Effort or Luck?

But a lot of the things have come about through government sponsorship, jet population, atomic energy, space exploration, computing, the www, later the private sector might get involved but….

Then there are the big infrastructural projects financed by government, the transcontinental railroad, the road network, the dams etc.

The thing is that the private sector is motivated by profit not public service, and how do you bring in ‘profit and loss’ into such things as a social worker trying to spot child abuse?

And although it is possible to turn over utilities and services over to private firms that doesn’t mean they are privately funded, which just means you are transferring public money from an accountable (and in a democracy changeable) public body to an unaccountable and undemocratic private corporation, and the costs may be not that different.

 

Indie

I think you are purposely trying to misdirect.

I mean you admit that you don’t know what the potential of any child could be and you also seem to agree that one of the greatest effects on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. That can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure.
In which case as I’ve said outcomes can be unequal not because of merit but because of what you admit are unfairly distributed advantages and disadvantages.

 

Indie

Let us imagine a 100 metre race with four runners (A,B,C,D) all of which have the mental and physical potential to win, so that in a fair race it would be impossible to tell which one would win.
But just before the start one runner (D) is left at the 100m mark while another (C) is placed at the 80m mark and the next (B) is placed at the 50m mark and the last (A) is placed just 10m from the finish line.
They all have a good race and put in an equal amount of effort into winning.
Now from been impossible to say who’d be the winner it now becomes possible to work out the outcome, A followed by B followed by C with D coming in last.
The runner that only had to travel 10m ‘succeeded’ and the disadvantaged runners ‘failed’.
The question is that a fair race, your answer is that it isn’t BUT you still believe that it is justifiable and that doesn’t seem rational or reasonable.
I know some would argue that people are not all equal, some people have physical and mental advantages (or disadvantages), BUT the question then is how can someone gauge that in advance? You yourself have admitted that it is virtually impossible to gauge the potential of a baby; so much so that you think it not even worth trying.
So what you seem to be doing is gauging people on outcome.
But that is a bit like standing at the finish line of the race described above and declaring that the runner that only travelled ten yards and won is a much better runner and more worthy athlete than the loser who had the whole 100 metres to run.
Again that doesn’t seem reasonable or rational.

 

Then I'll let this one pass.

 

You wish to present fairness as something that is a necessity, in a way that you wish to define for all, and to do so would require giving control of life to a committee to make the decisions we as free persons would like to retain. Give up your own freedoms if you wish, but don't ask others to follow in your path.

 

You claim to be in the UK, so I'm 100% behind you in making the changes you wish, just keep them in the UK. Having been born, raised, and worked in the U.S., and not to a wealthy, or even middle class family, I have not experienced the problems in achieving satisfactory success, and would not like to see future generations find success more difficult than what I experienced.

 

Indie

You are not addressing what’s been raised, but instead just sprouting slogans.

To recap

You don’t seem to have any rational or reasonable arguments to back up your ideas.

You don’t seem to have counter arguments to put up against the criticisms of your ideas.

I ask again why do you continue to hold onto these ideas?

 

because he was lucky enough to succeed where others failed

and wants to believe it was purely the result of effort

 

We're dealing with beliefs, yours and mine, and I value individual freedom over government imposed equality. I might ask you why you hold on to your ideas as they reek of begrudging, envy, and resentment of those who have achieved success in life, most of whom who have gained wealth as a result of providing something of value to society.

 

Indie

LOL – I notice you are still not putting up any rational or reasonable argument to back up your views and still not addressing what seem to be the many flaws in what you say.

 

It is interesting here that Individual says –

I think what we are getting here is a glimpse of something I’ve noted before in these forums.

It is the belief among some people that just because they hold a viewpoint then it must be a viable viewpoint, even when it seems to have serious flaws and it cannot be defended against criticism, they will still hold on to the belief that it is solid and true.

It is as if they’re treating their political viewpoint as a religion, becoming a matter of faith rather than something rational and reasonable.

To me political debate is about the development of ideas, because ideas should develop otherwise they stagnate and become petrified into unmovable dogma.

For example there are many ideas on how the Earth (universe) was created; humans have pondered on it over time using what knowledge they had at any given time. From tales of spittle and mud to the big bang and M-theory the ideas have changed.

Now I’m an atheist but there are religious people that can accept the modern theories and retain their religion some say it even enhances it. But some people get stuck, for example there are Christian fundamentalists that dogmatically believe a god created the world in six days and they will not accept any other viewpoint, it doesn’t matter to them that they cannot address the flaws in their viewpoint and they don’t care they can’t produce any rational or reasonable arguments to back up their position. They rely on faith.

I think that this mindset can be seen in politics as well, and that is what we are seeing here.

People that hold a set of political dogmas to be true but are unable to address the flaws in that viewpoint and cannot produce any rational or reasonable arguments to back them up.

 

reviso, read the abolition of work

:sunny:

 

You tend to view disagreement as flaws. If your views were as rational or reasonable as you feel they are, they would be easily accepted. I don't accept the rich telling me how I should live any more than I would find it acceptable to have the poor to do so.

 

Indie

I tend to see a criticism of a viewpoint that is unaddressed as a flaw and an argument that can’t seem to be defended as flawed.

Especially when all opportunity has been given to the person whose views have been criticized to address them but who instead prefers to try and evade addressing them.

I would disagree with someone who argued the earth was flat are you saying that my disagreement with that view was wrong?

This is what I was explaining above about politics being treated as a religious belief, for example a Creationist will not accept any rational or reasonable criticism of their views.

So why do you wish to increase the power and influence of wealth?

 

Politics is very much similar to religion. God can not be proven to exist, but then again one can not prove God does not exist. As an atheist, I firmly accept as fact, yet beyond my capacity to prove that God does not exist. I accept that those who wish to believe have a right to do so.
The Earth being flat is entirely different, and is something that can be proven scientifically, so there exists a right and a wrong answer to that question.

Most of what we talk about in relation to government is philosophical, and based on moral views or ethics, which allow us to define what is right or wrong without acquiring universal acceptance.

Do I?

 

i think we are thinking alike here

except:

:afro: dick gregory for president

 

Indie

You think politics deals with the spiritual and otherworldly; to me politics is very much of the physical world and the tangible.
Also as pointed out the danger with people seeing politics as similar to religion, being based in faith rather than reason is that their views can become stagnant, dogmatic and irrational.
*

You seemed to be implying that it was somehow wrong to disagree with someone that seemed to have flaws in their argument.
What I’m pointing out is that you do not seem able to defend your ideas from the criticisms levelled at them.
So those ideas would seem to remain flawed.
*

But that is the whole point of honest and open debate to try and sift the wheat from the chaff by seeing which ideas stand up to scrutiny, and which don’t.
For example once the divine right of kings was acknowledged as a moral and political ‘truth’, that a king is appointed by superior powers to have absolute control in their domain, today I think most people would call such a thing tyranny and wrong. It was once common (less so now but still around) that black people are inferior mentally to white people; I would say that was not only rationally flawed but morally wrong are you saying it should be seen as a valid viewpoint that should be confronted?
What you seem to be arguing is that any ideas is valid if only someone thinks it valid, that any viewpoint is right just because someone thinks it right that all ideas are good ideas, even when they seems to be deeply flawed and even its supporters can’t defend it from criticism.
It sounds to me that you realise your ideas are flawed but what to still try and claim they are valid, even when those flaws haven’t been addressed, and I don’t think that washes.

 

Religion also deals with the physical world and the tangible. Both deal with control over the society based on the laws of man or the laws of a God delivered by a man. Both the known as well as the unknown can provide a source of fear to which man will surrender.

Faith and reason can go hand in hand when the subject is philosophical.

Not wrong, but beyond solution without first determining if there is a premise upon which it is agreed in need of a solution.

And I see your ideas flawed as well. Basically you argue that others have a right to the success of others through government programs and I don't accept that at all.

But this is not science.

I don't see any need to inject race into the conversation, and instead would agree only that regardless of race, color, religion, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation among anything else used to classify people, there are humans who are inferior not only mentally, but physically to other humans. Thank mother nature, and genetics for that.

Many ideas ARE valid if only "ONE" person thinks it valid. It depends a lot on the idea. While it may benefit one to take something from another, the fact that benefit is gained, even though it could be argued that no measurable harm was done to the other, it does not make it right.

You've yet to provide me with anything convincing that your ideas are without flaws.

 

Indie

The problem is you’re not presenting any rational or reasonable arguments to counter what seem to be flaws in you ideas all you seem to have its faith.

So are you saying you don’t feel you need any rational, logical or reasonable arguments to back up your political ideas you just believe (have faith) they are true? You are like some type of political equivalent of a creationist?

But how do you know if they are good ideas or not if you never question them?
Because they do seem to be full of flaws you seem unable to address.

*

What I’m pointing out is that you do not seem able to defend your ideas from the criticisms levelled at them.
So those ideas would seem to remain flawed.

Again - if you think my ideas or viewpoint are flawed then please present some rational and reasonable arguments as to why you think they are, so far you haven’t done that. Just saying something doesn’t make it so.

Has a baby achieved success? If it is born into advantage did it earn that advantage?

You say yes but have no rational argument for doing so.

*

For example once the divine right of kings was acknowledged as a moral and political ‘truth’, that a king is appointed by superior powers to have absolute control in their domain, today I think most people would call such a thing tyranny and wrong. It was once common (less so now but still around) that black people are inferior mentally to white people; I would say that was not only rationally flawed but morally wrong are you saying it should be seen as a valid viewpoint that should be confronted?

Again why are you playing dumb, you are not dumb.

This isn’t about race or about kings it is about the development of ideas. Your ideas seem flawed so I wonder why you still hold on to them, to me you seem to be like those one time supporters of the divine right of kings or those racists, your ideas don’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

And I’m sure I’m not the only one that’s noticed that once again you are doing all you can to evade addressing the flaws in you ideas.

*

But that is the whole point of honest and open debate to try and sift the wheat from the chaff by seeing which ideas stand up to scrutiny, and which don’t.

Are you saying that in your view only in science can there be any debate, in everything else every idea is of equal validity and so no debate of their differencing merits could or should take place?

That seems like the self serving viewpoint of someone who finds they cannot defend their ideas from criticism.

So you do think that a view is still valid even if it cannot be defended (even by its own supporters) and seems to be deeply flawed?

Valid – “based on truth” – “sound, just, well-founded” – “good”

So to you racism is valid, a just, sound even good idea, to you tyranny is valid, just, sound and even a good idea, I could go on….

Again I think this is a con, a trick, you realise your ideas are flawed but want to still try and claim they are valid when they seem so badly flawed that they don’t seem to be.

Again if you think my ideas or viewpoint are flawed then please present some rational and reasonable arguments as to why you think they are, so far you haven’t done that, and I think you would have by now if you had any.

Just saying something doesn’t make it so.

 

Nor have you. In that our political philosophies are diametrically opposed it is unlikely we could ever eliminate what we consider to be flaws in each others concepts of what governments responsibilities and individuals responsibilities are in a society.

I very much the evolutionist, man is simply a branch of the primates, survival of the fittest, etc. You might be more seen as a creationist, brothers keeper, good Samaritan, etc.

The only flaw you seem able to point out is your opinion disagrees with mine.

What you call criticisms are little more than opinionated disagreements which lack any factual reasoning to argue against.

You tend to assume that only those born into wealth can succeed in life and that those born poor or into poverty are bound to failure.

Perhaps you could chalk it up to luck when a baby is born to a wealthy family. The same could be said of a baby born to a poor but loving family. Babies have earned nothing, but should one be deprived of any advantages it's parents, grandparents, or other benefactors have earned?

I said yes to what? I only say that a baby is entitled to what its parents provides it, regardless of the source, assuming it is acquired legally.

I simply say that a human is a human, inferiority of individuals is not racially determined.

You brought up race and Kings.

Once and for all, try pointing out a flaw, not just harping on what a baby has earned or deserves.

About the only premise we seem to agree on is that life is not equal for all humans. From that point going forward, you appear to feel that it is governments responsibility to make it more equal, and I feel it is the individuals responsibility.

Not at all, I'm just saying that in the area of politics or society there is no single view or answer that resolves all problems universally.

It sounds more like moaning than criticism to me.

You seem to espouse emotional tyranny perpetually. Where have I stated anything racist? Are we talking about babies or have you now changed it to white and black babies?

Is this your form of debate?

If you presented an idea or viewpoint, it must be long forgotten by now as you do little more than repeat the same questions over and over, and respond claiming my responses are flawed without providing any rational reasoning as to why you feel they are flawed.