Effort or Luck?

It was intended as a definition of the differing needs and/or desires between the left and the right.

 

haha this certainly brings back memories... Hello Balbus despite our differences i hope you are doing well ... no im not gonna get into this with you or any other thread but its nice to see how little things have changed lol .. Not sure if you will ban me or not but was interesting to see the old forum again LOL peaace

 

Indie

This doesn’t address the question that was raised it just seems like more evasion.

Actually both words are problematic – what is meant by ‘basically’ (look it up) - well what’s said is that humans are ‘essentially’, ‘in essence’, ‘mostly’, ‘primarily’ (I could go on) either good or bad.
And that - as I explained - is a flawed viewpoint, have you a rational argument with which to dispute my view or are we just going to get more evasion?

Not really - that is why I usually prefix my statements with ‘seems’ or ‘in my view’. But are you disputing what I’ve said because you don’t seem to be.

Have I, can you explain why you think that?

 

Indie

I’m only trying to find out if you have any rational, reasonable and logical reasons for holding your views, so far it is very difficult to tell because you spend most of your time evading giving answers or refusing to address the criticisms of your views.

But what rational reasons do you have for your ‘feeling’. Also just saying something doesn’t just make it so – can you explain why, because this does seem to fit your attitudes about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people.

Again this fixation of yours with the idea of ‘good or bad’.
To explain once again - to me humans are not absolutes they are not wholly (basically) ‘good’ nor are they wholly (basically) ‘bad’. Time, place, circumstance and viewpoint will all have an effect on the how things are perceived. When this is realised the very concepts of basic ‘good’ and ‘bad’ become somewhat untenable in this context.

Actually if you thought rather that just brisling you’d see the difference – what I’m pointing out is that this seems to be a political belief based on a personal view of yourself. You believe you are ‘good’ therefore your think your ideas must be ‘good’ and so opposing views must be ‘bad’ and therefore the people that express them must be ‘bad’ people.
I think this is why you find it difficult to question your beliefs even when you cannot come up with any rational argument with which to defend them (or even explain them), because it would mean questioning your own view of yourself.

This doesn’t address what’s been said (more evasion) and makes a statement that you’ve not in the past been willing to back up.

 

Indie

Very indicative of your mindset – law to you means ‘order’ not justice.

This is just unsubstantiated sloganizing.
*

LOL – in other words you don’t know how to back up your statement.

Perhaps, perhaps not – that’s why I asked you to back up your viewpoint something you seem unwilling or unable to do.
*
Also if you have such faith in the principle of donation why do you not extend it to the finance of law and order and defence?

Well if you know it was “done in the past” then you should be able to easily back up your viewpoint.

 

Indie

Again that doesn’t answer the question it is just more evasion –
Who would determine these things and in what way and by what criteria? I mean we have been through this before in the Small government thread and you didn’t really seem to have an answer then have you got one now?
It would seem to me that you still haven’t any answers, which make’s me wonder why, I mean you’ve had a lot of time to think about it, does this mean you couldn’t think of any?
*

Yes you said – “We have adoption agencies, and the cost burden would be placed upon the couple who have proven their ability to be responsible custodians of the cild”
This implies that the cost of supplying the child would be passed onto the adoption agencies’ customer – it would be a payment for the child, basically the child is sold to the customer.
You really haven’t thought this through have you?

But you have often talked of people making ‘good’ or ‘bad’ choices of being responsible (good) or irresponsible (bad) and these things been important to getting on.
This is very similar to view that if people are responsible and make ‘good’ choices they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make bad choices they’re feckless and don’t deserve assistance. The idea that the good will get on because they are good and the bad will not because they are bad.

 

Indie

This must be one of the funniest and cockeyed replies I’ve read in my many years on these forums.

You’re basically saying that even if someone talks utter and complete bollocks others have to accept it as ‘rational’ because they tell you it’s rational.

Think about it someone could say virtually anything and have your reply thrown at them - ‘Pigs have wings and can fly”

‘Not any pigs I’ve seen please back this up’

‘OH well obviously there's nothing I could say that you would find acceptable, so you'll just have to take my word its true, like it or not’

If you had rational answers you would give them but because you haven’t you’re trying to claim you don’t need to present any.

The problem is that the flaws that seem to be present in your argument remain.

*

 

That one word, justice, appears to be a primary factor in our differing viewpoints. Obviously we were taught the same language, but from quite different dictionaries.

 

What you fail to understand is that I accept as fact that you feel your views are rational while I do not, nor do I find your arguments, if they can be called such, worthy of changing my own views, leaving us with no option but to accept as fact also that we are unlikely to change one or the others views. I've looked hard to find a single word that might be the basis of your views, and find that difficult, perhaps impossible to determine as we appear to have quite different definitions of many of the words we communicate with.

 

The "cost" I was referring to is the cost of raising a child, clothing, food, school, health care, etc.

 

You look at government, in combination with the society it governs to be a source of insurance against bad decisions, which I do not. Nothing, and no one is too big or too important to fail. Sometimes we just have to accept the fact that failures are a part of life, and go on. It is the right of individuals, not government to intercede where they choose.

 

Indie

I’m only trying to find out if you have any rational, reasonable and logical reasons for holding your views, so far it is very difficult to tell because you spend most of your time evading giving answers or refusing to address the criticisms of your views, as is the case here.

And if you have any rational, reasonable and logical criticisms of my views please present them rather than just bitching, just saying you don’t like or don’t agree with them isn’t presenting rational criticism.

Again just saying that you don’t agree isn’t rational argument.

*

 

Indie

Then you still haven’t answered my questions

You said –

To which I asked - How would you determine these things and in what way and by what criteria? I mean we have been through this before in the Small government thread and you didn’t really seem to have an answer then have you got one now?

These questions remains unaddressed

*

I said and asked - Although you have recently said that you would forcibly remove children from parents you deemed ‘irresponsible’. How would that work and how would it be paid for?

To which you replied -

So how would it work and how would it be paid for?

 

Indie

Can a baby make rational decisions about its life? Can it decide to whom it is born? Should people be blamed or punished for things that they have no or very little control over?

Also the thing is that advantage can have a very strong effect on whether a person achieves success or failure and can very much help in getting over failures.

*

This reply also seems to once again highlight your flawed absolutist way of thinking

As I pointed out earlier about the idea of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ – “that the deserving are those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any and the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was little or no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these disadvantaged people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

It is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make the right choices they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make bad choices they’re feckless and don’t deserve assistance.”

The thing is that people make good decisions and bad decisions they are at times responsible and at other times irresponsible. And like the idea of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ – the view of decisions and responsibility can be affected by time, place, circumstance and viewpoint.

For example what might seem like a ‘good’ decision and praised as such at that time may be seen later on and in hindsight as a ‘bad’ decision.

 

I've pointed out why I disagree with your views more than once. I don't feel that government has a duty to produce equality within the society it governs, even if demanded by a majority.

 

I would leave the answers you ask to communities, and perhaps within guidelines set by the state. There are many different ways that might be tried and by allowing a variety of methods to be put to use, it could be determined which works best, although it may be that there are more than one depending upon unique circumstances.

 

No, babies can't make rational decisions about their lives, but adults can and should. Babies are not a creation of society, but of individuals, and it is not the duty of government to assign greater responsibilities to working, taxpaying citizens in a way that only promotes a greater number of irresponsible members within the society. Government is incapable of examining each case of need individually, and produces solutions which more often than not, become greater problems than the problem it set out to solve.

 

Then what do you think a government should do?

 

Indie

But can you in any rational, reasonable and logical manner explain why you think that?

Having a ‘feeling’ about it is not a rational, reasonable and logical argument.

 

Indie

I asked you how you would do it, so what ‘methods’ are you think of?

You don’t seem to be taking any responsibility for what you said and instead shrugged it off as someone else’s problem.

I mean you are talking about forcibly removing children from their parent(s) and giving them to other people, it is not something minor

*

Which would seem to imply that you would make the child suffer for something they had nothing to do with?

Which would seem to imply that you think it justified to make the innocent suffer?
I’m sorry but such treatment of the guiltless doesn’t seem fair or a good basis for a healthy society.

How does helping people to realise their potential promote a greater number of irresponsible members of society?