online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: Internet dating, social networking sites and independent women
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Internet dating, social networking sites and independent women
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:22:50 AM
"Make yourself happy"


Pfft.. happiness comes when "IT" wants, not when "I" want. Frankly I couldn't care less what "women" may or may not want, or "men" for that matter. Even if I subscribed to such vulgar generalizations, it would still be no concern of mine, I am not "men".
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
 
The ghost in the machine...(a virtual universe?)
Posted: 8/30/2009 4:50:18 AM
These types of discussions can get quite blurry as there is no essential definition of what "God" actually means. However I will agree to the definition given by the op for the sake of discourse.



If we ever managed to create a 'virtual' universe with conscious inhabitants.... Would we be allowed to call ourselves Gods when refering to it?... If such a thing took place, we humans would have met the criteria to adopt that name?


If we are to view the computer that is "generating" said universe as an extension of ourselves, then I would say yes, to the extent that we "made the universe and have an effect on all things"in that universe. If not, then I would agree with Vanaheim, in that we would be more like Demi-Gods. Of course this only applies to "their" universe and not our own, so I do not feel it would be arrogant to make such a claim.


Assuming they could be given sentience and human-like intelligence, why should they be treated any differently than flesh and blood humans?


Even if they were to have "human like" consiousness, I'm not convinced that they would necessarily have a "human like" morality. Even if we were to treat them as "human", and bestow them with what WE considered to be a perfect "universe", there is no guarantee that THEY would view it as such. In fact I'm quite sure that they would still see "evil" and "imperfection" inherent in their world.


I suppose in any such event we might call ourselves gods, but the most important thing is to realize that godlike power implies a godlike moral obligation on the part of the creator to the creation.


I think it is a mistake to conflate "human"morality with "god" morality.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Today's Economy- Nietzsche?
Posted: 8/30/2009 3:02:46 AM

Is society better when we care for each other and provide items such as Stimulus packages , or as a Nietzsche states in BGaE, Chapter 2, 44 above, do we need to increase the "Will to Life" to jog the present economy.


To try and transpose Nietzsche's writings into some kind of economic justification is to misappropriate him in a terrible way. He isn't writing for the "majority", or society in general, one need only look to his disdain for "the market", or his deliberate esotericism, which he refers to in Beyond Good and Evil, to understand this. His philosophy is deeply personal, he really doesn't care at all how "the herd" conduct their economic affairs, such concerns are beneath him.

Do you really believe he was PROMOTING violence, slavery, and "danger in the street", as things that should be imposed on others so that they might be greater for it? This is all about what the "higher" person imposes on HIMSELF!!. Would Hilary have conquered Everest if he had sought to avoid suffering at all cost, or felt pity for himself in the face of great hardship? How many great things would the world be without if people had not "enslaved themselves" to a particular endeavour? A fear of danger means a fear of risk, yet risk is a fundamental condition of life, and cannot be avoided. Should one then live in constant fear?

It seems that you have completely missed the point of Nietzsche's philosophy.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 73 (view)
 
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged
Posted: 8/16/2009 12:29:08 PM

On the litte bourguesie do you know which work and page that would be found on?


It's a recurring theme thoroughout his works, although not as much in The Capital if I recall correctly. It's actually given me some impuetus to review myself. What he is referring to of course is the small businessman, who works alongside his employees. If I were to view "classes" in this way, I would tend to include managers of larger businesses in my definition as well, as they perform very similar roles. Whilst he is very sympathetic to them, and sees them as the most exploited of all people to a large extent, he also sees then as deluded, or "sucked in" by notions that they are just like the bourguesie, when it is obvious that they are really more like the proletariat. You can imagine also that he sees the "concetration of capital" represented by large companies playing as a destructive force on the small business. He also commits an error in that he sees this to represent the death of the small business, however to be fair to him there were no anti-trust/competition laws around at his time, and even now that we have them, cartels and price-fixing are very hard to prosecute.

My main problem with Marx, other than the ludicrous notion that we can do away with the division of labour, is that he is in fact perpetuating ideas of "class" that I find quite vulgar. His motivation seems to be to secure more "goods" for the lower classes, and although we might see a "justice" in this aim, particularly when we consider the time when he was writing his work, this type of world view that is actually harmful, as I see it.

Regarding your comment on the Wright brothers, I feel it is quite redundant that they were businessmen, their "instinct for business" did not play any part whatsoever in the "invention" itself. This was an invention that was being worked on by many people around the world, almost all of whom were motivated only by the want to create something great. I'm sure if we could ask the Wright brothers today what they felt was the best aspect of inventing the aeroplane, they would most definitely NOT say it was the prize money. The most striking example of the markets tendency towards mediocrity can be found in anything of an artistic nature. Where ever there is a film or a piece of music designed for consumption by the masses, there you will find something decidedly "average". All this of course has nothing to do with Rand, I may get around to that later. Also,I wouldn't mind hearing your views on unions, as you have "been on both sides" so to speak. I have split feelings on them myself, although if I had to make a choice I would say that I am pro union.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged
Posted: 8/15/2009 3:26:53 PM
On economics he got most of it wrong. He should've started with Smith, Russell, Locke, Hobbs and built from there.


I find this interesting, particularly as you mention Smith, as Marx did indeed see himself as building on Smiths work. I feel that he is often misunderstood to a large degree. It's been a while since I have read The Capital, however I certainly remember him stating, quite near the start, when he is attempting to explain theory on exchange/use value, that whilst the labour of a doctor should be considered as worth more than an unskilled labourer, this is only because the doctor has expended more "labour power" during the course of his study. What he was saying was that all exchange value can be seen as an expression of labour, and reduced to a single "labour unit" if you will.


On Enrepreneurs, I can think of some bicyle repairmen that gave us an the airplane.
Bell the telephone.
Edison, light bulbs, movies etc.
Tesla, the modern dynamo.
Kraft processed cheese.
IBM the personal computer.
Any airconditioner company.
Television.
Radio.
The list goes on.


Processed cheese I'll give you, it's hardly what one would consider "great" though is it? PC? I think you actually do have a point there, I'm fairly sure that profit motive would have played a part, however the "inventors" themselves I'm sure were not motivated by monetary profit. As for all the others, I completely disagree. These inventions came about through creative impulse and a passion for inquiry, not any vulgar quest for cash or notion of free market "competition". Certainly they were seized upon and exploited by "entrepreneurial spirit" (which is to a certain extent, a predatory one), however that in itself had nothing to do with the "creation" of these things. The promotion of such an idea does, in my opinion, contribute to many of societies ills. It is creativity and knowledge which is the source of great things. Profit motive has nothing to do with it, although I should acknowledge that Edison was also a businessman.


What stops me from going to the Gultch, is my need to provide for my family. Labor strikes are hard on everyone. Yet, if pushed too hard I just might orgainze a general work stoppage. The internet is a powerful tool.


Please, like that's ever going to happen. Personally, working 12-16 hours a day, 6 days a week sounds like a most inferior type of life. In this day and age I can see no reason why someone should have to work that many hours simply to support a family.Do you run your own business? If so, what are your thoughts on Marx's opinion of the "petite-bourguesie"?

Also, it's probably quite petty, but the ideas of Marx I mentioned in the earlier post were in the "Communist Manifesto", which I believe was written in 1848.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 42 (view)
 
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged
Posted: 8/15/2009 1:31:09 PM
I really shouldn't get involved in this discussion, but I just can't help myself. I feel that you can tell something about a person by the nature of their propositions, for example-


<div class="quote">Then it makes more sense to NOT be a producer and instead take the handouts.

Really? If it makes more sense, why don't you do that then? This tells me that you value nothing so much as idleness and "goods". What kind of "producer" are you? One that thinks it "makes more sense" to produce nothing, as long as you still get payed?

Of Marx, if you can show me where he states that everyones labour has the same value, I would be grateful. This "satan" you speak of was advocating equal rights for women, and an end to child exploition at a time when your more "enlightend" country was embracing slavery. I'ld be interested to hear your objections to his theory in regard to exchange value, I'm sure you must have quite a few. Personally I think he was an extremely insightful economist, and that The Capital is surely one of the most important books on economics ever written. I have plenty of objections to his work, however he gives us many valid insights.

Entrepreneurs? What have they ever given us, that wasn't mediocre? When looking at the great people of history, of which their are legion, how many were businessmen, or entrepreneurs? They aim at mediocrity, and that's what they deliver. Their interest lies in all that is average, as that is where the greatest profit is to be made.The only thing about them that isn't average, if your opinions are anything to go by, is their own sense of self importence. Why don't you all go to "The Gulch"? What's stopping you? Why is it that we have never seen such an event, yet labour strikes have been known to be a powerful bargining tool? I would also appreciate an answer to this question.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 123 (view)
 
Uebermensch vs Last Man
Posted: 8/14/2009 1:46:05 AM

....philosophy to which I was henceforth blind



Behold!! The antithesis of grammar!! Eloquence has a habit of deserting me in the wee small hours. I shall continue to type in order that my post will contain sufficient verbosity. Concise statements may not be posted.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 121 (view)
 
Uebermensch vs Last Man
Posted: 8/13/2009 11:33:33 AM
Great thread, particularly the contributions of Bosox and Kirk, who has opened up new vistas regarding Nietzsche's philosophy to which I was henceforth blind. I had always viewed "eternal recurrence" as little more than a useful dogma, in the sense that when combined with the concepts of "overman" and "will to power", provided a "trinity" if you like, one that would enable Nietzsche to overcome nihilism and live life to the fullest extent. The ontological importance had never really occured to me, but then again I have really only read a small fraction of his work.


I find it interesting that there exist men of such great intellect as to be able to make a real contribution to the human condition (as many do), yet are in themselves "lesser men" in that they seem to lack compassion and prefer firing elastics from atop the ivory tower, to truly educating people. It seems almost comical that some of those who might unconsciously consider themselves akin to an Übermensch assert otherwise by their behaviour in demonstrating a lack of compassion.


I think some clarification needs to be made in regard to "master" and "slave" morality. "Master" morality stems from within, you are the "master" of it so to speak. Whatever enriches your life is "good", however YOU are the arbiter of what enriches your life and what doesn't, not some external source. The intent is always the same, to do what you feel is good for YOU. It is not a "system" which "outlaws" certain actions while promoting others, it is you that is the "creator of values". If you subscribe to a system that is not of your making, you are by necessity a "slave", as you are following the will of an external source. "Master" morality in no way PROHIBITS kindness, or anything else in particular, other than what you decide for yourself.

From Beyond Good and Evil -


the noble man also helps the
unfortunate, but not--or scarcely--out of pity, but rather from
an impulse generated by the super-abundance of power.


Nietzsche views sympathy as an ultimately destructive force. It takes suffering, and then doubles it. He acknowledges that it is a part of being human to feel sympathy, however it is more like a sickness that spreads suffering, and paralyses to a certain extent. As an example, lets look at Mother Theresa, who was without doubt an individual who accomplished great things. It wasn't her "sympathy" that improved the lives of so many people, it was her strength of character and determination. I am overlooking the fact that she obviously subscribed to a "slave" morality, as I am dealing solely with the notion of sympathy in this example.

Further to this, he sees something condesending in the idea of pity, and I am inclined to agree with him. He describes "pity" as being a form of contempt for whoever is the object of it, the English word "pity" stems from the word "pious". He also points out that if we are to "love our nieghbors as ourselves", we would not pity them, as there is nothing so loathesome as self pity.

I could go on, but it's late.
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Whose rules are we living by ?
Posted: 8/2/2009 12:11:45 AM

Apparently we should all live by Jan's rules? Which would pander nicely to his own intellectual narcissism. It would seem some people spend way too much time reading and existing inside their own mind space that they fail to actually experience this life and develop their own ethical and moral viewpoints.


Hmmmm...., and your position regarding the OP would be? Oh, thats right, you're talking cr@p. Sorry, as you were.
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Whose rules are we living by ?
Posted: 8/1/2009 10:36:34 PM
The ideas here are referenced well, the intent seems to throw the point of view out there and see if it floats.


Why should I pay respect to references? Name calling? I am correct in my name calling! It is obvious that the position expressed is that of the OP, yet we see this person hiding behind references? My thoughts are influenced by countless people, shall I cite these people in order that my thoughts will be considered valid?

Andrew's pathetic account of the history of "Indivdualism" has been successfully destroyed. He pretty much ignores the most influential people IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND, with his revisionist bulls#t. Which reminds me.......


Oh dear God ... not the 'is the chair still there when you leave the room ?' thread . Did I not suffer enough in Philosophy One and now it comes back to haunt me in POF ? As far as it affected me , yes, the chair may not have been there but as far as it might affect someone wanting to sit down in the room I left , well , of course it would affect them ??????? And now to the topic de jour ..... We are , and cannot for the total good of the majority , live life overall by our own rules . We in private where it will not impinge on others live our lives as hedonistically or as quirkily as we like . But even living life as we want to privately carries a little sting ...... what we do in private in pleasing ourselves must not hurt others wilfully . I didn't do Philosophy Two so that's it for me .


Well why don't you just fcuk off then?
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 67 (view)
 
Nietsche: Morality devoid of Divinity. (A thinking man's thread)
Posted: 8/1/2009 8:52:18 PM
60to70, why is Niechsze's suffering so importent to you?Why can you not just read his work and either accept or reject? This is what he would have wanted. His suffering was his own, to suffer on his part is theft, and he would despise you for it.
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Insight on this situation?
Posted: 8/1/2009 3:44:54 PM
This is fantastic. The story you have told had me laughing from start to finish, and if this is some sort of creative piece, it is EXTREMELY well done. Testament to that is the fact that I am not quite sure if it is or not

If it is not, dude, wake up.
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Is it Time to Scrap Public Education?
Posted: 8/1/2009 3:22:22 PM
I get the feeling that LeCutter is one of the more inferior type of person. That is, one who would view the aquisition of knowlege as useful only insofar as it may help bring relatively small amounts of matter closer to him. Great people have NEVER been found in this type.

That children who did not ask to be born should be burdened with ignorance is his wont, so that they may be easier to expoit as adults. Mankind will not progress with this vulgar and careless ethic, such people should be shunned.
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Whose rules are we living by ?
Posted: 8/1/2009 1:34:13 PM
To the OP I must say, what an utter fraud you are! Are the opinions presented not your own? Does the source of an idea lend any legitimacy to it? Can you not make your own propositions?

Your friend Andrew points out some problems with the philosophy of Decartes. Good for him!! Why does he not mention the influence of Cartesian Geometry, which presented a HUGE leap forward in Western thought, or his "apriori" proof for the existence of God, which is ludicrous? What sort of "objective" truth is your friend looking for?

In your explanation, where are Hobbes, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, to name but a few, these are now to be considered as nothing because of the feeble ramblings of Andrew Fellows? FFS! He doesn't even MENTION Kant?!?

Your notion of "objective good" is the problem. You promote one ideal for ALL people, which is in itself a dictatorship. Consumerism has tried to define itself as meaningful, it promotes one ideal for all people, you are very much alike. This country runs not at all on individualism, but rather, like all western countries, on the ideal that more wealth is good in ALL cases. This is inevitable in a capitalist culture, however we have yet to find a more useful system. I think it was Rockefellar who said " I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers", it may have been Ford, I'm not quite sure. One may well extrapolate from this statment, that he doesn't want his workers to think, because if they did, they might well decide that they already have enough stuff, and start enjoying it. Best to keep their "morality" on track.

In short, when you or your mate Jung have veiwed the world through an "objective perspective", which is of course absurd, you may feel free to lecture on the "sins" of man. Until that time comes, try not to spill your poisonous doctrine on too many idiots who may be willing to believe it.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 14 (view)
 
The economy and the rest of us
Posted: 4/29/2009 2:37:44 PM
"The elephant in the room" is just a figure of speech. It refers to the glaring issue that everyone overlooks, for the sake of comfort.

What is the value of a diamond? When it is lying in the ground it has no exchange value at all, it is the labour it takes to dig it out that creates value. Thus it is with all exchange value. The exchange value of a commodity is entirely dependent on the labour that produces it, this cannot be disputed.

Let us consider a factory. It takes in raw product of value = X, and adds to it through means of labour, adds value = Y. Hence we have a total value of X+Y. However there is also another value that must be added, it is called "profit", or Z.

Consider that all wages, machinery, land, transport, in fact all TRUE values have already been expressed in the equation X+Y. What is Z?

Z is in fact an imaginary value, or should I say a "borrowed" value. Z must come from somewhere, so in order to create this value, it must create new markets. One way of doing this is to give people stupid amounts of credit, which is in itself a market.

I should point out that this is no "conspiracy", it is just inevitable. Marx is completely misunderstood. The math isn't that hard, it all adds up. NO ONE EVER has provided a satisfactory answer to Marx's criticisms, so he is labeled as an evil dictator who wants to take your stuff. I've read Adam Smith, he was incredibly naive, and frankly he was a fool next to Karl.

PAHH!!! I could carry on about Keynes and Friedman and Wanniski and such, however I'm thirsty, and I would like some of the "Ayn Rand " crowd to turn up so I can make them look stupid.

In short, READ MARX!!
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 37 (view)
 
I have never been called delusional for my philosophy or weltanschauung. You?
Posted: 4/29/2009 1:35:42 PM

Scientific method = process of properly validating/invalidating


Validate what exactly? Let me guess, "The effect of things, upon other things".

What has been validated here? The thing? or the other thing?
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 72 (view)
 
abortion
Posted: 4/29/2009 11:37:51 AM
Greg, I would suggest that you read up on some ethics (Kant, Aquinas, etc), and check out the ethics section of bma.co.uk. I know you're a smart guy, so you may be able to back up your position (which is in fact no position), after looking at this information.

As for my own view, medical science assures me that neurons do not start functioning until the third trimester, in which case abortion is illegal. This seems to me to be the most reasonable solution.

This all really comes down to one question, "When does a person start to live?". Note I say "live" not "exist", there is a difference of course.
When a person suffers an early miscarriage, the "form" of the child, that is to say, the "intellectual picture", or "possibility" of the child, has already been developed, even though the child of itself does not exist. Of course, when this possibility is taken away, it causes great distress. However the child of itself never exsisted, it was just a "form", a "possibility". It had existence only in the mind of the parents, the physical aspect of tissue and blood was nothing more than that.

It is folly to assume that these factors have not been considered, making laws to deal with these issues must be challenging to say the least. There are however some very fine minds who have considered them (behind the scenes that is).
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 35 (view)
 
I have never been called delusional for my philosophy or weltanschauung. You?
Posted: 4/29/2009 10:14:08 AM
For myself, all metaphysical study is futile. Wittgenstein's "Tractatus.." basically renders all metaphysics obsolete as far as I am concerned. It is truly an astounding read.

Reality is a representation, a representaion cannot represent itself; hence any study of the nature of reality is futile, as there is representation of it to study.

However, far from "solving all philosophical problems" as he claims at the start of the book, he merely solves all metaphysical problems, by completely destroying metaphysics. That is in itself brilliant.

But there is a part of me that feels sorry for dear Bertrand, who was a genius in his own right, yet went to the grave knowing that his metaphysical studies were a waste of time.

Bertrand still gave us plenty anyway. His political ideas are in my opinion quite brilliant, and he would have forgotten more mathematics than I will ever know. He also did his bit to get people THINKING!!. Radio shows, newspapers, etc, there seems to be noone like that now.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 12 (view)
 
The economy and the rest of us
Posted: 4/29/2009 9:21:34 AM
Has anyone here even read Marx? You know, that man who was evil personified, who in 1845 advocated an end to child labour, slavery, and equal rights for women? Of course not. Why should you? He was EVIL!!

Now could you please explain this elephant in the room, the one called "Profit". Profit is of course a value, however you cannot just "think" value into existence. It must come from somewhere, so from where does this value come? After all other values in a commodity have been accounted for, "profit" is then placed on top of it, from where?

It must of course be borrowed, either from future enterprises, or from current populace. The "classical economists" cannot answer this, one time in a thousand, so it is put aside.

"Economic Rationalists", are now "Traditionalists", and thus reverse their argument. What an absolute fraud they are. When Keynes said of Wanniski's vision "supply will create it's own demand." he was laughed at, and told he should give way to the new understanding.

Yet old man Keynes was right, wasn't he? We know now that this is exactly what happened. For all of this, the elephant still remains, asking the same question. If any of the Reganite free market imbeciles can answer this question to a satisfactory standard, I shall of course cede, and they will no doubt be awarded a Nobel Prize, as no one else has ever done so.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 178 (view)
 
Capitalism and Democracy are not synonymous
Posted: 4/29/2009 5:42:04 AM
Rand on Nietzsche,


<div class="quote">Nietzsche’s rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. <div class="quote">

What utter cr@p. Nietzsche dispenses with altruism altogether, it does not exist.

Rand rails against Kant's notion of "duty", not by discounting it, but by redefining it. She cannot see that "self-interest" may in fact extend beyond the "self". There is no way that Rand was influenced in any great way by Nietzsche, the name of her ludicrous philosophy should be evidence enough.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 26 (view)
 
If that's good, then what's evil?
Posted: 4/8/2009 11:07:10 AM
Morality is a man made ideal. The problem of evil only presents a problem to the theist if they commit to some kind of "God given" morality. This is, I admit, something that a lot of them do. Nothing is "good" or "evil" in and of itself. Things just happen, and we PERCEIVE them as being "good" or "evil", depending on whether these things are life preserving and vital, or life destroying and harmful. A lot of people on this thread should really read some Nietzsche.

If God does exist, its morality would be unknowable to us. This is, I feel, the main message in the book of Job. Towards the end of the story, when Job is being addressed by God, he is basically told that he knows nothing of Gods morality (it's been a long time since I have read Job, but that is how I recall it). Also the Bible contains other examples, "Gods ways are not your ways", etc.

The idea of an "objective" morality, fails on a number of levels. It fails to explain why so many of us differ on whether or not a particular occurrence was "good" or "evil", or how "evil" can exist in the first place. Religious people and theists are not alone in committing this mistake, and I am extremely suspicious of any philosophy that tries to tell me that something is "objectively" good, or right. I am not some weak minded slave that you can force your values upon. If my values coincide with others, that's great, however I decide for myself what is "good" and "evil" is.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 54 (view)
 
would you date a woman/man who is unemployed!
Posted: 4/8/2009 8:38:35 AM
Firstly, to the OP, I understand that you have copped a large amount of criticism, and it is not my intention to do likewise here. However, I will say that the subtext of your post is quite clear, and surely you can see why people would interpret it the way they have. For example, the title of the thread is "would you date a woman/man who is unemployed", you then go on to say,


..... unemployed and spends half their time sitting on their ass,chatting online and on the dating sites not even thinking about finding a decent job and put their profile up lying about their employment status and not been productive?


Really, did you honestly think that this would be taken any other way? How can you then turn around and say, in effect, "I wasn't having a go at people who are unemployed" and expect to be taken seriously? Why even mention the term "unemployed" if this is the case? When you do this, you are being incredibly inconsistent. If you have a view concerning people who are unemployed, that is one thing. If you have a view concerning people who are "unproductive" and "lazy", that is something else. In your original post, you have obviously conflated the two, and hence you have provoked a reaction.

Actually, as an aside, I should sincerely like to know what is meant by "productive" and "unproductive", produce what exactly?

Secondly, I must agree with Naamah that the term "unaustralian" is pretty much pointless. It is generally used when people cannot think of anything wrong with an idea or statement, other than they themselves do not agree with it. It is interesting to note that the "un-insert nationality here" is only part of the common vernacular in one other country. I've never heard of something being "un-French" or "un-Welsh".

Thirdly, it is of course entirely reasonable to be concerned with how tax dollars are spent. On the question of welfare however, to say that "I think welfare is alright, but only if it goes to those who truly entitled to it", is akin to saying "I think criminals should be punished, but only if they are guilty". Unfortunately, just as there will be some people who are wrongly convicted, there will also be some who receive welfare that should not be entitled. Just as there are no doubt some who should be entitled, but do not receive it.

Finally, Belsen was a Gas, the version with Ronnie Biggs on vocals, is one of the coolest songs ever heard by the ears of man.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 70 (view)
 
Capitalism and Democracy are not synonymous
Posted: 4/8/2009 6:23:36 AM
For me one of the main points of The Republic, was that there are many things in a society that can be considered "unjust", however we have to accept them as the alternative is completely ludicrous. Consider the solution given for nepotism.

To put this in a modern context, let us consider the police force. I myself have never been arrested and am quite happy to obey the law. Also I have been fortunate in that I have never had to call on the police for anything. Is it just then that the government should "initiate force" against me, to provide for a service that I have hitherto had no use for, and that I cannot foresee needing at all? Is it just that I should pay for the crimes and needs of others? What is the alternative? That's probably not the best example, but I think it is sufficient to illustrate my point.

As to equality, it is my belief that there is no way it can exist in ANY system. Even in The Republic, the Guardian was obviously considered to be superior to and "above" the Auxiliary, who was in turn considered higher than the Worker. This was indeed a "class system". In the Soviet Union, the "proletariat" was actually dived into separate classes, those who agreed with the ruling class (true proletarians), and those who did not (bourgeoisie puppets). One of these was obviously considered to be superior to the other.

What proponents of "equality" fail to take into account, is that there is not one ideal suitable for all people. Each person has a best, or a worst, and it is my opinion that a superior system is one that promotes a persons best. Capitalism has, thus far, proven itself to be the economic system most conducive to promoting a persons "best", although it is by no means perfect in this regard. As it cannot stay static (it is the nature of profit), it continually promotes one ideal of what a persons "best" actually is (i.e owning and consuming lots of stuff). In this way, predatory instincts are placed on a par with creative instincts, if not higher, as one is just as effective as the other for the obtaining of said "stuff".

Democracy is considered as being synonymous with capitalism because they both represent the idea that you can choose for yourself, that you have some control over your own life. Don't like the service your government provides? Take your business (vote) elsewhere. This idea is incredibly import to people, and whether or not there is any truth to it, doesn't seem to matter.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 750 (view)
 
Does God exist?
Posted: 3/29/2009 10:30:13 PM
JustDukky, I understand your angst at people who try to change your values, however you must understand that you are also coming from an arbitrary premise. Logic, like math, only works if you have a firm definition to start with. You have made your "base". Theists have made their "base". You both fail to give a meaningful "base" to existence.

P.S thanks for pointing out my grammatical error. Boooo!!
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 53 (view)
 
bikie gangs in aust
Posted: 3/29/2009 10:14:10 PM
I fail to see how a "War on Bikers" can actually operate. They are citizens, and can wear whatever clothes they wish, transport themselves how they wish, and are free to live their own lives, if they agree not to break the law.
This "War on Bikers" is just a stunt to make the current N.S.W govt. look decisive.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 156 (view)
 
Do men wank?
Posted: 3/29/2009 9:46:56 PM
OP, seriously, leave this one alone. If you confront your son about wanking, that's it, he will never look at you the same way again. If he is wanking in public? Yes, you may confront him then. Is his wanking interfering with his homework? NO!!! Leave him alone.

Also, whatever you do, don't tell him that you asked for advice about his "wanking problem" on the internet. My mum tried that a couple of months ago, we havn't spoken since.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 222 (view)
 
Is there a difference between American and Australian Women
Posted: 3/29/2009 9:31:29 PM
To the OP, It is my experience, that Australian females are , in general, far better looking. Why do you people eat so much, I mean, really. However, it is true that the American women is far more "open minded", with regards to certain acts which you may, or may not find perverse.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Ladettes - Are the girls going feral?
Posted: 3/29/2009 9:22:10 PM
Hmmm, the blurring of sexes seems to be on the increase. I notice that there seems to be a greater prevalence of traditional boys names (Shaun, Kemp, Troy, etc) being assigned to girls.

With this, and the modern tendency of men to shave in certain areas where they may not usually shave (I myself, only shave in one such area), the question begs, " Who is responsible?".

Is the perceived "feminisation" of men really just an abstract result of rapidly evolving female empowerment, that has seen her take on roles, and character traits, that were traditionally defined as "male"?. I most certainly hope so.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 743 (view)
 
Does God exist?
Posted: 3/29/2009 7:49:56 PM
Why oh why do people persist with the same unresolvable arguments? There is no logical resolution. Logic relies on a major premise, both theists and atheists choose their premise arbitrarily. Of course their is no logical resolve.

When we deal with beliefs that transcend what is knowable, it is best to have faith.

"what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence." - Ludwig Wittgenstein
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 254 (view)
 
Wisdom..what indeed is Wisdom?
Posted: 3/16/2009 6:10:54 PM
Pfftt. When I was ten yeas old, my father went blue and died in front of me. Does this give me wisdom?.
No one as of yet has shown what wisdom is. This is because wisdom is inexpressable. It is formless, and has no"being".
If you are happy, you have been wise. I shall say no more.
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/16/2009 5:16:30 PM
I believe Jesus was the greatest man to ever have lived. In trying to concieve of a world where this man did not exsist, I find myself lost. He was not the "Son of God".
He was a brilliant man , who created values. The most important man who ever lived, yet my values are greater than his.
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 456 (view)
 
Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 3/16/2009 3:49:51 PM
What a surprise. A great mind pushed off by the "Reagan Rabble". I would like to thank Kirk for giving me and my friends some food for thought. No doubt the last line will provoke some simpleton backlash, so I will say in advance, F#$@K YOU!!!.
Kirk has given a proposition, one that he himself does not subscribe to. However, for the sake of a dialectic, he puts it fourth.
I am a Reletivist. Yes, I am also specist, because I choose to do so.
I am also anti-dickist. See above.
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/16/2009 2:11:59 PM
Things just happen. There is no intrinsic "rightness" or "wrongness". These are ideals that help us overcome problems. In fact, all we have are these ideals, that is why they are special to us. I celebrate the deaths of my ancestors because it is important for ME to do so.
As for morals and faith, pah!!! I am a creator of values. What is good for me is MY good!!!!
But why is it taken for granted that what is in my interest must take away from someone else? YOUR INTEREST IS MY INTEREST!!!!!
IF I HELP ANYONE, it is because I feel it is good to do so.
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Morality and Faith
Posted: 3/16/2009 10:04:51 AM
Your morality is inferior. Why do you ask "Is this right?". Why not decide for yourself? Then you would make a proposition, "This is Wrong!!!", and I would agree, or disagree, depending on the content of the proposition.
The Ten Commandments have stood the test of time because they work. If they were to have said something ludicrous like, "kill every boy that has a brother" I don't think they would have lasted very long.
So please tell us what is right. We await with much apathy.
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 248 (view)
 
Wisdom..what indeed is Wisdom?
Posted: 3/16/2009 8:31:34 AM
I am amused that this thread is still going. Wisdom is not real!!! If it is, then paint me a picture of it!! Or at least reprsent it in some form!!! You cannot do this, because it is an ideal.
We can say that this person or that contains much wisdom, and usually these people are older, and can now consider what coures of action lead them to happiness and what coures didn't. Some however, will always be fools.
If you have overcome a problem, you have been wise in your conduct. Someone who is helpful to you, is said to be wise .
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 34 (view)
 
Heat Wave - Victoria
Posted: 2/7/2009 6:14:12 AM
Hysterical people are great. In fact, during the great fire of London, hysterical people saved countless lives, spreading panic and mayhem throughout the endangered zones, thereby serving as an agent for evacuation.
We seem to have lost all respect for hysterical nutters. Like so many quaint indulgences, there is no place for them in the modern world.
This, I feel, is a mistake. Hysterical ramblings have given joy to countless people from all backgrounds. I myself take great pleasure in throwing stones at the mentally ill woman who lives next door, and no doubt she enjoys it too. However, with the new PC "anti-stoning" laws being passed, we will both miss out.
All I'm saying is, I should be allowed to throw rocks at retards.
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 5 (view)
 
thinking of experiencing a sweat lodge
Posted: 2/7/2009 5:19:24 AM
It was perhaps the best thing I have ever done. Just do it, you will love it.
You will be rid of all toxins, and you will find yourself in an orgy-like enviroment that is most conducive to true healing. I suggest you partake of your obvious cravings with the resident "Long Chau", it couldn't hurt eh?.
I hope you find this helpful.
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Heat Wave - Victoria
Posted: 2/7/2009 4:58:24 AM
Save material things at all costs!!!
People reproduce, things don't!!!
I mean, did your wife/love of your life/kids/etc, ever bring you live coverage of anything you actually wanted to know about?
 jan sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 132 (view)
 
Are there really such things as good and bad?
Posted: 2/7/2009 4:16:16 AM
When we accept that everyone views morality through a perspective framework, we must also accept that an absolute exists within such a framework. The line must be drawn somewhere.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 94 (view)
 
Firearms and Society
Posted: 1/5/2009 11:09:51 PM

One we plant all the said d1chheads on the island, they will one by one eliminate each other till just one stands.

The scary thing is, this bloke could run as a Liberal canidate for Premier in NSW, and he would probably win.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 440 (view)
 
simple question - do you believe in a god?
Posted: 1/5/2009 10:20:14 PM

This privative you are worshipping...the humble 'a'...as I said before, it means 'not'

I feel that the only way this question will be answered, is in the OED. I will not be rushing to get to the library tonight, however I will say, that it is of little consequence.
One has made a proposition, that there is no god. Feeble analogies have been made, (a giraffe, etc). This is as meaningful as me saying that non belief in god is like a bear on Mars.
The problem is, the idea that "every cause has an effect", leads us to believe that "every effect has a cause". And if existence is an effect, then there is a cause.
To debate the cause, and to say "I know what it is", or indeed "I know what it isn't" requires faith.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 438 (view)
 
simple question - do you believe in a god?
Posted: 1/5/2009 6:46:37 PM
Awesome stuff Naahmah, you make a very good argument. You are of course wrong, but it is a very well presented argument. You have at least challenged the meaning of "A" in Atheist. All smart atheists do this, and they are wrongheaded. Firstly, you are making an argument that there is no god, yet quibble over terms? I think you will find that the "A" in question, functions as a PRIVATIVE, that is NO, NOT , Oxford concise ,"disbelief in the existence of god, gods". Merriam Webster, " The belief that there is no god". So I think it is fair to say that when you say "atheism" you mean"I believe there is no god". Otherwise you would be agnostic. The new idea of "weak atheism" is indeed weak. It is agnosticism, and the definition equivocates unacceptably.
And NO!! For the last time, LACK OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE!!!. The idea of atheism can be backed up by nothing, just as theism is backed by nothing. You believe in god, you don't, how does this help you?
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 433 (view)
 
simple question - do you believe in a god?
Posted: 1/5/2009 4:16:10 PM
Before this turns into a Monty Python sketch, which would actually be quite cool, if I were John Cleese, I should point out a few things. "SAIUN" says...


Lack of evidence to prove existence is thus evidence proving inexistence.(sic)


This is rubbish. It is a logical fallacy. It is a bit like me saying, " I have no proof that you are wearing socks, therefore the opposite must be true, you are not wearing socks".
So yes, I did contradict him, because his argument is crap.



Your suggestions that you refute the argument being an example.

Do you work for the Sun-Herald full time, or just commission ?.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 431 (view)
 
simple question - do you believe in a god?
Posted: 1/5/2009 3:28:46 PM

Yes it is.

Sorry mate, I'll slow it down a bit. The position held by Sauin (sp) was that there is no evidence for something, therefore the opposite must be true. I pointed out that this was a logical fallacy.

As for the second point, all you have done is claimed that the concept of god is preposterous. Anyone can claim anything.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 87 (view)
 
Firearms and Society
Posted: 1/5/2009 3:08:52 PM

And I believe the answer will be "as self defence or the protection of innocent people from an atacker"
In reality, police "carry", but it's not to kill people. That isn't the intention. The police service don't purchase guns to kill people. They do however purchase them for the protection of the general population.
Would you feel safer if our police didn't carry guns?.....In the real world I mean where the crims have them...Not some fantasy world where the crims didn't have them either...

For all that, you do admit that handguns are made with only one purpose in mind. That is, to shoot people, if in self defense or for any other reason. Bear in mind, that the police are dealing with very difficult situations on a day to day basis, and are therefore granted special powers by the government. Such as the power to arrest, the power to search, and the power to carry a handgun.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 428 (view)
 
simple question - do you believe in a god?
Posted: 1/5/2009 2:50:02 PM

Lack of evidence to prove existence is thus evidence proving inexistence.

No it isn't.


If it is not possible by any means to detect a giraffe in my living room, there is thus no giraffe present.


Your analogy is incorrect. You are comparing the concept of god to a giraffe. This is of course one of the more simple arguments given by atheists, and is easily disposed of.
In order for you to make a correct analogy, you would first of all have to show that the concept of god was in some way like a giraffe. I would like to see you do this.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 425 (view)
 
simple question - do you believe in a god?
Posted: 1/5/2009 1:22:06 PM


I think this is the best quote I have ever seen (I have stolen it from another forum posters profile): "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Sir Stephen Henry Roberts.

This argument is weak. Atheism is not "non belief", it is a firm belief that "there is no god".
A-(greek privative, no) Theos- (god). To dismiss some gods as a ludicrous concept does not dismiss the concept of "a god" in any way.
It does amuse me that "rational atheists" do in fact offer no evidence in support of their belief. Rather they point the finger at the lack of evidence given by theists, which I must say, is non existent.
This is argumentum ad ignorantiam.
We all hold certain beliefs, that help us make sense of the world. If some people say "there is god!", and that belief helps them, that's great!. If some people say "there is no god!", that is also great!. The main thing is that people should get satisfaction from their beliefs.
If a belief harms you, then it is not a very good belief to have. Whether or not such a belief is true, really doesn't matter.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 24 (view)
 
IF A TREE FALLS IN A FOREST, AND NOBODY IS AROUND, DOES IT MAKE A SOUND???
Posted: 1/5/2009 10:59:13 AM

It would matter if it affected you as a person.


Yes, because I would have heard the tree fall. I care about the people in my world, that is all.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 48 (view)
 
Child Torture - Can God Exist?
Posted: 1/5/2009 10:49:40 AM
Consider an ant. What does it know of your life? Does it know if you are "right"?. What can you say of god? if indeed it does exist?. Ants have no conception of human morals, and IF there is a god, we could know nothing of it.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 21 (view)
 
IF A TREE FALLS IN A FOREST, AND NOBODY IS AROUND, DOES IT MAKE A SOUND???
Posted: 1/5/2009 8:36:18 AM
It really doesn't matter if it did or not now does it.
 
Show ALL Forums