Don't Read to Your Children

[Meshugger]

That said, Meshugger did ask me to be less polite in one of the endless incarnations of the GG subtopic. Seriously people, just make up your mind on what you want from me 

Meshugger is a shady fellow.

 

 

Don't listen to the haters. Direct language is always the best form of communication.

 

As for me, i have already stated that philosophers dabble in the most stupid things in the name of sparking a debate. Carry on.

 

*grabs popcorn*

Edited May 11, 2015 by Meshugger

[Malcador]

Can you go into more detail, I am not sure what you mean?

Sadly no obsidian.txt file, but just various arguments on how one should behave and a forum should be run and so on. Is a cheap WUM tactic I know, but one must volley everything

 

Get offended? How could anyone be offended by an internet forum? I mean, it's not like you guys are real right? This is all just a sophisticated computer program. You do cease to exist when I turn my computer off right?

Nope, can't be true if this program is 'sophisticated' and produced us.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

I also thought the Internet was a hard place where we need to have thick skins and not get offended....or has that changed?

 

Get offended? How could anyone be offended by an internet forum? I mean, it's not like you guys are real right? This is all just a sophisticated computer program. You do cease to exist when I turn my computer off right?

 

 

 

This thought made me laugh....imagine if I found out that there are only 5 or so real people active on these forums and all this time I have been having the same debates with people who sometimes agree with me and sometimes don't depending on there sock puppet

 

Hey Dark Raven used to argue with her own alts.

[213374U]

If the state ever did decide to seize everyone's children how would we stop them? Well, in the US & Canada we're all armed to the teeth so I guess that won't be an issue! Suddenly puts gun control in a different light.

 

 

Nah. They wouldn't try forcibly taking your kids away, that's too much trouble. What they'd do instead is progressively tax the **** out of families wanting to rear their own children while offering tax breaks and any other advantages you can think of to sperm donors and surrogate mothers. In 25 years you'd have an entire generation that would believe that being raised by the state isn't at all bad (because they themselves would have been) and would see people wanting to have kids and rear them themselves as anarchists, unwashed savages, or what have you.

 

If only you could fight complacency with a gun.

 

 

 

Get offended? How could anyone be offended by an internet forum? I mean, it's not like you guys are real right? This is all just a sophisticated computer program. You do cease to exist when I turn my computer off right?

 

 

 

Close. Odds are you are actually a brain floating in space and everything is just a figment of your imagination.

[kgambit]

 

If the state ever did decide to seize everyone's children how would we stop them? Well, in the US & Canada we're all armed to the teeth so I guess that won't be an issue! Suddenly puts gun control in a different light.

 

 

Nah. They wouldn't try forcibly taking your kids away, that's too much trouble. What they'd do instead is progressively tax the **** out of families wanting to rear their own children while offering tax breaks and any other advantages you can think of to sperm donors and surrogate mothers. In 25 years you'd have an entire generation that would believe that being raised by the state isn't at all bad (because they themselves would have been) and would see people wanting to have kids and rear them themselves as anarchists, unwashed savages, or what have you.

 

If only you could fight complacency with a gun.

 

 

 

Get offended? How could anyone be offended by an internet forum? I mean, it's not like you guys are real right? This is all just a sophisticated computer program. You do cease to exist when I turn my computer off right?

 

 

 

Close. Odds are you are actually a brain floating in space and everything is just a figment of your imagination.

 

 

Or in a jar.  Just as long as it doesn't look like this:

 

[Volourn]

"Do you seriously believe the state wants to take away your guns in order to make their job of taking away your children easier?"\

 

They want to take away private citizens' guns so it is much easier to control and enslave them. The gov't is not your buddy. They want to control ALL aspects of your life. It's why people get CS on their butts because they have their kids walk down the street or go to a store unsupervised.

[BruceVC]

"Do you seriously believe the state wants to take away your guns in order to make their job of taking away your children easier?"\

 

They want to take away private citizens' guns so it is much easier to control and enslave them. The gov't is not your buddy. They want to control ALL aspects of your life. It's why people get CS on their butts because they have their kids walk down the street or go to a store unsupervised.

 

Volo don't be naive, we need governments or there will be anarchy throughout society. And no one wants that 

[Guard Dog]

I would not go so far as to wish for anarchy but Volo is dead on the money on one note. Your government does not love you, it does not want to help you, and it is not your friend. It's motivation is only self perpetration. If they day ever comes where the liberty of the people becomes a threat to that then it will become a threat to the people. I will not live in a country where the people have no countermeasure against that.  

 

If guns are ever outlawed and confiscated in the US it does not necessarily mean horror will follow. But if it does the people will be helpless to stop it. Either way I won't be alive to see it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

"Do you seriously believe the state wants to take away your guns in order to make their job of taking away your children easier?"\

 

They want to take away private citizens' guns so it is much easier to control and enslave them. The gov't is not your buddy. They want to control ALL aspects of your life. It's why people get CS on their butts because they have their kids walk down the street or go to a store unsupervised.

 

 

Volo don't be naive, we need governments or there will be anarchy throughout society. And no one wants that

Speak for yourself.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I would not go so far as to wish for anarchy but Volo is dead on the money on one note. Your government does not love you, it does not want to help you, and it is not your friend. It's motivation is only self perpetration.

 

Well the same thing can be said for, say, the overwhelming majority of your fellow human beings, yet their existence is generally not portrayed as a problem; furthermore, most ethical systems call for, indeed, treating them as your friends. I may be missing something here.

Edited May 11, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[BruceVC]

 

I would not go so far as to wish for anarchy but Volo is dead on the money on one note. Your government does not love you, it does not want to help you, and it is not your friend. It's motivation is only self perpetration.

 

Well the same thing can be said for, say, the overwhelming majority of your fellow human beings, yet their existence is generally not portrayed as a problem. I may be missing something here.

 

 

No that is a solid point, I would like to see how the boys respond 

[Guard Dog]

 

I would not go so far as to wish for anarchy but Volo is dead on the money on one note. Your government does not love you, it does not want to help you, and it is not your friend. It's motivation is only self perpetration.

 

Well the same thing can be said for, say, the overwhelming majority of your fellow human beings, yet their existence is generally not portrayed as a problem; furthermore, most ethical systems call for, indeed, treating them as your friends. I may be missing something here.

 

Yes and governments are made up of human beings. And you do not want other human beings having too much control over you and yours. Every problem this world has ever had, has or will have begins when one human being seeks to impose his will on the lives of other human beings. Sometimes that is done out of imagined benevolence (I just want to help these poor fools) or arrogance (I want to save these poor fools) or malice (I'm going to show these poor fools) the end result is the same.

 

Government does have a purpose but it must be limited, and it must be kept in those limits. Too many people see the government as a means to make people do, live, act the way they want. That is my biggest problem with the religious right and everyone on the left. You can't fix human nature, the only way to protect yourself is not allow your government to become so powerful it can do whatever it wants with no consequences.

[Meshugger]

 

 

I would not go so far as to wish for anarchy but Volo is dead on the money on one note. Your government does not love you, it does not want to help you, and it is not your friend. It's motivation is only self perpetration.

 

Well the same thing can be said for, say, the overwhelming majority of your fellow human beings, yet their existence is generally not portrayed as a problem; furthermore, most ethical systems call for, indeed, treating them as your friends. I may be missing something here.

 

Yes and governments are made up of human beings. And you do not want other human beings having too much control over you and yours. Every problem this world has ever had, has or will have begins when one human being seeks to impose his will on the lives of other human beings. Sometimes that is done out of imagined benevolence (I just want to help these poor fools) or arrogance (I want to save these poor fools) or malice (I'm going to show these poor fools) the end result is the same.

 

Government does have a purpose but it must be limited, and it must be kept in those limits. Too many people see the government as a means to make people do, live, act the way they want. That is my biggest problem with the religious right and everyone on the left. You can't fix human nature, the only way to protect yourself is not allow your government to become so powerful it can do whatever it wants with no consequences.

 

 

Nonsense comrade. When we the people wish to remove guns, it is only because the people wills it. We live in civilized society now and you don't go against the people as some sort of separatist now, do you comrade?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Every problem this world has ever had, has or will have begins when one human being seeks to impose his will on the lives of other human beings. Sometimes that is done out of imagined benevolence (I just want to help these poor fools) or arrogance (I want to save these poor fools) or malice (I'm going to show these poor fools) the end result is the same.

 

 

Except most problems in the world are neither caused by (imagined) benevolence, arrogance or malice, but simple ignorance and incompetence. People either don't, or literally can't, think of the harm their actions are causing.

 

This seems like an irreconcilable difference in how we view the world; I can't help but think it's the height of arrogance to assume that most harm in the world comes as a result of someone's intent - either through backfiring or working as intended -, because it assumes that the universe, in the end, is not a huge and chaotic mess where things just happen and agency is largely an illusion; whereas, I'd venture, you probably think it's the height of arrogance to think that most people are so powerless against the inherently chaotic nature of life as to be unable to impact it in any meaningful fashion.

 

 

 

Government does have a purpose but it must be limited, and it must be kept in those limits. Too many people see the government as a means to make people do, live, act the way they want. That is my biggest problem with the religious right and everyone on the left. You can't fix human nature, the only way to protect yourself is not allow your government to become so powerful it can do whatever it wants with no consequences.

 

 

So your problem is, essentially, that power corrupts, and the bigger the power, the bigger the risk of corruption - hence governments need to be limited in power, because that will prevent those who want to bend the world to their will from accruing the means to do so.

 

Am I reading you correctly?

[Hurlshort]

 

 

 

Government does have a purpose but it must be limited, and it must be kept in those limits. Too many people see the government as a means to make people do, live, act the way they want. That is my biggest problem with the religious right and everyone on the left. You can't fix human nature, the only way to protect yourself is not allow your government to become so powerful it can do whatever it wants with no consequences.

 

 

So your problem is, essentially, that power corrupts, and the bigger the power, the bigger the risk of corruption - hence governments need to be limited in power, because that will prevent those who want to bend the world to their will from accruing the means to do so.

 

Am I reading you correctly?

 

 

I'd agree with that.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

Government does have a purpose but it must be limited, and it must be kept in those limits. Too many people see the government as a means to make people do, live, act the way they want. That is my biggest problem with the religious right and everyone on the left. You can't fix human nature, the only way to protect yourself is not allow your government to become so powerful it can do whatever it wants with no consequences.

 

 

So your problem is, essentially, that power corrupts, and the bigger the power, the bigger the risk of corruption - hence governments need to be limited in power, because that will prevent those who want to bend the world to their will from accruing the means to do so.

 

Am I reading you correctly?

 

 

I'd agree with that.

 

 

Niet comrade. The power is of the people, vox populi as some might say it, and the will of the people is the will of the state; therefore the state is only as corrupted as the spirit of common worker man. *twists the bushy moustache*

 

I really need to stop visiting /leftypol/

[ravenshrike]

 

 

 

Except that IS the basic premise of the author of the article. Moreover, the asshat in the interview feels conflicted about coming up with the justification for the family. The idea of justifying something that gives someone an advantage over others actually causes him mental conflict.

 

Actually, no. "Conflict" is only mentioned in the text once.

 

 

 

 Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.

 

I see nothing inherently wrong in being conflicted over that. It's not the same as "being conflicted about coming up with justification for the family".

 

Basically you find it objectionable that people exist who dare to think about whether the way we're doing things is optimal or not, regardless of what conclusion they arrive on. Congratulations, you have (re-)invented thoughtcrime.

 

Yes, because despising someone because their first principles are utterly insane and that they must grasp at straws to justify a position that no rational person should have difficulty accepting in the first place is "(re)inventing thoughtcrime". There is exactly zero rational basis for accepting that familial good takes precedence over social justice if you accept equality of opportunity as a first principle as Swift and Brighouse do. Yet both of them are attempting to do so in the article, and looking at what's available on wiki they have both been doing so for the past 6 years at least.  Swift himself is an authoritarian rat**** as evidenced by the last minute of that little soundclip helpfully provided by the article.

 

 

Article is not written by them, but somebody else that tries to portray their philosophies by using a few quotes from them that are put in order that writer of article sees best. So it isn't very good as source when you want to judge Swift's and Brighouse's philosophies, maybe little better than use it as source to judge Platon's philosophies but not much. Article seems to be more a brief glimpse to some philosophies that try to determine value of family and in at least in Swift case how that value would work in society which aim is equality.

 

I would point out that philosophers that come up with philosophies don't necessary believe that they are right ones to society in anyway, but extreme thought plays were you take one to a few ideologies and start to create idea of ideal society based on them to see if that would produce something that could withstand closer scrutiny. So for example lets take ideological values inequality is bad and family is good and lets see how these things come in together.

 

Because, of course, at this point in time I'm going solely off the article and not off of Smith and Brighouse's stated position of Liberal Egalitarianism. Wait, no, that's just exactly backwards. Liberal Egalitarianism is a rather specific ideology which is inherently self contradictory that attempts to combine the fundamentally incompatible tenets of Liberty and Egalitarianism. The article in question is merely one in a long list of failed attempts at doing so.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

Except that IS the basic premise of the author of the article. Moreover, the asshat in the interview feels conflicted about coming up with the justification for the family. The idea of justifying something that gives someone an advantage over others actually causes him mental conflict.

 

Actually, no. "Conflict" is only mentioned in the text once.

 

 

 

 Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.

 

I see nothing inherently wrong in being conflicted over that. It's not the same as "being conflicted about coming up with justification for the family".

 

Basically you find it objectionable that people exist who dare to think about whether the way we're doing things is optimal or not, regardless of what conclusion they arrive on. Congratulations, you have (re-)invented thoughtcrime.

 

Yes, because despising someone because their first principles are utterly insane and that they must grasp at straws to justify a position that no rational person should have difficulty accepting in the first place is "(re)inventing thoughtcrime". There is exactly zero rational basis for accepting that familial good takes precedence over social justice if you accept equality of opportunity as a first principle as Swift and Brighouse do. Yet both of them are attempting to do so in the article, and looking at what's available on wiki they have both been doing so for the past 6 years at least.  Swift himself is an authoritarian rat**** as evidenced by the last minute of that little soundclip helpfully provided by the article.

 

 

Article is not written by them, but somebody else that tries to portray their philosophies by using a few quotes from them that are put in order that writer of article sees best. So it isn't very good as source when you want to judge Swift's and Brighouse's philosophies, maybe little better than use it as source to judge Platon's philosophies but not much. Article seems to be more a brief glimpse to some philosophies that try to determine value of family and in at least in Swift case how that value would work in society which aim is equality.

 

I would point out that philosophers that come up with philosophies don't necessary believe that they are right ones to society in anyway, but extreme thought plays were you take one to a few ideologies and start to create idea of ideal society based on them to see if that would produce something that could withstand closer scrutiny. So for example lets take ideological values inequality is bad and family is good and lets see how these things come in together.

 

Because, of course, at this point in time I'm going solely off the article and not off of Smith and Brighouse's stated position of Liberal Egalitarianism. Wait, no, that's just exactly backwards. Liberal Egalitarianism is a rather specific ideology which is inherently self contradictory that attempts to combine the fundamentally incompatible tenets of Liberty and Egalitarianism. The article in question is merely one in a long list of failed attempts at doing so.

 

I didn't know that this was book about Liberal Egalitarianism.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10385.html

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Liberal Egalitarianism is a rather specific ideology which is inherently self contradictory that attempts to combine the fundamentally incompatible tenets of Liberty and Egalitarianism. 

 

 

...Said ravenshrike, the world's leading authority on liberal egalitarianism a random internet person.

 

Seriously, why should we give any more weight to your personal opinion than to the rather extensive academic literature on the subject?

Edited May 11, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

Government does have a purpose but it must be limited, and it must be kept in those limits. Too many people see the government as a means to make people do, live, act the way they want. That is my biggest problem with the religious right and everyone on the left. You can't fix human nature, the only way to protect yourself is not allow your government to become so powerful it can do whatever it wants with no consequences.

 

 

So your problem is, essentially, that power corrupts, and the bigger the power, the bigger the risk of corruption - hence governments need to be limited in power, because that will prevent those who want to bend the world to their will from accruing the means to do so.

 

Am I reading you correctly?

 

I'd agree with that.

 

Niet comrade. The power is of the people, vox populi as some might say it, and the will of the people is the will of the state; therefore the state is only as corrupted as the spirit of common worker man. *twists the bushy moustache*

 

I really need to stop visiting /leftypol/

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

This right here, my friends, is a thing of sublime beauty.

[Namutree]

 

 

lol.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Namutree

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

 

Clicked link. Doesn't work.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

Clicked link. Doesn't work.

 

 

Many have tried to click it, but it just hasn't been properly implemented yet.

[Hurlshort]

Since I am susceptible to reverse psychology, I am now reading to my children more regularly before bedtime.  Thanks a lot, Obsidianites.