Effort or Luck?

Don't know, don't care.

 

Don't post.

 

Indie
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?

First I’m sure I’m not the only one that’s noticed you didn’t answer the question.
Second I’m not saying you are a creationist I’m pointing out that you seem to be treating your political ideas in the same dogmatic and unquestioning way as a creationist.
And thirdly as pointed out before human beings virtually stopped being under the influence of natural selection when we stopped being ‘natural’.

*

 

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.

Once 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.

*

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.

My opinion disagrees with yours because your views seem flawed, flaws I should point out that you seem unwilling or 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.

Then they should be easily to refute – as it is you don’t seem able to even address them let alone anything else.

*

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.

Please don’t play dumb you are not dumb.

We have been through this many times now, I’m NOT saying only those born into wealth can succeed or that those born poor or into poverty are bound to failure - I’m just pointing that that many peoples potential could be greatly enhanced if they had more access to advantage.

As I said you don’t seem to have any rational or reasonable argument to put up only innuendo that has already been refuted.

*

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

Oh please, are you implying that wealthy families are not loving, of course not so what is it you are saying?

Also your hereditary argument is the same one kings put forward for holding onto power, I mean King George inherited the American colonies so was it right for the Americans to rebel and take it away from him and his successors?

My arguments would seem to imply it was your argument would seem to imply it wasn’t.

My point is that no child can choose their parents and seeing that no one can choose to whom they are born is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged

Your answer so far has been yes, you readily admit that is unfair but at the same time think it justified, but you still don’t seem to have a rational argument for doing so. (see next)
*
You say yes but have no rational argument for doing so.

Yes I know that but what is your rational arguemet for doing so, given your views on individual responsibility?

*

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?

LOL 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.

*

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?

And I haven’t stated that there is one answer, I’m just pointing that your views seem flawed, and that you don’t seem able to address those flaws.

*

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

Then they should be easily to refute – as it is you don’t seem able to even address them let alone anything else.

*

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….

OH would you please, please stop playing dumb I know you are not dumb.
This isn’t about race it is about an argument, your argument, that any ideas however irrational or flawed should be seen as good, solid and valid.
And the implication that such ideas shouldn’t be criticised.
*
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.

It just seems to fit what’s happening – you do seem to be doing all you can to evade addressing the criticisms raised against your viewpoint.
*
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.

Do you really think that is going to work?

Are honestly trying to con me into believing you’ve got memory loss and that’s the only reason you can’t come up with any rational or reasonable arguments?

 

Your argument seems to be that solely through its own efforts an individual should be completely responsible for earning the advantages it receives in life.

But this seems to be totally undermined by your assertion that people are entitled to advantages that they never earned through individual effort.

There doesn’t seem to be a rational way to marry the two viewpoints.

*

 

The thread has grown so long I can't remember any question I have left unanswered. Rather than try to dig out what you feel I've left unanswered, simply restate the question and I'll try once again.

How have humans stopped being 'natural'? Simply because we have a greater understanding of the resources available and how to put them to use? Evolution is an unending process, and the choices we make in life of our own accord are what influences the evolutionary changes through natural selection as opposed to the choices made by others for us unnaturally, and often detrimentally.

 

Indie

Oh we’re back to that old trick you’ve tried it before for example in this very thread (page 9 post 88).
If you want to answer questions just go back and answer them and we can move on, as you’ve commented they’ve often been repeated, so they’re not hard to find.

 

Indie

This is just Social Darwinist dribble, please don’t say you’re one of those loons, I mean as a philosophy it’s as crazy Creationism.

In what way are the lives of modern human’s living in a modern state (such as say the US or UK) open to the forces of natural selection?

Not long ago you were singing the praises of scientific and technological advances but nearly every single one of has moved us further from the ‘natural’ and away from natural selection, as Darwin noted there is a vast difference between ‘civilised’ and ‘natural’.

Some have tried to use artificial means to bring about a ‘natural’ outcome work or have tried to use artificial criteria but all of these require subjective and therefore deeply un-natural methods that have nothing to do with evolution and a lot more to do with bias and prejudice.

For example there is the idea of eugenics (that there should be sterilization or execution of all those that are thought of as ‘inferior stock’ who ‘would’ or ‘should’ have died out in ‘nature’ but have survived because of ‘unnatural’ means (at least according to the subjective views of the eugenicist). Some of these ideas were in some way implemented in countries such as the US and Germany during their history.

But where do you stop? Medically vaccinations ward of illnesses that would kill many in ‘nature’ so do we stop that, in fact a lot of if not most medical treatments interfere with what might happen in ‘nature’, even minor cuts can go bad and kill if untreated.

*

Are you honestly putting forward the argument that the ‘ability to make good choices’ is a hereditary trait? If so could you please back that up with some rational evidence?

*

 

I simply accept that we should have to live with the choices we make, and not look to place blame on others for shortcomings in our individual lives.
Want or need something that's beyond your means? Just blame those who have the means. Many years ago I had an employee who was quite verbal in telling everyone above her "You owe me." That could be the Democrats (Lefts) mantra today. It's totally irrational to think that because someone has more than another he/she owes another or others that have less anything at all. No one is entitled to anything owned or possessed legally by another. Justitia is blindfolded for a very good reason. Emotions can and do make the determination of right and wrong difficult when emotions are allowed to prevail. Government should be without emotions, and that should be a right to be exercised by the people alone, and individually.

 

Indie

Can a baby make independent choices?

Your argument seems to be that solely through its own efforts an individual should be completely responsible for earning the advantages it receives in life.

But this seems to be totally undermined by your assertion that people are entitled to advantages that they never earned through individual effort.

There doesn’t seem to be a rational way to marry the two viewpoints.

You think a baby should be blamed for ‘its’ shortcoming in being born into disadvantage?

But you want a government that is entitled to take taxes so you are not opposed to the principle.

 

Obviously not, so why ask?

Expanding to take in life I assume we're not talking of babies at this point, but advantages are not necessarily earned, although they can be. I only say that each individual should assume responsibility for what they make of their own life.

Why would they not be entitled to make use of any advantages that are availed?

Why should one depend upon the other?

I'm not trying to affix blame, you are.

That's another topic entirely.

 

Indie

So you don’t believe that people should make it all their own way it is ok to receive unearned advantages.

Advantages don’t have to be earned.

So you are not against the principle of people receiving unearned advantage?

So why are you seemingly objecting to people receiving unearned advantages?

Is your objection just about disadvantaged people getting unearned advantages?

If so why?

But when they can’t it is ok to receive unearned advantages.

A child cannot assume responsibility for ‘making’ is own life, but if it has access to advantage by the time it does it is likely to be better equipped to fulfil its potential than if it didn’t.

So why are you seeming against some people receiving such advantages?

I think people should be entitled to make use of any advantages that are available to them, but I want to expand the number of people that have access to such advantages while you seem to want to drastically limit advantage and I’m wondering why?

*

But you want a government that is entitled to take taxes so you are not opposed to the principle.

Is it, I’m not so sure – your argument seems unequivocal “No one is entitled to anything owned or possessed legally by another”

And this is the basis for your opposition to assisting the disadvantaged – yet you do seem to think it is acceptable for a government to be entitled to raise taxes.

So your statement isn’t as solid as it first seems.

It seems to me that your opposition is more about the money being raised going to the disadvantaged to realise their potential and I’m wondering why.

 

People will make it all their own way with or without unearned advantages, which there is nothing wrong with having.

Of course not.

Not unless they are being provided by taking something from another.

I'm not, I'm just against taking something from someone without their consent to give to another. That's theft.

No. Read what I've posted above.

When they can't take responsibility for their own life? There are those who are physically and/or mentally handicapped who I feel should be cared for although I don't consider that to be providing them with any form of advantage in the same vein as we seem to be discussing.

A case for effort.

I'm not really against it, I'm only against government assuming that responsibility. If you or others wish to be charitable and provide what you consider to be advantages to those you or others consider to be disadvantaged, I think you should do so to the fullest extent you are able.

It would be much easier to respond if you would spell out exactly what you are calling advantage and disadvantage. I have to assume wealth is all you are referring to, and some people have it while others have less. Some people save while others live from paycheck to paycheck. I've had co-workers who earned exactly the same as I who remained in debt and continued to amass even greater debt, in one case filing bankruptcy twice.

I would prefer a government that collected no taxes at all, but there are some things we all expect of government so I accept some taxes to be necessary. We've gone way beyond what is or should be necessary.

That's correct.

Opposition to government deciding who is or is not disadvantaged.
I said so above that government must be able to collect "some" taxes.

Only if you try to twist my words around.

If those you refer to truly have some potential they are not disadvantaged unless they refuse to put their potential to use.

 

Indie

But advantage gives advantage and disadvantage can be disadvantaging a situation even you have called unfair.

Now if something is ‘unfair’ in a society that could be made fair or less unfair shouldn’t there be an attempt to make things fairer? You seem to be saying no and I’m wondering why?

No you are not.

You think the government has the right to take from someone without their consent to give to others. What you seem to be saying is that you specifically don’t want to give it to the disadvantaged, why?

Again how do you know if they have potential or not? Potential can be there but that doesn’t mean it is realised, it is just more likely to be realised if someone has advantages rather that been hampered by disadvantages.

 

Indie

You call it theft if taxes go toward helping the disadvantaged (but not if it goes to other things you want), however you claim this is not because the advantage that is given is unearned because you are not against unearned advantages.

So all you seem to be against is the disadvantaged being given these advantages so that they are more likely to realise their potential, so the idea seems aimed at limiting the disadvantaged potential?

You seem to be opposed to any move to improve your society or that the US should try and become a better place for all to live in.

You don’t seem to want a government for the people but a government for a few of the people.

But you don’t seem to have any logical, rational or reasonable argument for having these beliefs.

 

Many things can be seen as unfair, while not being unjust.

You seem to be intent on making it unfair for one to have something more than another and taking away from one to give to another as the "right" solution.

That's asinine. Where have I said that government has the right to take from someone without their consent to give to others? I don't want a government that tries to redefine right and wrong based upon producing a society of near equals.

Don't stutter.

With a little effort, perhaps luck will prevail and potential will be recognized.

 

Where have I? There is very little I look to government to provide, and that would be things that benefit all of society equally. The individuals who make up a society should not have rights taken away in order for government to try and assure that no one has an advantage over another.

Government eventually destroys the society.

It should be a government for all the people, without prejudice against any of the people.

Look up the words Freedom and Liberty, not free and liberal. And it's not that I don't have logical, rational, or reasonable arguments, it's simply the case that you refuse to accept them.

 

Majority usually rules. All the self-pity in the world won't change that. Boo-hoo, the majority took some of my earnings just to try and make a more peaceful society for citizens other than myself to live in. I'm gettin' my gun.

 

"Thought would destroy their paradise. No more; where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise'" - Thomas Gray 1742

 

Indie

What injustice is fair? I mean some injustices are hard if not impossible to fix or stop but where they can be shouldn’t fairness be sort?

I’m not saying that people cannot have more than others, I’m saying (among other things) is that a lot of human potential is being lost because of inequality, potential that could be realised through a better distribution of resources.

I know you are opposed to that but you haven’t yet seemed to put up any rational reason for the opposition.

I mean if something is ‘unfair’ in a society that could be made fair or less unfair shouldn’t there be an attempt to make things fairer?

You have stated that governments should have the right to demand taxes so that money can be given to others (for defence and the functioning of law and order). So you are not actually opposed to the ‘taking’ only the giving, so what you seem to be saying is that you specifically don’t want it being given to the disadvantaged and I’m wondering why?

I don’t think there will ever be a perfect society, but if something is ‘unfair’ in a society that could be made fair or less unfair shouldn’t there be an attempt to make thinks fairer?

That doesn’t answer the problem of advantage and disadvantage. 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. Because this can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure.

In which case outcomes can be unequal because of what you admit are unfair advantages and disadvantages.

I cannot accept, what I haven’t seen – can you actually point to where you’ve supposedly presented these rational and reasonable arguments?