Joined: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 5325
Location: Next door.
Posted:
Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:00 pm
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
It's too bad that all of this is going to go right over sjc's head, you know. The fact that you're actually doing your job, which doesn't involve hand-holding, is quite alien to his system.
Well, leaving your assertion aside for the moment, My job is 90% reading threads, and doing nothing about them, 6% deleting spam. 3% moving threads, and 1% percent
moderating people.
IOW- more or less- trying to
talk people out
of getting banned.
If I didn't try to talk to people I would be a
bouncer
, not a moderator. I find it ironic that this 1% is the part that people resent the most, and it's always viewed simultaneously in two ways. I'm either
not
doing my job or I'm
doing my job wrong.
Now that I'm doing fuck-all except engaging in banter, I'm suddenly
doing my job
apparently, though only 1% of it.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
cheapsuprise wrote:
I'm not moderate
ing
... -doctorING- Maybe when some spam piles up in this forum it will become clear.
Well, then the forum will be pink, not clear.
... Awful.
Quote:
cheapsuprise wrote:
I should point out that the "universe" doesnt really
care
whether or not your afraid of it.
No, but that's because the universe isn't sentient--people are.
I misread "universal". It doesn't mater anyway as -------->
I
do not care either.
Knight_of_BAAWA Philosophical Prodigy
Joined: Mar 09, 2003
Posts: 4517
Location: USA
Posted:
Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:03 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
It's too bad that all of this is going to go right over sjc's head, you know. The fact that you're actually doing your job, which doesn't involve hand-holding, is quite alien to his system.
cheapsuprise wrote:
Well, leaving your assertion aside for the moment, My job is 90% reading threads, and doing nothing about them, 6% deleting spam. 3% moving threads, and 1% percent
moderating people.
IOW- more or less- trying to
talk people out
of getting banned.
And that's what a good moderator does.
cheapsuprise wrote:
If I didn't try to talk to people I would be a
bouncer
, not a moderator. I find it ironic that this 1% is the part that people resent the most, and it's always viewed simultaneously in two ways. I'm either
not
doing my job or I'm
doing my job wrong.
You're only doing your job wrong if you're stepping outside the bounds set by the rules (usually by taking revenge on people), which I've seen some moderators do. That statement is not to be taken as saying that anyone here has done that, but just in general from what I've seen on different boards.
Stuz719 Grand Poster
Joined: Apr 22, 2005
Posts: 1032
Posted:
Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:11 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Saitou wrote:
Then you are saying laws should be opt-in?
Laws require active consent.
So one has to actively not murder someone in order not to break the law?
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You are thus simply trying to get the government to do what you rightfully cannot.
Saitou wrote:
One of the functions of government is to make rules and laws and enforce them.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
If it humors you to think that.
Saitou wrote:
Oh? Is it not something our government does?
Not consistently.
Interesting.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Saitou wrote:
There are situations that we are born into and we don't get the opportunity to opt-out of.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
There's a difference between the metaphysically given and the manmade.
Saitou wrote:
Now your in the area of what I call nonsense.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No, it's not. For example, a person born with a birth-defect is born into a situation that the person cannot opt-out of. That is the metaphysically given. However, a person being born to a poor family can opt-out of being poor by education and hard work. The man-man.
Saitou wrote:
Again since you're a smart guy you can come up with good examples for your position but we both know you are ignoring many more examples that support my position.
There aren't any.
Saitou wrote:
Poverty is not a law but rather a condition. Your example is little better than saying you can opt-out of hunger by eating a sandwich.
You can.
You can if you're not poor and you can afford a sandwich.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Saitou wrote:
You cannot opt-out of being subject to the laws of this country while you remain in it.
And the jews couldn't opt-out of the Nurmburg laws, could they?
Said laws were based on logic and reason (based on an assumptions made by anthropometry), therefore moral, therefore cannot be used as a counter-argument to your position.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Saitou wrote:
If I can choose my own arbiter, judge, and lawyer as I do my own carpet-cleaner then I choose people who will always let me have my way.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
But the other side must agree to the arbiter/judge/lawyer.
Saitou wrote:
What if we never agree? No trial ever occurs? I still win!
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
No, you really don't.
Saitou wrote:
But if I do something wrong and never agree on who gets to be arbiter/judge/lawyer then what happens?
Your reputation suffers. People refuse to deal with you. Do you know where that leads?
But as Saitou pointed out there is no trial and conviction - therefore you should have no blemish on your character. Unless, of course, you propose a principle of guilt until proven innocent.
cheapsuprise Master of Logic
Joined: Apr 26, 2004
Posts: 5325
Location: Next door.
Posted:
Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:28 pm
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
You're only doing your job wrong if you're stepping outside the bounds set by the rules--
I did that once, and I publicly apologised for it. Unfortunately everyone, even the truly guilty feel entitled to an apology.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 665
Posted:
Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:36 am
To answer the op. Do we have a responsibility for the well-being of others?
First, what do you mean by well-being. If it means "don't kill them, don't rape them, don't steal from them, etc." then of course you do because that is how a civilized person acts. But that is not how the question is usually intended.
Usually the question is intended either as a moral principle or a legal principle.
As a moral principle, do you have a personal moral responsibility? It depends on your system of morality, really. Even if you subscribe to a more altruistic morality you can still use your brain when doing so.
Many years ago, when I was in college, I had a soft heart for the beggars that would try to get some change from me. Not wanting to give them money for booze, but wanting to help them, I came up with a creative middle course. During my Freshman year I purchased $5 worth of McDonalds gift certificates. They were only redeemable in food, McDonalds food. Now I will admit it's not high cuisine, but if you're hungry it's food. I offered them to any homeless who came begging.
Four years later I treated myself to a graduation present of a Big Mac Combo Supersized with those gift certificates.
As a legal principle, it can mean one of two things. First, it can mean good samaratin laws. I think they are a moral abomination, but others may disagree. Under that legal principle though you do have a responsibility, like it or not.
The other thing it can mean is welfare, where you are required to provide for the well-being of others. This is also very morally questionable. In fact, I have never found a single moral principle that supports this position, although sjc's sig quote seems to try to do that. Now if only he would support his sig quote.
I'll continue to provide for the well-being of others by not killing them. Sjc will continue to vote for politicians that kill people for the crime of not supporting sjc.
To answer the op. Do we have a responsibility for the well-being of others?
First, what do you mean by well-being. If it means "don't kill them, don't rape them, don't steal from them, etc." then of course you do because that is how a civilized person acts. But that is not how the question is usually intended.
Now how the second sentence requires, as the second sentence says "even if it is a burden". Thus, it means a positive liberty situation, rather than negative, since negative liberty imposes no burden, unless not-acting or not-interfering is somehow a burden.
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
Usually the question is intended either as a moral principle or a legal principle.
And usually the former creates the latter.
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
As a moral principle, do you have a personal moral responsibility? It depends on your system of morality, really. Even if you subscribe to a more altruistic morality you can still use your brain when doing so.
Many years ago, when I was in college, I had a soft heart for the beggars that would try to get some change from me. Not wanting to give them money for booze, but wanting to help them, I came up with a creative middle course. During my Freshman year I purchased $5 worth of McDonalds gift certificates. They were only redeemable in food, McDonalds food. Now I will admit it's not high cuisine, but if you're hungry it's food. I offered them to any homeless who came begging.
And how many took you up on it, rather than just wanting to money to go buy booze? Note: that's just the reality of the situation, for any of the bleeding-heart morons who want to scream about it. Most of the begging homeless do just go out and buy booze or other drugs. Fact. Period. End of discussion.
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
Four years later I treated myself to a graduation present of a Big Mac Combo Supersized with those gift certificates.
Ta-da! None of them wanted the food. They wanted booze or drugs.
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
As a legal principle, it can mean one of two things. First, it can mean good samaratin laws. I think they are a moral abomination, but others may disagree. Under that legal principle though you do have a responsibility, like it or not.
Just as blacks had the responsibility to sit at the back of the bus.
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
The other thing it can mean is welfare, where you are required to provide for the well-being of others. This is also very morally questionable. In fact, I have never found a single moral principle that supports this position, although sjc's sig quote seems to try to do that. Now if only he would support his sig quote.
Tried that with this thread, knowing that he wouldn't.
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
I'll continue to provide for the well-being of others by not killing them. Sjc will continue to vote for politicians that kill people for the crime of not supporting sjc.
After all, he must eliminate those who are "not humane" by killing them. Which, of course, doesn't sound very humane.
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 665
Posted:
Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:06 am
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
To answer the op. Do we have a responsibility for the well-being of others?
First, what do you mean by well-being. If it means "don't kill them, don't rape them, don't steal from them, etc." then of course you do because that is how a civilized person acts. But that is not how the question is usually intended.
Now how the second sentence requires, as the second sentence says "even if it is a burden". Thus, it means a positive liberty situation, rather than negative, since negative liberty imposes no burden, unless not-acting or not-interfering is somehow a burden.
I know that's what it meant, but I had to go through the socratic elimination routine to get that out of the way lest those who support what sjc actually meant by it try to equivocate between the two.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
Usually the question is intended either as a moral principle or a legal principle.
And usually the former creates the latter.
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
As a moral principle, do you have a personal moral responsibility? It depends on your system of morality, really. Even if you subscribe to a more altruistic morality you can still use your brain when doing so.
Many years ago, when I was in college, I had a soft heart for the beggars that would try to get some change from me. Not wanting to give them money for booze, but wanting to help them, I came up with a creative middle course. During my Freshman year I purchased $5 worth of McDonalds gift certificates. They were only redeemable in food, McDonalds food. Now I will admit it's not high cuisine, but if you're hungry it's food. I offered them to any homeless who came begging.
And how many took you up on it, rather than just wanting to money to go buy booze? Note: that's just the reality of the situation, for any of the bleeding-heart morons who want to scream about it. Most of the begging homeless do just go out and buy booze or other drugs. Fact. Period. End of discussion.
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
Four years later I treated myself to a graduation present of a Big Mac Combo Supersized with those gift certificates.
Ta-da! None of them wanted the food. They wanted booze or drugs.
True, and it was a valuable lesson for me, so that now I no longer feel such a strong desire to assist.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
As a legal principle, it can mean one of two things. First, it can mean good samaratin laws. I think they are a moral abomination, but others may disagree. Under that legal principle though you do have a responsibility, like it or not.
Just as blacks had the responsibility to sit at the back of the bus.
Fortunately I do not equivocate between the legal and the moral.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
The other thing it can mean is welfare, where you are required to provide for the well-being of others. This is also very morally questionable. In fact, I have never found a single moral principle that supports this position, although sjc's sig quote seems to try to do that. Now if only he would support his sig quote.
Tried that with this thread, knowing that he wouldn't.
Yeah, but it never hurts to try.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Jason_Harvestdancer wrote:
I'll continue to provide for the well-being of others by not killing them. Sjc will continue to vote for politicians that kill people for the crime of not supporting sjc.
After all, he must eliminate those who are "not humane" by killing them. Which, of course, doesn't sound very humane.
And he will continue to never justify that position.
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 10797
Location: oklahoma
Posted:
Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:29 am
jason, did any homeless people take you up on the food offers?
just wondering.
Saitou Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 02, 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: USA
Posted:
Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:44 am
hillbillyatheist wrote:
jason, did any homeless people take you up on the food offers?
just wondering.
Even if they did wouldn't these food vouchers free up other money they might get for non-food items anyway?
hillbillyatheist Forum Master
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 10797
Location: oklahoma
Posted:
Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:00 am
Saitou wrote:
hillbillyatheist wrote:
jason, did any homeless people take you up on the food offers?
just wondering.
Even if they did wouldn't these food vouchers free up other money they might get for non-food items anyway?
that's a good point. I wonder why the drug addicted homeless people didn't think of that?
Jason_Harvestdancer Graduate Thinker
Joined: Oct 24, 2005
Posts: 665
Posted:
Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:47 am
My guess as to why they didn't take me up on it is the same reason Knight described, although I did get some interesting excuses. One person told me he was allergic to McDonalds food. Another complained about how they throw him out every time he tries to go in there.
As for redistribution of funds, it is also my guess that if they had the funds for drugs, they would be out spending that money instead of asking for money. Or it could just be that they didn't think of that.
On an ironic twist, when I left the military I still had some foreign currency, a few thousand Korean won. They were willing to accept that, although I wonder where they would go to spend or exchange that.
People bear a responsibility for the well-being of others. Even when it is a burden. This is the basis of Civilization.
That is from sjc's signature. So the question of course is: do we, in fact, bear a responsibility for the well-being of others, even when and especially if it is a burden? And is that, in fact, the basis of civilization?
I could interpret SJC's signature statement in my own manner to make it mostly true. It wouldn't be his original intent however. I could do it thusly:
"People bear a responsibility for the well-being of others". SJC probably meant others in society based on need. If I choose to interpret "others" only as "their own children" it makes it true.
"Even when it is a burden." This part is superfluous and probably there to attempt to deflect incoming arguments. It can be ignored.
"This is the basis of Civilization". Is there truly one thing that can be scientifically identified as being the "basis of Civilization"? Probably not. I could use my family argument about as well as anyone could use any other thing. SJC probably meant it (responsibility to care for others) was what allowed civilization to advance as much as it has.
My overall evaluation of SJC's message here is that it's nonsensical crap and shows a lot of ignorance. The cooperation that has allowed civilization to advance has been demonstrably proven to occur much more often when people act in their own self interest. The benefits of free trade and specialization are always lost on SJC.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
This ultimately boils down to positive vs negative liberty: do we have an obligation to provide X to A if A has a right to it, or do we merely have to refrain from interfering in A's acquisition of X?
As I said before it depends on who A is. It also depends on what X is.
If X is health care and A is a stranger then my answer is I have no moral obligation to provide X to A. Why not? Because if I can get X for me and my family why cant A? If people shouldn't have to pay for X themselves then why should we pay for anything else? If the answer is need then my reply is we also need food, water, and shelter. It could also be argued we need transportation as much as health coverage.
I said moral obligation above but that doesn't mean there can't be an obligation put upon me by the law aka government. This is an example of why voting and who wins elections matters.
Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:
Make no mistake about it: slavery is the right word. What else do you call it when you impose an unchosen obligation on someone to provide something to another, or just make the assertion that since you have more than someone else, you must provide your "surplus" (one wonders how this "suplus" number is arrived at) to others without recompense.
I think calling it slavery is a bit much although I'm sympathetic to the argument. Many of the terrible things that slavery includes aren't present here. What is actually in practice here is closer to theft and confiscation with redistribution.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file