NationStates Jolt Archive

A "fatty food tax" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6291072.stm) is now suggested, to combat obesity, thus saving people the effort of all that damn self-discipline and personal responsibility.

Tony Blair was, disturbingly, correct; such a tax would be the best indication yet of a "nanny state". Frankly, if you cannot control what you eat, you deserve all the problems resultant from obesity.

Personal responsibility, the mantra of those who haven't yet been caught.

I'm not a kid toucher, I'm a drunk!

A "fatty food tax" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6291072.stm) is now suggested, to combat obesity, thus saving people the effort of all that damn self-discipline and personal responsibility.

Tony Blair was, disturbingly, correct; such a tax would be the best indication yet of a "nanny state". Frankly, if you cannot control what you eat, you deserve all the problems resultant from obesity.

while I agree with you I think that there is more to it than just over eating. The methoeds of food production need to be looked into, as well as the type of food prevalent nowadays.

Personal responsibility, the mantra of those who haven't yet been caught.

Amen.

A "fatty food tax" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6291072.stm) is now suggested, to combat obesity, thus saving people the effort of all that damn self-discipline and personal responsibility.

Tony Blair was, disturbingly, correct; such a tax would be the best indication yet of a "nanny state". Frankly, if you cannot control what you eat, you deserve all the problems resultant from obesity.


Thats just what we don't need is another tax! They just want to make money off of overweight people while making people think they care.

Thats just what we don't need is another tax! They just want to make money off of overweight people while making people think they care.
Perhaps they simply wish to return us to the good old days, when girth denoted wealth and status because only the rich could afford enough food to grow fat.

Perhaps they simply wish to return us to the good old days, when girth denoted wealth and status because only the rich could afford enough food to grow fat.

Give us time. If things keep going the way they are, we'll collapse a large portion of the ecosystem, and only the wealthy will be fat.

A "fatty food tax" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6291072.stm) is now suggested, to combat obesity, thus saving people the effort of all that damn self-discipline and personal responsibility.

Tony Blair was, disturbingly, correct; such a tax would be the best indication yet of a "nanny state". Frankly, if you cannot control what you eat, you deserve all the problems resultant from obesity.
It's because our legislatures have already passed all the necessary laws, now they're just trolling for ways to remain relevant.

Give us time. If things keep going the way they are, we'll collapse a large portion of the ecosystem, and only the wealthy will be fat.

Don't know about that anymore. The United States has some of the fattest poor people I've ever seen.

Frankly, if you cannot control what you eat, you deserve all the problems resultant from obesity.

of course, the problems of obesity are not entirely personal in nature, and their costs wind up being placed onto society in general...

Don't know about that anymore. The United States has some of the fattest poor people I've ever seen.

Because it's expensive to eat healthy. Cheap food is full of fattening crap. But if the ecosystem goes kerplow, food in general will be more expensive, and rich people will be able to buy enough to get fat on, while poor people will starve.

Don't know about that anymore. The United States has some of the fattest poor people I've ever seen.

that's because the cheaper foods that you find in supermarkets tend to be much fattier (as well as much saltier and higher content of other food additives) to disguise the fact that they are made of gristle and cardboard.

Perhaps they simply wish to return us to the good old days, when girth denoted wealth and status because only the rich could afford enough food to grow fat.

Right now it's the opposite, cheap foods are overwhelmingly bad for you. Fresh fruits and vegetables are often quite expensive and with gas prices the way they are out of reach of many.

Right now it's the opposite, cheap foods are overwhelmingly bad for you. Fresh fruits and vegetables are often quite expensive and with gas prices the way they are out of reach of many.
Well there you go. The obvious solution is to make cheap foods likewise unaffordable.

of course, the problems of obesity are not entirely personal in nature, and their costs wind up being placed onto society in general...

Damn straight. Obese people tend to cost the NHS more than people who keep themselves healthy, so let them pay for it in advance.

Well there you go. The obvious solution is to make cheap foods likewise unaffordable.

And make good foods cheaper? Argggghhhh but then the good foods will count as cheap food, and then we'll have have to make it unafordable!

Damn straight. Obese people tend to cost the NHS more than people who keep themselves healthy, so let them pay for it in advance.

Heh did you not get the first bit of that? You know this bit 'the problems of obesity are not entirely personal in nature'

It is a social problem, and so sociaty should work to erradicate it.

But what about society's responsibility to keep people happy. in forcing them to pay tax which they may not be able to afford before the consequences are even felt, is society not judging the individual's choice to be obese correct, and so stopping their happiness and infringing upon their rights? And besides, quite a lot of what we do influences what happens to out health eg. driving,if there's a crash. Do we make everyone only do what's healthy?
(ok, so who said i agree with these liberal arguements but still...)

In Denmark (and possibly elsewhere) there is 25% VAT on most products. It has been discussed whether certain healthy food groups should be exempted from VAT, though I do not know what happened to that proposal.

The removal of such a tax would pay itself back through the NHS quickly, assuming it worked as intended.

Because it's expensive to eat healthy. Cheap food is full of fattening crap. But if the ecosystem goes kerplow, food in general will be more expensive, and rich people will be able to buy enough to get fat on, while poor people will starve.

...all the more incentive to find a good job.

IF one can't find a good job... that's what school is for. (and loans, if necessary).

People control far more than they think they do.

The "personal responsibility" gripe is not 100% valid, of course (oversimplification can take place, for instance), but for every con (they can't help it cuz they have 10 kids; they can't find a good job; than can't, they can't, they can't... great winning attitude!), or at least some of them, there's something the person can do to better himself and/or his lot.

A "fatty food tax" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6291072.stm) is now suggested, to combat obesity, thus saving people the effort of all that damn self-discipline and personal responsibility.

Tony Blair was, disturbingly, correct; such a tax would be the best indication yet of a "nanny state". Frankly, if you cannot control what you eat, you deserve all the problems resultant from obesity.

its not an issue of personal responsibility. you neither have a duty to eat nutritiously nor can you escape the effects of bad nutrition.

its an issue of who gets to tell you what you can and cannot eat. is it up to you or the government to decide?

...all the more incentive to find a good job.

IF one can't find a good job... that's what school is for. (and loans, if necessary).

People control far more than they think they do.
Yeah, and it's good to provide children with incentive to not be born to poor parents. After all, if they wanted to avoid malnutrition and related health effects then they ought to get a damn job and quit crying so much.

infringing upon their rights?

we acquired the right to not pay sales tax?

...all the more incentive to find a good job.

IF one can't find a good job... that's what school is for. (and loans, if necessary).

People control far more than they think they do.

The "personal responsibility" gripe is not 100% valid, of course (oversimplification can take place, for instance), but for every con (they can't help it cuz they have 10 kids; they can't find a good job; than can't, they can't, they can't... great winning attitude!), or at least some of them, there's something the person can do to better himself and/or his lot.

Just out of morbid curiosity how old are you and what do your parents do for a living? You strike me as a lad who's never subsisted on government cheese.

But what about society's responsibility to keep people happy. in forcing them to pay tax which they may not be able to afford before the consequences are even felt, is society not judging the individual's choice to be obese correct, and so stopping their happiness and infringing upon their rights? And besides, quite a lot of what we do influences what happens to out health eg. driving,if there's a crash. Do we make everyone only do what's healthy?
(ok, so who said i agree with these liberal arguements but still...)

It's a very good point, at what stage do we legislate freedom against the rising cost of a NHS? Do we tax crossing the road? Do we tax dangerous sports, or jobs. Where do we draw the line?

Give us time. If things keep going the way they are, we'll collapse a large portion of the ecosystem, and only the wealthy will be fat.

Then they'll make good eating.

Just out of morbid curiosity how old are you and what do your parents do for a living? You strike me as a lad who's never subsisted on government cheese.

nor would I... I'm not going to live off the taxpayers' work.

31, MBA

My parents are a music teacher and a health care administrator.. both near retirement.

Some can't help themselves; we need to help them.

Some get laid off for no fault of their own -- we need to help them for a few months, which should be plenty of time to find another job.

But I can't abide these people who suck the government (read: mine and yours) teat when they are mentally and physically able to support themselves... as part of a vicious cycle characterized by increasing amounts of dependency on people other than themselves (nor exclusively their family).

Just out of morbid curiosity how old are you and what do your parents do for a living? You strike me as a lad who's never subsisted on government cheese.

46. I paid for college on my own (I worked). Didn't get any grants, scholarships, or loans. Didn't get any money from my parents.

Later I enlisted in the Army. Didn't use any of the GI Bill benefits later.

Gee, I have a great career now in government consulting (and commercial consulting from time to time).

All of the money, property, and success I have is my own - I left my parents at the age of 17 with none of their money or help, and I haven't had any problems.

You strike me as someone who thinks that success is just not possible without a helping hand.

You strike me as someone who thinks that success is just not possible without a helping hand.

Wot well of course it isn't? You didn't learn all of the skills that you have to make your life a sucess on you own with no help now did you. You folx must have looked after you when you were a child, thats a helping hand isnt it.

Because it's expensive to eat healthy. Cheap food is full of fattening crap. But if the ecosystem goes kerplow, food in general will be more expensive, and rich people will be able to buy enough to get fat on, while poor people will starve.
If there is truly an economic collapse, I think the most self-sufficient of us will do pretty well. I'm not a disaster junkie like a friend of mine, but I can keep most of my machinery running and grow/raise a pretty balanced diet on our property. I think the problem will be the roving bands of "have-nots" that aren't ready to wait for the government to fix things, but don't have the skills to take care of themselves...

RO, want to help me set up a perimeter defense around my 10 acres?

Wot well of course it isn't? You didn't learn all of the skills that you have to make your life a sucess on you own with no help now did you. You folx must have looked after you when you were a child, thats a helping hand isnt it.

They why does the government have to help a mentally capable, physically fit individual who is an adult?

Seems to me they should be able to do just fine on their own, as I did.

If there is truly an economic collapse, I think the most self-sufficient of us will do pretty well. I'm not a disaster junkie like a friend of mine, but I can keep most of my machinery running and grow/raise a pretty balanced diet on our property. I think the problem will be the roving bands of "have-nots" that aren't ready to wait for the government to fix things, but don't have the skills to take care of themselves...

RO, want to help me set up a perimeter defense around my 10 acres?

In an economic collapse, if the army isn't well fed and keeping order, watch out. No amount of home defense is going to protect you when that 155mm shell comes knocking.

They why does the government have to help a mentally capable, physically fit individual who is an adult?

Seems to me they should be able to do just fine on their own, as I did.

...he says until he gets into an accident or gets ill or the economy goes south, etc

the fact of the matter is that not everyone will do fine without any aid. in fact, it is damn near impossible to even imagine a world very much like ours at all in which the reverse was true.

In an economic collapse, if the army isn't well fed and keeping order, watch out. No amount of home defense is going to protect you when that 155mm shell comes knocking.
I would expect a standing army to just disband and go home -- if they aren't taken care of. Even in the worst days of the Soviet Union, that didn't happen.

...he says until he gets into an accident or gets ill or the economy goes south, etc

the fact of the matter is that not everyone will do fine without any aid. in fact, it is damn near impossible to even imagine a world very much like ours at all in which the reverse was true.

I said, "physically fit". And yet you try to imply that I am excluding people hurt by accidents. Nice smear job. Typical.

If the economy goes south, there may not be anything the government can do.

And right now the economy is not going south. I've changed occupations several times in my life. Why should anyone pay to subsidize someone's desire to continue to work an occupation that no longer exists?

46. I paid for college on my own (I worked). Didn't get any grants, scholarships, or loans. Didn't get any money from my parents.

Later I enlisted in the Army. Didn't use any of the GI Bill benefits later.

Gee, I have a great career now in government consulting (and commercial consulting from time to time).

All of the money, property, and success I have is my own - I left my parents at the age of 17 with none of their money or help, and I haven't had any problems.

You strike me as someone who thinks that success is just not possible without a helping hand.

That's the attitude we need to overcome -- that people are helpless; that people cannot do anything on their own, that they must have help from the government; that hard work doesn't pay off; and that entrepreneurs (and the rich) are @ssholes (so don't go into business or become rich, or you'll become an @sshole too).

IS there luck involved?

Sometimes, and in varying degrees. But you greatly increase your chances of becoming successful if you work hard, are willing to take risks, and are intelligent/educated.

Intelligence is a slippery subject, but higher education is readily available. Hell, I'm paying back my Master's loans and probably will be doing so for some time. But the loans are there.

Damn straight. Obese people tend to cost the NHS more than people who keep themselves healthy, so let them pay for it in advance.

I believe they do pay for it in advance already, through various (already existing) forms of taxation. I pay for the NHS with the money I earn, why shouldn't I be allowed to use it as and when I need it?

They why does the government have to help a mentally capable, physically fit individual who is an adult?

Seems to me they should be able to do just fine on their own, as I did.

Umm coz that's a goverments job?

Look at it this way. You went to school yes? The goverment paid for that. You make use the roads? The goverment pays for that.

It is the job of the goverment to run the country for the people, and to help when help is needed. Thats fair isn't it? You would like some help when you need it wouldn't you?

A "fatty food tax" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6291072.stm) is now suggested, to combat obesity, thus saving people the effort of all that damn self-discipline and personal responsibility.

Tony Blair was, disturbingly, correct; such a tax would be the best indication yet of a "nanny state". Frankly, if you cannot control what you eat, you deserve all the problems resultant from obesity.

One thing to remember is that in the UK, they have universal healthcare. People who are greatly obese and not taking responsibility for themselves are therefore costing everyone else money.

Might as well have the fat people pay it instead of everyone else.

Damn straight. Obese people tend to cost the NHS more than people who keep themselves healthy, so let them pay for it in advance.

Making some pay more because they cost more seems to defeat the whole purpose of universal health care. If you are going to go this way, why not just deny service to the obese and make them get private care? Or better yet, eliminate universal health care and not make individuals' health the problem of society as a whole, but the problem of each individual.

A "fatty food tax" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6291072.stm) is now suggested, to combat obesity, thus saving people the effort of all that damn self-discipline and personal responsibility.


You're the last person to champion personal responsibility (without hypocrisy), mister "fuck morals" and "oh no, help us mister government, help keep away the Muslim immigrants! they steal our jobs and dress funny and attack our culture, we need you to heeeeeeeelp! WAAAH"

...he says until he gets into an accident or gets ill or the economy goes south, etc

the fact of the matter is that not everyone will do fine without any aid. in fact, it is damn near impossible to even imagine a world very much like ours at all in which the reverse was true.

The thing about self-reliance is that when the economy does go south, that self-reliant person is going to do what it takes to succeed.

I was in the doctor's office this morning and I noticed a magazine featuring a story about fishing in Chilean Patagonia. Great place to fish -- there are some salmon streams that have NEVER been fished -- but that's not the point.

The father of the guy featured in the article started from nothing in Chile to become a very wealthy man in the banking business. Allende took everything and the man was destitute. He moved to Brownsville, TX and learned what it took to start a bank there. Pretty soon he was rich again.

End of his story was that he returned to Chile after Allende was ousted by Pinochet and made a third fortune. That's what a self-reliant person can accomplish.

It's all about character and most people that are satisfied with the government dole just don't have the right type.

I would expect a standing army to just disband and go home -- if they aren't taken care of. Even in the worst days of the Soviet Union, that didn't happen.

I'm sure that 155 mm would have to go somewhere...

They why does the government have to help a mentally capable, physically fit individual who is an adult?

Seems to me they should be able to do just fine on their own, as I did.

Quite fucking true.

You're the last person to champion personal responsibility (without hypocrisy), mister "fuck morals" and "oh no, help us mister government, help keep away the Muslim immigrants! they steal our jobs and dress funny and attack our culture, we need you to heeeeeeeelp! WAAAH"

So you suggest I should take personal responsibility in regards to immigration by deporting and stopping them myself? That works....:rolleyes:

So you suggest I should take personal responsibility in regards to immigration by deporting and stopping them myself? That works....:rolleyes:

Clearly you don't believe personal responsibility is enough to defend you, your job, or your "culture" from teh evil moo-slem hordes. I guess it's because your "culture" is so weak that not even your own vociferous reactions can defend it, no for that you need a nice, big, fascist government and leaky ships full of immigrants. Nazi-style.

I'm sure that 155 mm would have to go somewhere...
Making that statement is a lot easier than making the 155 work. Mortars would be a lot more practical. But remember, we have National Guard armories in Georgia, too.

rags to riches stories are the exception, not the rule.

Face it, for the most part, no matter how much you try if you were born poor you will stay that way. "It takes money to make money" is a well know saying for a reason.

Clearly you don't believe personal responsibility is enough to defend you, your job, or your "culture" from teh evil moo-slem hordes. I guess it's because your "culture" is so weak that not even your own vociferous reactions can defend it, no for that you need a nice, big, fascist government and leaky ships full of immigrants. Nazi-style.

Why the need for threadjacking?

rags to riches stories are the exception, not the rule.

Face it, for the most part, no matter how much you try if you were born poor you will stay that way. "It takes money to make money" is a well know saying for a reason.
I get so damned tired of hearing the song of the left... Any individual can overcome poverty in the United States. Oh, that's right -- individuals don't matter in the left-leaning world, do they?

Making that statement is a lot easier than making the 155 work. Mortars would be a lot more practical. But remember, we have National Guard armories in Georgia, too.

There is a military base close enough to everyone in the United States for it to pose a problem/opportunity in said situation...

nor would I... I'm not going to live off the taxpayers' work.

31, MBA

My parents are a music teacher and a health care administrator.. both near retirement.

Some can't help themselves; we need to help them.

Some get laid off for no fault of their own -- we need to help them for a few months, which should be plenty of time to find another job.

But I can't abide these people who suck the government (read: mine and yours) teat when they are mentally and physically able to support themselves... as part of a vicious cycle characterized by increasing amounts of dependency on people other than themselves (nor exclusively their family).

Let me see:

Mommy and Daddy are both college grads, you yourself are a graduate. You've never had to worry about finding a job have you? I'm guessing you've never done an honest day's hard work in your life. You've sure never worked minimum wage. Even if you didn't have a job Mom and Dad were always there to bail you out. You don't know shit about personal responsibility, you're just another rich guy who likes to carp about it to try and get a tax break.

I grew up in a single income home, why? My father is/was too worthless to bother working. Exactly the sort you lambaste, and good for you. My mother refused hand outs from anyone, my brother and I worked from the time we could walk trying to make money to keep the four of us alive. Dumpster diving for recyclable materials, walking highways with trash bags to pick up cans for cash mowing a 7 acre cemetery with a fucking push-mower for cash. Don't you dare lecture personal responsibility to anyone. You've never dealt with it.

Blood sweat and tears, personal responsibility is a reality for many of the Americans you so haughtily deride with your college degree your parents so thoughtfully paid for. Oh that's what school's for, who the fuck can go from minimum wage with a family and take time out to go to school? You can't, even if you could afford it, and loans don't cover college, not by a long mile.

I said, "physically fit". And yet you try to imply that I am excluding people hurt by accidents.

no, but you would exclude them once they are better but bankrupt and unemployed. or has the dk collective become proponents of national healthcare at some point?

I get so damned tired of hearing the song of the left... Any individual can overcome poverty in the United States. Oh, that's right -- individuals don't matter in the left-leaning world, do they?

Wether you get so damn tired is not the point though, what he said is true. Rags to riches is not the norm.

As to the left I don't understand why anybody would be to the right, to not be leftwing IS hypocracy.

I get so damned tired of hearing the song of the left... Any individual can overcome poverty in the United States.

Can you provide us a study that shows that assertion?

I get so damned tired of hearing the song of the left... Any individual can overcome poverty in the United States. Oh, that's right -- individuals don't matter in the left-leaning world, do they?


Fuck left or right. look at the damn world. rags to riches is the exception. The rule is you are more than likely to be stuck into the class you are born into. Deal with it.

Fuck left or right. look at the damn world. rags to riches is the exception. The rule is you are more than likely to be stuck into the class you are born into. Deal with it.

Why just deal with it, why should we not be allowed to better ourselves?

Fuck left or right. look at the damn world. rags to riches is the exception. The rule is you are more than likely to be stuck into the class you are born into. Deal with it.

That doesn't prove that people can't change their class, it just shows they don't

Why just deal with it, why should we not be allowed to better ourselves?

It's the nature of the beast. Capitalism by it's very nature encourages survival of the fittest. If you're born into a poor family you have less chance of education, less access to those who can get you decent jobs. It perpetuates the cycle.

It's ironic that right wingers are so anti-evolution and pro-capitalism.

Clearly you don't believe personal responsibility is enough to defend you, your job, or your "culture" from teh evil moo-slem hordes. I guess it's because your "culture" is so weak that not even your own vociferous reactions can defend it, no for that you need a nice, big, fascist government and leaky ships full of immigrants. Nazi-style.

Advice;

1. Stick to the point, and, actually, discuss it. Digressions and tangential rants are not an indicator of intelligence.

2. Playing the Hitler card is old. Almost as old as the "French military victories" thing; why not go to that thread instead, and save me the effort of having to read your zealotry.

3. Colloqialisms and amusing perversions of words designed to denigrate a position is not intelligent; try getting an argument.

4. How can my being responsible for my own career, my own finances and my personal affairs have any bearing upon the quantity of immigrants accepted by the UK? The quota is decided by government, whose policy, I would venture, is rarely decided after a visit chez moi to see how I'm getting on.

look at the damn world.

reality has a well known leftwing bias

It was more of telling him/her to deal with the fact that rags to riches are the exception despite what s/he thinks in his/her sand covered head.


People do try. More the people would care to admit (doesn't make a good argument for removing welfare and the like if people are thought of as lazy wastes of space).

I don't think anyone would say people don't try to improve on their lot in life but some people would say that they don't succeed because they don't try hard enough

Why just deal with it, why should we not be allowed to better ourselves?

It was more of telling him/her to deal with the fact that rags to riches are the exception despite what s/he thinks in his/her sand covered head.


People do try. More than people would care to admit (doesn't make a good argument for removing welfare and the like if people aren't thought of as lazy wastes of space).

Damn straight. Obese people tend to cost the NHS more than people who keep themselves healthy, so let them pay for it in advance.

Explain this theory of yours more fully, in my opinion you are blaming the wrong people

Advice;

1. Stick to the point, and, actually, discuss it. Digressions and tangential rants are not an indicator of intelligence.

There's nothing tangential about how "personal responsibility" seems to be the motto of big-government nanny-statists like yourself. It's a valid pointing out of pure hypocrisy.

2. Playing the Hitler card is old. Almost as old as the "French military victories" thing; why not go to that thread instead, and save me the effort of having to read your zealotry.

Deportation of people based on their ethnicity and religion is old. It was old when Hitler did it and it's old when you advocate it. Sorry if pointing it out grates you; hearing your disgusting bigotry has a similar effect on most decent human beings.

3. Colloqialisms and amusing perversions of words designed to denigrate a position is not intelligent; try getting an argument.

Is this where I'm supposed to be impressed by your command of language? If so, you misspelled "Colloquialisms" so I'm afraid you aren't coming across as very "intelligent" yourself.

4. How can my being responsible for my own career, my own finances and my personal affairs have any bearing upon the quantity of immigrants accepted by the UK?

You tell me; you're the one who feels threatened by immigrants. You're the one whose "personal responsibility" isn't sufficient to deal with that, and hence you're the one who's whining to the government for protection.

reality has a well known leftwing bias

Only for mentally able, physically fit, but unmotivated losers who want to sit home eating Cheetos on a beanbag chair all day while someone else makes the money. They can't be arsed to better themselves in any way - in fact, it's better for them to deride those who try to make themselves better than to do any real work.

Only for mentally able, physically fit, but unmotivated losers who want to sit home eating Cheetos on a beanbag chair all day while someone else makes the money. They can't be arsed to better themselves in any way - in fact, it's better for them to deride those who try to make themselves better than to do any real work.

Laziness is predominantly left wing?

Only for mentally able, physically fit, but unmotivated losers who want to sit home eating Cheetos on a beanbag chair all day while someone else makes the money. They can't be arsed to better themselves in any way - in fact, it's better for them to deride those who try to make themselves better than to do any real work.

Oh I'm sorry RO, did you just imply that you're talking about someone other than yourself?

Let's see, how many aliases did you make for this site?

How many posts?

How much derision for others?

Color me impressed. You and TBC here are just full of he-man do-it-yourself mentality. Except you're also full of shit.

Laziness is predominantly left wing?

No, giving poor people money discourages them from doing anything to make money themselves. Giving rich people money encourages them to make more money.

People do try. More than people would care to admit (doesn't make a good argument for removing welfare and the like if people aren't thought of as lazy wastes of space).

case in point:

Only for mentally able, physically fit, but unmotivated losers who want to sit home eating Cheetos on a beanbag chair all day while someone else makes the money. They can't be arsed to better themselves in any way - in fact, it's better for them to deride those who try to make themselves better than to do any real work.

It was more of telling him/her to deal with the fact that rags to riches are the exception despite what s/he thinks in his/her sand covered head.


People do try. More than people would care to admit (doesn't make a good argument for removing welfare and the like if people aren't thought of as lazy wastes of space).

Ahhh got ya!

No, giving poor people money discourages them from doing anything to make money themselves. Giving rich people money encourages them to make more money.

Bwhahahah that is sooooo funny! Bullshit, but funny bullshit.

Bwhahahah that is sooooo funny! Bullshit, but funny bullshit.

Yeah near as I can tell that's actually the Republican party's operating procedure though, which makes it sad funny.

Only for mentally able, physically fit, but unmotivated losers who want to sit home eating Cheetos on a beanbag chair all day while someone else makes the money. They can't be arsed to better themselves in any way - in fact, it's better for them to deride those who try to make themselves better than to do any real work.

Ah so I see you think that only people on warfare are over weight? Beyond that you think all overweight people are lazy, unmotivated losers. You shouldn't speak of things you obviously know nothing about.

Color me impressed. You and TBC here are just full of he-man do-it-yourself mentality. Except you're also full of shit.

Nope.
You are.

Ah so I see you think that only people on warfare are over weight? Beyond that you think all overweight people are lazy, unmotivated losers. You shouldn't speak of things you obviously know nothing about.

You shouldn't answer posts you didn't read.

I'm talking about whether or not the government should provide welfare to those able to work.

I'm not talking about fat people.

Nice smear though. Insinuating something that I didn't even post.

Typical. Par for you.

I'm talking about whether or not the government should provide welfare to those able to work.


All depends on their circumstances surly?

All depends on their circumstances surly?

Give me an example.

Nope.
You are.

Good one, lil man. So, it should be easy to point out when I've ever lied on this forum.

We all know you're good at that already; in fact I rather think your every post is constructed of lies, including the ones that hearken back to your Muslim-killing days in the military. It would certainly be in keeping with your trolling persona.

I'll wait while you point out my lies.

Good one, lil man. So, it should be easy to point out when I've ever lied on this forum.

We all know you're good at that already; in fact I rather think your every post is constructed of lies, including the ones that hearken back to your Muslim-killing days in the military. It would certainly be in keeping with your trolling persona.

I'll wait while you point out my lies.

You just lied about me. QED.

Give me an example.

Okay an unmarried man with two young kids. He works two jobs to make ends met but his education was shit and so he works two very low paid jobs. Two jobs, should the goverment help him meet childcare costs?

Okay an unmarried man with two young kids. He works two jobs to make ends met but his education was shit and so he works two very low paid jobs. Two jobs, should the goverment help him meet childcare costs?

Only as a temporary measure. If his education was shit, I could see a grant to get that done - because I don't want to pay for this forever.

Only as a temporary measure. If his education was shit, I could see a grant to get that done - because I don't want to pay for this forever.

So in this instance you agree, and in your own words, that:

'the government should provide welfare to those able to work.'

What about this one.

A poorly educated, and poor married couple with 7 children they both choose to remain unemployed and on the dole, the dad has even faked a bad back in order to get sickness benifit from the goverment.

What would be the best course of action?

Only as a temporary measure. If his education was shit, I could see a grant to get that done - because I don't want to pay for this forever.

I have never undertood this line? You don't want to pay forever? But you will, as long as you live you will be paying taxes? How then does that comment make any sort of sense?

I have never undertood this line? You don't want to pay forever? But you will, as long as you live you will be paying taxes? How then does that comment make any sort of sense?

I, for one, would rather my taxes go to welfare rather than wealthfare.

I have never undertood this line? You don't want to pay forever? But you will, as long as you live you will be paying taxes? How then does that comment make any sort of sense?

Not paying that individual for the rest of his life.

Any government aid should be concentrated on strategies that render further government aid unnecessary.

With the exception of permanent handicaps like mental retardation, crippling accidents that prevent all further work, and the like.

Anyone who is able to think and move should be trained to do something, and made to go do it. Not paid for the rest of their life to be indolent.

I, for one, would rather my taxes go to welfare rather than wealthfare.

I'd rather not pay for either, thank you.

I, for one, would rather my taxes go to welfare rather than wealthfare.

Too true. I said somewhere that to be right winged is hypocrasy (heh nobody bit though) but I shall carry on and explain why.

The left in a nutshell. The left believe on a personal level that I should have the right to live my life how I will, and that nobody should be allowed to interfere with this, as long as in living my life I do not make life difficult for others.

With this crede comes the obvious ammendment. If I should be privy to this rule, then it is hypocritical if I do not afford this curtersie to everybody else.

The right in a nutshell. The right belive on a personal level that I should have the right to live my life how I will, and that nobody should be allowed to interfere with this.

This is not accorded to other people as the right see them selfs as elite and more able to rule the lives of others, and certianly do not belive that everybody is equal, and thus not everybody desecrevs equal treatment. Therefore by not according this curtersie to others, they are hypocritical.

One way is human, the other is clearly facist.

Not paying that individual for the rest of his life.

Any government aid should be concentrated on strategies that render further government aid unnecessary.

With the exception of permanent handicaps like mental retardation, crippling accidents that prevent all further work, and the like.

Anyone who is able to think and move should be trained to do something, and made to go do it. Not paid for the rest of their life to be indolent.

Made to do it? What if they don't want to?

Made to do it? What if they don't want to?

Don't take the aid then

The right in a nutshell. The right belive on a personal level that I should have the right to live my life how I will, and that nobody should be allowed to interfere with this.

Isn't that the argument that women give about abortion rights?

The left and right both have things they want to control on a personal level.

Only libertarians and anarchists can truly say that they advocate freedom on a personal level.

Any other ideology is lying to you in that regard.

Made to do it? What if they don't want to?

If you can work a job, and the job is there, and you refuse to work, then I have no reason to pay you to sit there.

Don't take the aid then

Ohh I see, then you are fine if you loose you legs in an accident, get depressed because of it. Can't get work, a few years latter the goverment comes to you house, looks at you and decideds to train you for the work of sewer maintence.

Would you do that, even if you didn't want to? Or would you suffer the conseqences?

Not paid for the rest of their life to be indolent.


You are making the assumtion that if you are on welfare, it is because you are lazy. While I do support welfare reform to make it program work better (such as helping to weed out fraud) the majority on it are hardly lazy frauds.

Ohh I see, then you are fine if you loose you legs in an accident, get depressed because of it. Can't get work, a few years latter the goverment comes to you house, looks at you and decideds to train you for the work of sewer maintence.

Would you do that, even if you didn't want to? Or would you suffer the conseqences?

The phrase beggars can't be choosers comes to mind.

Isn't that the argument that women give about abortion rights?

The left and right both have things they want to control on a personal level.

Only libertarians and anarchists can truly say that they advocate freedom on a personal level.

Any other ideology is lying to you in that regard.

Yes it is. Which is why although I personaly think having an abortion IS taking a life, I am pro choice. And I made no mention of particular politices or philosphes, just left and right wing thought.

Make you do it? So you would work a job that you really don't want to, because your goverment made you do it?

You fought for your country didn't you?

Make you do it if you want to be given aid

You still have the choice of opting out

You are making the assumtion that if you are on welfare, it is because you are lazy. While I do support welfare reform to make it program work better (such as helping to weed out fraud) the majority on it are hardly lazy frauds.

Maybe I've seen too many of them.

If you can work a job, and the job is there, and you refuse to work, then I have no reason to pay you to sit there.

Make you do it? So you would work a job that you really don't want to, because your goverment made you do it?

You fought for your country didn't you?

Then I see that as a meaningless phrase. Why just because somebody begs, is down on luck or cash, should they not have a right to their own life, to be able to do what they will?

They have the right to their own life. They can choose to not take the aid and do what they want.

The phrase beggars can't be choosers comes to mind.

Then I see that as a meaningless phrase. Why just because somebody begs, is down on luck or cash, should they not have a right to their own life, to be able to do what they will?

The phrase beggars can't be choosers comes to mind.

"communist Russia" also comes to mind.


I think you are leaning more towards public works projects. which are always fun. (an example of a PWJ that is well known: The Hoover Dam)

Make you do it? So you would work a job that you really don't want to, because your goverment made you do it?

You fought for your country didn't you?

Yes, and I wanted to do it.

However, you get a choice of occupation - a choice. That doesn't mean you get your choice. Or, if you get that occupation, it's up in the air as to whether you'll get to do that, or they'll make you do something else.

I never wanted to burn shitters - but I had to.

Yes, and I wanted to do it.

However, you get a choice of occupation - a choice. That doesn't mean you get your choice. Or, if you get that occupation, it's up in the air as to whether you'll get to do that, or they'll make you do something else.

I never wanted to burn shitters - but I had to.

The reason i asked that question was,because I wanted to follow up with this one.

Would you fight for a country that impeades civil liberites?

The reason i asked that question was,because I wanted to follow up with this one.

Would you fight for a country that impeades civil liberites?

And for your enlightening answer:

Most soldiers (especially combat soldiers such as infantry) do not "fight for their country".

They fight for the men around them.

Most men who entered combat, and enjoyed it (which I did), don't care much for the politics.

You probably wouldn't understand.

And for your enlightening answer:

Most soldiers (especially combat soldiers such as infantry) do not "fight for their country".

They fight for the men around them.

Most men who entered combat, and enjoyed it (which I did), don't care much for the politics.

You probably wouldn't understand.

I'm gonna take this one backwards.

Yep you are right I don't understand.

But the armed forces are emplyed by the goverment yeah. So even if in your head you where fighting for the men around you, in reality you where fighting for your goverment, or more specificly the foraign polices of your goverement.

So I find it strange that although you fought for politics you actualy don't care about them? Does that mean you didn't care about what you where fighting for?

If that is the case, why fight?

Most men who entered combat, and enjoyed it (which I did), don't care much for the politics.

You probably wouldn't understand.

Ooh, aah, the mystique and elitism of Those Who Fight. You just love to pretend that being a sadistic murderer is something hard to understand. It's not. You're as common as dirt.

Let people do what they want, damn it. Even if it is a bad thing done to themselves, no one has a right to take away part of someone's will- and that includes putting a tax on someone.

Wether you get so damn tired is not the point though, what he said is true. Rags to riches is not the norm.

As to the left I don't understand why anybody would be to the right, to not be leftwing IS hypocracy.

Can you provide us a study that shows that assertion?

Fuck left or right. look at the damn world. rags to riches is the exception. The rule is you are more than likely to be stuck into the class you are born into. Deal with it.

Clearly, you are so overcome by the realization that life's not fair. That, and you lack the vision to succeed yourselves.

Still, the proof that your argument is wrong is in the exceptions. If one undereducated, poor, minority can succeed, then there are no barriers to anyone else's success. They only need the vision and the determination to work at it.

Clearly, you are so overcome by the realization that life's not fair. That, and you lack the vision to succeed yourselves.

Still, the proof that your argument is wrong is in the exceptions. If one undereducated, poor, minority can succeed, then there are no barriers to anyone else's success. They only need the vision and the determination to work at it.
Actually, it is proof that my argument is correct is that "rags to riches" is the EXCEPTION.


Claim "lack of vision" all you want. Exceptions are not the rule no matter how you try to paint it.

rags to riches stories are the exception, not the rule.

Face it, for the most part, no matter how much you try if you were born poor you will stay that way. "It takes money to make money" is a well know saying for a reason.

yes, keep feeding that horseshit loser line to the poor so they stay poor... you can run as a democrat, promise chicken-in-a-pot and get your votes.

THAT is the type of pessimism we need to overcome.

What... 90-something percent of all US millionaires are self-made.

Takes money to make money?

TAKE OUT a LOAN

(lol, I managed to sound a bit cranky. no offense, I meant that to be more of a motivational post. "...and I live in a van... down by the river."

hehe)

Actually, it is proof that my argument is correct is that "rags to riches" is the EXCEPTION.


Claim "lack of vision" all you want. Exceptions are not the rule no matter how you try to paint it.

It isn't lack of vision, primarily.

It's lack of motivation and the willingness to take on risk.

Let's say you take out that big loan to start your own business.

Let's say your business fails. You might be up sheet creek sans the proverbial paddle.

It takes balls to become an entrepreneur (at least one with some big startup overhead, anyway. hehe)

It isn't lack of vision, primarily.

It's lack of motivation and the willingness to take on risk.

Let's say you take out that big loan to start your own business.

Let's say your business fails. You might be up sheet creek sans the proverbial paddle.

It takes balls to become an entrepreneur (at least one with some big startup overhead, anyway. hehe)My mother has tried to open up an Army surplus store, a bait shop, a green house, a pet shop, and is now trying to run a pet gromming business. breaking even is the best she has done. My father was a coal miner and after he got out of the ground he did just about everything else at the mine to keep from going back under. then he was unemployed and had to travel out of state for work. Finally got a job in state only to be laid off (mine shut down for 24hrs so it could legally hire younger nonunion workers.) and unemployed for a year. I myself went to college majored in Japanese studies, and I am now working towards being able to teach english in japan.....



guess what! Still lower class, and I have no illusions of ever making it to the middle.

My mother has tried to open up an Army surplus store, a bait shop, a green house, a pet shop, and is now trying to run a pet gromming business. breaking even is the best she has done. My father was a coal miner and after he got out of the ground he did just about everything else at the mine to keep from going back under. then he was unemployed and had to travel out of state for work. Finally got a job in state only to be laid off (mine shut down for 24hrs so it could legally hire younger nonunion workers.) and unemployed for a year. I myself went to college majored in Japanese studies, and I am now working towards being able to teach english in japan.....



guess what! Still lower class, and I have no illusions of ever making it to the middle.
No offense intended toward your mom, in fact I admire her persistence. But she is certainly lacking some skill at running a business. Did she ever think about going to one of those continuing education classes at a community college, or maybe talking to an account rep at a bank? There are people that want to help others succeed because it is in their own best interest.

I know when I started mine, I had a lot of problems with staffing as sales started growing. A call to my bank got me on the right track with a bookkeeper and a temp agency to fill some technical positions. If I hadn't done that, I'd have started missing deliveries and pissed off customers. Pretty soon I would have lost enough business that I would have failed --- all the while producing a superior product to those on the market already.

But she is certainly lacking some skill at running a business.

Meh. There are only 2 real issues that I have with her ability to run a business.

She does credit....and she shouldn't. If she could get everyone who owes her money to pay up the hole we sunk into recently would get filled in.

That combined with the fact she is WAY to nice run a business.

Case in point: She would be selling puppies and out of say 6 she might get money for 1 or 2 of them. the others would go on credit (of which 3 MIGHT pay over the next 5 months) or when they got to older she would give them away rather then take them to the pound. (I actually had someone come into the store and ask if I thought we would be giving them away any time soon)


Though if the money issues can get ironed out, with the business becoming mainly pet gromming those 2 things will not matter.

I would expect a standing army to just disband and go home -- if they aren't taken care of. Even in the worst days of the Soviet Union, that didn't happen.

Maybe not, but a heck of a lot of gear and personnel ended up in the Mafia. You don't forget your training just because you haven't been paid in years, but you might forget the law.

Let people do what they want, damn it. Even if it is a bad thing done to themselves, no one has a right to take away part of someone's will- and that includes putting a tax on someone.

QFT.

Meh. There are only 2 real issues that I have with her ability to run a business.

She does credit....and she shouldn't. If she could get everyone who owes her money to pay up the hole we sunk into recently would get filled in.

That combined with the fact she is WAY to nice run a business.

Case in point: She would be selling puppies and out of say 6 she might get money for 1 or 2 of them. the others would go on credit (of which 3 MIGHT pay over the next 5 months) or when they got to older she would give them away rather then take them to the pound. (I actually had someone come into the store and ask if I thought we would be giving them away any time soon)


Though if the money issues can get ironed out, with the business becoming mainly pet gromming those 2 things will not matter.
It's tough to succeed when you don't have the cash flow. She needs to find someone that isn't quite as nice -- but not rude -- to remind the creditors that they really do owe.

I think I would stay away from live merchandise. Puppies and kittens do grow and then they aren't nearly as cute. And when you do get attached, it's hard to haul them off to an uncertain future at the pound. First one of our hogs that we had butchered -- we had to give the meat away. No one wanted to eat Wilbur.

Alright, throw bricks, rocks, baseball bats and so on at me, but I need to say this.

The impression that I am getting from society in general is that nanny state seems to be necessary. Take the example outlined in the OP; a tax on fatty foods. Why do we need such a tax? Because the effects on society are becoming unmanageable, and people are not taking responsibility and cutting down on their consumption of fatty food. The government has given the populace at large the opportunity to cut down their consumption of fatty food, but the population has not heeded their warnings. I can think of even more examples where nanny state is becoming more necessary.

In New Zealand in 1999, the drinking age was lowered. Instead of people being responsible with their new found legal ability to drink, they decided to get drunk on a regular basis. This binge drinking epidemic is getting so bad that city councils are having liquor free zones and the government considered raising the drinking age again. Yet again, nanny state seems to be necessary, the youth of New Zealand have "misbehaved," and nanny state needs to ensure that the effects on society are minimised.

I hate nanny state as much as the next person, however, in some cases it may be necessary. People have misused their freedom to the extent that it is having an impact on society - people have stopped being responsible and if they cannot be responsible on their own, then it is clear that nanny state may be necessary.

Gone, gone, forever gone. And it isn't just the U.K. The U.S. has gone down that road YEARS ago. It started with the lawsuits against the tobacco companies with the accompanying ridiculously large settlements to the idiots apparently too stupid to read the Surgeon General's warning on the side of the pack but are just bright enough to find the phone number of a good attorney in the phonebook.

Or, the idiots that live in flood plains then insist that the federal government rebuild their home on THE SAME DAMN SPOT when the river decides to cover their home with 20 feet of farm field fertilizer runoff, pesticides, and sewage. Next year you may see many of the same pore lil' woebegone inbred faces on the 11 o'clock news there sitting on their roofs waiting for the rescue boat to come.

Or any of the idiots who were gomping about in the streets of N.Y.C. after 9/11 who had no reason to be out there other than the reason that NO ONE, by God, was going to tell them to stay inside for a few days just so that the rescue workers could do their work uninterrupted by gawkers. Nevermind that the air was thick enough with dust, smoke, mold spores, and asbestos to cut it with a knife. And they were out there without even so mush as a cute little blue maskie to provide at least SOME protection. And then the lawsuts begin to roll in. And roll. And roll.

Or.... suing toy companies because the parent's parental skills are apparently so lax that they allowed Junior to be unsupervised just long enough to swallow a piece of his toy playset while they were watching soap operas, talking on the telephone, or chatting online. Here's a big clue, if they are of the age where everything they handle usually winds up in their mouths, then toys with small parts is probably not the best idea.

Or how about the freakin' idiots that sue the damn bartender because he served Joe Blow one last drink before the imbiber in question goes out, gets into his car and smashes it head on into someone on their way back home from the store, probably with a back seat full of baby formula just to heighten the legal and dramatic impact of this little tragedy. Assuming Joe Blow survives (and he probably will, justice never seems to prevail in the real world) who do you think J.B. is going to want to pick up his tab at the hospital?

Oops. Be back in a minute. My boy Beelzebub seems to have a toy Tonka car in his mouth and I strongly suspect that it was made with lead based paint.

Anyone here have the phone number for Dewey, Fleecum, and Howe, Attoneys At Law?

I eat a healthy diet, by and large - but I also enjoy some fatty snacks on occasion - snickers bars, corn nuts, iced cream, you name it. :p I don't think those items should be taxed any more than any other food item. It's not going to stop people from overeating anyway.

When the aliens come they'll eat the fat people first - something that should be foremost in people's heads when they think about biting into that chocolate bar.

Frankly, if you cannot control what you eat, you deserve all the problems resultant from obesity.

OK, right, but does the healthcare budget deserve to suffer under the weight?
Same goes for smokers btw.
And sports accidents ...

OK, right, but does the healthcare budget deserve to suffer under the weight?
Same goes for smokers btw.
And sports accidents ...

The smoking example is a poor one since smokers more than pay for their treatment. Sports accidents are an interesting one though. It could be said that the benefits of sports far outweigh the costs resulting from injuries

Clearly, you are so overcome by the realization that life's not fair. That, and you lack the vision to succeed yourselves.

Still, the proof that your argument is wrong is in the exceptions. If one undereducated, poor, minority can succeed, then there are no barriers to anyone else's success. They only need the vision and the determination to work at it.

Bwahahah I love that, I love it when people think they know you, or some element of your psyche by a few words posted on some random web forum.

No actualy quite the opposite, life isn't fair, that is true, I have succeded in all that I have tried to acconplish, I have a brilliant job, I earn a lot of money, soooo much so that my wife doesn't need to work, my kids go to a cracking school.

Ohh I know all about determination to make life better for yourself and your dependants, but that does not negate the empathy I feel towards my fellow man, nor the need for sociaty to help those that need it.

As to your proof, it only proves that some people get lucky.

Alright, throw bricks, rocks, baseball bats and so on at me, but I need to say this.

The impression that I am getting from society in general is that nanny state seems to be necessary. Take the example outlined in the OP; a tax on fatty foods. Why do we need such a tax? Because the effects on society are becoming unmanageable, and people are not taking responsibility and cutting down on their consumption of fatty food. The government has given the populace at large the opportunity to cut down their consumption of fatty food, but the population has not heeded their warnings. I can think of even more examples where nanny state is becoming more necessary.

In New Zealand in 1999, the drinking age was lowered. Instead of people being responsible with their new found legal ability to drink, they decided to get drunk on a regular basis. This binge drinking epidemic is getting so bad that city councils are having liquor free zones and the government considered raising the drinking age again. Yet again, nanny state seems to be necessary, the youth of New Zealand have "misbehaved," and nanny state needs to ensure that the effects on society are minimised.

I hate nanny state as much as the next person, however, in some cases it may be necessary. People have misused their freedom to the extent that it is having an impact on society - people have stopped being responsible and if they cannot be responsible on their own, then it is clear that nanny state may be necessary.


I don't think it is as clear cut as you make it out. I would also be looking towards the amount of fat etc.. in our foods, not just at peoples over consumption.

Gone, gone, forever gone. And it isn't just the U.K. The U.S. has gone down that road YEARS ago. It started with the lawsuits against the tobacco companies with the accompanying ridiculously large settlements to the idiots apparently too stupid to read the Surgeon General's warning on the side of the pack but are just bright enough to find the phone number of a good attorney in the phonebook.

Or, the idiots that live in flood plains then insist that the federal government rebuild their home on THE SAME DAMN SPOT when the river decides to cover their home with 20 feet of farm field fertilizer runoff, pesticides, and sewage. Next year you may see many of the same pore lil' woebegone inbred faces on the 11 o'clock news there sitting on their roofs waiting for the rescue boat to come.

Or any of the idiots who were gomping about in the streets of N.Y.C. after 9/11 who had no reason to be out there other than the reason that NO ONE, by God, was going to tell them to stay inside for a few days just so that the rescue workers could do their work uninterrupted by gawkers. Nevermind that the air was thick enough with dust, smoke, mold spores, and asbestos to cut it with a knife. And they were out there without even so mush as a cute little blue maskie to provide at least SOME protection. And then the lawsuts begin to roll in. And roll. And roll.

Or.... suing toy companies because the parent's parental skills are apparently so lax that they allowed Junior to be unsupervised just long enough to swallow a piece of his toy playset while they were watching soap operas, talking on the telephone, or chatting online. Here's a big clue, if they are of the age where everything they handle usually winds up in their mouths, then toys with small parts is probably not the best idea.

Or how about the freakin' idiots that sue the damn bartender because he served Joe Blow one last drink before the imbiber in question goes out, gets into his car and smashes it head on into someone on their way back home from the store, probably with a back seat full of baby formula just to heighten the legal and dramatic impact of this little tragedy. Assuming Joe Blow survives (and he probably will, justice never seems to prevail in the real world) who do you think J.B. is going to want to pick up his tab at the hospital?

Oops. Be back in a minute. My boy Beelzebub seems to have a toy Tonka car in his mouth and I strongly suspect that it was made with lead based paint.

Anyone here have the phone number for Dewey, Fleecum, and Howe, Attoneys At Law?

You win!

Bwahahah I love that, I love it when people think they know you, or some element of your psyche by a few words posted on some random web forum.

No actualy quite the opposite, life isn't fair, that is true, I have succeded in all that I have tried to acconplish, I have a brilliant job, I earn a lot of money, soooo much so that my wife doesn't need to work, my kids go to a cracking school.

Ohh I know all about determination to make life better for yourself and your dependants, but that does not negate the empathy I feel towards my fellow man, nor the need for sociaty to help those that need it.

As to your proof, it only proves that some people get lucky.

Do you honestly believe all you success was due to luck and luck alone? Since you're not living off the proceeds of a lottery win, I sure hope the answer is no...In that case, why deny that others can follow the same path?

Do you honestly believe all you success was due to luck and luck alone? Since you're not living off the proceeds of a lottery win, I sure hope the answer is no...In that case, why deny that others can follow the same path?

Not me, no I woke bloody hard for all that I have. I was refering to the other posters 'proof' that if one poor, poorly educated person makes a fortune for themselfs then this is proof that all of them can.

I replied saying, that is only proof that some people are lucky. Got it?

Do you honestly believe all you success was due to luck and luck alone? Since you're not living off the proceeds of a lottery win, I sure hope the answer is no...In that case, why deny that others can follow the same path?
The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people who are born into a particular social class will NOT move up out of that class. At least in the USA.

You appear to be claiming that the majority of poor Americans either don't want to move out of the lower class, or are too stupid to do so.

Personally, I'm impressed by that level of arrogance. Your life is the result of a combination of lots of hard work and a healthy amount of good fortune. The fact that you want to attribute all your success to your own brilliance is cute and all, but it's not passing muster with me (or most of the folks in this thread).

Not me, no I woke bloody hard for all that I have. I was refering to the other posters 'proof' that if one poor, poorly educated person makes a fortune for themselfs then this is proof that all of them can.

I replied saying, that is only proof that some people are lucky. Got it?
Exactly.

I have worked very hard to earn my current place in life, but I also know that I had a number of advantages due purely to luck.

For instance, I happen to have amazing parents. They weren't rich, they weren't perfect, but they are terrific people who did a terrific job bringing me up. There are a shitload of people who get born to parents who simply aren't as awesome as mine. Maybe their parents were well-meaning, but were too young to be parents. Maybe their parents already had five kids, and simply didn't have the time to dedicate to each of their kids. Maybe their parents were just assholes.

Change that one part of my life, and suddenly I think my adulthood would look quite different. Make it so that I'd been brought up by lazy, uninterested, uneducated, or simply uninvolved parents, and my future would have turned out quite unlike what it is now.

I didn't earn my parents. I just got lucky.

I didn't earn the incredible teachers I had in high school, who prepared me so well for my future. I just got lucky.

I didn't earn my best friends, who were all people I met by chance, and who are people that have helped me in more ways that I can count.

Heck, I didn't even earn my current apartment. It was pure luck that I happened to stumble across the add for this place 15 minutes after it was posted. It was pure luck that I managed to snap this place up. There is no possible way I would be able to afford where I currently live, but for this one extremely generous landlady. I can think of a dozen ways my life would be different if I weren't able to live where I do right now, and that's just one tiny little lucky fluke.

I have taken my luck and used my talents to make a great life. All the luck in the world wouldn't have gotten me where I am if I wasn't ALSO prepared to work. But all the hard work in the world wouldn't have gotten me here, either, if my luck was totally rotten.

Exactly.

I have worked very hard to earn my current place in life, but I also know that I had a number of advantages due purely to luck.

For instance, I happen to have amazing parents. They weren't rich, they weren't perfect, but they are terrific people who did a terrific job bringing me up. There are a shitload of people who get born to parents who simply aren't as awesome as mine. Maybe their parents were well-meaning, but were too young to be parents. Maybe their parents already had five kids, and simply didn't have the time to dedicate to each of their kids. Maybe their parents were just assholes.

Change that one part of my life, and suddenly I think my adulthood would look quite different. Make it so that I'd been brought up by lazy, uninterested, uneducated, or simply uninvolved parents, and my future would have turned out quite unlike what it is now.

I didn't earn my parents. I just got lucky.

I didn't earn the incredible teachers I had in high school, who prepared me so well for my future. I just got lucky.

I didn't earn my best friends, who were all people I met by chance, and who are people that have helped me in more ways that I can count.

Heck, I didn't even earn my current apartment. It was pure luck that I happened to stumble across the add for this place 15 minutes after it was posted. It was pure luck that I managed to snap this place up. There is no possible way I would be able to afford where I currently live, but for this one extremely generous landlady. I can think of a dozen ways my life would be different if I weren't able to live where I do right now, and that's just one tiny little lucky fluke.

I have taken my luck and used my talents to make a great life. All the luck in the world wouldn't have gotten me where I am if I wasn't ALSO prepared to work. But all the hard work in the world wouldn't have gotten me here, either, if my luck was totally rotten.
That gets a good QFFT: I'm damned lucky to have parents (and not just my parents - my grandparents too) like mine, although I don't say it often enough.

Not me, no I woke bloody hard for all that I have. I was refering to the other posters 'proof' that if one poor, poorly educated person makes a fortune for themselfs then this is proof that all of them can.

I replied saying, that is only proof that some people are lucky. Got it?

That sounds like my post and it was actually stating that if one ... person can overcome the odds and become successful, then there are no barriers for anyone else to do the same.

It most certainly doesn't prove than anyone got lucky, anymore than you or I were lucky in our success. All it proves is that first, there are no intrinsic barriers and second, good decisions and hard work make luck happen.

Exactly.

I have worked very hard to earn my current place in life, but I also know that I had a number of advantages due purely to luck.

For instance, I happen to have amazing parents. They weren't rich, they weren't perfect, but they are terrific people who did a terrific job bringing me up. There are a shitload of people who get born to parents who simply aren't as awesome as mine. Maybe their parents were well-meaning, but were too young to be parents. Maybe their parents already had five kids, and simply didn't have the time to dedicate to each of their kids. Maybe their parents were just assholes.

Change that one part of my life, and suddenly I think my adulthood would look quite different. Make it so that I'd been brought up by lazy, uninterested, uneducated, or simply uninvolved parents, and my future would have turned out quite unlike what it is now.

I didn't earn my parents. I just got lucky.

I didn't earn the incredible teachers I had in high school, who prepared me so well for my future. I just got lucky.

I didn't earn my best friends, who were all people I met by chance, and who are people that have helped me in more ways that I can count.

Heck, I didn't even earn my current apartment. It was pure luck that I happened to stumble across the add for this place 15 minutes after it was posted. It was pure luck that I managed to snap this place up. There is no possible way I would be able to afford where I currently live, but for this one extremely generous landlady. I can think of a dozen ways my life would be different if I weren't able to live where I do right now, and that's just one tiny little lucky fluke.

I have taken my luck and used my talents to make a great life. All the luck in the world wouldn't have gotten me where I am if I wasn't ALSO prepared to work. But all the hard work in the world wouldn't have gotten me here, either, if my luck was totally rotten.

Clearly this is a waste of my time, but with the exception of your parents, and maybe your apartment most of what you attribute to luck was due to good decisions on your part.

You decided to pay attention to those teachers.

You met many more people that you rejected for friends, selecting only the ones that would produce relationships that were beneficial to you.

And even with the apartment, I'll bet you did something that endeared you to the landlady -- maybe you decided to be polite on a day when others had decided to be rude?

And I'll bet that a truly motivated child could even overcome the handicap of poor parents.

Like I said above, hard work makes luck a lot easier to come by.

A "fatty food tax" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6291072.stm) is now suggested, to combat obesity, thus saving people the effort of all that damn self-discipline and personal responsibility.

Tony Blair was, disturbingly, correct; such a tax would be the best indication yet of a "nanny state". Frankly, if you cannot control what you eat, you deserve all the problems resultant from obesity.
... who do you think you are to judge whether or not someone "deserves" that? Personally I have good self-control in terms of what I eat but I also know that there are people who aren't very responsible in what they eat who are overall good people.

Anyway, as others have said, in countries with public health care (which is the way it should be, remember, some people need health care for reasons that aren't a consequence of their own actions) health problems aren't just a personal problem but they cause problems for others through health care costs. Again, making them pay more for their food to go back into the health care system will compensate for that.

TbC, what are your views on the legalization of marijuana?

That sounds like my post and it was actually stating that if one ... person can overcome the odds and become successful, then there are no barriers for anyone else to do the same.

It most certainly doesn't prove than anyone got lucky, anymore than you or I were lucky in our success. All it proves is that first, there are no intrinsic barriers and second, good decisions and hard work make luck happen.

You are right it was your post.

How does it logicaly follow that 'if one person can overcome the odds and become successful, then there are no barriers for anyone else to do the same'

That just is not logical at all. Surly you need to take each person by their unique situation. It's like saying if one person can get a masters in art then everybody can.

It don't work like that some, have to overcome much more, some have a greater capacity for loss, some have better luck, some are not educated enough to make the intelegent choices.

Surly you don't really mean that all people are alike and so what one does all have the capacity to do? That seems plain stupid.

No intrinsic barriers? You are joking right? Being born into a poor family means right away that there is an intrinsic barrier to getting a good education. It means that there is an intrinsic barrier to getting decent health care. It means that there is an intrinsic barrier to getting good houseing.

What are you wittering on about, really?

i can answer that question "whatever happend to personal responsibility", in one word:

"capitolism"

or at least with a minor collection of related terms and concepts:

marketting and corporatocracy.

not that either of these absolutely forbid the use of whatever good sense anyone was born with, but they ARE in the bussiness of encouraging people not to, bring lots of brainpower to finding ways to prevent people from doing so, and offer that brain power very powerful incentives to do so.

i wouldn't say that organized beliefs are entirely innocent either, nor idiological aggressiveness, nor for that matter, do chaimbers of commerce exist, in practice, for very many other reasons then to do so as well.

and yes, alternatives are possible! however dissappointing the few that are relatively familiar, there is absolutely no reason better ones cannot be improvised and implimented.

quite possibly, simply dropping the currently prevailing idio-economic fanatacism could go a long ways toward restoring personal responsibility in the ambient culture.

=^^=
.../\...

The book will be coming out this fall, folks:

Capitolism: Incoheerint Marksism in Mispelt Rantts

Just for a preview, perhaps you could explain what the "prevailing idio-economic fanatacism" pertains to?

When the aliens come they'll eat the fat people first - something that should be foremost in people's heads when they think about biting into that chocolate bar.

and should be foremost in the mind of the normal weight people who would force them not to eat it. its better to have someone else be higher on the shopping list than you.

i can answer that question "whatever happend to personal responsibility", in one word:

"capitolism"

or at least with a minor collection of related terms and concepts:

marketting and corporatocracy.

not that either of these absolutely forbid the use of whatever good sense anyone was born with, but they ARE in the bussiness of encouraging people not to, bring lots of brainpower to finding ways to prevent people from doing so, and offer that brain power very powerful incentives to do so.

i wouldn't say that organized beliefs are entirely innocent either, nor idiological aggressiveness, nor for that matter, do chaimbers of commerce exist, in practice, for very many other reasons then to do so as well.

and yes, alternatives are possible! however dissappointing the few that are relatively familiar, there is absolutely no reason better ones cannot be improvised and implimented.

quite possibly, simply dropping the currently prevailing idio-economic fanatacism could go a long ways toward restoring personal responsibility in the ambient culture.

=^^=
.../\...


While I agree that corporatocracy ( Greedy out of control people in high places that hide behind corporate faces ) are the catalist of most if not all problems in the world. Capitalism can be a very good thing if used in the way it should be. Capitalism is not the problem, the greed of powerful people is. After all what is the basis of Capitalism? It's providing for sell ( at a fair price ) something that people need to in their daily lives such as food, clothing, housing, etc. When this is done by honest, caring people then capitalism can be a good thing. The problem comes in when the business community puts their own profits ahead of all else and the governments and peoples of the world allow it to continue. Because most large corporations are non caring profit mongers it is my belief that they should be outlawed. Allowing the mom and pop type stores to replace them once again.

and should be foremost in the mind of the normal weight people who would force them not to eat it. its better to have someone else be higher on the shopping list than you.

Yes, this is true - munch away chubbsters.

While I agree that corporatocracy ( Greedy out of control people in high places that hide behind corporate faces ) are the catalist of most if not all problems in the world. Capitalism can be a very good thing if used in the way it should be. Capitalism is not the problem, the greed of powerful people is. After all what is the basis of Capitalism? It's providing for sell ( at a fair price ) something that people need to in their daily lives such as food, clothing, housing, etc. When this is done by honest, caring people then capitalism can be a good thing. The problem comes in when the business community puts their own profits ahead of all else and the governments and peoples of the world allow it to continue. Because most large corporations are non caring profit mongers it is my belief that they should be outlawed. Allowing the mom and pop type stores to replace them once again.


Allow me to give you a good example:

I own a 2002 Ford Windstar, a couple of weeks ago my license plate lights stopped working. So in order to keep from being ticketed 75 to 100 dollars by the police I went to the parts store for replacement bulbs. The store had the bulbs, but didn't have a tool that would work on the type screws used in the process of building the vehicle. Thinking that I needed a special tool I went to Ford to purchase it. However it wasn't a tool I needed. The Ford dealer said that I had to replace the entire license plate housing at a cost of $140.00 + tax which I would have to order because they didn't keep it in stock. Then because the part didn't come painted they said I would need to take my vehicle to their body shop to have the paint matched costing another $110.00 + tax. So Fords better idea in this instance was that I should have to pay over $250.00 for what should have been a $ 5.00 fix at the most.

Personal responsibility is all well and good, but when people's lack of responsibility starts to have negative effects on society, refusing to do anything about it gets a little ridiculous.

Personal responsibility is all well and good, but when people's lack of responsibility starts to have negative effects on society, refusing to do anything about it gets a little ridiculous.

Only in financial respects or any way that negatively affects society?

Personal responsibility is all well and good, but when people's lack of responsibility starts to have negative effects on society, refusing to do anything about it gets a little ridiculous.

Heh where do you start and where do you stop though?

Evey thing you do has a knock on effect, how do you know what to do and what not to do?

Only in financial respects or any way that negatively affects society?



Anyway

Anyway

Who decides what is damaging society then?

Anyway

soooo

obviously all currently illegal drugs should stay illegal

and alcohol should be strictly regulated so that no one can have more than the one drink a day that has health benefits

and all infertility treatments should be banned since its too expensive a way to make babies and we dont really need more babies anyway

and sugar should be banned

sports should be banned (too many injuries) and all people should be forced to do non-dangerous physical exercise like walking and swimming (only in public pools with lifeguards present) to promote good health

and, really, all restaurants should be closed, you cant trust them to provide healthy food. people will be provided meals adequate to their age, size and health requirements.

tobacco will be banned, thats a no-brainer, but also all wood fires of all sorts from home heating to camp fires.

and isnt it time we stopped wasting our societal resources on things like individuated clothing? that only encourages us to waste the perfectly serviceable clothing we own now and buy new in a new style.

and all that game shit should be banned. what a stupid waste of time and money. video games, computer games, arcade games. all people need is one deck of cards at a time to cover all their gaming needs.

i could go on and on, eh?

we do not live for society. we do not live for the government. do you really want us to? do you really want your life to be governed by what is best for everyone else? i dont. i want to have the freedom to choose whatever seems best to me as long as it doesnt actively hurt anyone else. (so i can go snow skiing but not in an area where i might crash through my neighbors house. i can risk my life but not yours)

just what are YOU (and by you i mean you) willing to give up so that you will have NO negative effects on society?

-snip-

Each issue must be examined and its cost weighed against the benefit. Everything you suggested is idiotic, the cost to quality of life not being worth the benefit to society.

Each issue must be examined and its cost weighed against the benefit. Everything you suggested is idiotic, the cost to quality of life not being worth the benefit to society.

"Society" shouldn't factor into any calculation, as it is not a moral agent. Only the individual, a rational being and thus inherently a moral agent, should be factored into any system of ethics. Ethics is the study of action and whether it is right or wrong, and as such it is only he, an acting being, that should be the object of inquiry.

"Society" shouldn't factor into any calculation, as it is not a moral agent. Only the individual, a rational being and thus inherently a moral agent, should be factored into any system of ethics. Ethics is the study of action and whether it is right or wrong, and as such it is only he, an acting being, that should be the object of inquiry.

Seems like the royalist needs to read up on the evolutionary biology of human beings.

"Society" shouldn't factor into any calculation, as it is not a moral agent. Only the individual, a rational being and thus inherently a moral agent, should be factored into any system of ethics.

Unless, of course, "society" refers to a group of individuals.

Seems like the royalist needs to read up on the evolutionary biology of human beings.

Seems like the supposed rationalist should choose a less irrational system of ethics instead of tossing out a random science in non-sequitur responses. And, while he's at it, learn the difference between a royalist and someone who sees monarchism as a lesser evil, so that he won't use the wrong insult against people he disagrees with. Then he'll look less silly.

Unless, of course, "society" refers to a group of individuals.

But even then, society is not a moral agent. Only each specific individual is, owing to their rational nature.

But even then, society is not a moral agent.

Everything you suggested is idiotic, the cost to quality of life not being worth the benefit to society.

How does this statement suggest that society is a moral agent?

It merely states that the welfare of society (that is, the welfare of the individuals who comprise society) is a relevant factor.

How does this statement suggest that society is a moral agent?

It merely states that the welfare of society (that is, the welfare of the individuals who comprise society) is a relevant factor.

The only way that "society" could have rights would be if it were a moral agent. But, it is not. Only the individual makes acts of the will, and in a group there is no collective will that overtakes their own individual wills. They only act in a similar way. Thus, rights can only belong to individuals, the moral agents, not society, the non-moral agent.

The only way that "society" could have rights would be if it were a moral agent.

No. Moral agency is the capacity to act morally, and therefore to have moral responsibility. An entity could have rights without being morally responsible (say, an infant.)

Thus, rights can only belong to individuals,

Yes, individuals have rights.

Therefore, individuals in groups have rights.

Therefore, "society" (individuals in a group) has rights.

Each issue must be examined and its cost weighed against the benefit. Everything you suggested is idiotic, the cost to quality of life not being worth the benefit to society.

youre not the one who said ANY WAY.

Heh did you not get the first bit of that? You know this bit 'the problems of obesity are not entirely personal in nature'

It is a social problem, and so sociaty should work to erradicate it.

I concur! It is our lifestyle that is causing this debate. We have two options:

1. let natural selection take it's course and kill off the unhealthy
(our lifestyle and technology won't let society do this)

2. promote a healthy lifestyle
(our market/buisness won't approve of this, and buy it out)

Either way, it's a social problem EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!

One thing to remember is that in the UK, they have universal healthcare. People who are greatly obese and not taking responsibility for themselves are therefore costing everyone else money.

Might as well have the fat people pay it instead of everyone else.
In the context of the NHS, it makes sense to have higher risk individuals pay higher taxes.

In the context of the NHS, it makes sense to have higher risk individuals pay higher taxes.

soooo

you think that everyone should be assessed by their risk?

would higher risk people pay more taxes or get less service?

will everyone have to submit themselves for risk evaluation? after all there is far more risk to consider than just unwise eating habits.

or are you just interested in punishing people who do things that you dont do yourself and leave your risks unpaid for?

soooo

obviously all currently illegal drugs should stay illegal

and alcohol should be strictly regulated so that no one can have more than the one drink a day that has health benefits

and all infertility treatments should be banned since its too expensive a way to make babies and we dont really need more babies anyway

and sugar should be banned

sports should be banned (too many injuries) and all people should be forced to do non-dangerous physical exercise like walking and swimming (only in public pools with lifeguards present) to promote good health

and, really, all restaurants should be closed, you cant trust them to provide healthy food. people will be provided meals adequate to their age, size and health requirements.

tobacco will be banned, thats a no-brainer, but also all wood fires of all sorts from home heating to camp fires.

and isnt it time we stopped wasting our societal resources on things like individuated clothing? that only encourages us to waste the perfectly serviceable clothing we own now and buy new in a new style.

and all that game shit should be banned. what a stupid waste of time and money. video games, computer games, arcade games. all people need is one deck of cards at a time to cover all their gaming needs.

i could go on and on, eh?

we do not live for society. we do not live for the government. do you really want us to? do you really want your life to be governed by what is best for everyone else? i dont. i want to have the freedom to choose whatever seems best to me as long as it doesnt actively hurt anyone else. (so i can go snow skiing but not in an area where i might crash through my neighbors house. i can risk my life but not yours)

just what are YOU (and by you i mean you) willing to give up so that you will have NO negative effects on society?
While I do agree that we do not live for the government, your analogy jumps to "banning" things making the comparison unreasonable; it's not like an outright BAN on fatty foods is being proposed. According to your own logic, the things you listed should be heavily taxed, not banned.

And I'd agree with heavily taxing refined sugar and recreational drugs.



However, I'd like to point out, albeit I'm not sure how relevant this is, ways in which some of the things you compared it to are more defensible. Now granted, defensibility of something and defensibility of the legality of something are two different things, but I still don't think it's reasonable to compare video games to junk food. Food is primarily medical, as its function in our body is nutrition, and the compromising of health for a short sensation of taste (well, not as long-term as the entertainment of video games, anyway) is questionable. Video games, however, have relatively more reason to be cultural. I'll quote from a Time (Canadian edition) article: "Video games, Johnson notes, impel us to learn because playing them means not just following rules but discovering what the rules are. And these rules can be staggeringly complicated."

I could go on and on, eh?

Oops, I just did. Oh well, I'll stop now.

*snip*
The rationale would be for individuals who put a heavier burden on the system to contribute more. That said, I have little love for the NHS, so I am largely indifferent.

No. Moral agency is the capacity to act morally, and therefore to have moral responsibility. An entity could have rights without being morally responsible (say, an infant.)

The infant has moral potency, and this is where its rights derive from. This is because it has the same essence as, say, adults in this instance (as it is a human being), and as such must be treated the same. Whereas, something with no moral agency that will never have it, such as a chicken, has no rights.

Yes, individuals have rights.

Therefore, individuals in groups have rights.

Therefore, "society" (individuals in a group) has rights.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

While I do agree that we do not live for the government, your analogy jumps to "banning" things making the comparison unreasonable; it's not like an outright BAN on fatty foods is being proposed. According to your own logic, the things you listed should be heavily taxed, not banned.

And I'd agree with heavily taxing refined sugar and recreational drugs.



However, I'd like to point out, albeit I'm not sure how relevant this is, ways in which some of the things you compared it to are more defensible. Now granted, defensibility of something and defensibility of the legality of something are two different things, but I still don't think it's reasonable to compare video games to junk food. Food is primarily medical, as its function in our body is nutrition, and the compromising of health for a short sensation of taste (well, not as long-term as the entertainment of video games, anyway) is questionable. Video games, however, have relatively more reason to be cultural. I'll quote from a Time (Canadian edition) article: "Video games, Johnson notes, impel us to learn because playing them means not just following rules but discovering what the rules are. And these rules can be staggeringly complicated."

I could go on and on, eh?

Oops, I just did. Oh well, I'll stop now.

i know it was over the top. it was his "anyway" that annoyed me.

of course many of the things i listed were absurd but they were in SOME way argueably detrimental to society. therefore they are fair game.

one COULD say that its a waste of the earths resources to replace clothing that can still be worn. so should the govt subsidize the price of a standard unit of clothing--something like the mao suit of communist china, perhaps--and put a huge tax on every other article of clothing to discourage such wasteful practices?

its my feeling that this whole food nazi business is a matter of people not thinking ahead to the day when their own bad habit is considered too societally expensive to allow untaxed or unbanned. we are giving power to the very type of person who shouldnt have it. they dont just want our money like normal politicians do, they want to control the very minutes of our lives.

no thanks.

The infant has moral potency, and this is where its rights derive from. This is because it has the same essence as, say, adults in this instance (as it is a human being), and as such must be treated the same. Whereas, something with no moral agency that will never have it, such as a chicken, has no rights.

Only you can prevent speciesism against flightless birds!

This is because it has the same essence as, say, adults in this instance

So?

If moral agency is a prerequisite for rights, the infant cannot have rights.

I see no reason why being of the same "essence" in some vague sense changes anything.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

No, the argument does not constitute an instance of the composition fallacy because "society" as used here is not an entity beyond the individuals who comprise it. Rather, it is simply shorthand for the individuals who are members of whatever group is being discussed.

The "benefit to society" is relevant because "society" here means "individuals within society", and the benefit to individuals is relevant.

So?

If moral agency is a prerequisite for rights, the infant cannot have rights.

I see no reason why being of the same "essence" in some vague sense changes anything.

Because the difference between the infant and the adult is ultimately just a question of matter. Rights are not contingent on matter, but on essence, because the only acceptable proximate objective norm has to be universal (applicable to everyone.) Otherwise, it cannot be used as an ethic for human beings, since it wouldn't be relevant to human beings. One of the key aspects of human nature is our moral agency/rationality, which gives us our rights. Yes, there are infants, elderly, and mental invalids, just as there are cars that do not work. However, the car that does not work is still a car, and the above-mentioned people are still humans, and must be treated as such.

No, the argument does not constitute an instance of the composition fallacy because "society" as used here is not an entity beyond the individuals who comprise it. Rather, it is simply shorthand for the individuals who are members of whatever group is being discussed.

The "benefit to society" is relevant because "society" here means "individuals within society", and the benefit to individuals is relevant.

Then why bother with all of this "society" business, and just say "as many individuals as possible"? But even then, such a utilitarian system of ethics would be irrational, as it would hold up pleasure as the ultimate objective norm of action. Pleasure is not necessarily good, and even sometimes works against our rational nature, so to hold it up as the final goal, no matter the scale, is irrational.

Because the difference between the infant and the adult is ultimately just a question of matter.

Yes, so is the difference between any rational being and any non-rational being.

Rights are not contingent on matter, but on essence,

What is "essence"?

because the only acceptable proximate objective norm has to be universal (applicable to everyone.) Otherwise, it cannot be used as an ethic for human beings, since it wouldn't be relevant to human beings.

No. It would be relevant to some human beings, and not to others. It would indeed not be an ethic for all human beings... but then, your human-centric ethic is not an ethic for all animals either.

However, the car that does not work is still a car

But if I said that the aspect of a car that gave it quality x was its capability to work, it would be nonsense to say that a car that did not work would possess quality x.

You have not founded rights on humanhood; you have founded them on moral agency.

Then why bother with all of this "society" business, and just say "as many individuals as possible"?

Because that's the term generally used. "As many individuals as possible" is awkward and is not exactly what is being gotten at (more "the general welfare.")

But even then, such a utilitarian system of ethics would be irrational, as it would hold up pleasure as the ultimate objective norm of action.

The relevant term was not "pleasure" but "benefit."

i know it was over the top. it was his "anyway" that annoyed me.

of course many of the things i listed were absurd but they were in SOME way argueably detrimental to society. therefore they are fair game.

one COULD say that its a waste of the earths resources to replace clothing that can still be worn. so should the govt subsidize the price of a standard unit of clothing--something like the mao suit of communist china, perhaps--and put a huge tax on every other article of clothing to discourage such wasteful practices?

its my feeling that this whole food nazi business is a matter of people not thinking ahead to the day when their own bad habit is considered too societally expensive to allow untaxed or unbanned. we are giving power to the very type of person who shouldnt have it. they dont just want our money like normal politicians do, they want to control the very minutes of our lives.

no thanks.
What was his "anyway" in response to again?

Now that aside, I still think you misunderstood the point of my "defensibility" tangent to some extent. Yes, what you listed can be argued to be harmful to society, but many of your examples had benefits to them as I pointed out. On the contrast, however, one has to ask what the benefits of junk food are aside from taste (again, see my earlier point for that) so it isn't as defensible as other things you mentioned.

However, I acknowledged that defensibility of the legality of something and the defensibility of that thing itself are two different things, and I clearly stated how it wasn't my main point. My main point, however, was about differences between TAXING something and BANNING something. Taxing is an income source while banning takes spending to enforce, for example. That indicates that taxing is more practical.

As for your comment about resource consumption, I think a better approach would be to decrease income tax (ideally, abolish) and try to compensate for it in sales tax, which would in turn discourage consumption relatively more so.

Yes, so is the difference between any rational being and any non-rational being.

No, it is more than just a difference of matter. The essence of a chicken will make sure that it will never, ever be rational. Whereas a baby, owing to its essence, has the potentiality of reason.

What is "essence"?

The organizing principle. The life principle. The soul. Whatever. Basically, it is the principle to which the matter is organized.

No. It would be relevant to some human beings, and not to others. It would indeed not be an ethic for all human beings... but then, your human-centric ethic is not an ethic for all animals either.

It is relevant to human beings in general because it corresponds to the abstract universal human being. The abstract universal human being is rational, just as the abstract universal cat has four legs. Granted, there may be cats with three legs, but those three-legged cats don't have any less the essence of a cat even if their matter may be different. Likewise with humans. We need to treat humans based upon their rational essence, i.e. their nature as human beings, and not on the peculiarities of their matter. They all could be rational, and this is what should be recognized. Whether the matter corresponds to this or not is irrelevant, since matter differs among humans and thus cannot be used in a universal system of ethics.

But if I said that the aspect of a car that gave it quality x was its capability to work, it would be nonsense to say that a car that did not work would possess quality x.

Yes, that would be true. But what gives us rights is our potentiality of moral agency, a universal trait, and not whether our matter corresponds to this, a non-universal trait. (Hence why you cannot murder people in their sleep.)

You have not founded rights on humanhood; you have founded them on moral agency.

I have founded them upon moral potency, which is a part of human nature. We could apply this to any creature with rational potency.

Because that's the term generally used. "As many individuals as possible" is awkward and is not exactly what is being gotten at (more "the general welfare.")

But the term "society" is misleading, as it gives the image of an entity with a will of its own. I could accept the general welfare as a more accurate term, however, but I would still say any system of ethics based upon this is irrational.

The relevant term was not "pleasure" but "benefit."

Basing a system of ethics upon benefit is basically the same as basing it upon pleasure. Such a system of ethics is based upon giving people what they want simply because they want it, and not because it is right. The difference between an irrational utilitarian system and a rational natural law system could be shown in that the utilitarian system would want to give food to the hungry because they want it, whereas the natural law system would give food to the hungry because it is in line with one's nature to help people avoid the same suffering that you would avoid.

What was his "anyway" in response to again?

Now that aside, I still think you misunderstood the point of my "defensibility" tangent to some extent. Yes, what you listed can be argued to be harmful to society, but many of your examples had benefits to them as I pointed out. On the contrast, however, one has to ask what the benefits of junk food are aside from taste (again, see my earlier point for that) so it isn't as defensible as other things you mentioned.

However, I acknowledged that defensibility of the legality of something and the defensibility of that thing itself are two different things, and I clearly stated how it wasn't my main point. My main point, however, was about differences between TAXING something and BANNING something. Taxing is an income source while banning takes spending to enforce, for example. That indicates that taxing is more practical.

As for your comment about resource consumption, I think a better approach would be to decrease income tax (ideally, abolish) and try to compensate for it in sales tax, which would in turn discourage consumption relatively more so.
as i remember it, someone else made the point that if its detrimental to society its fair game for being taxed or banned. someone else yet asked what kind of detrimental and the 3rd person just said "anyway" which i took to really mean "detrimental in any way" so i thought up a bunch of stupid detriments that for the most part i thought were unlikely to be supported by him. (although i did include a few ones that many people support like alcohol, drugs and tobacco)

and my point is that it doesnt matter if its demonstrably bad for you with no societal upside. society has no business telling you what you can and cant consume and it has no business making money off your bad habits.

(maybe you missed that i was being puposefully over-the-top in my examples to show that the whole concept is a bad one. unfortunately what USED to be over the top is now becoming an accepted societal goal)

and yeah, i appreciated your point on banning vs taxing. thats an important difference.

taxes should be assessed based on the money needed to run the government. its not a mining operation looking for rich veins of vice ore.

No, it is more than just a difference of matter. The essence of a chicken will make sure that it will never, ever be rational. Whereas a baby, owing to its essence, has the potentiality of reason.

What's the relevance of this "potentiality"?

It is relevant to human beings in general because it corresponds to the abstract universal human being. The abstract universal human being is rational,

Then this "abstract universal human being" clearly cannot be universal, because there exist human beings that are not rational.

If you wish to abstract from the particularities of human beings, you must abstract from all particularities, rationality among them.

We need to treat humans based upon their rational essence, i.e. their nature as human beings,

Their "nature as human beings" is nothing more than their possession of human genes.

It may or may not involve rationality.

They all could be rational,

Yes, a human infant could be rational if his or her mind were more developed, and a severely mentally disabled person could be rational were it not for his or her mental disability.

Similarly, a chicken could be rational if it had the mind of a typical adult human.

Whether the matter corresponds to this or not is irrelevant, since matter differs among humans and thus cannot be used in a universal system of ethics.

Not in foundation, no; the same basic principles apply to everyone. But the implications of those principles can differ depending on the matter. For instance, we are not obligated to help a person who is not sick in the same way we are obligated to help a person who is.

Similarly, we are not obligated to treat a person who is not rational in the same way we are obligated to treat a person who is.

Yes, that would be true. But what gives us rights is our potentiality of moral agency,

But "potentiality" is a vague notion.

Anything could conceivably have moral agency, if circumstances were different.

(Hence why you cannot murder people in their sleep.)

No, but this obligation is out of respect for the preferences of a person who, when awake, is rational.

With the infant, we have no rational person; merely a potential rational person.

I could accept the general welfare as a more accurate term, however, but I would still say any system of ethics based upon this is irrational.

Why?

Basing a system of ethics upon benefit is basically the same as basing it upon pleasure. Such a system of ethics is based upon giving people what they want simply because they want it, and not because it is right.

First, "benefit" is not the same as "what is wanted."

Second, utilitarianism does not at all say that people should be given things simply because they want them... it says that people should be given things when they want them because it is right to respect other people's preferences.

whereas the natural law system would give food to the hungry because it is in line with one's nature to help people avoid the same suffering that you would avoid.

That is to say, it is "in line with one's nature" to help others avoid what you would not want to happen to you. I fail to see how that escapes the dimension of "want."

Anyway, basing morality on human nature is arbitrary.

What's the relevance of this "potentiality"?

If we're going to have a human ethic, then it needs to be universal- applicable to every human being. Rational potency is common to every human being, and thus is an acceptable proximate objective norm. Our human nature dictates that, if we can, we must choose means to our ends. To aggress against another is irrational because A.) It makes a claim to another's will, even though will is inalienable, and B.) It gives a status that is beyond our common human nature- it is not in accordance with a universal human ethic that some people can do whatever they want to other people and others can't. To aggress against a person who only has potentiality of reason is still wrong, because it makes a claim on that person's will which is inalienable. It does not matter if that person cannot express their will through their matter- one still cannot lay claim to it.

Then this "abstract universal human being" clearly cannot be universal, because there exist human beings that are not rational.

If you wish to abstract from the particularities of human beings, you must abstract from all particularities, rationality among them.

The abstract universal human being has reason, just as the abstract universal cat has four legs. Just because the human does not have rationality or the cat only has three legs does not make that essence any less universal; it justs shows the matter as being deficient in one way or another.

Their "nature as human beings" is nothing more than their possession of human genes.

Genes are an expression of one's nature.

Yes, a human infant could be rational if his or her mind were more developed, and a severely mentally disabled person could be rational were it not for his or her mental disability.

Similarly, a chicken could be rational if it had the mind of a typical adult human.

But to give the chicken rationality would involve drastically changing its very nature, since chickens are never rational. Whereas the human infant or severely mentally disabled person merely needs some sort of changing in the matter.

Not in foundation, no; the same basic principles apply to everyone. But the implications of those principles can differ depending on the matter. For instance, we are not obligated to help a person who is not sick in the same way we are obligated to help a person who is.

Similarly, we are not obligated to treat a person who is not rational in the same way we are obligated to treat a person who is.

The universal human ethic would bind all people who are in certain circumstances to help the sick person. That does not defy a natural law.

But "potentiality" is a vague notion.

No. Potentiality means it is possible for something to happen. It is possible for an infant human to be rational. But it is not possible for a chicken to be rational without it ceasing to be a chicken.

Anything could conceivably have moral agency, if circumstances were different.

Yes. But some things only need an accidental change; others would have to undergo a fundamental change of their being.

No, but this obligation is out of respect for the preferences of a person who, when awake, is rational.

With the infant, we have no rational person; merely a potential rational person.

No. It is only a change in matter that gives either their rationality. The chicken would cease to be a chicken if it were given rationality, but the dreamer and the baby would still be human if they were rational.

Why?

General welfare is not an abstract entity and cannot be believed to have any will. As for the rest, see below.

First, "benefit" is not the same as "what is wanted."

Second, utilitarianism does not at all say that people should be given things simply because they want them... it says that people should be given things when they want them because it is right to respect other people's preferences.

Irrational. You should disrespect someone else's preferences if they are evil (within reason). It is not right to always respect other people's preferences. This line of thought is still irrational.

That is to say, it is "in line with one's nature" to help others avoid what you would not want to happen to you. I fail to see how that escapes the dimension of "want."

Anyway, basing morality on human nature is arbitrary.

Not because you don't want it to happen to you, but because it is rational to help others avoid something if it is in contradiction to your nature (If you starve, you cannot continue to reason.) You don't do it because they want it. If those same people wanted crack cocaine, you should refuse to give it to them because being high impairs cognitive process and is thus contrary to one's rational nature. To cause irrationality in others is to be irrational oneself, as it is logically contradictory to pursue one's own ultimate contentment but act to impair others from doing so.

And basing morality on human nature is not arbitrary, because, since the universe is ultimately rational (i.e. acts purposefully), we too have our own natures as a product of reason. Also, human nature is really the only thing that we can apply to all actions, all people, is readily apparent to use as a benchmark and is a fixed standard. It is the best proximate objective norm.

A "fatty food tax" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6291072.stm) is now suggested, to combat obesity, thus saving people the effort of all that damn self-discipline and personal responsibility.

Tony Blair was, disturbingly, correct; such a tax would be the best indication yet of a "nanny state". Frankly, if you cannot control what you eat, you deserve all the problems resultant from obesity.

It is pretty awful to think about the government legislating your personal health. It is definitely bad to think about in every respect. A nanny state is the worst thing out there and as PC progresses, we're coming closer and closer towards that as the government tells us what is good for ourselves. Sure fatty foods are bad for you but who is the government to tell me if I can eat it or not and then, should I eat it, tax me on it? I'm hoping this doesn't come across the pond to America.

It's tough to succeed when you don't have the cash flow

:p. . . ironic

Because the difference between the infant and the adult is ultimately just a question of matter. Rights are not contingent on matter, but on essence, because the only acceptable proximate objective norm has to be universal (applicable to everyone.) Otherwise, it cannot be used as an ethic for human beings, since it wouldn't be relevant to human beings. One of the key aspects of human nature is our moral agency/rationality, which gives us our rights. Yes, there are infants, elderly, and mental invalids, just as there are cars that do not work. However, the car that does not work is still a car, and the above-mentioned people are still humans, and must be treated as such.

Essence is inseparable from matter. All essence is composed of material qualities.

Not all humans possess moral agency, so it cannot be considered an essence of humanity.

We cannot guage moral agency.

The only thing that can give us our rights is our ability to enforce the obligation on others.

Potential for rationality is simply a nonsensical ad hoc. That one has the potential to possess an essence does not mean that it has an essence. A pile of metal, plastic, and rubber may have the potential to become a car, but that does not mean it has a car's essence.

To aggress against another is irrational because A.) It makes a claim to another's will, even though will is inalienable, and B.) It gives a status that is beyond our common human nature- it is not in accordance with a universal human ethic that some people can do whatever they want to other people and others can't. To aggress against a person who only has potentiality of reason is still wrong, because it makes a claim on that person's will which is inalienable. It does not matter if that person cannot express their will through their matter- one still cannot lay claim to it.

By your thought process, agressing against another would not only be irrational, but it would be a nonsensical concept. If aggressing against someone was to claim their will, then aggression would be impossible, because, as you said, people cannot be separated from their will.

Of course, this is easily solved by saying that aggression is not the claiming of another's will, but the expression of one's own will.

Would you argue that keeping a chained pet is claiming that pet's "inalienable will" or would you say that the pet has no will?

And seriously, infants and invalids (and presumably the unborn) have a will but they are unable to express it? What the hell is a will?

As for part B, there is no common human nature, there is no need for a universal ethic, and people can deny others power that they themselves hold without being inconsistent.

Genes are an expression of one's nature.

What is this, teleological genetics?

You have it backwards, my friend.

Lol, personal responsibility.

Conservatives really don't like Labor in Britain, lol.

as i remember it, someone else made the point that if its detrimental to society its fair game for being taxed or banned. someone else yet asked what kind of detrimental and the 3rd person just said "anyway" which i took to really mean "detrimental in any way" so i thought up a bunch of stupid detriments that for the most part i thought were unlikely to be supported by him. (although i did include a few ones that many people support like alcohol, drugs and tobacco)

and my point is that it doesnt matter if its demonstrably bad for you with no societal upside. society has no business telling you what you can and cant consume and it has no business making money off your bad habits.

(maybe you missed that i was being puposefully over-the-top in my examples to show that the whole concept is a bad one. unfortunately what USED to be over the top is now becoming an accepted societal goal)

and yeah, i appreciated your point on banning vs taxing. thats an important difference.

taxes should be assessed based on the money needed to run the government. its not a mining operation looking for rich veins of vice ore.
I don't think there will ever be truly "enough" money, so a "mining" approach is probably a more practical one. With regards to the fatty food tax, I believe that all the income from it should go directly into health care, just like how I believe the taxes on fossil fuels should be increased but all the money from those taxes going into research into alternative fuels.

By the way, your tone in this topic seems to be a rather libertarian one, yet I remember in a thread about legalizing prostitution you said it shouldn't be legalized because it would make men see women as whores which you said would increase rape rates. Not that I'm trying to discredit your ideas on the basis of them being yours, I'm well aware that to do that would be a rather ad hominem approach, but this was more so a side-comment questioning your consistency as an individual; why the permissiveness gap?

I don't think there will ever be truly "enough" money, so a "mining" approach is probably a more practical one. With regards to the fatty food tax, I believe that all the income from it should go directly into health care, just like how I believe the taxes on fossil fuels should be increased but all the money from those taxes going into research into alternative fuels.


the only way i would agree with such a tax is under the circumstance you suggest where the tax money would go to treat the medical problems caused by the bad habit and to no other use. that way a person is paying a kind of insurance tax rather than having his bad habit used to pay for things that other people want the govt to do but dont want to pay for themselves.


By the way, your tone in this topic seems to be a rather libertarian one, yet I remember in a thread about legalizing prostitution you said it shouldn't be legalized because it would make men see women as whores which you said would increase rape rates. Not that I'm trying to discredit your ideas on the basis of them being yours, I'm well aware that to do that would be a rather ad hominem approach, but this was more so a side-comment questioning your consistency as an individual; why the permissiveness gap?

nah, i was on vacation for 2 weeks. you didnt see me in a prostititution thread. my feeling about prostitution is that while it may be bad for the prostitute, they should still be free to choose it.

im not a libertarian (because they are crazy) but i do believe in freedom. in the huge population groups that exist today there are times when we cant be as free as i would like but i try to keep freedom in mind when deciding my stance on political issues.

the only way i would agree with such a tax is under the circumstance you suggest where the tax money would go to treat the medical problems caused by the bad habit and to no other use. that way a person is paying a kind of insurance tax rather than having his bad habit used to pay for things that other people want the govt to do but dont want to pay for themselves.
What about those of us whose need for health care isn't a consequence of our own actions?

nah, i was on vacation for 2 weeks. you didnt see me in a prostititution thread
You sure? I remember it from months ago...

im not a libertarian (because they are crazy) but i do believe in freedom. in the huge population groups that exist today there are times when we cant be as free as i would like but i try to keep freedom in mind when deciding my stance on political issues.
Just out of curiosity, why do you say "they" are crazy? I don't agree completely with libertarianism either (actually, I don't like how ANY ideology associates way too many separate opinions with each other to make sense) but it doesn't quite sound "crazy" to me...

Anyway, you say you try to keep freedom in mind when deciding your stance, well so do I to some extent, but when permissiveness contradicts practicality, it creates a bit of a dilemma, especially when it doesn't seem consistent with other policies. So what about marijuana, then? Wouldn't it be wasteful to have marijuana flat-out banned, and saturated and trans fats not even heavily taxed? I think they should both be heavily taxed...

Just out of curiosity, why do you say "they" are crazy?
Why, because it's the cool thing to do.

What about those of us whose need for health care isn't a consequence of our own actions?

oh i dont mean that everyone should pay based on their risk. just that IF (big if) there was a real need to tax fatty foods the only use for the money collected should go to paying the extra health costs that come from such foods.

in reality i think that everyone's risk pretty much evens out and no ones should be taxed extra. for example, sure cigarettes shorten your life and cost money for the various lung ailments caused but people die mostly at the time when they would start retiring so they never collect their retirement monies so it gets offset to a large extent.


You sure? I remember it from months ago...

oh ok, i was in a prostitution thread months ago but ive never advocated its continued illegality. considering that i have taken a disabled friend to a brothel in nevada it would be particularly hypocritical of me.

i remember that one of our prominent female posters suggested it should stay illegal but i dont remember which one it was.


Just out of curiosity, why do you say "they" are crazy? I don't agree completely with libertarianism either (actually, I don't like how ANY ideology associates way too many separate opinions with each other to make sense) but it doesn't quite sound "crazy" to me...

the "man on the street" libertarian is just fine. he only wants the govt to get out of our lives. very rational stance.

the big boys of libertarianism want things like disbanding public schools, getting rid of all social programs, and doing away with the interstate highway system being paid for by the federal govt.


Anyway, you say you try to keep freedom in mind when deciding your stance, well so do I to some extent, but when permissiveness contradicts practicality, it creates a bit of a dilemma, especially when it doesn't seem consistent with other policies. So what about marijuana, then? Wouldn't it be wasteful to have marijuana flat-out banned, and saturated and trans fats not even heavily taxed? I think they should both be heavily taxed...

i see no reason for marijuana to be illegal and no reason for it to be taxed more heavily than alcohol. (not that i really support extra alcohol taxes)

transfats are best dealt with on a supplier level. if transfats are bad for us, they shouldnt be sold. not that you can get rid of them totally. all other fats are natural and should be left alone. how the hell do you asses a tax? who inspects the local hamburger for its true fat content so that the grocery store doesnt under pay its taxes?

why are we using tax for social control rather than revenue generation? if we need more money, its better to increase the income tax since it is a progressive tax and wont hurt the poor more than the rest of us.

besides, you might have noticed that the science on food changes all the time. legislation isnt set to change quickly with the results of new studies. we could end up finding out that our food tax policy hurts more people than it helps.

Nope.
You are.

Dear gods, is DK actually trying to pull off the "I know you are, but what am I?" argument?

Don't know about that anymore. The United States has some of the fattest poor people I've ever seen.

That's because our STUPID GOVERNMENT pays them to sit at home doing nothing when they are capable of holding down a job but choose not to (welfare, food stamps, that sort of thing), and gets the money (taxes) from those who DON'T sit at home doing nothing.

What ever happened to personal responsibility?

It went out the window.

Only nice way to put it.

Don't know about that anymore. The United States has some of the fattest poor people I've ever seen.

That's 'cause the really poor people are eating out of the wealthy people's trash.

I also agree with the statement that said fattening food IS cheaper these days. :sniper:

Personal responsibility is just an empty phrase used by upper class oligarchs to remove themselves from a community collective responsibility.

Personal responsibility died a lingering, painful death, stomped to death by a large army of desperate personal injury lawyers. Some of us are attempting to revive it, but it looks hopeless.

Personal responsibility died a lingering, painful death, stomped to death by a large army of desperate personal injury lawyers. Some of us are attempting to revive it, but it looks hopeless.

Personal responsibility is direct ignorance of the fact that people are products of their socio-economic contruct, for example excessive crime indicates a societal problem, it does not indicate many unrelated individuals who all have completely unrelated problems. Thinking of society in terms of a community instead of random individuals in the only way to solve massive problems.

Personal responsibility is direct ignorance of the fact that people are products of their socio-economic contruct, for example excessive crime indicates a societal problem, it does not indicate many unrelated individuals who all have completely unrelated problems. Thinking of society in terms of a community instead of random individuals in the only way to solve massive problems.

So if you failed a math test, it wasn't because you didn't study for it, it was because the community failed you.

Socio-economic environment is only one factor out of many determining how a person turns out. In the final analysis, the individual makes a choice. Or, as the poet said, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

My kids were brought up in a ghetto - crime was rampant, we were poor. Somehow, my son joined the Navy and, later, joined a police force. When he determined that police work wasn't for him, he went to work as an electronics technician. My daughter also joined the Navy - when she got out, she went back to school, eventually getting an MPH/epidemiology - she's in the process of getting a commission in the Air Force. Most young people in high crime, impoverished environments don't turn to crime. Most of them work very hard to get out of those environments. The one's that turn to crime are in the minority and chose to do it because it was easy.

"Society" shouldn't factor into any calculation, as it is not a moral agent. Only the individual, a rational being and thus inherently a moral agent, should be factored into any system of ethics.

One is aware that there is more than one such "individual" presently occupying the surface of the planet, yes? A shocking realization for most libertarians, I'll admit (I spent about 4 straight days unable to get out of bed myself...), but it is nonetheless true.

Such individuals can make a decision as a group (through discussion, debate, consensus, vote, summary execution of all dissenters, or any number of other possible mechanisms ad infinity). The group thereby constitutes a collective agent.

Real world example: A business corporation. An often large collective or group of many people, but legally considered a individual agent or entity with the ability to make contracts, hold assets, and otherwise act in its own right. Is the libertarian arguing for the end of the business corporation? It is entirely "irrational" and without basis in "morality," after all. I'm guessing with what I assume is a high degree of probability that the answer is no. One isn't some dirty commie, after all. How about your preferred political party? How about any other human enterprise requiring the cooperation of two or more people?

Society is simply a higher level of the same phenomena, constituting all the members of a particular nation, state, or other higher/highest group of human beings. Such a group is capable of arriving at collective decisions, and is thus an agent of whatever kind. Whether you prefer the nature or consequences of that decision is, of course, entirely irrelevant to the question of the existence of group agency. One may have a legitimate grievance, but collective decision making or group agency don't cease to exist simply because you lose a vote. You, contrary to whatever fantasy, are not king (more on that below).

If ONLY the individual human being is a rational or moral agent, the intertwining connections of obligations and responsibilities necessitated by any collaboration or cooperation between individuals, voluntary or otherwise, would have no basis in morality or rationality; morality and rationality supposedly belong ONLY to individuals, not to the social connections which you claim cannot hold rational or moral legitimacy. Also, if the individual is the supreme moral agent, why should I, an individual, subjugate my own supreme moral will to that of any other? Thus, following from your own theory, any and all interactions between two or more human beings more complicated than throwing rocks at each other is by definition immoral, irrational and impossible. Empirical reality, of course, demonstrates the absurdity of such a notion; simply observe any existent enterprise involving two or more people pursuing any number of perfectly moral and rational goals.

Two sentence summary: Your theory simply fails to consider the fact that individual human beings are capable of social interaction, and that the various modes of social interaction possess rationality and morality in their own right, independent of the particular individuals involved. Society is simply a given collection of such social interactions. Thus, society possesses the characteristics of rationality and morality. Q.E.D.

-----

Of course, judging from this "absolutist party" nonsense in the signature of the post replied to herein, the hyper- and fallacious focus on "the individual" as supreme moral agent observed probably only serves as an excuse or rationalization for what is really nothing more than a desire for autocratic and authoritarian power. "Society" supposedly doesn't have any legitimate/moral agency, and thus supposedly cannot democratically share political power amongst its members. Therefore, the King, political power embodied in the "individual." One isn't accurately describing reality so much as one is trying to justify one's own hatred and fear of human liberty by making one's own self King (and just who the hell are you, anyway?).

Whatever. Kings have been hung before. "Society" will hang 'em again. ;)

So if you failed a math test, it wasn't because you didn't study for it, it was because the community failed you.

Socio-economic environment is only one factor out of many determining how a person turns out. In the final analysis, the individual makes a choice. Or, as the poet said, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

My kids were brought up in a ghetto - crime was rampant, we were poor. Somehow, my son joined the Navy and, later, joined a police force. When he determined that police work wasn't for him, he went to work as an electronics technician. My daughter also joined the Navy - when she got out, she went back to school, eventually getting an MPH/epidemiology - she's in the process of getting a commission in the Air Force. Most young people in high crime, impoverished environments don't turn to crime. Most of them work very hard to get out of those environments. The one's that turn to crime are in the minority and chose to do it because it was easy.

There is no choice, only socio-economic environment which determines your life.

There is no choice, only socio-economic environment which determines your life.

That is a very sad opinion. I feel sorry for you if you truly feel that powerless. Unless, of course, you're using it as an excuse to fail, in which case, that's your choice.

That is a very sad opinion. I feel sorry for you if you truly feel that powerless. Unless, of course, you're using it as an excuse to fail, in which case, that's your choice.

It's a fact.

Some people can't take personal responsibility over their own body. They simple can't change their eating pattern. So those people need a bit help for example by a tax.
I think it's not such a bad idea.

It's a fact.

So is Santa Claus.

...if just saying so is good enough. It's not. ;)

Some people can't take personal responsibility over their own body. They simple can't change their eating pattern. So those people need a bit help for example by a tax.
I think it's not such a bad idea.

Because one person chooses not to take responsibility for what he/she eats, is not a good reason to take the choice away from others.

It's a fact.

The fact is:

There are many factors involved in the outcome of one's life - listed in no order of importance

1. Genetics - this includes intelligence, physical and emotional strength, resilience, stubbornness, temperment. There is even a genetic component in the tendency towards sociopathy.
2. Family involvement and support - this builds on or detracts from the genetic components. It is also primarily responsible for attitudes towards and responses to education.
3. Peer involvement and support - see number 2.
4. Socio-economic environment - see number 2.
5. Individual will - see number 2.

This is by no means a complete list. Each factor interacts with the others to create an individual. In the final analysis, an adult makes choices and abides by the consequences of those choices; a child makes choices and blames others if things don't go as he/she wishes. I haven't pulled this out of my ass, it's basic sociology.

For whatever reason, you have chosen to be powerless. It gives you an excuse for not living up to your potential. I don't feel sorry for you.

The fact is:

There are many factors involved in the outcome of one's life - listed in no order of importance

1. Genetics - this includes intelligence, physical and emotional strength, resilience, stubbornness, temperment. There is even a genetic component in the tendency towards sociopathy.
2. Family involvement and support - this builds on or detracts from the genetic components. It is also primarily responsible for attitudes towards and responses to education.
3. Peer involvement and support - see number 2.
4. Socio-economic environment - see number 2.
5. Individual will - see number 2.

This is by no means a complete list. Each factor interacts with the others to create an individual. In the final analysis, an adult makes choices and abides by the consequences of those choices; a child makes choices and blames others if things don't go as he/she wishes. I haven't pulled this out of my ass, it's basic sociology.

For whatever reason, you have chosen to be powerless. It gives you an excuse for not living up to your potential. I don't feel sorry for you.

1 is unproven, and 3 and 5 are determined by 4.

The fact is:

There are many factors involved in the outcome of one's life - listed in no order of importance

1. Genetics - this includes intelligence, physical and emotional strength, resilience, stubbornness, temperment. There is even a genetic component in the tendency towards sociopathy.
2. Family involvement and support - this builds on or detracts from the genetic components. It is also primarily responsible for attitudes towards and responses to education.
3. Peer involvement and support - see number 2.
4. Socio-economic environment - see number 2.
5. Individual will - see number 2.

This is by no means a complete list. Each factor interacts with the others to create an individual. In the final analysis, an adult makes choices and abides by the consequences of those choices; a child makes choices and blames others if things don't go as he/she wishes. I haven't pulled this out of my ass, it's basic sociology.


Marxists only pay any attention to sociology when it's convenient to do so. Science requires the pursuit of all possible variables that effect the model describing the observed behavior. Religion, however, requires doing to exact opposite. I would even assert that one's own "final analysis" is hardly a foregone conclusion. ;)

Marxists only pay any attention to sociology when it's convenient to do so. Science requires the pursuit of all possible variables that effect the model describing the observed behavior. Religion, however, requires doing to exact opposite. I would even assert that one's own "final analysis" is hardly a foregone conclusion. ;)

I am neither Marxist (since it is majorly flawed) nor religious (again, majorly flawed). I am agnostic (probably flawed as well, but I can live with the flaws).

While I do not have scientifically supported "proof" immediately available to me supporting my contention, I can probably, given a little time, find it. In any case, my observation is that mature people, i.e. adults, take responsibililty for their actions, and immature people, i.e. children, don't. Maturity has nothing to do with age, and no one is mature all the time - but what I call adults, are mature most of the time. I admit, my "forgone conclusion" is a bit simplistic, but we all are at times. ;)

I am neither Marxist


Obviously.


nor religious


Not in the sense in which you're using it, perhaps, but...


While I do not have scientifically supported "proof" immediately available to me supporting my contention,


...this was the sense in which I was using it.


In any case, my observation is that mature people, i.e. adults, take responsibililty for their actions, and immature people, i.e. children, don't.


Your observation is either highly biased, fictional, or not actually an observation. I can sit here all night giving example after example of "mature people" who act like children (Most are people from my own personal life experience, so a literal list of names will be meaningless here, but you get the idea). There are far too many 18-or-older children running around for me to accept your "observation."


Maturity has nothing to do with age, and no one is mature all the time


Ah, we agree. I'll assume then that your "observation" is actually a preference or prescription. How people should act, not how they actually do act. Take greater care to not confuse the two in the future. Marxism and other similar religions fail because they are similarly confused.


I admit, my "forgone conclusion" is a bit simplistic, but we all are at times. ;)

"Everyone is doing it" is only good for jumping off cliffs.

One is aware that there is more than one such "individual" presently occupying the surface of the planet, yes? A shocking realization for most libertarians, I'll admit (I spent about 4 straight days unable to get out of bed myself...), but it is nonetheless true.

Really? :eek: You mean there are... others, out there?

reality has a well known leftwing bias

this is rather an interesting statement. on so many levels.

the more so that reality isn't considered the center pointing out the inanity of so called conservatism.

not to mention idiologies of every sort from every immaginable direction.

i'm not sure what anyone else lives in, but i sort of think reality has SOMEthing to do with SOME of what we each and all experience, no matter how many little green pieces of paper the few who are able to, attempt to insulate themselves from it with.

=^^=
.../\...

I think people should stay out of other peoples business and stop trying to control their lives.

i'm not sure what anyone else lives in, but i sort of think reality has SOMEthing to do with SOME of what we each and all experience, no matter how many little green pieces of paper the few who are able to, attempt to insulate themselves from it with.
What exactly do you use to do so then? I've never witnessed anything so effective.

What exactly do you use to do so then? I've never witnessed anything so effective.

wild hickory nuts.

=^^=
.../\...

this is rather an interesting statement. on so many levels.

the more so that reality isn't considered the center pointing out the inanity of so called conservatism.

not to mention idiologies of every sort from every immaginable direction.

i'm not sure what anyone else lives in, but i sort of think reality has SOMEthing to do with SOME of what we each and all experience, no matter how many little green pieces of paper the few who are able to, attempt to insulate themselves from it with.

=^^=
.../\...

Well in a way he's right, I mean over in last century or further a method especially historiography emerged which came to be known as 'Marxist history', typically Marxist history is a view of history in terms of class struggle, but in the sense I am referring to Marxist history meant a shift in academic circles to recording history and looking at events from 'looking at the top' to 'history from the grass up' that is looking what happened in history and current affairs from the perspective of the common person. A good example is the recording of the English Civil War and aftermath, at first only really stuff like constitutional and policy development was recorded, no one knew about the Levellers and other small grass roots movements.

Lol, personal responsibility.

Conservatives really don't like Labor in Britain, lol.

Gosh, how dare we have an opinion.