the subjugation of the exceptional, let me tell you a story from my school days, the most dramatic but not the only example: Once in Calculus II, a college course, the professor marked my answer wrong. I missed the review of the test, but after checking my work, I argued with the professor about the question. I was _informed_ that I was the only one who got my answer, that everyone else in class had gotten the same answer as the professor, and I was asked if I thought I was right and everyone else was wrong. I shrugged and said, "Sorry, but I am right," and explained why. At the end of class, the professor reworked the problem on the board, only this time, she got _my_ answer. This is the difference to me between capitalism and communism. Capitalism says the one person can be right and all of society wrong. Communism would elevate the society over the individual and say you are wrong, even if you know better. I am okay with different people having different amounts of money because different people have different amounts of ability, and the fact that I can get an A and you can't get any better than a C doesn't mean I have to share my A with you so that we both end up with a B. Fuck you. If all you _deserve_ is a C, all you _get_ is a C. But obviously deserts have nothing to do with _your_ morality.




series0 said:


> Granted the wishful thinking lack of personal accountability of the left in general, denying reality, is also immoral and they need to come to terms with that just like the right does with selfishness and greed.


Ha. Funny. You a) don't think you're a leftist, and b) don't realize you're the ultimate denier of reality.



series0 said:


> Profiting in earned wisdom is moral. Profiting any other way is external reward and immoral. If an individual profits that is to group stores. In this way, society is built to benefit all, and not an elite. ANY other approach and you get elites. Granted I do favor an elite of tested as wise voters, because wisdom, real wisdom, is the least corruptible trait humanity can show.


Anytime the government gets to pick the winners and losers, you can be sure the government will be the winner and the rest of society the loser.



series0 said:


> If you ask that question, 'why should those who can, do anything if they aren't going to profit from their effort?' you show immorality even in the asking. 'Because it is right, morally.' is your correct answer. Selfishness in that sense is not moral. Actually selfishness can be moral when you realize that you are me and I am you, because then helping all is helping the self, as it is, for real. So be careful with the willful deflation of the term which accompanies an immoral deflection of the truth.


News flash: You are not me and I am not you, as you can obviously see by our extreme difference of opinion on what is moral and what is immoral.



series0 said:


> This is only said by a person who does not understand wisdom and love.  Love intrinsically rewards effort, a job well done. It also punishes lack of effort, laziness. You know that is true. That feeling people get is love in action. THAT just needs to be properly taught to people so they know why they are unhappy when they are lazy. It will work.


People are not saints and government based on the idea of people as saints is doomed from the start. What would happen (realistically now, not in your utopian fantasies) if we got rid of the criminal justice system, repealed all the laws on crime and punishment? Chaos, that's what. People would go wild, robbing and killing at will. Armed militias would have to form to enforce order again.

Rush Limbaugh in _See, I Told You So_ told the story of the Plymouth Bay colony. If you wanted to pick the perfect people to form your perfect communist society, these would be those people. They were motivated by the desire to form a Godly society. And they tried it! They set up a communist system where all would be shared equally except houses and spouses. And it didn't work. Half the men wouldn't work the fields, half of the remainder worked only half-heartedly, but they all expected an equal share of the food come wintertime. Half the colony starved or froze to death. The next year, they switched to individual plots of land to grow food, and that winter, ALL of them ate.



series0 said:


> What will never work is when you tell MOST kids that they can do it and they see other kids starting in a society that lets people immorally stack up millions of resources in hereditary economies that DO NOT support equality of opportunity no matter what its foolish advocates say. Well fed, well cared for medically, well educated and equally educated, well trained and equally trained, well able to take time off and relax, equally aware of and granted access to ALL of society's services, possessed of equal resources as a guarantee of their society, *IS* equality of opportunity. Anything else touted as such is delusion.



The solution to "hereditary economies" is more capitalism. All during the 1970s, the Forbes 400 changed very little. With the election of Ronald Reagan at the end of 1980 came a return to capitalist policies, and by 1990, almost none of the Forbes 400 were still on the list from 1980. Reducing taxes and regulations and allowing the capitalist system to _work_ ensures a greater turnover of wealth and more abundance for all. And you're incorrect, the socioeconomic status of the parents is actually a fairly poor predictor of the SES of the kids. IQ is a much better predictor of socioeconomic status, even for the highest SES parents. And if you look at the Forbes 400 of today, very few of them were the children of wealthy parents or inherited their wealth. Most of them _earned_ it. I realize you don't know what that word means, but you should get to know it. Did you ever earn anything in your life, or was everything handed to you simply for existing? Do you really think it's immoral that some people _earn_ more than others?

As for "equality of opportunity", most of the great people of the world overcame great handicaps to reach their level of success. So the idea that only a level playing field is "fair" is itself delusional. Give people the freedom to make of themselves what they can.



series0 said:


> The Neanderthal reasoning here is obvious for all to see. Population increase and Earth's correctly interpreted as finite, not infinite, supply means that resources must be managed for a wise society. Further morally it is clear that individual hoards are immoral. Using resources in the currect haphazard manner is immoral. The wealthy hyper-consume and abuse the resources and the poor mismanage due to incompetence and desperation as well. Society MUST morally control both breeding and resource allotment per capita. It is obvious and there is no other way. Easter Island is the result of belief to the contrary in microcosm.



Easter Island is a perfect example of the failure of communism. Rain (or rather a lack of it) was the primary culprit, but Easter Island's problem is what is known as "the tragedy of the commons". No one owned the property (the land) where the trees were, so no one owned the trees, so no one was motivated to manage their usage to preserve them from all being chopped down. This happens everywhere there's no clear ownership of property: in fishing, in the Amazon, and in every communist society. As for resources, I've already noted that the biggest resource is human labor (and I'll add in ingenuity), and human labor is _infinite_. The more people we have, the richer we can get because we have that much more labor as a resource. (Caveat: People with IQ's below 83 are a dead loss to society. Their labor is worth less than the oversight necessary to get it from them.) Resources do not need to be managed for a wise society, resources need to be _owned_ in order to be managed well. Trees are a perfect example. The vast majority of trees cut down for things like paper towels and toilet paper in the US today were grown specifically for that purpose, on land owned by the paper companies. The paper companies manage the land and the trees wisely because if they don't, they won't have any available for turning into paper. You only get clearcutting in places where the _government_ owns the land, _i.e._, it's held _in common_. That encourages waste and resource exhaustion because there's no benefit to leaving anything for the next guy. As for individual hoards being immoral, that comes from your lack thinking. You're assuming that there's only a limited supply of X, so the more Jones has of X, the less there is available for everyone else. But that's false. The more of X Jones buys and stocks up, the more _money_ there is for companies A, B, and C to make more X. Suppose Bill Gates went on a buying spree and started buying up all the yachts in the world. How many yachts would be left after Bill Gates bought all his billions could afford? Answer: _Way more._ All the yacht companies would go on a building tear to a) provide more yachts for Bill Gates, and b) provide more yachts for everyone else. This is in fact the first principle of supply and demand, the more demand there is for something, the higher the price will go. The higher the price goes for something, the more supply there will be of it. When supply and demand equalize, the price stabilizes. This same principle applies even for things that you might not think it does, like oil. When the price of oil goes up, the supply of oil also goes up. Why? Isn't the supply of oil _fixed_? No, it isn't. There are plenty of places where the cost of extracting the oil is higher than the current price of oil, so it isn't pumped out. But if the price goes up to make the cost worth the effort, then the pumps are turned on, increasing the supply. No one can take food out of your mouth by buying tons of it and stocking it in their cellar. That will only increase the supply of food, not reduce it. Frito-Lay summed this up perfectly in a Doritos commercial when they said, "Eat all you want. We'll make more." No one can take a dollar out of your pocket by earning billions of them. Capitalists create wealth, they don't steal it. Three of the four richest people in the US today created their wealth with 1s and 0s. Only a Neanderthal would think that the world is limited.



series0 said:


> Love is a tyranny and a proper one. We are FORCED to live amid a universe where love is the law. Morality is law. Happiness is alignment with that law, and unhappiness is a choice not to align.
> 
> Are we all slaves of love?
> 
> No. The reason why is free will. That means love, in its actual wisdom, releases us to make moral and immoral choices via free will. That means a society should respect that and come into alignment with it. But like love, society should *intrinsically *reward all of its members. This logic of unity, this demand of love, is what you are not in alignment with. You don't get it. That intrinsic reward is quite eloquently stated by Karl Marx - from each according to ability, to each according to need. THAT is intrinsic reward in alignment with love and the only moral choice possible.


Keep your intrinsic rewards and give me a society based on extrinsic rewards and punishments.

It seems common for people to blame free will for all kinds of frailties, like immorality, sin, and imperfection. But that's not how I see free will. I see free will as _exposing_ immorality, sin, and imperfection. Without free will, all of those things would exist but no one would see them because none of them would be noticeable. With free will, however, we can see the difference between immorality and morality, sin and virtue, imperfection and perfection. Free will doesn't _create_ those things, it only shows them off to the world. A perfect being with free will would still be perfect, and failing to choose the perfect way would mean that being was imperfect to begin with. A saint (assuming such a person exists) wouldn't fall victim to sin because of free will, he would go on being a saint. (And as previously noted, if he had no free will, he wouldn't be noticed as a saint.) If he fell victim to sin, he would be a sinner from the start and not a saint, and not as a result of free will.

Great men deserve great rewards. Little men deserve little rewards. Evil men like you deserve _nothing_.



aiyanah said:


> i find this naive honestly.
> what's the opposite of love? cause that will exist in spades in whatever supposed system you have constructed by flawed humans and their own devious motivations.
> so it's hate, can we deal with hatred as a society?
> you aren't going to just get rid of it or the other half might as well be made rid off too as it ceases to be useful in the absence of it's own shadow.
> ...


Beautiful! I especially like section 4 there.


----------



## Jamaia (Dec 17, 2014)

> Keep your intrinsic rewards and give me a society based on extrinsic rewards and punishments.
> 
> It seems common for people to blame free will for all kinds of frailties, like immorality, sin, and imperfection. But that's not how I see free will. I see free will as exposing immorality, sin, and imperfection. Without free will, all of those things would exist but no one would see them because none of them would be noticeable. With free will, however, we can see the difference between immorality and morality, sin and virtue, imperfection and perfection. Free will doesn't create those things, it only shows them off to the world. A perfect being with free will would still be perfect, and failing to choose the perfect way would mean that being was imperfect to begin with. A saint (assuming such a person exists) wouldn't fall victim to sin because of free will, he would go on being a saint. (And as previously noted, if he had no free will, he wouldn't be noticed as a saint.) If he fell victim to sin, he would be a sinner from the start and not a saint, and not as a result of free will.
> 
> Great men deserve great rewards. Little men deserve little rewards. Evil men like you deserve nothing.


So you don't really believe in free will after all? Free will is usually understood as the ability to make choices between good and bad. If certain identity (set of characteristics) prevents or predetermines certain behavior in relation to good and bad, then there is no free will. And the identity of a creature is set, in your opinion, only revealed by their behavior (so a sinning saint was a sinner and never a saint)?


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

aiyanah said:


> i find this naive honestly.


It is expected that BOTH chaos and order apologists, mostly the latter, will find the system I outlined naive. That is because any efforts towards wisdom, does not address the fears of the order types well enough (or the desires of the chaos types well enough).

Thus actual wisdom is almost universally reviled. Instead each side promotes its half wisdom, and that is what is killing us. Mankind must, to advance, eventually deal with this immoral half wisdom on both sides.

It sounds naive, but it is not.



aiyanah said:


> what's the opposite of love?


The word chosen is debatable. Many would say 'hate' but both words are so conflated and overused, ambiguous as to defy any meaningful use. They have to be clearly defined for the purpose of clear discussion.

I define love as all meaning, all emotion, including the pinnacle of moral aims, good, and the nadir, evil. Orthogonal to each of these poles of meaning are order and chaos. They are not the good. People are roughly slightly over half order apologists and slightly under half chaos apologists, just a few more ants than grasshoppers.



aiyanah said:


> cause that will exist in spades in whatever supposed system you have constructed by flawed humans and their own devious motivations.


Here, you merely presume that society take no steps to deal with evil motivations. So, clearly, you misunderstood me. Restraint is not punishment. With motivations the reasonable or wise expectation is self restraint. Of course you and I are now discussing the situation where that has failed in some way, yes?

Ok, so self restraint has failed and society ... notices. Moral duty requires effort towards awareness, and remember this need not actually be everyone. There are people who job it will be to monitor each and every person's moral awareness as a function sensor of society's moral awareness. Objecting on the basis of invasion of privacy is disingenuous. Society and government are like the parents in the household. They simply ARE allowed access. Someone must have oversight. That process cannot be haphazard and foolishly abandoned because of something as ridiculous as privacy. The controls needed to fly the aircraft exist in that private space. It must be seen. Society has a moral duty to be aware of it. More and more as individuals are empowered by technology, their power will reach a amplitude that demands invasive scrutiny of their private lives. Are the mass shooters of today preventable? There are two issues there:

1) Freedom requires we allow for personal free will. So we must suffer the occasional nut. You invite people to a party and they bring unknown dates. Those people are in your house with your children. They could be that nut. We must risk this.
2) BUT, society must do a better job with professional oversight into EACH AND EVERY person's mental health, e.g. moral character. That means WHETHER PEOPLE LIKE IT OR NOT, invasion of privacy and government review of each person's character.

These two truths WILL asymptotically converge. There is nothing anyone can do to stop it. As chaos (empowerment) rises, so to does the requirement for order.



aiyanah said:


> so it's hate, can we deal with hatred as a society?
> you aren't going to just get rid of it or the other half might as well be made rid off too as it ceases to be useful in the absence of it's own shadow.
> think of the worst places that hatred can send someone, the worst things it can inspire them to do, cause that will happen in your society built on love.
> why will it happen? cause reality insists on balancing scales.


You are right that it will happen and wrong on the scales. Reality is comletely setup to catalyze love. We as humans have built a society that catalyzes hate. We are fighting love tooth and nail. 

But you are right hate will still exist and we must find it, and address it. The system must damped and deflect it, in every way, not just one way. This integrated approach IS wisdom. It IS wise. Again, leave even 1 virtue out and you fail.



aiyanah said:


> the list too
> 
> 1. why should anyone get resources they didn't work for? makes no sense
> the only resource this is in relation to is money, why should anyone get money they didn't work for? makes no sense


Since you say it makes no sense, you are an order apologist. 

Some people are skilled workers and work hard and well. Some people are not. Equality of worthiness of life is a moral truth. What then must we do? We share of course. And then these others that are not the hardest workers and or the best workers, will still have other talents they can share also. And they will be freed of the stigma against their inability to compete with others. Further, much of competition is immoral. That will be massively de-incentivised. There will be no need specifically to get ahead because money will be removed as a status builder, an immoral way to hoard. You will then instead see people work at what they love because they love it, which is the moral way to work to begin with. 

Good work is its own reward and love objectively assures that is true.

Further, robots and automation are increasingly going to beat and replace mankind. When mankind can no longer work at ANYTHING and be as efficient as a machine, your immoral philosophy would have us all exterminated as now useless vermin. If that is not clear indication of the foolishness of your ideas, I do not know what is. My philosophy demands that the very capable and even possibly sentient machines obtain moral reasoning also and take care of us even as we strive in lesser ways alongside them. The bettering of the self is moral duty. This does not preclude there being an entire population of beings that have transcended any other being. Ask dogs and cats and horses about that. Depth of moral agency is no license to treat those with less moral agency immorally. That is pretty much morality 101.



aiyanah said:


> a) tax the rich some more and don't get upset when they close down their businesses that are paying the citizens.


Without money tallying, businesses would be managed by society (and individuals of course) to the benefit of all only.



aiyanah said:


> b) equality of wealth is not a good outcome...at all, i shouldn't have to expound.


Your assumption is immoral and wrong. So you need to expound and rethink as well.



aiyanah said:


> c) considering this is extended from b...no again, why shouldn't people just do menial work cause they want to?


Indeed and a volunteer system would be in place, but, until robots do take over, it is undeniably true that some systems must be worked, and lacking any volunteer, there must be a jury duty style choice made among people who are not otherwise engaged. Since society will only spend resources on qualified people in bulk, as in you have to still pass tests to be a doctor, or even manage resources, there will indeed be a lot of people in each locality that do not need to work. These people are then available for random duties that require unskilled labor. There would even be a rating system that could identify people with the right physical and mental skills despite their not working regularly. That would assist society in choosing. 

Also, you reckon without the shame and such applied to people who have no skills and no ability. That would still be there also. Love itself provides that shame. Bettering the self is moral duty and a law of the universe. People that do not would undergo counseling and such, real life coaching. That would be a very very common occupation. 

You are also not considering the implication of restraint. restriction from addictive substance would be omnipresent but only with those who could not manage that freedom. That would mean all drugs would be legal. But those who fell to addiction would be restrained. Restraint IS NOT punishment. Restraint is help, actual loving help. So many people that cannot on their own recover would recover because their needs include society restraining them from their addictions, retraining them, over and over again, never failing to offer that service, until they decide to accept the happiness of self restraint and earn wisdom therefore.



aiyanah said:


> d) precisely because my work is everyone's work means i should be compensated correctly for elevating the collective, beyonce does this with each release so i'm comfortable saying you aren't observing reality at this point.


You mean cultural immoral norms is what I am observing, and you call that not observing reality. Love is reality. Love demands that external rewards and punishments are immoral. If her great talent, a gift of fate and nature and breeding, is not pressed to humanity's good, she is being immoral. Moral duty requires the spending of the talents for the good of all. With great power comes great responsibility. My great power is to be wise. I am broadcasting that wisdom, perhaps the greatest skill a human can possess, and I receive no reward for it, other than my own understanding of a job well done. That is moral choice. Let Beyonce do the same.

Without the extremis of wealth as a burden society allows some people to possess, they, the wealthy, will be healthier. Many studies prove this. Wealth causes unhealthy abberations in personality leading to more and more immoral behaviors in all but the strongest and wisest exemplars.



aiyanah said:


> 2. how do you fix the experiment when it goes wrong without democracy?
> what would stop those you put into power from being corrupted?
> they're in power, they are bringing more of value to the society than anyone else, correctly so they will invariably compensate themselves for managing all these monkeys on the streets.


Wisdom, actual wisdom, is by definition, the least corruptible trait. Someone must rule. Someone must make decisions. If it is Democracy that is the rule of the average at best. It is the intentional failure of morality via aiming for less than perfection. The ONLY trait that rules in all of history have been universally lauded for is wisdom. 

Again, someone must rule. Why not the wise is the question back at you. They are the BEST choice.



aiyanah said:


> 3. perfection isn't attainable by a flawed species, you have seen it sure but you can't reach it again since biting the proverbial apple.
> so what should you do?
> recognise that balance is perfection, permit there to be good and evil and suddenly you have a 3-dimensional landscape with which to manipulate instead of attempting to grow one dimension and hoping the other vanishes in sympathy for your efforts.


And in my previous post I explained the answer to this and you ignored it. You do not get it. You are not wise in that way. Perfection aiming IS NOT perfection expectant. End of argument (if you understand).



aiyanah said:


> 4. are you permitting people to be free and make their own mistakes in life with this idea or is that no longer an option?


Yes, free will is a mandate. But restraint of immoral actors is a process that is still there. This is NOT correctly seen as punishment. It is loving restraint for the person who cannot restrain themselves.



aiyanah said:


> who are you to dictate what is wisdom?


And who are you to deny it? We all have that right. I recognize yours. Do you recognize mine? After that there is judgement, a virtue linked often enough with wisdom. But judgement is order leaning and so it is not as strong when dealing with the virtues of chaos. That fact must be addressed.



aiyanah said:


> who are you to force someone to take help they might not want?


A loving human being that knows well and wisely that force can be moral as well.



aiyanah said:


> who are you to decide they even need help?


A man of good character and judgement who is not blind nor intentionally dismissive of others needs, even those that they are unaware of like a need for real wisdom, real morality.



aiyanah said:


> and who are you to burden me with the rest of mankind when i'm only concerned with my own family?


A man who knows that your attitude is based in fear of the other, an us vs them immoral philosophy, which like all immorality has moral roots. You need that awareness and you need to learn about the chaos side of morality as an order apologist. 

Morally you are wrong to only be concerned with any separate group. Separation may be the single greatest immoral act. You are me and I am you, the unity principle, is a moral truth.


----------



## Mick Travis (Aug 18, 2016)

@series0 We may have our differences, but...


----------



## aiyanah (Oct 25, 2018)

series0 said:


> It is expected that BOTH chaos and order apologists, mostly the latter, will find the system I outlined naive. That is because any efforts towards wisdom, does not address the fears of the order types well enough (or the desires of the chaos types well enough).
> 
> Thus actual wisdom is almost universally reviled. Instead each side promotes its half wisdom, and that is what is killing us. Mankind must, to advance, eventually deal with this immoral half wisdom on both sides.
> 
> ...


wisdom is accepted by both sides of your order chaos dichotomy. so is truth.
knowledge is separate cause knowledge can be acquired from any point on any dichotomous axis you might want to present.
hence there is value in hate as much as love and ridding the world of one in an attempt to elevate the other would simply devalue the other.
this has happened in real time with sex, or perhaps is still happening cause allegedly there's levels to this thing.
it's also happening with politics cause any slightly right leaning view is greeted with skepticism in the public space when in fact there's real value to be found there.
the same thing happens everywhere, even the criminals legitimately have a point if you permit them to elucidate it to you.

you stumble upon wisdom when these views overlap where the dichotomy is working as intended, ie to be different to each other and radically so, that's literally the point.
that's multiculturalism




> Here, you merely presume that society take no steps to deal with evil motivations. So, clearly, you misunderstood me. Restraint is not punishment. With motivations the reasonable or wise expectation is self restraint. Of course you and I are now discussing the situation where that has failed in some way, yes?
> 
> Ok, so self restraint has failed and society ... notices. Moral duty requires effort towards awareness, and remember this need not actually be everyone. There are people who job it will be to monitor each and every person's moral awareness as a function sensor of society's moral awareness. Objecting on the basis of invasion of privacy is disingenuous. Society and government are like the parents in the household. They simply ARE allowed access. Someone must have oversight. That process cannot be haphazard and foolishly abandoned because of something as ridiculous as privacy. The controls needed to fly the aircraft exist in that private space. It must be seen. Society has a moral duty to be aware of it. More and more as individuals are empowered by technology, their power will reach a amplitude that demands invasive scrutiny of their private lives. Are the mass shooters of today preventable? There are two issues there:
> 
> ...


i disagree with this in broad strokes, it's ridiculous to expect people to accept having their privacy invaded, patently so, humans simply don't work that way. if all is love then big brother doesn't have to be around, genuinely.
how would you justify big brother without any crime? are we just monitoring you because it's how things are done even though all is love and fluffles?
a character review is also ridiculous.
if there's no option to opt out of such madness then you can expect an uprising, regardless of how loose your laws may be with all this monitoring.
you successfully moderate free will by moving with the culture, everyone likes weed now, so plenty of places are making it legal, that's on purpose.
matter of fact how would you justify commercial narcotics when ingesting them is surely a sign of madness with your character review in a world where all is love?
we could include the creative and ask how would you justify death metal if all is love? i'll give you gangster rap, get rid of that, but there's plenty of other cathartic angry music that simply cannot exist in your imagined world, i would presume there is even fiction that cannot exist, cause it would risk altering this culture of love if you gave people complete creative freedom.

so how exactly does your system permit these things and still claim someone is passable for your metric tests in your love society?
it's incompatible, jarringly so, the creators of such works would never be out the loony bin in love land.




> You are right that it will happen and wrong on the scales. Reality is comletely setup to catalyze love. We as humans have built a society that catalyzes hate. We are fighting love tooth and nail.
> 
> But you are right hate will still exist and we must find it, and address it. The system must damped and deflect it, in every way, not just one way. This integrated approach IS wisdom. It IS wise. Again, leave even 1 virtue out and you fail.


how have we built society to catalyse hate?
this observation doesn't match up with reality at all. 
free will infringement on dampening down on hatred btw, big brother is watching. whoppa i'm not allowed to feel human things anymore better watch myself now.
imagine someone hated the society itself cause they saw the flaws in it by virtue of being evolved humans and just being much more big brained. i wonder if they would qualify as wise so they could rule and adjust accordingly, or would going off script be unwise.



> Since you say it makes no sense, you are an order apologist.
> 
> Some people are skilled workers and work hard and well. Some people are not. Equality of worthiness of life is a moral truth. What then must we do? We share of course. And then these others that are not the hardest workers and or the best workers, will still have other talents they can share also. And they will be freed of the stigma against their inability to compete with others. Further, much of competition is immoral. That will be massively de-incentivised. There will be no need specifically to get ahead because money will be removed as a status builder, an immoral way to hoard. You will then instead see people work at what they love because they love it, which is the moral way to work to begin with.
> 
> Good work is its own reward and love objectively assures that is true.


no this doesn't make sense, we're not talking about humans at this point anymore if competition is immoral.
it's also off cause most of the major advancements are spawned by competition, the free market is competition. no one tells you what phone to buy they compete for your money and as a result have to give you a better product than the next guy.
do this iteratively over who knows how many centuries...woah what's that we went to the moon on the back of this? fucking amazing! what a phenomenon.
no you can't get rid of competition, why would anyone care to be "better than" and manifest progress as a result.
is this order or chaos? i don't know i play both sides most times.



> Further, robots and automation are increasingly going to beat and replace mankind. When mankind can no longer work at ANYTHING and be as efficient as a machine, your immoral philosophy would have us all exterminated as now useless vermin. If that is not clear indication of the foolishness of your ideas, I do not know what is. My philosophy demands that the very capable and even possibly sentient machines obtain moral reasoning also and take care of us even as we strive in lesser ways alongside them. The bettering of the self is moral duty. This does not preclude there being an entire population of beings that have transcended any other being. Ask dogs and cats and horses about that. Depth of moral agency is no license to treat those with less moral agency immorally. That is pretty much morality 101.


if the robots are doing all the things we need then i'm glad we still have sports, at least i can watch athletes competing knowing they're all at 100%.
what else would there be to do? no one is getting exterminated in this scenario.
perhaps make art, not everyone can "art" though no matter the medium so...failing to see a problem.
it's our differences that make us special innit, or some cliche quote like that, that's all you'll have when the robots are doing all the things for us, there is no philosophy where resources are now automated that requires extermination...unless we turned the AI on and it obviously came to the conclusion we aren't needed for it to prosper.




> Without money tallying, businesses would be managed by society (and individuals of course) to the benefit of all only.
> 
> 
> Your assumption is immoral and wrong. So you need to expound and rethink as well.


your demand of equality of income is wrong, why would anyone progress anything in such a space?
create a space that breeds more competition, you will have more enterprises that people can get paid working for, because not everyone is a world changer and you need those world changers to have a point to doing anything at all or they don't change the world for those who cannot.
equality of opportunity, not outcome.
granted there's some philanthropists who would simply do whatever they're here to do cause they wanna make the world better, that's very few of the people that are actually capable of affecting mass change and they still affect change on a massive scale while keeping their own earned wealth.
not all jobs are of the same value, this is known, not all people are of the same aptitude, this is known, what do you do with those people at the bottom of the pile? teach them a skill
what do you do when the robots are doing everything?
nothing, they would handle all the jobs better, the arts and competition is still around cause a robot can't human basketball, it can only robot basketball and there will be no need for robot basketball unless some nerds are into that shit.



> Indeed and a volunteer system would be in place, but, until robots do take over, it is undeniably true that some systems must be worked, and lacking any volunteer, there must be a jury duty style choice made among people who are not otherwise engaged. Since society will only spend resources on qualified people in bulk, as in you have to still pass tests to be a doctor, or even manage resources, there will indeed be a lot of people in each locality that do not need to work. These people are then available for random duties that require unskilled labor. There would even be a rating system that could identify people with the right physical and mental skills despite their not working regularly. That would assist society in choosing.


so i have to dedicate time out of my life to get skills i'm not rewarded for having later, but i will be expected to produce on these skills as though i were being rewarded.
seems viable, tell me how it works out.
jury duty at fukushima will be fun too, especially without danger pay cause there's equality of income now.



> Also, you reckon without the shame and such applied to people who have no skills and no ability. That would still be there also. Love itself provides that shame. Bettering the self is moral duty and a law of the universe. People that do not would undergo counseling and such, real life coaching. That would be a very very common occupation.


aside from low IQ and mental illness, why else would someone have no skill or ability?



> You are also not considering the implication of restraint. restriction from addictive substance would be omnipresent but only with those who could not manage that freedom. That would mean all drugs would be legal. But those who fell to addiction would be restrained. Restraint IS NOT punishment. Restraint is help, actual loving help. So many people that cannot on their own recover would recover because their needs include society restraining them from their addictions, retraining them, over and over again, never failing to offer that service, until they decide to accept the happiness of self restraint and earn wisdom therefore.


society doesn't want all the drugs legal regardless of who can manage them, it want's certain drugs legal at certain times.
the weed just got legalized, some 4 generations later it will probably be phased like the tobacco is being right now.

also, how do you manage high functioning alcoholics with such a system in place? they're functional why stop them? if you stop them they will simply be angered at you, double whammy now you're in trouble with the love police.




> You mean cultural immoral norms is what I am observing, and you call that not observing reality. Love is reality. Love demands that external rewards and punishments are immoral. If her great talent, a gift of fate and nature and breeding, is not pressed to humanity's good, she is being immoral. Moral duty requires the spending of the talents for the good of all. With great power comes great responsibility. My great power is to be wise. I am broadcasting that wisdom, perhaps the greatest skill a human can possess, and I receive no reward for it, other than my own understanding of a job well done. That is moral choice. Let Beyonce do the same.


so beyonce doesn't have a choice of saying no to a music career if it's not to her fancy?
i presume the collective has enjoyed her contribution going by her networth.
if she had said no to a music career for any reason would she now be immoral by your metric?
cause whatever else she did it wouldn't have been this successful, ergo of value to the collective, and by proxy moral by your given metric.



> Without the extremis of wealth as a burden society allows some people to possess, they, the wealthy, will be healthier. Many studies prove this. Wealth causes unhealthy abberations in personality leading to more and more immoral behaviors in all but the strongest and wisest exemplars.


true, but there's no way you are suggesting that maintains the allure of ascending in value to the collective.
equality of income is not it...at all.
neither is forcing career choice by moral values.
picture a talented singer with incurable stage fright, doomed to hades, cthulu will have her.




> Wisdom, actual wisdom, is by definition, the least corruptible trait. Someone must rule. Someone must make decisions. If it is Democracy that is the rule of the average at best. It is the intentional failure of morality via aiming for less than perfection. The ONLY trait that rules in all of history have been universally lauded for is wisdom.
> 
> Again, someone must rule. Why not the wise is the question back at you. They are the BEST choice.
> 
> ...


who is qualifying this wisdom if it is not by majority rule?
what makes your wise take more valuable than your neighbors wise take or bespoke rulers wise take more valuable than a fools wise take in this undemocratic state? 
wisdom is not an aptitude, a fool can present you with wisdom. 
so when you say do away with democracy and be ruled by the wise, who is qualifying that wisdom?
who is defining perfect? 
does one human know how to "perfect?" does a comity of gifted humans know how to "perfect?" 
i think the entire collective would better know how to "perfect" than anything -1 of that and i have yet to see evidence to the contrary.
so don't be injudicious with your judgement of democracy, it's nonsensical given your parameters of wisdom being a guideline.




> A loving human being that knows well and wisely that force can be moral as well.
> 
> 
> A man of good character and judgement who is not blind nor intentionally dismissive of others needs, even those that they are unaware of like a need for real wisdom, real morality.


you've not seen a destructive addict that isn't interested in stopping.
you can make yourself the enemy but you aren't going to stop them even if you force them to stay in eye sight.
what would you do with them?
are they free to self destruct or does free will end there?
drugs are legal in your scenario, you presume some type of observation standard that will restrain people, using force if necessary and your justifying basis is real morality™ and real wisdom™.
deal with this addict in your system
currently this type of patient can refuse hospital treatment and exercise free will, can they do so in your state?
there's complexity that isn't being accounted for.




> A man who knows that your attitude is based in fear of the other, an us vs them immoral philosophy, which like all immorality has moral roots. You need that awareness and you need to learn about the chaos side of morality as an order apologist.
> 
> Morally you are wrong to only be concerned with any separate group. Separation may be the single greatest immoral act. You are me and I am you, the unity principle, is a moral truth.


i'm sorry but what?
you are firstly beholden to your own family. 
there is no work around with this, hate to break it to you
you wouldn't be here otherwise 
your first duty is literally to them, naturally, it's that simple.
to claim separation is immoral means we've been raising families wrong this whole time.
really?
with so much overlap between cultures?
everyone was wrong?
this is unlikely
you're attempting to curtail this reality somehow, it doesn't wash with me.

we are all made of the same dust, that is true, that dust does not render us the same way though.
perhaps you are channeling gendo ikari though, who knows.


i mean i have to segueway on a broadstroke take here.
do you watch sports?
who is getting paid to build the stadiums that the athletes compete in? who is getting paid to provide the food for these athletes? who is getting paid to make the gear for these athletes?
all these things are knock-on effects of competition being permitted and incentivised...heavily. 
this is a real working example, it happens everyday, we literally plan the world around some of these competitions cause they have such a positive effect on society as a whole.
look at the olympics
de-incetivise competition you say, it doesn't work even in jestful thought.

i mean look at formula 1, the logistical showpiece it is. 
how many moving parts have to come together to make the thing happen? 
the first brick layer (and the farmer that farmed his meals) at a team factory is just as important as the driver on race day, but guess what, the driver simply does a harder job, so he gets paid more, naturally.
and the whole thing only works because the talent at the top is the best, due to competition throughout all the grassroots racing structures, the whole ecosystem feeds on the competitiveness of perhaps 3 individuals at a time for a decade.
this is amazing, all the sports do this, you need competition for it, you cant de-incentivise it and you can't call it immoral when so much prosperity is generated by it and the collective is all on board with it.
forget about potential job creation, just narrative creation, human narratives, the narratives that actually matter to everyone, made real by competition on a yearly basis.
it's a misdemeanor to undervalue competition.
and you would curtail it with your philosophy by design.
i cant fathom it, truly, it literally doesn't work in reality and the reality proves the opposite.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

series0 said:


> Agreed, but, like it or not, culture is choice. Individuals must wisely choose to opt out of their own culture if that culture is immoral or foolish. It is NOT easy. As I say quite often, a moral act is the single hardest act a person can perform. IQ is not a measure of morality, but it does show often enough a book level awareness of morality. So IQ adds more potential, is contributory to, wisdom.
> 
> Example for fun: I am fairly well opting out of this 1st world Capitalist Democratic culture. I am NOT opting out of the society at large, just the cultural aims from within.


I am very much interested in your position but have a few issues.

I don't see culture as that much of a choice. A culture is like home ... where people want to be. The rich and the middle class want to retain their culture. The poor? They may want to get out of their situation, but who else do they have to cling to but their fellow poor? The kindness of strangers is not readily forthcoming.

Capitalism to me seems to be a great way to arrive at a natural and right value for prices. People want to produce, buy and sell. It's just that wealth seems to get out of hand (to people of higher I.Q. to stay on topic) and needs somehow to be reigned in. I'm willing to listen to other economic alternatives.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> I am very much interested in your position but have a few issues.


Ok, on we go.



BigApplePi said:


> I don't see culture as that much of a choice. A culture is like home ... where people want to be. The rich and the middle class want to retain their culture. The poor? They may want to get out of their situation, but who else do they have to cling to but their fellow poor? The kindness of strangers is not readily forthcoming.


So point by point, I disagree. What people want is not relevant to the fact that they still have a choice to want what is better. A person, any person, all persons who cannot admit this, is/are denying their own agency in life. I am not saying people do not foolishly deny their own agency or want things that are bad for them, they do. But I am saying, that whether you or they like or not, it IS a choice, and they can choose not to regard lack of moral aims as a proper choice. They SHOULD.

Also, I am not sure in what sense you mean that the kindness of stranger is not really forthcoming. See below.



BigApplePi said:


> Capitalism to me seems to be a great way to arrive at a natural and right value for prices. People want to produce, buy and sell. It's just that wealth seems to get out of hand (to people of higher I.Q. to stay on topic) and needs somehow to be reigned in. I'm willing to listen to other economic alternatives.


The trouble with IQ and the dangerous debate about it has NOTHING to do with the truth on the ground that certain ethnic groups and certain socioeconomic gradients of humanity exhibit less functionality when in competition with each other. The trouble is that society has decided that those unequal results are ... acceptable ... to let stand without much in the way of management. 

The body of mankind refuses to function together. It should not matter that some are smarter than others. Those parts of the body should act with that skill, or any skill that they possess to enrich the whole, and NOT JUST THEMSELVES.

That means that value for service or unequal allotments of resources per capita in terms of goods and services is IMMORAL. I want you to realize that says NOTHING about the morality of the presence of actual higher IQs or random skillsets in the populace at all. That is because 'From each according to ability and to each according to need' is one of the most moral aims ever stated. Communism is far more moral in its foundation than Capitalism is. The core immorality of Capitalism has many branches, but the central one is greed, the desire for more more more. But you cannot stop there. If it was just greed then it could be more more more for all of humanity. But it's not. It more for me/us and less for you/them. THAT is the specific double failure. Greed and ostracism. And you want to defend Capitalism but say in the same breath almost above that the kindness of strangers is not forthcoming. Now you know why. What are you going to do about it? I respectfully suggest you change your mind about the morality of Capitalism. It is a hideous system.

To believe the lies of some very high IQ people is to not realize that wisdom is a superior skill to intelligence. In fact intelligence is literally like 1/9th of wisdom. It is that small of a portion. The smaller the group, the more people realize the foolishness of unequal rewards. In the family unit people are treated fairly mostly. At a party there are rarely treat police making sure that either portions are equal or that they are reserved for just a few. That is because those practices are sane and moral. When the scope gets larger and the unwashed show up in numbers, that is when things start to get ugly in many ways. But that is a resource management issue only. And there are two factors only, 1) Resource production/distribution and 2) Resource Pressure/Consumption. That is all. We do not need the arbitrary assistance of your ridiculous and immoral 'value' indicator to know that things are worth. It's a resource calculation only. Further, there is morality involved. Rare and special and costly things to make would still get made, BECAUSE they are rare and special and that has moral value. We do not have to all eat crickets to live morally. But we absolutely do have to control breeding and that is kill or be killed at some point and that killing can be moral. The goal though is to educate people to the point where the immorality of overbreeding is clear to everyone and they choose to self-restrain in every way in that sense so that errors are much less likely. The issue with IQ relates to society's need for systemic restraints because frankly, there is a sweet spot for both criminal behavior and over-breeding and let me just say, they are not at the high end of the spectrum. You can blather on about correlation and causation all you want. Society must address these issues. It is part of moral duty.

The Democracy issue is equally obvious to the Capitalism one. Socrates mentioned this issue 2500 years ago and despite his rather widespread acceptance as the father at least of Western philosophy, we are still doing essentially nothing to address his concerns about Democracy. It's frankly pathetic. Democracy is the rule of the average and the stupid. Democracy is idiocracy. There is no effort made to qualify a vote as even intelligent, which is still less than best as mentioned above. There is no effort made to qualify a vote as wise, which is the real issue, morally. A Sophocracy is clearly the wisest possible government for mankind OR ANY species. It is evil not to pursue this form of government.


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

series0 said:


> Agreed, but, like it or not, culture is choice. Individuals must wisely choose to opt out of their own culture if that culture is immoral or foolish. It is NOT easy. As I say quite often, a moral act is the single hardest act a person can perform. IQ is not a measure of morality, but it does show often enough a book level awareness of morality. So IQ adds more potential, is contributory to, wisdom.
> 
> Example for fun: I am fairly well opting out of this 1st world Capitalist Democratic culture. I am NOT opting out of the society at large, just the cultural aims from within.


May I ask, how are you “fairly well” opting out of this 1st world Capitalist Democratic culture?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

series0 said:


> So point by point, I disagree. What people want is not relevant to the fact that they still have a choice to want what is better. A person, any person, all persons who cannot admit this, is/are denying their own agency in life. I am not saying people do not foolishly deny their own agency or want things that are bad for them, they do. But I am saying, that whether you or they like or not, it IS a choice, and they can choose not to regard lack of moral aims as a proper choice. They SHOULD.
> 
> Also, I am not sure in what sense you mean that the kindness of stranger is not really forthcoming.


Here is where I'm not understanding your position. I was watching a TV program the other day called "Frontline." It was about the housing issue of building reasonable housing projects for poor people. A group of builders thought it morality good to build lower rent housing for poor people. Something they could afford. The problem was when they found land and wanted to get permits to build, they couldn't get the permits. Why not? Because the surrounding established middle class people didn't want poor housing near them. They went to politicians protesting and prevented the building.

Now you say these poor people have a choice. The same TV program showed an able black woman who wanted to better herself. She was living hand to mouth but wanted a better job. But she couldn't get a better job because she was stuck in a poor neighborhood and couldn't afford to commute. If she had been able to live in a project next to a middle class neighborhood she'd have a better chance of getting a better job for which she was capable. So where does this morality lie that you are talking about?

Oh. I forgot. By "kindness of strangers" I meant someone who would find a job for this woman or who would donate a car for commuting or do something to help her out.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Dalien said:


> May I ask, how are you “fairly well” opting out of this 1st world Capitalist Democratic culture?


It is the constant grief I give it as well as non participation at most points. Everything as free as I can, as little work as I can to support the system, and thus myself as well. I vote mostly the change dynamic candidates, the ones I feel are the greatest threat to systemic integrity, because the system is the problem. 

But all of that pales in comparison to the broadcasting and writing my book, etc. I've changed many many people's minds in person and granted they can't do it, be like me, and step outside the system. For most of them their children and their own interests are the blackmail fodder the system holds against them.

I admit, I realize I am not reaching many people. Most people do not have the courage to admit the moral issues on the left and the right. Even if they do, they would never say so in public. We are a long way from a system based on real wisdom, and I know you disagree with some of my wisdom. 

I have never accepted welfare either though. An odd thing as I have been out of work for more than 10 years now in terms of mainstream real w2 style jobs.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> Here is where I'm not understanding your position. I was watching a TV program the other day called "Frontline." It was about the housing issue of building reasonable housing projects for poor people. A group of builders thought it morality good to build lower rent housing for poor people. Something they could afford. The problem was when they found land and wanted to get permits to build, they couldn't get the permits. Why not? Because the surrounding established middle class people didn't want poor housing near them. They went to politicians protesting and prevented the building.
> 
> Now you say these poor people have a choice. The same TV program showed an able black woman who wanted to better herself. She was living hand to mouth but wanted a better job. But she couldn't get a better job because she was stuck in a poor neighborhood and couldn't afford to commute. If she had been able to live in a project next to a middle class neighborhood she'd have a better chance of getting a better job for which she was capable. So where does this morality lie that you are talking about?
> 
> Oh. I forgot. By "kindness of strangers" I meant someone who would find a job for this woman or who would donate a car for commuting or do something to help her out.


You point DOES NOT speak to THE point. THE point ... was ... that if she was trying to hold on to her culture and stay stuck therefore ... but THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

Your example is on a NEW point.

She is trying to escape her culture as you mention. And in fact the culture she is trying to move to is stopping her. That is an entirely different issue and she is making the right choice and being blocked from 'above'.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

series0 said:


> You point DOES NOT speak to THE point. THE point ... was ... that if she was trying to hold on to her culture and stay stuck therefore ... but THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
> 
> Your example is on a NEW point.
> 
> She is trying to escape her culture as you mention. And in fact the culture she is trying to move to is stopping her. That is an entirely different issue and she is making the right choice and being blocked from 'above'.


Then I would like to address the difference between the two points. You say "a person must wisely choose to opt out of their own culture." You said that. This means the poor black woman is wise and is trying to do just that. You add that another culture is stopping her which is different.

What I now want to say is although this woman must keep trying, at what point do other women (or men) give up because they haven't the strength to climb out of their situation? Take a young man who sees a drug culture around him or a gang around him. He, in spite of his better nature, is now tempted to sell drugs or join that gang because his own culture offers short-term relief.

I claim human nature is this way: take short-term relief over impossible long-term relief. What is needed is help from the middle class cultures outside.


----------



## aiyanah (Oct 25, 2018)

why not progress peoples cultures instead of demanding they change though.
granted progression can only come from within and current mechanisms aren't setup for it on the basis of PC culture, but it is what it is.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> Then I would like to address the difference between the two points. You say "a person must wisely choose to opt out of their own culture." You said that. This means the poor black woman is wise and is trying to do just that. You add that another culture is stopping her which is different.
> 
> What I now want to say is although this woman must keep trying, at what point do other women (or men) give up because they haven't the strength to climb out of their situation? Take a young man who sees a drug culture around him or a gang around him. He, in spite of his better nature, is now tempted to sell drugs or join that gang because his own culture offers short-term relief.
> 
> I claim human nature is this way: take short-term relief over impossible long-term relief. What is needed is help from the middle class cultures outside.


And all you seem to do, is leap from failure to failure in example.

The person who amid an unwise culture does not try to deny it, ... fails and is unwise. They have failed morally.
The person who understands and is wise in awareness amid an unwise culture and tries and fails and still accepts the unwise culture, ... fails and is unwise. They have failed morally.

Awareness alone is INSUFFICIENT to be morally successful, a fact that clearly demonstrates that wisdom > intelligence. Moral success is the ONLY real goal of living.

In fact, the greater wisdom afforded by awareness should be ENOUGH to compel a wise person to deny their own culture, and this is the key point of all wisdom, DESPITE the difficulties.

The ultimate statement of ideal morality is - 'it is better to choose to die than to choose immorality.' This is something an order apologist, a pragmatist, has great trouble to understand.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

aiyanah said:


> why not progress peoples cultures instead of demanding they change though.
> granted progression can only come from within and current mechanisms aren't setup for it on the basis of PC culture, but it is what it is.


Well, now that is a great idea. But, ultimately, it amounts to the same thing.

Humans are like a herd animal in this sense. Individuals within the herd glance in new directions constantly and effectively this glance is saying to the herd, 'should we go there, that way?'. In this subtle way the herd is actually voting. So, a new direction is chosen by a mass voting that reaches a break point. But, quite unlike MERELY CHOOSING A NEW DIRECTION, ... PROGRESS ... is innovation. That is much much harder. Innovation takes super difficult motivation of the herd by the innovator. This can be manipulation, persuasion, etc. In the case of real progress or innovation, most animals, humans surely and maybe even specifically more included, must become envious of the success of that new direction first. Only then do they decide to change and try the initially herd denying direction. Early adopters enjoy significant benefits in most cases. That is the object of the jealousy.

But wisdom is unique among successes. That is to say, wisdom only comes with suffering. You tell me, who is attracted to suffering. I am, but I am wise enough to know that wisdom requires suffering and also that this is not to suffer needlessly. Only needed suffering, where there is new wisdom earned, is wise. 

So, again, as I mention many times, in many threads, a moral act is the single hardest thing a person can do. Once one is past the tipping point of awareness and integration of understanding amid wisdom, one is indeed attracted to the suffering that does bring them wisdom. But this is hardly the object of jealousy that provides motivation for a herd to move in a new direction by habit. Herds are famous for preferring the easiest and simplest paths. That is itself quite unwise.

And there you have it. A short elegant mini argument for why wisdom is not a herd function in general. It is an individual function. The happiness that comes from wisdom in expression is quite subtle. Look around you. Can you detect the truly wise? Do you see the more genuine smile amid the suffering? Is that really attractive to you? Are you sufficiently wise to be attracted to it? Or do you still crave and even openly state that you prefer ease unwisely?


----------



## Mange (Jan 9, 2011)




----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

series0 said:


> And all you seem to do, is leap from failure to failure in example.
> 
> The person who amid an unwise culture does not try to deny it, ... fails and is unwise. They have failed morally.
> The person who understands and is wise in awareness amid an unwise culture and tries and fails and still accepts the unwise culture, ... fails and is unwise. They have failed morally.
> ...


When I point out failure that doesn't mean I accept it. It has to be pointed out so those unawares will become aware of it. 

Did I read you right that those who give up are unwise? I would agree. One should not give up. Yet there are two cultures: one's own and that which is outside. Which one does one battle?


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

The painting of a pretty picture...



series0 said:


> Dalien said:
> 
> 
> > May I ask, how are you “fairly well” opting out of this 1st world Capitalist Democratic culture?
> ...


Painting with real colors holds wisdom.
Even in generalization, one can paint with real colors.
It’s very misleading when one doesn’t.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> When I point out failure that doesn't mean I accept it. It has to be pointed out so those unawares will become aware of it.
> 
> Did I read you right that those who give up are unwise? I would agree. One should not give up. Yet there are two cultures: one's own and that which is outside. Which one does one battle?


One battles immorality. It does not matter where it lies. It is almost a tautology that it lies in all cultures to some degree, one's own, and all other ones as well.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

I really would like to address your points, but your quoting methodology leaves me with only this on reply:



Dalien said:


> The painting of a pretty picture...
> 
> Painting with real colors holds wisdom.
> Even in generalization, one can paint with real colors.
> It’s very misleading when one doesn’t.


There are no unreal colors. What on Earth do you mean?

I assume you mean that I am misleading in some way. is that right? Who is being vague here? I do not think it is me.

The rest is is edited piece by piece:


Dalien said:


> _Cool, you give grief. I think most people you converse with on PerC understand this of you (after a couple of back and forth posts or the people just reading your posts) and recognize that you will and do fight with everything (everyone is wrong in some form)._


_
Yes, well I address half wisdom in understanding. Since like 95% of people are either solidly order or chaos apologists, it is rather simple to show them the entire other half of wisdom that they are missing (of course in my opinion).

_


Dalien said:


> _What the heck is “most points”? Doesn’t that mean not “all” points? What are those other points? Besides..._


I try VERY hard not to use superlatives. They are over emphasizing and not genuine usually. <--- See that ... usually, not always. It is a wise habit.



Dalien said:


> _Systemic integrity... honest to your communistic beliefs? From what I’ve read, you choose to utilize Marxism (and force) for your overall theory in the guise of the form of love (tyranny) lead by a “Wisdom” hierarchy. I know... here comes your fighting..._


Well you assume it is a guise, but, if I am correct, then it is a more proximal interpretation of wisdom and wise action that your point of view. Granted, I could be wrong, and I know you think I am on some things, some points.



Dalien said:


> _Systemic integrity... that’s freaking vague because it’s freaking loaded._


_
Integrity to me is not a vague thing at all. It means 'all things considered', king of the boilerplate for wisdom in the first place. If you leave out certain virtues, focusing, reducing, order-apologizing, you are failing morally. So a system that has integrity is aligned in ALL ways (<--- superlative this time) with love.

_


Dalien said:


> _Broadcasting you do. The book... is it published yet?_


I am stuck at the informal editing stage. I am a little frightened to do it. I am gathering courage. My cowardice is afflicting me in my expression. Can you imagine it? The vulnerability of exposure is rough. And a first book on ... morality ... a really light subject, right?



Dalien said:


> _Oh, it’s easier for single non-parent people to step further outside of the system? _


I's say yes, by a long shot, right?



Dalien said:


> _Wow... it costs less, eh._
> _Blackmail fodder? Oh, that’s so drastic! The horror!_


_
Well, I understand many people to say and feel like, they wish they could take the stand the same way, but, they have ... moderate innocents, children ... to care for. 

I do find the system, many systems of human culture/government, to be largely immoral in that they are not based on the unity principle and fairness. Most of the world is still wallowing in deep order apology and some few first world nations are doubling up with a heavy does of chaos-apology as well. Extreme awareness is wisdom is ... lacking everywhere mostly <--- non superlative allowing for somewhere to be close.

_


Dalien said:


> _It’s interesting how you throw the above in here with my asking how you opt out of 1st world capitalistic democracy... denouncement of many/most people painting your self pretty._


_Well, some people are great basketball players and they can say that with authority. I do feel I am wise and it would be disingenuous not to say so. False modesty is not my style at all.

_


Dalien said:


> _You’ve had and have some form of cushion. Savings from previously joining in the system. Working under the table. A support system as in family and friends. Oh and you’re on the Internet; there must be a way to pay or have that and food, shelter, clothing, etc._


_
_I was/am primary caretaker for my mother and father. She had dementia and passed a few years back. He is still alive and rough and tough at 92. I also help my sister with my godmother. I make a lot of money playing poker as I can read people very well. I work every job I am offered little small side things and yes paid in cash. I do contract programming for a few clients that still have old systems I wrote. And yes, I live with my father and room and board are really not much more than his normal bill. He has admitted that he does not understand how I live on so little. 



Dalien said:


> _Regardless, you’re still very much in the system; even if, you’ve created a space that is minimalistic._


_
__Agreed, however, I limit my contributions and my expectations of this system and try to spread wisdom. I want this to change and change a lot. I realize though that change has to have a moderate pace or the damage can be worse. It starts with awareness first, hence my broadcasting, my theory working, my book.

_


----------



## Dalien (Jul 21, 2010)

The painting of a pretty picture...



series0 said:


> Dalien said:
> 
> 
> > May I ask, how are you “fairly well” opting out of this 1st world Capitalist Democratic culture?
> ...


Painting with real colors holds wisdom.
Even in generalization, one can paint with real colors.
It’s very misleading when one doesn’t.





series0 said:


> I really would like to address your points, but your quoting methodology leaves me with only this on reply:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hun, you can address my points. I believe you’re intelligent enough to do it in one fell swoop. Pick a line, any line, and run with it. :wink: I know you love to go point by point and forget about the overall picture. Take a second read and try to see all that is written as a whole. I bet you can. 

My, my, my, I’m being vague. 

Really, series0 , you’re playing this innocent card. You’re quite intelligent. You’re writing style in general is poetic prose and filled with metaphors. Of course all colors are real, but when one paints they blend colors however they want them to benefit their painting. I should not have to explain this to you.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

series0 said:


> One battles immorality. It does not matter where it lies. It is almost a tautology that it lies in all cultures to some degree, one's own, and all other ones as well.


Hmm. I wonder if we now need to define "immorality." I say that because the morality one place can be different than in another. Also they can clash. Then again there is an overall morality for which components have differing morals. In order to make progress here a definition is needed.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Dalien said:


> The painting of a pretty picture...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually my strength IS the overall picture. It's order-apologists that like to think the overall is something vague and JUST unknown, the group chaos acceptance of pragmatism. 

My point by point replies are just an easy way to do it, and if you put your reply in quotes the reply doesn't contain them, making the effort many fold on the would be reply-er.



Dalien said:


> Take a second read and try to see all that is written as a whole. I bet you can.
> 
> My, my, my, I’m being vague.
> 
> Really, series0 , you’re playing this innocent card. You’re quite intelligent. You’re writing style in general is poetic prose and filled with metaphors. Of course all colors are real, but when one paints they blend colors however they want them to benefit their painting. I should not have to explain this to you.


I never claimed innocence. That is you saying what you think I am claiming. I am not. However, I do facilitate other's dialogue with me, and I think I am very clear about what I mean. 

But, right now, in at least 3 different threads, “People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.” - Soren Kierkegaard


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> Hmm. I wonder if we now need to define "immorality." I say that because the morality one place can be different than in another. Also they can clash. Then again there is an overall morality for which components have differing morals. In order to make progress here a definition is needed.


Now,my friend, you must go back and read though posts 234-239 between us where you ask this OVER AND OVER again and I define it OVER AND OVER again and here you are asking the same question again. 

Morality is OBJECTIVE. It is NOT different in one place than it is in another. That is not morality. That is moral error(s).

I think it is safe to say that if I claim something is immoral, I then explain why it is so. Granted, at that point, the other party is free to agree to disagree and granted I could be wrong. I don't feel wrong. I know/believe, all facts are beliefs only. 

So subjectivists are already in deep poo poo to me. They cannot deal with any definition because tomorrow it changes for no valid reason, just whim. Moving goalposts is merely insane if there is not a good reason. That is subjectivism.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

series0 said:


> *“People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.” - Soren Kierkegaard*


Dear Soren,

There are lots of languages out there because we are different people. We are going to need to work on a common language.:blushed:

Pi


----------

