A revolution in thought - Page 1208

thedoc · #**30176** 07-23-2013, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just pm livius the post numbers that should be split off. david might could help decide

How does this sound?

I'll do it with the assumption that there are 2 different books being discussed in this thread, one being Lessans' and the other being the writings of Wayne Stewart. I'll start the list with Wayne's first post and select the posts that are in response to his writings and subsequent posts with discussions and questions about those specific writings. I'll leave behind all discussion of the personal pronoun shell game going on with Lessans' idea. I'll also leave out the posts between David and peacegirl where she's insisting that the ideas are different because it will just drag the stupid into the new thread too. I figure that he can bring it in again when he thinks it's relevant. I'll try to make it look like a real philosophy thread. Hopefully peacegirl will understand that it's about Wayne's writings and not her father's .

I'll wait a few minutes to see if David wants something different before I start.

This seems fine to me. I do hope at some point that Wayne Stewart will tell peacegirl that Lessans' idea is fundamentally the same as his and Clark's.

Peacegirls reaction to that revelation should be quite interesting.

wstewart · #**30177** 07-23-2013, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Does that suit you too, Wayne? You'll be the OP of a new thread. I can also copy posts if there's something you'd like to keep in this thread as well.

Yes, I suppose a consolidated thread would help. Thanks.

peacegirl · #**30178** 07-23-2013, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is a thoughtful question, but this is the most equitable solution possible. It guarantees what everyone is now getting paid will continue, even if they should fall below their standard due to events they have no control over, but at the same time this set-up does not put a lid on anyone's opportunity to move upward to a higher income bracket.

The head of the anti-poverty advocate inside me just exploded so I'm going to save this one for later when I can type in full sentences without saying fuck and moron a few thousand times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

OK, I think I can do this with my claws in now. I'm going to give you a few scenarios of some people's lives as they exist on the day before the cutover to utopia. I'd like it if you could tell me how they'll be maintaining their current standard of living 1 week after LessanLand gets going.

1) A physically or mentally disabled person is completely compliant with the medical treatments their doctors recommend, clearly benefits from them and decompensates quickly without them, requires a continuity of care from the same doctor in order to be as functional as they can be and receives social security disability income to pay for all of their living expenses and medicare to pay for their medical expenses. Who is paying for it when you guys take over?

It works the same way as it does now. The taxpayers will continue paying for this persons's expenses. All medical needs will be covered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

2) A homeless heroin addict does not desire treatment. His living expenses and the cost of his drugs are covered by selling the things that he steals from the rest of the community. In case you don't know, heroin is very physically addictive and only the most inhumane of people would recommend that withdrawal symptoms occur without medical supervision and lots of junkies would rather die than quit. If he did want treatment and signed up today the waiting list would be 4 months long because there aren't anywhere near as many treatment beds as there are addicts. There's a good chance that he might not want it again or will have already died when the bed finally opens up but if not it would be paid for by the County.

No drugs will be illegal, therefore if he needs heroin he will be able to get it without having to go out on the streets to get it. If he needs treatment, it will be covered by the guarantee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

3) A woman is in a state-funded domestic violence shelter with her 3 children. At the moment she has no idea of how she's going to support herself or her children in the future unless she's goes back home to get beat up some more. She was living in a mansion but it was all his money that was paying for it and she has none of her own. He's going to fight a divorce tooth and nail and drag it out as long as he can so that he doesn't have to give her any money and probably try to take her kids away too since he can provide for them better.

All your questions are premature. As far as the children, this will be worked out by the legal system because these situations that you are enumerating are remnants of a free will environment which will gradually be eliminated. As far as paying for her, at the time of the divorce, if he doesn't want to contribute alimony or what is due her, the taxpayers will cover the cost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

4) A mentally ill person lives on the streets. He likes his kind of crazy, has no desire to be what he thinks of as boring like everyone else is, he isn't bothering anyone other than that he doesn't smell very good, doesn't want to take meds because he hates how they make him feel and eats food from local shelter and sleeps in the woods. The shelter is funded by a combination of local government, state and federal money and they spend a fair amount of time worrying that he's going to die out there in the cold and rain but he just won't come in at night. He'd have already starved to death if they didn't bring his food to the edge of the woods for him. He scares everyone other than homeless people and shelter workers but he's definitely not a real threat to anyone and under current law there is no reason to commit him as long as he eats the shelter food.
(ETA: He would commit suicide before allowing himself to be committed.)

I don't see any reason why he couldn't stay there. He is a product of his environment, and he would be considered disabled. He would carry on just the way he has been doing. Money for his sustenance would come from taxes.

5) A heavy equipment operator has a wife and 4 kids and he can easily provide them with a middle class income until he a terrible accident at work which leaves him temporarily disabled. Right now his employer would pay him up until the point where all of his sick and vacation time were used up and then he would likely apply for temporary disability and get it. It wouldn't be as much as he used to make and they would have to significantly downscale their lifestyle for a while but he's expected to regain the ability to work within a year or 2. In the meantime he'll get enough disability to pay the rent and feed his family but not much more. Which lifestyle and income level does he get to have next week if there is no government to send him his disability check?

I think you missed that part in the book. Many parts of government will still be functioning. What will end is all authority and control. These are not difficult things to work out. The guarantee would help to maintain his income level if he could not work like he did before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

You should note that at least a few of these scenarios involve the government's financial support so where does the money come from when there is no government anymore?

As I said, you misunderstood. There will be no big brother control by big government, but many aspects of government will still function.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Another involves the level to which we as individuals will rise to in order to ensure that those who can't reasonably be expected to be self-sufficient don't suffer unnecessarily.

That's where the basic principle comes into play, which you have no understanding of yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Another issue that I'm raising is the level of control that the new society will exert upon those who sustain themselves by preying on others and the strength of the insistence that everyone fit societal norms without blame or punishment. Can you please try to address each and every one of my scenarios while keeping these things in mind?

You are presupposing that people will want to take advantage and prey on others, which is the very thing that is being prevented by this law. No one is going to insist that anyone fit a societal norm. Think carefully about this. If no one desires to hurt another (because the hurt to them is being removed), there will be no more need to tell others what to do or how to act and many cultural norms will fall by the wayside.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

ETA: Please do try to be realistic about human nature and don't just tell me that the masses will rise up and cure poverty without government intervention or I'm going to start going on again about how this sounds like something that libertarians would come up with if they were on bad drugs.

I am being realistic. Human nature is such that under the changed conditions people will want to contribute to the guarantee in order to bring everyone up to a level of security. You just don't see it because human nature appears to be the opposite, but not for long.

p. 168 If someone was hurt and yelling ‘Help! Help! Help!’ and you were
in a position to render assistance without hurting yourself while
knowing that you would never be blamed if you didn’t, is it humanly
possible for you to find satisfaction in ignoring this cry especially if
you know absolutely and positively that all mankind, should you ever
find yourself in a similar position, would never fail to help you?”

“Under such conditions I believe that my friend and I would desire
to help this individual.”

“Well, believe it or not this is the key to the economic solution.
Since we have already established the two conditions that strike the
first blow of hurt, and since those who fall below their standard of
living along with those who cannot acquire the necessaries of life are
hurt (drowning so to speak) and yelling for help but will never blame
us if we don’t, although they know we can if we want to (for over this
I will demonstrate that we have mathematical control), we are given
no choice but to unite in such a way without blaming anybody for
anything (because everything developed out of mathematical necessity)
that all mankind notwithstanding will be guaranteed against the
possibility of this hurt. By allowing everybody complete freedom to
improve their standard of living without the slightest fear of
punishment or retaliation, they will be compelled of their own free will
to prefer good, that is, not starting anything evil (striking a first blow)
because no satisfaction can be gotten otherwise...under the changed
conditions.”

ChristinaM · #**30179** 07-23-2013, 11:58 PM

OK, these are the posts that I think should go so far. I want to give my eyes a break and then check them again to make sure that I didn't miss any. I left out any bickering that was only somewhat related like telling each other to mind our manners in front of Wayne. If anyone wants to check them or compare them to their post history just let me know if you see something that I missed. They aren't hyperlinked because IIRC that won't make liv's job any easier.

#29876
#29878
#29916
#29919
#29921
#29931
#29937
#29953
#29975
#29976
#29977
#29978
#29982
#29988
#29992
#30011
#30020
#30022
#30023
#30024
#30026
#30027
#30028
#30030
#30031
#30032
#30033
#30037
#30044
#30051
#30056
#30060
#30063
#30065
#30066
#30067
#30068
#30070
#30077
#30099
#30102
#30103
#30111
#30149
#30158
#30163
#30175
#30176
#30179
#30182
#30184
#30185
#30186
#30194
#30210
#30214
#30219
#30220
#30222

livius drusus · #**30180** 07-23-2013, 11:59 PM

Okay Christina, go ahead and compile the post numbers. Oh, and Wayne, do you have a title preference?

eta Cross-post! :flash:

Christina.

ChristinaM · #**30181** 07-24-2013, 12:00 AM

Look up liv

ChristinaM · #**30182** 07-24-2013, 12:01 AM

I'm good with them now I think unless anyone else thinks that something of theirs is missing.

davidm · #**30183** 07-24-2013, 12:02 AM

I trust your judgment, ChristinaM. :yup:

"Existential Passage" or "Metaphysics by Default" seem good titles, but I suggest letting Wayne decide that.

wstewart · #**30184** 07-24-2013, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Okay Christina, go ahead and compile the post numbers. Oh, and Wayne, do you have a title preference?

This time... "Dar al-Hikma".

Thanks.

livius drusus · #**30185** 07-24-2013, 12:29 AM

Okay I've got the posts cocked and ready for splitting. I'll wait for Wayne to weigh in on the thread title before pulling the trigger.

OMG cross-post again!

ChristinaM · #**30186** 07-24-2013, 12:44 AM

Peacegirl, I'll get back to your post later or in the morning. I just read 13 pages in a row of this and my brain refuses to focus on another of your posts right now.

livius drusus · #**30187** 07-24-2013, 12:51 AM

The new thread is here.

ChristinaM · #**30188** 07-24-2013, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livius drusus

The new thread is here.

Ahhh...much better. It's like leaving a big party and walking into a nice quiet library in there.

thedoc · #**30189** 07-24-2013, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by livius drusus

The new thread is here.

Ahhh...much better. It's like leaving a big party and walking into a nice quiet library in there.

WHAT PARTY? I've been trying to organize parties since someone suggested the first 100 page party, but no-one wants to join in, no music, no fireworks, no noisemakers, no food and drink, and especially no dancing girls since DoctorX left. Are you volunteering?

ChristinaM · #**30190** 07-24-2013, 01:35 AM

Hell no. I'm all done volunteering for the day and after reading all of that again my brain is too pooped to party. I had to at least scan each post to make sure that there wasn't anything on topic buried it without actually reading any of that pronoun gibberish that makes my brain bleed. I need coffee and a Firefly rerun or something.

thedoc · #**30191** 07-24-2013, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Hell no. I'm all done volunteering for the day and after reading all of that again my brain is too pooped to party. I had to at least scan each post to make sure that there wasn't anything on topic buried it without actually reading any of that pronoun gibberish that makes my brain bleed. I need coffee and a Firefly rerun or something.

It's after sundown, sit outside and watch the fireflies. Or failing that, look them up on Youtube. With a nice glass of wine.

Angakuk · #**30192** 07-24-2013, 05:25 AM

I don't think you can actually look anything up on Youtube with a glass of wine. I think you have to use a computer or a smart phone or something like that.

Vivisectus · #**30193** 07-24-2013, 11:16 AM

Quote:

And by the same token, you have not had enough education in the formal tenets of philosophy to act as a guide for anyone in the discussion of Lessans' discovery. Why can't you be honest here?

So now formal credentials are important all of a sudden? Or is it the case that formal credentials only count when you or your father are not involved?

peacegirl · #**30194** 07-24-2013, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reborn only means YOU will always be here; it does not mean there is a connection between the last person who died and the next person born.

What person does the word "YOU" refer to in this sentence? Replace you with a proper noun, please, otherwise this is meaningless. Personal pronouns require a referent.

You (peacegirl) seem to not understand my (LadyShe's) objection here, so I (LadyShea) am trying to illustrate it using your (peacegirl's) own claims

When you die, YOU may be a newborn named Jessica. This is not rebirth in the sense of any connection to a previous death, which people can't seem to grasp, especially when two completely different discussions on death are going on at the same time.

Are you (peacegirl) claiming that the referent for the pronoun You, in the sentence above, is a newborn named Jessica? Is it correct to rewrite the sentence in this way?

Quote:

Reborn only means Jessica will always be here; it does not mean there is a connection between the last person who died and the next person born.

That doesn't seem to work at all. So hows about you do what I actually asked instead of weaseling?

Jessica is Jessica. Jessica is not You (peacegirl) nor is Jessica me (LadyShea), nor is Jessica him (Spacemonkey), so your game with pronouns is just meaningless, as I've been saying.

You don't have to read this chapter then, or any other, since you know that everything Lessans has written is wrong. The belief that you know more than him (which you don't; it's laughable) and the blurting out of what you think is a nullification of his observations [that escapes the average eye], has made me lose interest in talking to you on this subject. It's a total washout!

peacegirl · #**30195** 07-24-2013, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laughing dog

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with Marx's final stage of history. Why would you assume that?

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Six: The New Economic World

p. 278 It is interesting to note that the very people who want to
leave communist countries will lose their desire as soon as they
become citizens because they will not be subjected to the laws any
longer and will want to continue receiving their guarantee.
Communism, and the dream of socialism, came into existence out of
mathematical necessity as a reaction to injustice, but once the
injustice is removed, communism and the dream of socialism have no
further value. It was assumed that Marx had all the answers, but in
this new world nobody will tell anybody what to do, although each
person will be mathematically prevented from desiring to hurt others.

It is clear you are unfamiliar with Marx's Theory of History. The final stage is the utopian ideal where humans have fundamentally changed their nature to eliminate the need for gov't and private property.

My point is that once anyone assumes away current human nature, any utopia is possible. Of course, the problem is that human nature appears rather stubborn in its reluctance to radically change over time.

There is no assuming away human nature; in fact, that's what allows this not to be another pipe dream. Have you read what I asked you to read in order for you to be relevant in this thread? It's true that under the banner of free will, human nature will not change to the degree that is necessary for this economic system to work. But under the changed conditions, there is nothing that will be able to stop it from working. And, btw, this has nothing to do with eliminating the need for private property or government because both will exist.

peacegirl · #**30196** 07-24-2013, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have articulated everything in the book and the responses are negative mainly due to his claim regarding the eyes.

Yeah, because they're wrong in the same way that my belief that the sky is purple is wrong. I really love the color purple too.

Quote:

I believe they are accurate observations.

You unquestionably believe everything in your sacred text so that's no surprise.

Quote:

I understand that people don't know if his observations are true. They not only insist they are not, they are attacking me as if I'm a pariah.

They know that they aren't true. You get attacked as if you're a pariah because of your behavior.

Quote:

I also tried to explain why I weaseled (unintentionally) due to the fact that these findings did not come from physics, but people will not let me live it down.

Probably not.

Quote:

Yes, I was being sarcastic. I am not a liar.

Sorry, there are no take-backsies on the internet. It's enshrined forever here because at least 3 of us immediately quoted it so that you couldn't just delete it and pretend that it was a duplicate post again.

Quote:

I feel sorry for the newcomers who have to listen to this garbage.

Don't feel sorry for us. I was a newcomer a few hundred pages ago and I'm having a great time.

Quote:

The way people are acting is certainly not a reflection on me.

Yes it is. In another thread I posted something that people clearly think is a stupid idea but (most) found polite ways to infer that I was being an idiot and didn't just point and laugh. I don't care - I'll just do what I always do when people tell me that I can't accomplish something which is to go do it to my own satisfaction anyway. I didn't stick around to whine "I can too" more than once.

Quote:

It is a reflection on them and their lack of character. The only protection these nasty people have is their anonymity, or they wouldn't say the things they say.

IRL they probably would have slapped you offside the head by now so be thankful that they're just talking fingers on the internet.

Quote:

There is no where else for me to go from here. I'm tired of being abused.

Then stop allowing it. Have the dignity and self-respect to walk away when you feel like the only reason that you're here is to be an entertaining chew toy.

You're right. Thanks for the support to do what I need to do.

thedoc · #**30197** 07-24-2013, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I don't think you can actually look anything up on Youtube with a glass of wine. I think you have to use a computer or a smart phone or something like that.

No. with enough wine you can look up anything anywhere, just leave some for communion.

And if you watch through the wine it gives a nice color to everything.

thedoc · #**30198** 07-24-2013, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's where the basic principle comes into play, which you have no understanding of yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Another issue that I'm raising is the level of control that the new society will exert upon those who sustain themselves by preying on others and the strength of the insistence that everyone fit societal norms without blame or punishment. Can you please try to address each and every one of my scenarios while keeping these things in mind?

You are presupposing that people will want to take advantage and prey on others, which is the very thing that is being prevented by this law. No one is going to insist that anyone fit a societal norm. Think carefully about this. If no one desires to hurt another (because the hurt to them is being removed), there will be no more need to tell others what to do or how to act and many cultural norms will fall by the wayside.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

ETA: Please do try to be realistic about human nature and don't just tell me that the masses will rise up and cure poverty without government intervention or I'm going to start going on again about how this sounds like something that libertarians would come up with if they were on bad drugs.

I am being realistic. Human nature is such that under the changed conditions people will want to contribute to the guarantee in order to bring everyone up to a level of security. You just don't see it because human nature appears to be the opposite, but not for long.

And you, Peacegirl, are presupposing that under the new conditions conscience will somehow magically change and no-one will want to hurt or take advantage. Humanity has 50,000 years of evolution to bring us and our conscience to the state it is in now, and it is not going to change overnight or by studying and taking a test on this new unproven knowledge. There is only Lessans say-so that it will work and hundreds of years of actual study of human conscience that says otherwise.

Vivisectus · #**30199** 07-24-2013, 01:41 PM

thedoc · #**30200** 07-24-2013, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

And by the same token, you have not had enough education in the formal tenets of philosophy to act as a guide for anyone in the discussion of Lessans' discovery. Why can't you be honest here?

So now formal credentials are important all of a sudden? Or is it the case that formal credentials only count when you or your father are not involved?

As I see it, 'formal credentials' are valid for one to support Lessans claims but invalid for criticism. Peacergirl and Lessans "Don't Need no Stinkin' Credentials", they have Lessans say-so. If you are ready to agree with Lessans and piecegirl, wave your credentials under everyone's nose's, but if you disagree stick them back in your pocket 'cause they don't count for anything.