Personality Cafe banner

61 - 68 of 68 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
I think the true nature of the universe, and the world, is much stranger than anything humans are currently able to perceive.

And that rights, as an inalienable thing that all human beings have, are very much a human concept.
You don't see this concept of 'rights' being illustrated in the natural world.

Therefore, they aren't real
They don't exist
Everyone is just making shit up
No one is owed anything

However, I also believe that we should strive to make the world the best possible place for every human living on it, and those with more resources or power have a moral, if not practical, duty to help.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #62
I think the true nature of the universe, and the world, is much stranger than anything humans are currently able to perceive.

And that rights, as an inalienable thing that all human beings have, are very much a human concept.
You don't see this concept of 'rights' being illustrated in the natural world.

Therefore, they aren't real
They don't exist
Everyone is just making shit up
No one is owed anything

However, I also believe that we should strive to make the world the best possible place for every human living on it, and those with more resources or power have a moral, if not practical, duty to help.

Fair points and seems to be the ongoing truth is this thread.

So in your last line there....
If one has a moral/practical duty to help.
At what level do we decide they need to be told to capitulate?
Assuming they are moral then need not be told. Yet that assumption is moot.
Indeed if one was moral in the first place it would never get the point that
they would be vastly superior in resources anyhow.


As an example. Within a family? Community? Country? World?

Also. What do they release their wealth too? Government(s) ?
Is it to be doled out be a lesser moral being then even they are? Who is the arbiter in this?

Lets not say democratically here ....as around 40% of the worlds population has
an IQ less than 100.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Fair points and seems to be the ongoing truth is this thread.

So in your last line there....
If one has a moral/practical duty to help.
At what level do we decide they need to be told to capitulate?
Assuming they are moral then need not be told. Yet that assumption is moot.
Indeed if one was moral in the first place it would never get the point that
they would be vastly superior in resources anyhow.


As an example. Within a family? Community? Country? World?

Also. What do they release their wealth too? Government(s) ?
Is it to be doled out be a lesser moral being then even they are? Who is the arbiter in this?

Lets not say democratically here ....as around 40% of the worlds population has
an IQ less than 100.
OOOOH you just said something


I can tell I'm going to like you, by the way :wink:

SO
Indeed if one was moral in the first place it would never get the point that
they would be vastly superior in resources anyhow.


This is a massively, massively uninformed statement.

(EDIT*, EXCUSE ME I CALLED YOU ON THAT STATEMENT WITHOUT GIVING ANY BACKING. I recommend watching this if you're curious about meritocracy.
AND apparently I need 15 posts to post links. Here, after the

/watch?v=

part just put

bTDGdKaMDhQ

Also a lovely one on universal income for the thing I said beneath this line

kl39KHS07Xc )

In fact, in life, luck has a very huge component to where you end up, and what you end up doing.
In fact, theres this whole meritocracy idea in the west (that you earn what you have, and therefore if you own something, you deserve it)
It was a useful ideology to get kings and nobles to give positions to qualified people, not just those born into nice families

But in the way it has developed now it leads to this idea that if you do the right things in life, you will be successful. Wildly so.

But that just isn't the case
I learned this the hard way with genetic chronic illness (mentioned in another thread)


I think resources should be global
In fact, I'm just waiting on countries to stop doing polarizing shit so we can move to mars together.


I can't say exactly who should control it, or what the system should be exactly.
I know universal income appeals strongly to me, as does socialized healthcare.
But I am definitely not educated enough on politics and policy implementation to offer anything useful here.

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about the IQ thing?
People are valuable to society for a variety of different reasons, even the low IQ people
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,271 Posts
This all makes sense. Its like I knew it when you wrote it but I
have problems putting into words. Thanks for that.

But that begs the question....how to get people in said groups
to understand this/see is/this as actual. So in the above case would/should justice
be chosen? By whom? Consensus? I get we need justice but do we then
set that justice on morality?
Justice can never progress by consensus, as the first one who can rectify the law is above in terms of understanding, hence cannot be immediately undersood, approved through the rational limits of all the others.

So the leverage to force the rationalization of mankind is never political or judicial. It is scientific. Social revolutions are always the result of new technological comfort, changing our priorities.

For example, people won't accept to all get the same income for the correct reasons (invaluability of work and presumption of citizenship) BEFORE they accept it for pratical reasons, such as the automatization of manual labor, communication, trade, and the depletion of natural resources to exploit, only leaving for jobs the creative ones which are incompatible with any social system that doesn't let people have the necessary time for research and inspiration. Only then, they'll rationalize retrospectively the correct motives and turn it into judicial progress.

Because the intellectual activity is in the labs, not in the court. Such activity produces a situation that is friendly to itself. The feedback. No matter how much we improve, the smartest will never have time to be in the parliament and the dumbest will never have time to figure out why they shouldn't. (probably we'll get over it, but this dynamic will be shifted at another level and exist in other forms)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #65 (Edited)
OOOOH you just said something
I universally say too much. I am working on it.

SO
Indeed if one was moral in the first place it would never get the point that
they would be vastly superior in resources anyhow.


This is a massively, massively uninformed statement.
Uniformed...maybe. I would call it basic more than that.
I may rephrase it a bit for correction. If one is a moral being they will not hoard at
the cost of others. Nope that's not right either .... they will not hoard at the expense
of others.

EDIT: I am wrong in this. I am leaning on the wrong post.
What I mean but did not articulate correctly is moral IQ. (if there is such a thing)
I don't want to edit out my original statement. It keeps me humble.


In fact, in life, luck has a very huge component to where you end up, and what you end up doing.
I disagree. According to most I had one of the unluckiest upbringings.
A lot of the people I know that were brought up alongside me have
committed suicide or are addicts. It is a choice. Can you run into bad luck?
Sure. So what are you going to do about that?
Most? Just quit and blame life. I blamed myself for not seeing it coming.
I learned from it and navigated around it the next time.

Blaming your station in life on external forces is a cop out.
Everyone is fucken broken. So fix it. Do the best with what you got.
Dont blame others. Dont blame. Its a bad way forward. It also steals
your ability to hold yourself responsible for the choices you make.

It is a tiny, tiny percentage of people who may blame others with
an iota of validity.

I learned this the hard way with genetic chronic illness (mentioned in another thread)
But that IS you. Exactly how you were meant to be. My youngest son is mentally ill (schizophrenia).
I allow no excuse for him to not achieve fulfillment. (Not implying you do that, at all) just saying that
If someone gets sick it sux. Its crappy but that is them. Now what to do about that? My wife
could spend the rest of her life on disability. She would never choose that. Even pushed into
it by her doctors. Nope. She aint having it. She lives with BP over 130 as normal. She
has a fake aorta. Yet she chooses to get up and be herself. Its her way. I respect the hell
out of that.

Excuses are just that. (again this is not an implication)




I think resources should be global
In fact, I'm just waiting on countries to stop doing polarizing shit so we can move to mars together.
Yep. They will be. In time. Assuming we can get there without destroying each other.
It is the transition that should be talked about. The results are inevitable.

I can't say exactly who should control it, or what the system should be exactly.
I know universal income appeals strongly to me, as does socialized healthcare.
But I am definitely not educated enough on politics and policy implementation to offer anything useful here.
The fact that you are not educated on it is probably a better indicator that
you should make those choices. Learn, if anything, what we have done, the history.
As to not repeat. Everything after that needs to be new.


I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about the IQ thing?
People are valuable to society for a variety of different reasons, even the low IQ people
2 sayings that pertain to my province can answer this question. Ontario..by the way.

Gas plant scandal. (Liberal Party)
Photo radar. (Conservative Party)

I have a million more but I wanted to choose the two largest backed offenders.

Both parties at different times won an election based
on that. One item. One thing. No one read anything other then stupid face value
non important issues.

Or how bout the wicked smart people who "I just vote liberal because thats what my mom/dad always did!"
Wowwwwwwwwwwwwww

The list goes on.

I believe that people of any IQ are worth something. Making choices for me is not
something I want half wits doing. Period. I am not even that smart myself.
Last time I was tested I got a 124 I believe. When I was a kid I was in 135 range.
(I blame the drugs)
: )
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,281 Posts
Discussion Starter #66
For example, people won't accept to all get the same income for the correct reasons (invaluability of work and presumption of citizenship) BEFORE they accept it for pratical reasons, such as the automatization of manual labor, communication, trade, and the depletion of natural resources to exploit, only leaving for jobs the creative ones which are incompatible with any social system that doesn't let people have the necessary time for research and inspiration. Only then, they'll rationalize retrospectively the correct motives and turn it into judicial progress.
This is interesting. I see this. This should have been clear to me.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
28 Posts
Definition that pertains to the usage I am speaking on:

right
/rīt/
noun
plural noun: rights

1.
that which is morally correct, just, or honorable.

Definition of right is.. different depending on the person. Unless we take those commandments and follow the natural way of existentialism. Rest is arguable.

2.
a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

This is any lawyers and business mans wet dream. Sooo much interpretability.

I would like to speak on the bold.

Certainly I am not above arguing/speaking on semantics and/or
the stated definition(s).

Right.

My real interest in this is the line....

Rights cannot be given, they may only be taken away.

Of course. But if the definition of those rights is erased SLOWLY over generations its like SLOWLY warming up a person who is a virgin. At a point they will start to forget their status and lower their panties. The essence of doing so properly, to take away rights, is via slow covert action. Unless its comfy for long term or exciting. That means, the action is justificable as youre actually gonna take care of that persons needs. read instincts.

What do you think? True? False? If false; who decides?

True. The round table decides how people shall react to that. And boy wont they beg for it when survival is at play. The survival of the body combined with the lack of knowledge of the nature of the afterlife is the source of all idiocy. That is my definition for the concept of human stupidity's infinitum.

Body. So many of us think we are it. Its a car. We, are the driver.
 
61 - 68 of 68 Posts
Top