Submitted by Sphaerocypraea t3_xtiajf in philosophy
apriorian t1_iqq8ite wrote
Reply to comment by ShalmaneserIII in Utopia”: meaning ‘no place’; from Greek: οὐ (not’) and τόπος (‘place’) by Sphaerocypraea
You are assuming conditions that would not exist. One cannot just take capitalism and democracy and remove duty. Of course one would run into problems. You might be honest and admit that people are in need all the time in the West and cannot get medical help. I was in Florida for a year and the news reported 6 people in ambulences that died as they drove from hospital to hospital without any of them permitting them in as their quota of charity cases was already filled. So, please, lets at least begin from a place of honesty.
Let me make a prediction, this is where you accuse me of being a communist. Am I right?
ShalmaneserIII t1_iqq8qjx wrote
Okay, so do you have a duty to provide food to hungry people and care to injured people in your ideal society? Must you provide housing, education, etc?
apriorian t1_iqqavt2 wrote
The simple answer is absolutely not. I owe a duty to no one. But I reject your assumption an ideal society has beggars. But this is the problem isn't it? There are a huge number of people who embrace the idea of begging, who conspire to find ways of scamming society and getting things free? Do you disagree?
n1a1s1 t1_iqqd96h wrote
bruh yes people want to get ahead and will do it by any means necessary
a utopia or perfect society is certainly not easy to create
apriorian t1_iqqfa5g wrote
OK, but which is easier, to create a car with no plan or design using faulty parts or by engineering the entire process?
Truth is always simpler than a lie.
Lets use a simple illustration. Lets assume democracy is the best possible system and money is an asset are two lies assumed to be true. Now if they are lies one predicts democracy will give us governments that are tantamount to evil and if money is not an asset we will get an economy that generates inequality, poverty and other ills.
You are free to claim these statements are true but then it behooves you to explain why they produce results that surely would be expected if they were lies.
n1a1s1 t1_iqqfsq5 wrote
idk what the fuck ur on about
society exists as it does and to change it to a perfect place is practically impossible
if you're claiming it to be so easy why are you here posting rather than doing it
apriorian t1_iqqgyc3 wrote
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you can figure out the answer to this question yourself.
biedl t1_iqqgrpj wrote
Money is not a lie assumed to be true, neither is democracy. There is no absolute or objective truth about money. It's a human concept. It's a category error to call it a lie to begin with.
Your illustration is based upon aphorism and deepity.
apriorian t1_iqqh1yd wrote
Is that the answer you are going with or would you like to ask the audience if they have a better answer?
biedl t1_iqqh57f wrote
Ye, I see, you are not open to consider different viewpoints.
apriorian t1_iqqhbe6 wrote
I might be. I claim 4 is the answer to 2+2 if you can prove you have a different viewpoint and it is more credible we can move over to the tautological and analytical claims of my theory.
bTw you did not offer a different viewpoint you merely evaded the question .
biedl t1_iqqhioq wrote
I can only repeat what I already said, in hope of you at least trying to understand it.
You are committing yourself to a category error.
Saying that money is a lie and saying that 2+2=5 is a lie are two completely different claims. Only one of them can be evaluated as false.
apriorian t1_iqqisxw wrote
Irrelevant, but you seem intelligent enough to know that already. I did not even preclude the possibility the statement was not a lie, as you also well know but that is what you are evading. I have played these games a 1000 and more times before. I do not care you will not answer questions, atheists never do. Everything they do is based on making sure they are not accountable for anything they say or do.
You can keep playing your games all i am saying i am fully aware of what you are doing, i just do not care.
biedl t1_iqqj3wk wrote
If your method fails a 1000 times, it's likely to be on you, instead of 1000 separate individuals.
It's not irrelevant, for your claim of money and democracy being a lie is mute, as soon as you understand that there is no intrinsic truth to either claim to begin with.
Try me. Ask questions.
ShalmaneserIII t1_iqqedzz wrote
So how do you prevent beggars?
apriorian t1_iqqfix4 wrote
The crucial thing is to understand how deep the problem is, it literally began in Eden, you can reject the divinity if you wish but the story perfectly encapsulates the problem. No man created the natural world and no man has a right to own any part of it, not publicly and not privately. So long as we permit this we have freeloading, that is the root of it. But as said, no one wants to admit how deep and pervasive the problem is.
ShalmaneserIII t1_iqqfwev wrote
Okay, but do you have to own food to eat it? Or what of the food you gather or grow?
And it seems you're suggesting hunting and gathering?
biedl t1_iqqh284 wrote
Rights are human concepts. There are no intrinsic rights to humans. If a society agrees upon rights, man has rights.
CegeRoles t1_iqqtehq wrote
So…what? You’re saying I don’t even have a right to own the house I live in?
apriorian t1_iqqva0b wrote
Technically yes but personal ownership is not the issue. The issue is owning a forest or waterfall or mine and robbing it of all its value. But even owning a factory and making money off the labor of workers is only justified because the employer was given the right to own the factory in the first place. But where does this right come from, who has the right to give anyone this right? Do you think a person has a right to claim a continent for his own or his monarch? Do you think a people have a right to say they own it, they can but the only way they can prove this is through killing anyone who challanges their right, as in war. But if they can do this why cannot a criminal do the same thing? Its precisely the same kind of behaviour.
CegeRoles t1_iqqzh2m wrote
The right is given to us via the social contract. We have all agreed upon on certain rules and conditions in exchange for the benefits of civilization.
apriorian t1_iqr2f13 wrote
You must have gotton me drunk. How could you have tricked me like this? Its not fair.
CegeRoles t1_iqr2p84 wrote
What isn’t fair?
apriorian t1_iqr3fz9 wrote
You guys getting me drunk and having me sign a social compact when i was not fully conscious of what i was doing.
How about if I told you that you all agreed to send me $100.00 next week, how would you feel about that. And do not tell me you do not remember. I said you did and so that is that, case closed.
CegeRoles t1_iqrm5nc wrote
Where exactly did you get the idea that the social contract was meant to be fair?
apriorian t1_iqrvwr9 wrote
I never said that.
CegeRoles t1_iqrx4qo wrote
Then why are you complaining about it?
apriorian t1_iqssepg wrote
I cannot explain what is in your mind or why, sorry.
I certainly was not commenting on an invisible, thing that does not exist.
CegeRoles t1_iqsv69y wrote
Could have fooled me. Your entire history is nothing but comments about an invisible thing that doesn't exist.
apriorian t1_iquusdx wrote
Could have fooled me. Your entire history is nothing but comments about an invisible thing that doesn't exist FOR ATHEISTS.
You give me a picture of your personality and i will share one of my God.
CegeRoles t1_iqr3wd5 wrote
So? No one will stop you from leaving. Go buy a boat and live in the ocean.
biedl t1_iqqcx0g wrote
You say something about starting with honesty, while having no problem to poison the well repeatedly.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments