Health care and right wing absurdity.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Health care and right wing absurdity.

People like Hanity and Rush and Bortz. They often cry about how others make "bad" decisions, not criminal decisions per sey, but merely don't make it up the economic scale. Poor people deserve it because they aren't like them.

I challenge these fuckwads to make laws FORCING everyone to work 80 hours a week INCLUDING WOMEN, if they say that women should have equality. If you refuse you get put in prison. I challenge these fuckwads to pass laws making it legal for an EMT to ask for your ability to pay when they come across a car crash. If you cant, they should let you die.

This is there absurd logic. That because they value something you dont, you are a loser if you don't value the same thing. They don't want to face that WE are all in this together, and that they are not wrong for what they want, but neither is someone who values something other than the ability to wipe their ass with $!,000 bills.

PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS ASSHOLES! If you think poor people are useless, then have them jailed, why not kill them? After all, they didn't end up in a mansion like you.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Did something specific set

Did something specific set you off this afternoon?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
No, this is merely an

No, this is merely an ongoing bee in my bonnet. That people who "make it" think because they did that everyone else will. It is a mathmatic impossiblity in a multiple class society. In a literal biological sense it reflects sperm vs eggs. Millions per load but ends up ONE sperm gets the egg. They don't want to face that luck had a most to do with what they accomplished. Many more like minded people on their side never do the same thing or even come close.

Not everyone will end up on top and those in the middle and bottom have more to do with those being on top than those on top want to accept.

No one in their right mind would pass a a car crash and ask about their ability to pay before administering help. Yet you have assholes like Hanity and Rush shouting, "Whats wrong with our health care" or "Why should I pay for other people" Yet Fox has links to send donations to Haiti. They were poor long before this earthquake.

They don't want to face that work is needed, but money is not the only goal in life and money collectively should not lead to a society to the point work is dictated by those who have money turning society into endentered slaves.

"Work shall set you free" The last fascist sold that killed 6 million Jews.

I am not against work or wealth. I am against projectionism in that because someone is not like you you have the right to dictate to them and if they dont submit to you, they are deserving of death.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


davidnay2007
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-10-13
User is offlineOffline
If you're going to call out

If you're going to call out the right wing assholes then to be fair you should also call out the left wing assholes who only pretend to give a sh*t about you while they're f*cking you silly. This 'Obamacare' that the current administration wants to pass has nothing to do with helping the poor people. It's about putting more power into the hands of government. That's all. The healthcare system needs a massive overhaul but this 'Obamacare' is not it.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You really buy into that

You really buy into that shit? I hate to tell you this our country ALREADY has socialistic enterprizes, unless you want all police to replaced with private security, and if you cant afford it, then fuck you, if your neighbor robs you so what?. Let's privatize fire departments and if you cant afford to have your house fire put out, too bad.  I am sure that UPS and FED X are hurting because the post office has existed since the 1800s.

And private insurance companies don't play god because they NEVER deny you anything right? They never stop coverage of an operation or a pill to protect their profits. I wonder how much you would put up with police or fire departments if they acted like private insurance companies? That would mean that they would only service those who could pay them. FUCK the poor, thats ok, they don't have money. BTW did you donate to the poor Haitians?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I guess I could make

I guess I could make relevant points on what you have said. But I have something more important to say: What's your problem? Are you actually foaming at the mouth in hatred of conservatives or is something else the matter? I know that this isn't a joke; but I can't find its serious purpose.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
So you have your panties in

So you have your panties in a bunch because Sam Walton sold you a microwave over for $65.99 and it ought to be impermissible for him to actually get some profit out of the deal?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


davidnay2007
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-10-13
User is offlineOffline
Buy into what exactly? I

Buy into what exactly? I don't buy into Rush, Hannity or any of them just like I haven't bought into Obama and his agenda. I simply believe that limited government is a good thing and that too much government is a bad thing, although I don't consider myself right wing (as you have obviously pegged me). I did mention that I think healthcare needs to be massively overhauled- just in a different direction than Obama is going. He doesn't want to fix what is really wrong with the healthcare system. He just wants to nationalize it.

This is about the nature of government and how too much power has always and will always corrupt. It's also about dependance on the government which I think is always a bad thing but especially when it comes to our health. I do believe that all people should have basic health coverage BTW but let it happen on a state level.

I'm curious why you asked me if I donated to the poor Haitians?


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
davidnay2007 wrote:It's

davidnay2007 wrote:

It's about putting more power into the hands of government. That's all. The healthcare system needs a massive overhaul but this 'Obamacare' is not it.

 

K... im going to assume you have a better idea?

I'd be interested in hearing, so i can at least point and laugh at someone... you or obama, i care not which

 

edit;

davidnay2007 wrote:

I do believe that all people should have basic health coverage BTW but let it happen on a state level.

 

Or was that it?

What Would Kharn Do?


davidnay2007
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-10-13
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:K...

The Doomed Soul wrote:

K... im going to assume you have a better idea?

I'd be interested in hearing, so i can at least point and laugh at someone... you or obama, i care not which

  

 

Yes.. As a matter of fact I'll have a final 1000 page draft made up for you by tomorrow morning, but instead of letting you actually read the thing I'll just cram it up your ass and marginalize anyone who has a problem with it as an absurd right winger

 

 


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
davidnay2007 wrote:Obama and

davidnay2007 wrote:

Obama and his agenda

 

Perhaps instead of debating big vs. small government, a better question would be to ask what the government should be doing?

Socialized health care works very well in most modern countries. Maybe it's time for the US to come out of the medieval ages?

There are huge ethical problems connected with the fact that private corporations are making a profit off health care.


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:davidnay2007

Marquis wrote:

davidnay2007 wrote:

Obama and his agenda

 

Perhaps instead of debating big vs. small government, a better question would be to ask what the government should be doing?

Socialized health care works very well in most modern countries. Maybe it's time for the US to come out of the medieval ages?

There are huge ethical problems connected with the fact that private corporations are making a profit off health care.

 

 

THANK YOU, big business is out for itself and without regulations has and always will try to get away with whatever it can.

I DO NOT HATE WEALTH. I do hate jadedness and lack of self introspection. I do hate the idea bullshit claim big business has, "Everything will be ok if you just leave me alone and let me do what I want".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If these companies don't

If these companies don't want government getting involved then THEY have the power to stop using blackmail and bribery and the excuse of "market demands". There is a difference between cant and don't want to. These companies can afford it, they just don't want to.

I am not for either or as far as more government vs less government. I am for independent self introspection which so far is forcing government to step in because these companies don't want to do the right thing.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:big business

Brian37 wrote:
big business is out for itself

 

Not only that, any big corporation is by virtue of its very nature a 100% amoral entity.

The idea is to generate as much revenue as possible with as little effort and cost as possible.

(If they don't keep that focus, they won't survive in an environment of competition.)

A government, on the other hand, is (or should be) a service insitution for the interests of the people.

Both have to live with budgets and fiscal realities, but their focus is different.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:There are huge

Marquis wrote:

There are huge ethical problems connected with the fact that private corporations are making a profit off health care.

No one complains about private entities delivering food, clothing or shelter for profit. Yet there are "huge ethical problems" with delivering healthcare? Come on, you can't really believe that. If you did, wouldn't you have to be advocating government run food, clothing and shelter?

Why aren't there "huge ethical problems" with having private entities controlling your food supply?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Market realities

1. If publicly traded, any corporation MUST (by law, in the US) optimize investor returns.

2. Health insurance companies, in the US, are exempt from anti-trust laws.

3. Therefore, there is NOT anything remotely resembling an "invisible hand" if you are discussing health insurance in the US.  No competition exists.

4. Profits = revenue - costs

5. For a health insurance company revenue = premiums

6. For a health insurance company costs = buildings, utilities, salaries and benefits, etc, and insurance claims

7. The easiest cost to minimize is paying out insurance claims.  (Do you honestly think that salaries and bonuses at the highest levels would be cut?  And telephone call centers and nurse-on-call are already overseas - at least for the last time I had insurance that was the case.)

8. Therefore, to maximize profits, a publicly traded health insurance company must increase premiums and deny claims.  QED

To reduce costs in the US, one option is to make all health insurance non-profit.  See Switzerland.  Another alternative would  be Medicare-for-All.  See Taiwan.  Doing nothing means costs will continue to sky rocket for everyone except the health insurance companies.  No moral issues needed to come to this conclusion.

On the other hand, personally I think the current state of affairs vis-a-vis health care is shameful.  Beyond the economic disfunctionality, there are the thousands of people who suffer needlessly.  Yeah, the US may have the fanciest technology, but do you seriously think anyone with out insurance or cash up front has access to it?  Yes, if someone is hurt or ill, and they are very young or have young children, and their story gets out there, care may be provided pro bono.  For the rest of us?  Over twenty, under 65, uninsured?  Forget about it.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Why

Jormungander wrote:

Why aren't there "huge ethical problems" with having private entities controlling your food supply?

 

When did I ever say there wasn't? And now you are upping the ante, because not only are there ethical problems with private corporations controlling a nation's food supply, it is also a direct threat to national security. But, granted, that is in an extreme case. On the day-to-day basis, it is a fair assumption that a dude who sells food will want to sell food to you more than once. As long as he's running a clean business you don't represent any liability to him as a customer. His vested interest will be that of continuing to supply the food products you want to purchase and to make sure you want to come back for more. However, it pays to be skeptical. You are almost criminally naive if you think that any given producer of, say, tin can food stuffs will not, if this maximises his profit, add semi-poisonous ingredients to your food if he even as much as thinks that he can get away with it.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:1. If publicly

cj wrote:

1. If publicly traded, any corporation MUST (by law, in the US) optimize investor returns.

2. Health insurance companies, in the US, are exempt from anti-trust laws.

3. Therefore, there is NOT anything remotely resembling an "invisible hand" if you are discussing health insurance in the US.  No competition exists.

4. Profits = revenue - costs

5. For a health insurance company revenue = premiums

6. For a health insurance company costs = buildings, utilities, salaries and benefits, etc, and insurance claims

7. The easiest cost to minimize is paying out insurance claims.  (Do you honestly think that salaries and bonuses at the highest levels would be cut?  And telephone call centers and nurse-on-call are already overseas - at least for the last time I had insurance that was the case.)

8. Therefore, to maximize profits, a publicly traded health insurance company must increase premiums and deny claims.  QED

To reduce costs in the US, one option is to make all health insurance non-profit.  See Switzerland.  Another alternative would  be Medicare-for-All.  See Taiwan.  Doing nothing means costs will continue to sky rocket for everyone except the health insurance companies.  No moral issues needed to come to this conclusion.

On the other hand, personally I think the current state of affairs vis-a-vis health care is shameful.  Beyond the economic disfunctionality, there are the thousands of people who suffer needlessly.  Yeah, the US may have the fanciest technology, but do you seriously think anyone with out insurance or cash up front has access to it?  Yes, if someone is hurt or ill, and they are very young or have young children, and their story gets out there, care may be provided pro bono.  For the rest of us?  Over twenty, under 65, uninsured?  Forget about it.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

So as the metaphor goes, "Playing god" is ok as long as it is done for profit at the expense of a human life just because of a pre-existing condition or denying care because of the inability to pay.

Do profits mean more to humans than compassion?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3965
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:They don't

Brian37 wrote:

They don't want to face that WE are all in this together,  

We're in what together? A competition for survival? A competition to spread our genetic DNA onto the next generation? A competition for resources, power and sex?

Where in any science is there any evidence for anything else? Sure there is opportunities of people to cooperate when it's mutually beneficial. But everyone is only self-interested at their core. Everyone is greedy rich and poor.

This rant is just irrational anger. If you want "the rich" to assist "the poor", it can only make sense if it's part of a social contract that benefits all parties. There is no rational basis for entitlements just for being born.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Brian37 wrote:They

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

They don't want to face that WE are all in this together,  

We're in what together? A competition for survival? A competition to spread our genetic DNA onto the next generation? A competition for resources, power and sex?

Where in any science is there any evidence for anything else? Sure there is opportunities of people to cooperate when it's mutually beneficial. But everyone is only self-interested at their core. Everyone is greedy rich and poor.

This rant is just irrational anger. If you want "the rich" to assist "the poor", it can only make sense if it's part of a social contract that benefits all parties. There is no rational basis for entitlements just for being born.

And there is no entitlement to power just because you can bully others. There is more than one way to be a dictator and you don't have to live in a dictatorship.

AND also part of evolution which you want to ignore is our ability to be compassionate. Narcisism is what you are talking about which is a human flaw. Just because you can make money and yield power with that money doesn't make you moral.

If our natural need for resources were all there was then we should never bitch when someone gains absolute power, after all their greed is natural.

Natural doesn't always mean moral or good.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3965
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:You really buy

Brian37 wrote:

You really buy into that shit? I hate to tell you this our country ALREADY has socialistic enterprizes, unless you want all police to replaced with private security, and if you cant afford it, then fuck you, if your neighbor robs you so what?.

Oh, so people can afford to own shit that can be robbed but they can't pay to protect it. If they can't afford to pay to protect their shit, why the hell are they buying shit, why aren't they in school or rehab program to get them into a job so they can pay for what they use?

This is like the BS people that buy a car, repair it, put gas in it but then they just don't have the money to buy insurance to cover damages they do to other people. Bull Shit pay for the God Damn insurance or take the bus. I'm not your Fucking sugar daddy.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Let's privatize fire departments and if you cant afford to have your house fire put out, too bad.  I am sure that UPS and FED X are hurting because the post office has existed since the 1800s.

Why own a house in the first place if you can't pay for the service? Just live in wilderness if you don't want to pay for the benefits of civilization.

We don't see the post office offering free mail delivery if you can't pay. What do you think would happen if they did?

Brian37 wrote:

And private insurance companies don't play god because they NEVER deny you anything right? They never stop coverage of an operation or a pill to protect their profits. I wonder how much you would put up with police or fire departments if they acted like private insurance companies?

 

And governments don't have to restrict costs to keep from going bankrupt???? If you don't like the coverage, buy a Cadillac plan that covers everything.

Well here in California people and business left in part because of the high taxes and a bankrupt government due to ridiculous pension plans for police and fire unions. Also people living in high fire danger areas being subsidized by those that don't. So I guess they didn't put up with the unions "protecting their profits" just as insurance companies do.

BTW, when have you agreed to work for free? What evidence do we have you are less selfish than executives and shareholders at Insurance companies? I'm sure many of them donate to charity as well as you.

Sense when have police and fire unions not been concerned about the "profits" of it's members?

Brian37 wrote:

BTW did you donate to the poor Haitians?

Only if a society agrees to rational family planning. Otherwise you're waisting your money. Relieve a little suffering now only to have it result in more suffering later.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Brian37 wrote:You

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

You really buy into that shit? I hate to tell you this our country ALREADY has socialistic enterprizes, unless you want all police to replaced with private security, and if you cant afford it, then fuck you, if your neighbor robs you so what?.

Oh, so people can afford to own shit that can be robbed but they can't pay to protect it. If they can't afford to pay to protect their shit, why the hell are they buying shit, why aren't they in school or rehab program to get them into a job so they can pay for what they use?

This is like the BS people that buy a car, repair it, put gas in it but then they just don't have the money to buy insurance to cover damages they do to other people. Bull Shit pay for the God Damn insurance or take the bus. I'm not your Fucking sugar daddy.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Let's privatize fire departments and if you cant afford to have your house fire put out, too bad.  I am sure that UPS and FED X are hurting because the post office has existed since the 1800s.

Why own a house in the first place if you can't pay for the service? Just live in wilderness if you don't want to pay for the benefits of civilization.

We don't see the post office offering free mail delivery if you can't pay. What do you think would happen if they did?

Brian37 wrote:

And private insurance companies don't play god because they NEVER deny you anything right? They never stop coverage of an operation or a pill to protect their profits. I wonder how much you would put up with police or fire departments if they acted like private insurance companies?

 

And governments don't have to restrict costs to keep from going bankrupt???? If you don't like the coverage, buy a Cadillac plan that covers everything.

Well here in California people and business left in part because of the high taxes and a bankrupt government due to ridiculous pension plans for police and fire unions. Also people living in high fire danger areas being subsidized by those that don't. So I guess they didn't put up with the unions "protecting their profits" just as insurance companies do.

BTW, when have you agreed to work for free? What evidence do we have you are less selfish than executives and shareholders at Insurance companies? I'm sure many of them donate to charity as well as you.

Sense when have police and fire unions not been concerned about the "profits" of it's members?

Brian37 wrote:

BTW did you donate to the poor Haitians?

Only if a society agrees to rational family planning. Otherwise you're waisting your money. Relieve a little suffering now only to have it result in more suffering later.

Who the fuck is talking about anyone working for free?

I said in my prior post that just because it is natural for us to seek out resources, it doesn't always mean that because an individual, or company or political party or nation does so, that makes it moral. Otherwise because the Saudis monopolize the oil in their country and give the wealth and political power to Sunnis makes it all peaches and cream for Jews or Christians or atheists who are forced to keep their mouths shut at the penalty of death. Just because you can do something doesn't make it moral.

I recognize the scientific aspect of our species to seek out resources. But just because an individual or company or political party or nation gains the upper hand that makes it right. Otherwise why criticize Hitler, after all, at least for a while he successfully competed and got the resources, through his natural drive of greed and competition. If it is never wrong to do what is within our own best self interest, then we cant blame Hitler, after all, he was just competing like the rest of us.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3965
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:AND also part

Brian37 wrote:

AND also part of evolution which you want to ignore is our ability to be compassionate.

 

I believe the psychological studies show that we really only care about ourselves. We don't have free will to truly be compassionate, we can only fake it. What you call compassion is really just a willingness to cooperate which can have benefits.

But look at Haiti for example, they have this telethon with emotional appeals and music. Why? Because then giving makes the giver feel better or they win points with Mr. Invisible. A selfish and narcissistic as anything. It isn't a rational argument that along with the aid, we'll have family planning, teach science and logic and stop with all the BS religion in Haiti. So the survivors all think God helped them survive, they go out and have gigantic families and the whole cycle for Malthusian catastrophe and natural disaster starts over again. This is how nature does population control for us since we're still a highly irrational species driven more by feelings and emotions.

Brian37 wrote:

If our natural need for resources were all there was then we should never bitch when someone gains absolute power, after all their greed is natural.

Natural doesn't always mean moral or good.

Morality is Bull Shit. A way to control people with guilt and fear. Good is only that which brings me pleasure and satisfaction without causing pain. You're no different.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Brian37 wrote:AND

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

AND also part of evolution which you want to ignore is our ability to be compassionate.

 

I believe the psychological studies show that we really only care about ourselves. We don't have free will to truly be compassionate, we can only fake it. What you call compassion is really just a willingness to cooperate which can have benefits.

But look at Haiti for example, they have this telethon with emotional appeals and music. Why? Because then giving makes the giver feel better or they win points with Mr. Invisible. A selfish and narcissistic as anything. It isn't a rational argument that along with the aid, we'll have family planning, teach science and logic and stop with all the BS religion in Haiti. So the survivors all think God helped them survive, they go out and have gigantic families and the whole cycle for Malthusian catastrophe and natural disaster starts over again. This is how nature does population control for us since we're still a highly irrational species driven more by feelings and emotions.

Brian37 wrote:

If our natural need for resources were all there was then we should never bitch when someone gains absolute power, after all their greed is natural.

Natural doesn't always mean moral or good.

Morality is Bull Shit. A way to control people with guilt and fear. Good is only that which brings me pleasure and satisfaction without causing pain. You're no different.

Morality in what context? In a magical context? No, Of course that is bullshit, there is no such thing as a utopia.

So Hitler was good? Stalin was good? Then we cant blame them because all they were seeking was satisfaction.

It is impossible not to ever cause pain to others, otherwise when atheists call gods bullshit we are not causing pain to to their fans. Are you suggesting we never cause pain to others? And I am not talking about physical pain. That is not the only pain there is in life.

Morality is not magic. I will never suggest that, but it does exist, all be it constantly changing and varied. It is a projection of what we want as individuals and societies of "what should be". Otherwise we wouldn't flock together to like minded people. If morality didn't exist in our evolution, female monkeys wouldn't react to being raped by the alpha male. Monkeys wouldn't react to outsiders trying to mate with their harem.

When an alpha male reacts to a challenge he is expressing the moral of "I earned this and you have no right to it". When a female dog adapts a cat to suckle it along with it's pups it is expressing the moral of "I have to help this other life". None of this is absolute. Some alpha males back down and others don't. Some females also reject outsiders and even bite their owners when they try to help the pups.

I do not confuse evolutionary morality to magical biblical morality which has no basis in reality.

So guilt and fear never benefit us or lead to compassion? So if you mop a floor and you don't put up a "wet floor sign" and someone slips on the floor and busts their head and ends up in a coma, you don't fear them dying or feel guilt that you didn't put the sign up?

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3965
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Who the fuck

Brian37 wrote:

Who the fuck is talking about anyone working for free?

How does medical coverage for all occur unless people work for free?

Brian37 wrote:

I said in my prior post that just because it is natural for us to seek out resources, it doesn't always mean that because an individual, or company or political party or nation does so, that makes it moral.

I think you need to dump the notion of morality. It's part of the BS of living a religious society and a society that wants conformity to the system(which benefits the rich and powerful).

So we have this dilemma of we all seek out resources for our own benefit, we have limited natural resources. The rational thing to do is come up with a social contract that enables us to all benefit from these otherwise we all are in constant conflict and misery. This moralizing does no good with people that are all self-centered in their core. People will just use this false notion of absolute morality to gain an advantage over others.

Brian37 wrote:

I recognize the scientific aspect of our species to seek out resources. But just because an individual or company or political party or nation gains the upper hand that makes it right.

In their own minds, they believe they are being moral. Every action a person makes in accordance with their "morality" at that moment. And their "morality" is to do what seems right for now. So what good is your moralizing?

The thing to do is propose solutions that are beneficial to everyone. It's not in the corporations interest to have poor people with no money buy their products. It's not in the poor's interest to drive away business that can provide jobs. Come up with rational compromises and stop trying to say something or someone is more moral. Every action, every person is selfish, start with that as premise one.

Brian37 wrote:

Otherwise why criticize Hitler, after all, at least for a while he successfully competed and got the resources, through his natural drive of greed and competition. If it is never wrong to do what is within our own best self interest, then we cant blame Hitler, after all, he was just competing like the rest of us.

But Hitler, just like everyone believed in his own mind all his actions were morally correct at the time he did them. So what good is moralizing? The lesson to be learned is not to cede so much power to political leaders that promise a lot. All political leaders(just like all people) are just self-serving bastards. Look for ways to find your own hapiness instead expecting politicians with their won agendas to deliver it for you.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If humans didn't evolve with

If humans didn't evolve with morals then when we argue with a loved one, only to hear that they got hit by a car an hour later, and the last thing you said to them was "fuck you", not really meaning it, but just pissed over a disagreement, why would we feel guilt?

Guilt is a real emotion, not a super natural emotion. It is one that is falsely used by religious people to control. But to say that atheists don't or should never have those emotions is absurd. That would make us machines, which we are not.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The thing to do is

Quote:
The thing to do is propose solutions that are beneficial to everyone.

And that is what Hitler, wrongly thought he was doing. He thought that by trying to take over the world and getting rid of "useless people" he could make a master race. If you don't feel it is your duty to support the poor what happens when you get richer and there is no middle class and no one to buy your product? What happens to the value of the dollar if everyone makes the same? No one would do the work.

We all think we have ideas and solutions that are beneficial to everyone otherwise we wouldn't express them.

I think the words humanity is not focused on, due to our own flaw in narcissism are empathy and compassion. We don't have to help others and certainly no one is obligated to do such, but if one ignores that, eventually they wont be able to sustain themselves.

You can look at it in our human history cycle, once the abused becomes the abuser. I agree with the concept of solutions that are beneficial to everyone. But it cant come at the cost of ignoring the reality that we are all individuals and do not value the same things. I do not see our American economy as doing anything differently than the Saudi government. Other than the Saudi government has a more concentrated monetary and political power.

If we are to survive as a society it cannot always be one way or the other. It can't be government providing everything for everyone. North Korea tries to do that and does a horrible job. But it also cannot be a slash and burn economy where only those with money have power.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
And again, do not equate my

And again, do not equate my descriptions of emotions or morals to being the same as how religious people use them in a control sense.

IT IS ok, and normal to feel guilt, for example,if you are at work and are reaching for something and mistakenly hit a co worker in the face. If we are always selfish, why say, "I'm sorry".

You accuse me of buying into their definitions of what emotions are and what morals are, and I dont buy them. The religious do not own emotions or morals nor did they invent them, but they do exist for all humans.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"look for your own

"look for your own happiness"

Nice idea but what if the powers that be don't agree with you in what "happiness is" and that you should be like them? How is the Iranian concept of collective happiness any different than the attitude that "if you don't reach an economic title or paycheck you are a loser".

Again, like I said in the OP your idea of "what should be" and my idea of "what should be" are not always going to match up. I simply get pissed at those with money in this country thinking that because they have it they have the right to dictate to others as to what "happiness" is and that "happiness" is always obtaining a high title and lots of money, and those who dont reach their idea of "happiness" should be left to rot.

Kim Jong Ill is happy with his power. The Saudis are happy with their power and they both project their ideas of what happiness should be on their citizens. I don't think Wal Mart or AIG or their share holders should force people to conform to their idea of happiness at the threat of being left to rot.

It is not either or. It is the same thing that causes  rift in any society. The attitude that if it works for me it is going to work for everyone else and those who don't subscribe to my ideas, are worthless.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3965
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:If humans

Brian37 wrote:

If humans didn't evolve with morals then when we argue with a loved one, only to hear that they got hit by a car an hour later, and the last thing you said to them was "fuck you", not really meaning it, but just pissed over a disagreement, why would we feel guilt?

We evolved with a desire to cooperate and be in mutually beneficial relationships with others. I believe the guilt is natures way of telling us we fucked up in this endeavor. Just like hunger tells us we're not doing good at getting food and we need to do better if we're to survive. It's still all about ourselves and our own survival(and our genes).

Brian37 wrote:

Guilt is a real emotion, not a super natural emotion. It is one that is falsely used by religious people to control. But to say that atheists don't or should never have those emotions is absurd. That would make us machines, which we are not.

I think it's pretty impossible not to feel emotions. So, I'm not advocating "no emotions". What happens is religion or a political position will make people feel good. Then they will make irrational claims in order to justify their belief. I just believe it's in our long term interest to avoid this pattern.

Also there is no reason to believe machines couldn't be make to feel emotions just as humans do now. We just don't have the technology yet.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 Food is available to people that cannot afford it in the united states. I suppose you think it should all be left to the free market, and anyone that can't afford it deserves to starve and die in the streets?

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
My bone to pick with the American Left

While it's laudable to repeatedly curse Rush, Glenn, Bill and all the teabaggers, I find that the recent bunglings of Democrats supports an inescapable conclusion. The Left are totally unreliable!!!!!!! When Obama came into office, this was after a bitter campaign against his rival "feminist" Hillary Clinton. The entire lead up to the Democratic candidate was tainted by fucked up identity politics. Hello feminists!!! Remember, Hillary supported the fucking Iraq war which is far, far, far more misogynistic than Larry Flynnt's woman in a meat grinder. And after the Democrats had their petty squabbles over race and gender, Obama became the candidate. And, thankfully he won. And the Democrats control all branches of government. And what do they do? They bail out the corporations that fucked up this nation. But could they get anything positive done? No!!!!!!! Because it is a party of "diversity" which allows fucktards like Joe Lieberman to wreak havoc. And in the meantime, the teabaggers have their day in the sun. Do the Democrats fight back? NO!!!!!!!!!!! Pelosi simply blows them off as "astroturf". And after a year, what is the Democrats' crowning achievement? They allow a seat once held by a respected democratic senator for many years in Massechussets to be handed over to a Republican. Why? Because of the fucktard Coakley who refused to go out in cold weather to shake hands with voters in Fenway Park. And affordable access to healthcare is a recurrent mantra among feminists. It is quite ironic that the current bill will now be filibustered because of a feminist who really didn't seem to give a fuck. Frankly, I'm very bitter and tired of relying on shit-filled rhetoric among the Left. When they come into power they do fuck all. And yes, I won't hold back on this final word. I am going to say this to all the American lefties in politics. At least Stalin got things done.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ragdish,To be fair, I think

ragdish,

To be fair, I think the left hates what the democratic politicians are doing. The corporate bailouts from the dems and the health care bill that is a giant corporatist handout to insurance companies can't be things that they support.  But voters can't do anything about that. What are they going to do? Vote for a republican candidate who is even worse in their eyes or will they throw away their vote on a third party candidate?

 

Here is what I imagine people on the left should be thinking:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HealthCare/howard-dean-health-care-bill-bigger-bailout-insurance/story?id=9349392

 

"But could they get anything positive done? No!!!!!!! Because it is a party of "diversity" which allows fucktards like Joe Lieberman to wreak havoc."

That's their strength. If they demanded conformity like the republicans do, then they wouldn't have these large majorities in the legislative branch. There are 52 congressmen that are apart of the Blue Dog Coalition. And those are just the ones that are open and proud about being democrats that actively oppose what is thought of as the democrat party's goals. So yes, the dems don't get shit done when they are in power. We have one party that is focused but small and we have another party that lacks anything resembling focus or uniformity but is big and is split into groups that oppose one another. Politics is just a clusterfuck.

 

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian

Brian37 wrote:

So as the metaphor goes, "Playing god" is ok as long as it is done for profit at the expense of a human life just because of a pre-existing condition or denying care because of the inability to pay.

Do profits mean more to humans than compassion?

My point was that under our current system, profit is the main motivator for any publicly traded corporation, including health care.   And also, that allowing profit to be the main motivator was going to remove compassion from the equation entirely. 

As near as I can tell, for some people, profit is all that matters then, now and forever.  I feel sorry for these people that they have no other joy in their life and can no longer empathize with other people.  And I am dismayed that so many people who seem to be like this are running businesses and sitting in congress.

There are a number of solutions, but none seem to have a large enough backing to actually get implemented.  I rented this video from Netflix (if you didn't happen to catch the show): http://www.netflix.com/Movie/Frontline_Sick_Around_the_World/70098734?trkid=190393  The countries reviewed are all capitalist.  Not a socialist among them.  Not that the hecklers will care much about that.

When did it become so wrong to care about someone other than yourself?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:When did it become

cj wrote:

When did it become so wrong to care about someone other than yourself?

What is it with people on the left and the rhetorical ploy/obvious lie of "we are the only ones who care about others, why do you hate the poor?" It is as bad as some people one the right claiming that only conservatives are pariots and that the left hates America.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:What is

Jormungander wrote:

What is it with people on the left and the rhetorical ploy/obvious lie of "we are the only ones who care about others, why do you hate the poor?"

 

I wonder about that too. The political discourse in America is atrocious, much less intelligent.

There are good economical motives for financing a modest and passive lifestyle for the poor and the unambitious. Give them just enough so that they will stay calm and collected, happily gobbling their Monsanto TV dinners and watching their Fox News, in their modest trailer homes. Praise the Lord! Give them social security and free health care. Give them community work of cleaning the public streets and parks. Why is this so hard to fathom?

You don't want inner city criminals with crack and guns and shit. Why would you want that?

Use the billions that are spent on the motherfucking military on getting the country straight. Nobody - nobody - wants anything from the US. We don't want anything that you have. We don't want to be like you. We don't admire or even much like anything that you seem to be proud of. In fact there's nothing much that separates the US of A and Zimbabwe in that matter. You have nothing. Whatever once was, in now gone. The game is over.

All that is left is to collect and relate to the hatred of all other peoples all over this earth.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3965
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Food is

ClockCat wrote:

 Food is available to people that cannot afford it in the united states. I suppose you think it should all be left to the free market, and anyone that can't afford it deserves to starve and die in the streets?

I'm not god, so who am I to say what anyone deserves? Since we don't limit family sizes, starvation and other forms of misery is nature does population control for us. Same as any other species. Do dogs deserve to be euthanized? There's no other option if humans don't put limits on their breeding.

What is your plan then? We let people have as many babies as they want or that their god tells them to have, then we just give away food and health care just for making it through the birth canal? Do we ever run out of enough resources to feed all these people, when do we run out of the evil rich to feed them?

Like I've explained a million times help for the poor only makes rational sense if it's part of social contract not a birthright. The rich can help the poor get into jobs that enable them to pay for what they need to survive, in return the poor agree to become productive, law abiding members of society and everyone agrees to limit their family size. But their must be negative consequences for people don't live up to the terms of such a social agreement.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 Food is available to people that cannot afford it in the united states. I suppose you think it should all be left to the free market, and anyone that can't afford it deserves to starve and die in the streets?

I'm not god, so who am I to say what anyone deserves? Since we don't limit family sizes, starvation and other forms of misery is nature does population control for us. Same as any other species. Do dogs deserve to be euthanized? There's no other option if humans don't put limits on their breeding.

What is your plan then? We let people have as many babies as they want or that their god tells them to have, then we just give away food and health care just for making it through the birth canal? Do we ever run out of enough resources to feed all these people, when do we run out of the evil rich to feed them?

Like I've explained a million times help for the poor only makes rational sense if it's part of social contract not a birthright. The rich can help the poor get into jobs that enable them to pay for what they need to survive, in return the poor agree to become productive, law abiding members of society and everyone agrees to limit their family size. But their must be negative consequences for people don't live up to the terms of such a social agreement.

 

 

Because the job of CEOs is to offer charity employment? What world do you live in?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
words in my mouth

Jormungander wrote:

cj wrote:

When did it become so wrong to care about someone other than yourself?

What is it with people on the left and the rhetorical ploy/obvious lie of "we are the only ones who care about others, why do you hate the poor?" It is as bad as some people one the right claiming that only conservatives are pariots and that the left hates America.

Who said right or left?  Not me.  I was talking about people who don't care about other people.  It has nothing to do with politics, morality, or religion.  I have plenty of friends who are on the right, in the center, and on the left who all care very deeply for other people.  Get a grip.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3965
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:EXC

ClockCat wrote:

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 Food is available to people that cannot afford it in the united states. I suppose you think it should all be left to the free market, and anyone that can't afford it deserves to starve and die in the streets?

I'm not god, so who am I to say what anyone deserves? Since we don't limit family sizes, starvation and other forms of misery is nature does population control for us. Same as any other species. Do dogs deserve to be euthanized? There's no other option if humans don't put limits on their breeding.

What is your plan then? We let people have as many babies as they want or that their god tells them to have, then we just give away food and health care just for making it through the birth canal? Do we ever run out of enough resources to feed all these people, when do we run out of the evil rich to feed them?

Like I've explained a million times help for the poor only makes rational sense if it's part of social contract not a birthright. The rich can help the poor get into jobs that enable them to pay for what they need to survive, in return the poor agree to become productive, law abiding members of society and everyone agrees to limit their family size. But their must be negative consequences for people don't live up to the terms of such a social agreement.

 

 

 

Because the job of CEOs is to offer charity employment? What world do you live in?

Where did I say anything about "charity employment"? Is this just your way of avoiding any discussion how obviously irrational entitlements without conditions really are?

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3965
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Jormungander

cj wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

cj wrote:

When did it become so wrong to care about someone other than yourself?

What is it with people on the left and the rhetorical ploy/obvious lie of "we are the only ones who care about others, why do you hate the poor?" It is as bad as some people one the right claiming that only conservatives are pariots and that the left hates America.

Who said right or left?  Not me.  I was talking about people who don't care about other people.  It has nothing to do with politics, morality, or religion.  I have plenty of friends who are on the right, in the center, and on the left who all care very deeply for other people.  Get a grip.

 

When have any of you ever done anything that was not in your own self interest? When has 'what's in it for me?' not been your bottom line?

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
doesn't matter

EXC wrote:

When have any of you ever done anything that was not in your own self interest? When has 'what's in it for me?' not been your bottom line?

If I could come up with millions of examples,  you would still say, "it was for your own self-gratification".  Which one of us is delusional?  You or me?  Doesn't matter.  You are so far down in your self-justification, you appear to see everything through your own gray-colored glasses.  And therefore, there is nothing to discuss.  "When the pupil is ready, a teacher will appear."  Obviously, you are not ready.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3965
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:EXC wrote:When have

cj wrote:

EXC wrote:

When have any of you ever done anything that was not in your own self interest? When has 'what's in it for me?' not been your bottom line?

If I could come up with millions of examples,  you would still say, "it was for your own self-gratification".  Which one of us is delusional?  You or me?  Doesn't matter.

The whole basis of your argument is that your way is more compassionate. So if you are delusional that you can be compassionate and that you have free will to do so, it seems you should want to know this.

cj wrote:

  You are so far down in your self-justification, you appear to see everything through your own gray-colored glasses.  And therefore, there is nothing to discuss.  "When the pupil is ready, a teacher will appear."  Obviously, you are not ready.

If I'm wrong I want to know. That's why I'm trying to give you the change to disprove that you or anyone can be unselfish and compassionate. To me your silence seem to indicate you don't want to go there and have your delusions shattered.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:cj wrote:EXC

EXC wrote:

cj wrote:

EXC wrote:

When have any of you ever done anything that was not in your own self interest? When has 'what's in it for me?' not been your bottom line?

If I could come up with millions of examples,  you would still say, "it was for your own self-gratification".  Which one of us is delusional?  You or me?  Doesn't matter.

The whole basis of your argument is that your way is more compassionate. So if you are delusional that you can be compassionate and that you have free will to do so, it seems you should want to know this.

If you are delusional because there is free will and compassion in this world, do you want to know?  Or will you just keep arguing that everyone is selfish?  What is your standard for proof or disproof?

EXC wrote:

cj wrote:

  You are so far down in your self-justification, you appear to see everything through your own gray-colored glasses.  And therefore, there is nothing to discuss.  "When the pupil is ready, a teacher will appear."  Obviously, you are not ready.

If I'm wrong I want to know. That's why I'm trying to give you the change to disprove that you or anyone can be unselfish and compassionate. To me your silence seem to indicate you don't want to go there and have your delusions shattered.

Once again, we are all delusional, we are all self-justifying.  We just choose different subjects to get weird about.  If I am delusional about compassion, then so be it. 

As for free will, I once took an ethics class and discovered that I was the only one in the room who stuck by free will - way past the bitter end.  If you hold a gun on me and tell me to jump off the cliff, I will 1) perhaps attempt to take the gun away, 2) perhaps just walk away, 3) perhaps just sit down on the ground, 4) and definitely burst out laughing.  I will NOT jump off the cliff.  We all have the freedom to choose our own path.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4230
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: When have any of

EXC wrote:

 

When have any of you ever done anything that was not in your own self interest? When has 'what's in it for me?' not been your bottom line?

 

 

that's easy: everytime i give money to a beggar in the street.  it doesn't make me feel good.  it makes me feel like an overpriveleged, stuck-up prick who is demeaning this person by giving him a euro or two.  but if i don't give, i feel like a callous, miserly asshole.  so basically, in the subjective emotional sense, everytime i meet a beggar it's a lose-lose situation for me.  sometimes i spend the rest of the afternoon feeling distracted and bothered.  so in that case i figure, quite rationally, "well, i can feel like a prick and this guy can get a coffee, or i can feel like a prick and he can't.  might as well choose the first road."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4230
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:As for free will, I

cj wrote:

As for free will, I once took an ethics class and discovered that I was the only one in the room who stuck by free will - way past the bitter end.  If you hold a gun on me and tell me to jump off the cliff, I will 1) perhaps attempt to take the gun away, 2) perhaps just walk away, 3) perhaps just sit down on the ground, 4) and definitely burst out laughing.  I will NOT jump off the cliff.  We all have the freedom to choose our own path.

 

 

this is known as wisdom, and it's the delusion i choose to believe in.

for anyone has a problem with that belief, in the words of the buddha, "om shanti shanti and stick it up your ass."

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:EXC

iwbiek wrote:

EXC wrote:

 

When have any of you ever done anything that was not in your own self interest? When has 'what's in it for me?' not been your bottom line?

 

 

that's easy: everytime i give money to a beggar in the street.  it doesn't make me feel good.  it makes me feel like an overpriveleged, stuck-up prick who is demeaning this person by giving him a euro or two.  but if i don't give, i feel like a callous, miserly asshole.  so basically, in the subjective emotional sense, everytime i meet a beggar it's a lose-lose situation for me.  sometimes i spend the rest of the afternoon feeling distracted and bothered.  so in that case i figure, quite rationally, "well, i can feel like a prick and this guy can get a coffee, or i can feel like a prick and he can't.  might as well choose the first road."

Even if a person felt good about giving money to a beggar that wouldn't necessarily mean that they gave the money so that they could feel good. The whole "everything you do is selfish" viewpoint is based on these kinds of post-hoc fallacies. That and a fundamental misunderstanding of what people mean when they use words like "unselfish". If one takes pleasure in helping others that's exactly what makes them unselfish and there's no reason to say the opposite unless you're desperately trying to prove something that is patently absurd.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4230
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:If one takes

Gauche wrote:

If one takes pleasure in helping others that's exactly what makes them unselfish and there's no reason to say the opposite unless you're desperately trying to prove something that is patently absurd.

i have no problem with those who feel good about helping people.  there are many other situations where i do.  i just wanted to answer exc's question, which he obviously thought was unanswerable.

feeling good is part of what makes altruism work, but there are a helluva lot of other ways to feel good, for a helluva lot less effort.  as for the idea of some latent tendency in humans to be altruistic in order to please the sky daddy, in my personal experience christians are better than anyone at justifying being stingy.  "god helps those who help themselves," etc., etc.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: Gauche wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Gauche wrote:

If one takes pleasure in helping others that's exactly what makes them unselfish and there's no reason to say the opposite unless you're desperately trying to prove something that is patently absurd.

i have no problem with those who feel good about helping people.  there are many other situations where i do.  i just wanted to answer exc's question, which he obviously thought was unanswerable.

feeling good is part of what makes altruism work, but there are a helluva lot of other ways to feel good, for a helluva lot less effort.  as for the idea of some latent tendency in humans to be altruistic in order to please the sky daddy, in my personal experience christians are better than anyone at justifying being stingy.  "god helps those who help themselves," etc., etc.

I know what you were trying to do. I'm just saying it's a bullshit question to begin with. Anyone who believes that all actions are selfish has already displayed the kind of rigidity in thinking that shows they cannot be dissuaded. Everything must confirm this belief even things that seem to disconfirm it because a single disconfirming instance proves that it's false. So, the fact that you enjoy helping others "proves" that you're selfish and equally the fact that you don't enjoy helping others proves that you're selfish. It's completely sophomoric.

 

BTW. have you seen this drawing before?

 

 


 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4230
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:iwbiek

Gauche wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Gauche wrote:

If one takes pleasure in helping others that's exactly what makes them unselfish and there's no reason to say the opposite unless you're desperately trying to prove something that is patently absurd.

i have no problem with those who feel good about helping people.  there are many other situations where i do.  i just wanted to answer exc's question, which he obviously thought was unanswerable.

feeling good is part of what makes altruism work, but there are a helluva lot of other ways to feel good, for a helluva lot less effort.  as for the idea of some latent tendency in humans to be altruistic in order to please the sky daddy, in my personal experience christians are better than anyone at justifying being stingy.  "god helps those who help themselves," etc., etc.

I know what you were trying to do. I'm just saying it's a bullshit question to begin with. Anyone who believes that all actions are selfish has already displayed the kind of rigidity in thinking that shows they cannot be dissuaded. Everything must confirm this belief even things that seem to disconfirm it because a single disconfirming instance proves that it's false. So, the fact that you enjoy helping others "proves" that you're selfish and equally the fact that you don't enjoy helping others proves that you're selfish. It's completely sophomoric.

 

BTW. have you seen this drawing before?

 

 


 

 

no, actually i haven't seen that particular drawing, but long live brak and altruism.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3965
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:If you are

cj wrote:

If you are delusional because there is free will and compassion in this world, do you want to know?  Or will you just keep arguing that everyone is selfish?  What is your standard for proof or disproof?

I would say with me, normally knowing how the world actually works is more pleasurable than not knowing. But I suppose if it caused a lot of pain, I would not want to know this. It's like the theists that don't want to hear the atheist arguments because of the pleasure and comfort their delusions bring them. People don't like hearing that free will, compassion and unselfishness probably don't exist because they feel better believing they do.

The concepts 'selfish' and 'unselfish' were invented to force social confomity. In order to have an 'unselfish' act there would have to be free will, I'm not sure of how I could ever be convinced that free will exists.

I should stop arguing that every action is selfish because if every action is to bring plesure or avoid pain, the term kind of becomes meaningless. It's not distinguished from anything else. I guess I enjoy mocking moralists.

cj wrote:

Once again, we are all delusional, we are all self-justifying.  We just choose different subjects to get weird about.  If I am delusional about compassion, then so be it. 

How can anyone take you seriously then?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen