Effort or Luck?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Balbus, May 28, 2010.

  1. zombiewolf

    zombiewolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    12
    The gong is the ultimate instrument. I dig it so much, practice has fallen off considerably for my other instruments...and I've got a cornet & piano project promised for christmas...eek!!! I gotta practice...
    well, back to the effort part...
    wish me luck.

    PS. ya can't just quit music...believe me I've tried :beatnik:
    ZW
     
  2. wa bluska wica

    wa bluska wica Pedestrian

    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    i consider quitting things as an art form in itself

    [john cage in practice]
     
  3. zombiewolf

    zombiewolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    12
    4+ hours of recorded computer fan.

    You couldn't quit if you wanted to...you have a disease.
    It calls to you, dunnit it. :beatnik:

    ZW
     
  4. wa bluska wica

    wa bluska wica Pedestrian

    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    2
    lol

    it screams to me
     
  5. zombiewolf

    zombiewolf Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,702
    Likes Received:
    12
  6. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Indie



    If you think that - you clearly haven’t been reading my posts.

    As I’ve pointed out, more that once, this is just an example of your very simplistic and irrational way of thinking. The flawed either/or mentality that seems to have led you into an absolutist way of thinking a belief in good or bad, worthy or unworthy, deserving and undeserving, responsible and irresponsible, that thinks there are those who make good choices and those that don’t.

    The problem is that all humans are a mixture of all these things, no one is an absolute.

    And we are all products of our experiences and environment, people change and their circumstances can change. Potential can be realised or whither, often due to circumstances beyond the control of the individual.



    And here is another example of your flawed mentality – You seem to think destiny is fixed that an outcome is the only outcome that could have been possible.

    You fail to question, you don’t ask why – why is this person an alcoholic why are they homeless, why haven’t they had a job - are you claiming they were always destined to be a jobless and homeless alcoholic and no other outcome was possible?

    The thing is that to me this shouldn’t have happened to me this outcome means society has already failed.

     
  7. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    I must say that it’s hard to debate with someone whose ideas are all based on the irrational desire to kill innocent people.

    The thought is never far away that the person I’m talking to has the exact same mentality as a fundamentalist suicide bomber. A fanatic whose simplistic belief is that the ends justify the means however repugnant and brutal the means may be.

    If you are a teenager, as I and others suspect, I hope someone close to you spots this warped mentality and gets you counselling. If you are an old man as you claim then I feel sorry for you but hope that you haven’t polluted too many others with your childish and irrational ideas.

    But I must say you are fascinating – you hold beliefs that you are unable to defend in any shape or form yet you still clutch onto them with an unquestioning tenacity that is intriguing, it is a privilege to get an insight into such an implacable mind.
     
  8. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    But I have, and I was just responding to some of your words in the same fashion that you have often responded to my own.

    You appear to claim any views contrary to your own as simplistic, irrational, or flawed. Is it not absolutist to think that all persons are good, worthy, deserving, and responsible? I tend to try and look at each case individually.

    Most humans are a mixture of all those things, but I feel there are some exceptions that could easily be identified as absolute in one or more areas.

    Isn't that just life as it should be?

    Obviously you haven't been reading me. I think most anyone can achieve an outcome they desire or at least approaching what they desire through their own efforts, and by setting reasonable goals.

    Does government, or you ask such questions?

    Some failure is natural, and trying to eliminate all failure eventually ends up eliminating all success leading to total failure. You need to learn to accept some failure as necessary and natural. You seem to look at those who are successful and well to do as the equivalent of a life support system for those who are unsuccessful and poor, and look at government as the technicians who maintain and operate the life support system.
     
  9. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    I've never killed anyone who wasn't trying to kill me.

    Simply let it be known that I am neither a Marxist or a Socialist, and obviously not in any way, shape, or form suicidal. I am just a survivalist.

    You're making life tough enough for yourself in the coming future, so I'll just say I have sympathy for you and others who think similarly.

    I am free, therefore I am. I guess you might call us "gridlocked" on the form of government we will accept.
     
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    indie

    This reply (which doesn’t answer anything by the way) is getting boring from repetition.

    I’ve explained - often at some length, why I find your arguments simplistic, irrational, and flawed what I’m pointing out is that you seem unable to address these criticisms, you’ve been unable to do so for some 300 pages so I think we can say by now that you can’t address them.

    It seems very difficult for you to think in anything but absolutist terms, and because you think that way you think everyone else thinks that way (you seem unable to deal with complexity), so I must have an absolutist mentality because you have.

    Another of your stock replies – already covered many times now, you can’t judge somebody’s potential.

    *

    The problem is that all humans are a mixture of all these things, no one is an absolute.

    How, by whom and by what criteria, I’ve asked you before and you don’t seem able to say.

    You ‘feel’ you can tell absolutely who is worthy and who not – so please do so.

    *

    And we are all products of our experiences and environment, people change and their circumstances can change. Potential can be realised or whither, often due to circumstances beyond the control of the individual

    But as pointed out some due to social advantages they haven’t earned are more likely to realise their potential while others who through no fault of their own are disadvantaged are more likely to see their potential wither.

    You say this is because ‘life is unfair’ and ‘shit happens’ but that – as I’ve explained - isn’t a rational argument.
     
  11. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Indie
    And here is another example of your flawed mentality – You seem to think destiny is fixed that an outcome is the only outcome that could have been possible.

    I have read you and yes you say that but that doesn’t stop you from thinking that destiny is fixed and that an outcome is the only outcome that could have been possible.

    Also you have already admitted that those born into advantage have an unfair advantage (its just that you think ‘life is unfair’).

    The greatest effect on a person’s life is where and to whom they are born. This can give someone advantages or disadvantages that can affect their whole lives and their possibility of having success or failure, and long before they have the independence to take certain actions themselves.

    *

    You fail to question, you don’t ask why – why is this person an alcoholic why are they homeless, why haven’t they had a job - are you claiming they were always destined to be a jobless and homeless alcoholic and no other outcome was possible?

    I think everyone should ponder such questions, how can we judge if we don’t?

    You seem to judge the homeless alcoholic as ‘unworthy’ without wondering.

    *

    The thing is that to me this shouldn’t have happened to me this outcome means society has already failed.


    Again you think in absolutist terms – as I’ve pointed out to you already I don’t think ‘all failure’ can be eliminated, but I do understand (as anyone with experience of the real world does) that what others can see as a persons failures can be due to circumstances beyond that individuals ability to control.



    Again that either/or mentality reveals itself again, rich and poor, successful and unsuccessful, the good and the bad, the worthy and the unworthy, the deserving and the undeserving. The ones that should live and the ones, since they obviously can’t make a go of it that should…well should just die.
     
  12. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Indie

    I must say that it’s hard to debate with someone whose ideas are all based on the irrational desire to kill innocent people.


    But that doesn’t stop you from having an irrational ideological desire to kill innocent people.
    *
    The thought is never far away that the person I’m talking to has the exact same mentality as a fundamentalist suicide bomber. A fanatic whose simplistic belief is that the ends justify the means however repugnant and brutal the means may be.

    But that doesn’t mean you don’t have the exact same mentality as a fundamentalist suicide bomber. A fanatic whose simplistic belief is that the ends justify the means however repugnant and brutal the means may be.

    A ‘survivalist’ oh please don’t tell be you are one of those dweebs that dream of a Mad Max world because they want to play the Mel Gibson role for real, are you?

    Survivalist – “A person who believes in being prepared to survive a collapse of civilization and prepares for this eventuality”

    Well that would fit – someone that is planning for the death of millions of innocent people is not far from someone that desires the catastrophe to happen (and the death of all those people) I mean it would be a bit of a waste of a life and all that planning if it didn’t happen.
     
  13. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    Indie



    Yes our views are different

    The thing is that your views seem to be based on a desire to kill innocent people, while mine are based on the desire for societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life.

    Also while I seem able to defend my ideas – you do not.

    Yes our views are different but while my ideas seem reasonable and rational yours do not.

    Which begs the question - why do you continue to hold your views?

     
  14. TheMadcapSyd

    TheMadcapSyd Titanic's captain, yo!

    Messages:
    11,393
    Likes Received:
    18
    Guys at this point I think you've been going in a circle with the same conversation for months.
     
  15. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    I've never claimed any such thing, I've only claimed that what one has at birth, need not be the primary factor which results in what one accomplishes in life.

    You may have read, but obviously have not understood.

    Actually I have only admitted that those born into advantage have an advantage, not an unfair advantage. When I say that life is unfair, it has nothing to do with wealth, it is the fact that each human is a unique creation, with differing abilities, capabilities, appearance, size, strength, etc. These are things which cannot be redistributed in making life fair, therefore I claim that life is unfair, but we adapt to what we are given and through effort, and even luck we proceed.

    And you claim that it is "me" who "thinks destiny is fixed that an outcome is the only outcome that could have been possible."

    But I would question, if only I were in a position to do so. When a bureaucrat relieves me from asking such questions, all that is left for me and others to do is pay the costs.

    Government removes our ability to have much value in pondering such questions, by removing our capacity to act on any judgments we may decide.

    While you seem to judge the homeless alcoholic as 'worthy' without any wondering also.

    Society only fails when it takes on responsibility for each and every individual failure within the society. It makes no sense to try and eliminate individual failure when some individuals refuse to make use of any assistance given, so it becomes necessary to look at individuals on a case by case basis, giving assistance where it will produce positive results, and this is always best accomplished where the individual physically exists and is known.

    Why would you see it as absolutist when I promote the allowing of society to determine where, when, and how to provide assistance to those who need it on a case by case basis?

    We all die at some point. All those either/or words are useful in describing ones opinion of others when making an individual judgment of how to respond to the needs of another. Government should not relieve individuals of their freedom to make choices.
     
  16. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    There's quite a difference between killing someone, and allowing someone to die when you cannot help them, but with a population of 300,000,000 or more people there is an ample source of help to be provided to those who you claim to be innocent, which I prefer to call those who are in need of some form of help. I'm not sure what it is that there are innocent of as we weren't talking about crime.

    As I've said I only kill those who would kill me.

    And you brought up the term "repetitious"?

    Although I don't have any such plans, I do intend to survive no matter what happens in the future while I am still living.
     
  17. Individual

    Individual Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    34
    Life is not made fair by making it unfair for some in order to make it 'appear' fair to all. And I've not seen anything which I would call defending your ideas, other than an emotional appeal without any form of rational thinking to back it up. When we allow our emotions to run wild, we often begin to make decisions that only later are found to have been without regard for the consequences they have produced.
     
  18. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Indie

    The above replies seem to be more evasion, the repeating of arguments you have given that have already been show to be flawed or you are once more making unsubstantiated statements that you never seem able to back up with rational argument when asked to do so.

    Anyway it does make it hard to reply; please can you be more honest and more focused?

    I’ve tried to chose those bits that I hope might move us on.

    *


    I would really wish you would think rather than just snap.

    You are seeing outcome and judging on that outcome that the person is ‘unworthy’ – I’m being neutral I’m not claiming the person is or isn’t a good or bad person. I’m just saying that it is unlikely that this person was destined from birth to be a jobless, homeless drunk.

    You seem to think that since the person is at that moment a jobless, homeless drunk, then they must always have been destined to be jobless, homeless drunk and they could only ever be a jobless, homeless drunk.

    But what if the circumstances that made them into a jobless, homeless drunk were different?

    *



    This is the same stock reply as before (see above) and once more I point out you can’t judge somebody’s potential.

    So how do you judge what criteria do you use, I’ve asked you before and you don’t seem able to say?

    You’ve hinted that you ‘feel’ you can judge absolutely who is worthy and who not – so please do so.

    *


    But you don’t seem to be saying ‘cannot’ you seem to be implying shouldn’t help, when you admit they could be.


    You keep repeating over and over that you believe some people are worthy of help and some unworthy that there are the deserving and the undeserving (and you can tell which is which).

    That there are those that should live and others who since they obviously can’t make a go of it, who should…,well should just die.

    And hey as you say “We all die at some point” so wouldn’t it be better for everyone you seem to be saying if the unworthy died now rather than hanging around being a burden.

    Its not cannot help but don’t want to help.

    To me these people seem innocent but you seem to think they are guilty of the ‘crime’ of being unworthy.
     
  19. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672

    The life is unfair argument

    Is the answer ‘life is unfair’ a rational and reasonable answer to the question of social advantage and disadvantage?

    You claim it is the “most rational answer” because in nature there is advantage and disadvantage.

    The problem is humans don’t live naturally; we have manipulated, changed and tampered with the world so that we don’t live as other animals.

    We are not bound by the rules of natural selection.

    We don’t live in a tree or a hole in the ground we build houses, offices and huge high-rises of man made brick and steel.

    We don’t bark or grunt we have developed language and writing and communicate over man made telephones and optical cable or through satellites in space.

    We don’t defecate where we stand we have sanitation, systems of man made reservoirs, piping and pumps that take away and in many cases clean up that waste.

    We don’t wander open terrain grazing or hunting our food with tooth and nail, we have parcelled up land and call it property, we have thought up complex methods of exchange, from barter to paper money to virtual world of warcraft gold.

    And we don’t live in herds or packs where might is right, we live in complex societies, with constitutions and laws; we appoint leaders and judges and create political systems. A lot of political thought and political history has been involved in what should be allowed and what shouldn’t over what was just and unjust. Over time some societies have grown that have created constitutions and laws to manipulate, change and tamper societies to suite what they see as been a better and more just existence.

    Now it is possible to argue over whether these things are good or bad but I don’t think you can claim that humans are like “all other life forms that exist”.

    So the argument that social unfairness should remain because it is ‘natural’ doesn’t wash since societies can and have changed what some have claimed is ‘natural’ to alleviate unfairness.

    Now people can argue over what is fair and what isn’t but you have already acknowledge you think it unfair by saying ‘life is unfair’ in relation to it.

    What you seem to be saying is that you know it is unfair but you like it to be unfair, want that unfairness to continue and even desire to increase the level of unfairness.

    The question is why?

     
  20. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    indie


    The idea that social advantage is exactly the same as natural characteristics seems to be a major plank of your beliefs but as I’ve pointed out above it is deeply if not fundamentally flawed, and seemingly based on the discredited ideas of Social Darwinism.

    Your argument is that social advantage is ‘natural’ and therefore should be unhindered.

    But it isn’t natural and can be subject to social changes.

    What you are really saying is that you support such social advantage and are trying to justify it by calling it ‘natural’ even when you probably suspect or know it is not.

    The question is why are you doing that?

    Well the answer seem to be that you believe what you see as ‘unworthy people’ should die and have chosen to believe that social advantage is the indication of who should be deemed worthy or unworthy.

    How this can be justified in any reasonable and rational way I’ve yet to see.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice