Ashley Olsen Spotted Sporting $39,000 Backpack By The Row

[Admiral Yi]

Uhm this "logic" is called social contract. We do not use violence, respect someone else's property, respect other people's lives and freedoms exactly by that kind of "logic".

"If you think people shouldn't be murdered by those stronger than them, why don't you stop murdering the weaker than you, rather than insisting everyone should do that?" would be an equally idiotic question.

All the things you've mentioned are reciprocal acts.  Pat's not talking about about reciprocal acts, he's talking about one-way transfers.

I would think that a guy who's had his arguments blown up time and again would be a little more judicious in labelling the positions of others as idiotic, but I suppose that's all part of what makes you so special.

[Martinus]

I'm probably a rather average person morally. I never claimed to be particularly moral. Do you?

I thought it was clear that I consider you a very immoral person.

Yes, but then again your notion of morality is rather distorted. It's like asking Charles Manson who his heroes are.

[Martinus]

Uhm this "logic" is called social contract. We do not use violence, respect someone else's property, respect other people's lives and freedoms exactly by that kind of "logic".

"If you think people shouldn't be murdered by those stronger than them, why don't you stop murdering the weaker than you, rather than insisting everyone should do that?" would be an equally idiotic question.

All the things you've mentioned are reciprocal acts.  Pat's not talking about about reciprocal acts, he's talking about one-way transfers.

I would think that a guy who's had his arguments blown up time and again would be a little more judicious in labelling the positions of others as idiotic, but I suppose that's all part of what makes you so special.

I disagree. For a stronger person, a rejection of violence is not really reciprocal, any more than for a rich person an agreement to share wealth with a poorer one is reciprocal.

The reciprocity comes from what I would call a hypothetical solidarity - I will share my wealth with those in a worse situation than I am, on the account that had the situation been reversed, they would do the same for me. A social welfare system guarantees that, not human "good heart". Just as a strong law enforcement system guarantees the strong do not kill the weak - they do not do it out of pure morality either.

[Slargos]

I'm probably a rather average person morally. I never claimed to be particularly moral. Do you?

I thought it was clear that I consider you a very immoral person.

Yes, but then again your notion of morality is rather distorted. It's like asking Charles Manson who his heroes are.

You've hinted before that you find rape to be a trivial crime, but I guess this seals it. 

Of course, when it comes to morality one shouldn't expect much from a Polack.

[Pat]

Can't read their minds but I'm guessing that's because MM can't afford to provide health care to everyone and WB might be able to foot the bill for a short while before he runs out of money. I've said it before, structural problems need to be solved structurally, not through pointless vigilante individual action that is a piss in the ocean.

That's just restating my question.  If health care for everyone is a good thing, isn't health care for one person (or however many Mike can afford) a good thing too?

Of course they're good things. But health care for everyone would be even better, and giving away all your money won't make anything change large-scale or big picture anyway. Sorry, perhaps this was not helpful but either I don't understand the question or you don't understand the answer.

I'm probably a rather average person morally. I never claimed to be particularly moral. Do you?

I thought it was clear that I consider you a very immoral person.

I asked if you claimed to be particularly moral. And who are you to judge? Is that not for your god? Isn't christianity supposed to be about forgiving, btw? I will readily admit I have done many bad things. I may even go as far as to call them sins. I might even ask for forgiveness. Do you know what's right or wrong, Slargos? If so, why don't you tell me? Help a poor sinner, will you?

[Pat]

Uhm this "logic" is called social contract. We do not use violence, respect someone else's property, respect other people's lives and freedoms exactly by that kind of "logic".

"If you think people shouldn't be murdered by those stronger than them, why don't you stop murdering the weaker than you, rather than insisting everyone should do that?" would be an equally idiotic question.

All the things you've mentioned are reciprocal acts.  Pat's not talking about about reciprocal acts, he's talking about one-way transfers.

I would think that a guy who's had his arguments blown up time and again would be a little more judicious in labelling the positions of others as idiotic, but I suppose that's all part of what makes you so special.

I disagree. For a stronger person, a rejection of violence is not really reciprocal, any more than for a rich person an agreement to share wealth with a poorer one is reciprocal.

The reciprocity comes from what I would call a hypothetical solidarity - I will share my wealth with those in a worse situation than I am, on the account that had the situation been reversed, they would do the same for me. A social welfare system guarantees that, not human "good heart". Just as a strong law enforcement system guarantees the strong do not kill the weak - they do not do it out of pure morality either.

Very good post, just want to say that I agree 100%.

[crazy canuck]

You idiot. It was in the context of his repeated wishing for me to die.

You idiot, in the context of him wishing that just you were dead you egged him on to commit mass murder.

[crazy canuck]

Uhm this "logic" is called social contract. We do not use violence, respect someone else's property, respect other people's lives and freedoms exactly by that kind of "logic".

"If you think people shouldn't be murdered by those stronger than them, why don't you stop murdering the weaker than you, rather than insisting everyone should do that?" would be an equally idiotic question.

All the things you've mentioned are reciprocal acts.  Pat's not talking about about reciprocal acts, he's talking about one-way transfers.

I would think that a guy who's had his arguments blown up time and again would be a little more judicious in labelling the positions of others as idiotic, but I suppose that's all part of what makes you so special.

I disagree. For a stronger person, a rejection of violence is not really reciprocal, any more than for a rich person an agreement to share wealth with a poorer one is reciprocal.

The reciprocity comes from what I would call a hypothetical solidarity - I will share my wealth with those in a worse situation than I am, on the account that had the situation been reversed, they would do the same for me. A social welfare system guarantees that, not human "good heart". Just as a strong law enforcement system guarantees the strong do not kill the weak - they do not do it out of pure morality either.

Very good post, just want to say that I agree 100%.

Just so you know when Marti says he will share his wealth he is talking just as hypothetically as you.  no way in hell he would do so voluntarily and so its easy to say since he knows that he will not have to give it up mandatorily.  In short he suffers from the same thing as you.  Strong faux morals.

[Pat]

You idiot. It was in the context of his repeated wishing for me to die.

You idiot, in the context of him wishing that just you were dead you egged him on to commit mass murder.

And judging from your replies you don't exactly seem to disagree with me in my view of Slargos. Actually, I'd rather he killed me and were caught than have something like that happen again.

[Pat]

Just so you know when Marti says he will share his wealth he is talking just as hypothetically as you.  no way in hell he would do so voluntarily and so its easy to say since he knows that he will not have to give it up mandatorily.  In short he suffers from the same thing as you.  Strong faux morals.

I could say something about you and your morals, except I know pretty much nothing about you, so who am I to judge?

[Slargos]

You idiot. It was in the context of his repeated wishing for me to die.

You idiot, in the context of him wishing that just you were dead you egged him on to commit mass murder.

And judging from your replies you don't exactly seem to disagree with me in my view of Slargos. Actually, I'd rather he killed me and were caught than have something like that happen again.

Is that an invitation? 

[Admiral Yi]

I disagree. For a stronger person, a rejection of violence is not really reciprocal, any more than for a rich person an agreement to share wealth with a poorer one is reciprocal.

The reciprocity comes from what I would call a hypothetical solidarity - I will share my wealth with those in a worse situation than I am, on the account that had the situation been reversed, they would do the same for me. A social welfare system guarantees that, not human "good heart". Just as a strong law enforcement system guarantees the strong do not kill the weak - they do not do it out of pure morality either.

The strongest man in the world is just as susceptible to a knife in the liver or bullet in the brain as the weakest.

I understand the argument about the vagaries of fortune and chances of birth (I've studied Rawls too).  It breaks down a bit in the national setting, where most countries have already experienced examples of recipients of social insurance who are not as eager as prophesied to view it as a reciprocal system of insurance against misfortune but rather as one-way transfer.  And it's completely useless in the international context, where the currently starving Somalis who would stand to benefit from Ashley Olsen's $39,000 backpack being diverted to improving their lives can not be coerced into reciprocating once their lives have improved.

So it seems to me without the ability to coerce reciprocity, you lose the argument for the original coerced transfer.

[Slargos]

As for your morality, Pat, you are surely damned by the heinous act of forcing me into agreement with CC. 

Fire. Die. Etc.

Edit: What really gets me about you and yours, Pat, is that you swear by ideology and you would pretend to hold "good" values yet when given the chance to act in a righteous manner, you simply don't. Not because of any weakness of character, but because you're simply too selfish. You are the worst kind of filth.

[Drakken]

This thread took a strange turn.

Because everyone here - save Brazen - agree that that crocodile skin packbag is a fashion crime, so what else is there to discuss?

[Razgovory]

This thread took a strange turn.

Because everyone here - save Brazen - agree that that crocodile skin packbag is a fashion crime, so what else is there to discuss?

I don't agree to that.  In fact, I really don't care much about one way or the other.  I am agnostic as to the issue of Crocodile skin packbags.  It just seems an odd thing to start a thread over.