Time Person of the Year : Angela Merkel

[Darkpriest]

In regards to "fairness" theme.

 

We are not created fair, our life starts with competitions of various cloisters of DNA fighting their way to end the race as a victor. We do not look the same, we do not have same DNA, we do not have the same talents, etc. hence "life is never fair"

 

It will be always some form of "us" vs "them" as long as our reality revolves around limited resources, and each of us is trying to make the best for himself and his dearest ones. History shows that it was always about getting a competitive edge of various groups over others so their group could have better life and better conditions for their offspring, nothing will change that, because ultimately we are strains of DNA that want to continue its existence and spread, and we are not so different in this regard from "animals", we just use different tools now.

 

Why should i care for them, when they will only endanger my way of life? Why should my taxes be spent on outsiders, when they could be used to secure better living conditions for people related to me? What is the benefit of this action?

[Drowsy Emperor]

Its an ideological award, like Obama receiving the Nobel Peace prize for being a black president (because he sure as hell didn't do anything else to deserve it). Completely meaningless, except in the inevitable, depressing, conclusion that certain circles in the US are supporting the implosion of Europe. 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

I do find it weird that people here seem to be alright with the idea of gradual progression for their loved ones (a generation builds something upon which the next generation can build more etc. ad infinitum) but can't seem to be willing to apply the same principle to a fair society. Yeah, sure, we can't build a fair society, but we can build a progressively fairer one. You don't stop trying to better the lot of your children just because they won't be millionaires in your lifetime, do you?

Care for your own before everyone else, it's a reasonable thing to do - most of the time people care more about their blood relations than some dude on the street Hazarding a guess, also people hate having to mind others or in some way feel like they are being punished for getting ahead. How accurate those are when it comes to making society fair, depends on circumstance and implementation.

 

 

The morality behind running a state is different from the ethics of relations between individuals. If you see someone collapse on the street calling an ambulance  is plainly the "right thing to do" regardless of whether he's white, black, muslim or whatever. But when you're running a state, the livelihood of millions of people is at stake and there are many more things to consider. The reasons for not accepting what is essentially a mass influx of economic migrants from the muslim world have been repeated ad nauseam, and I'm pretty sure that if referendums were made they'd show that the majority of the public is against it too. 

 

But it was yet another dubious decision motivated by "humanism", in the same way that bombing Serbia in '99 was motivated by "human rights" of Albanians (yet accepting Serbian refugees was "not" the right thing to do all the way through the Yugoslav wars?). In other words, even a child can deduce that its a cover for other motivations. An excused designed to put its proponents on the "good" side of the debate while actually stifling any opposition. 

 

What the actual reasons are, other than cheap labor and population replacement I can't even begin to fathom. If Cthulhu was running Brussels it would be easier to understand what's going on there.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

In regards to "fairness" theme.ultimately we are strains of DNA that want to continue its existence and spread, and we are not so different in this regard from "animals", we just use different tools now.

 

No offense, but that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at life, humanity, or just biology in general. Altruism is an inbuilt imperative for many species, including humans.

[Darkpriest]

 

 

In regards to "fairness" theme.ultimately we are strains of DNA that want to continue its existence and spread, and we are not so different in this regard from "animals", we just use different tools now.

No offense, but that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at life, humanity, or just biology in general. Altruism is an inbuilt imperative for many species, including humans.

Yes but it does not override the overall competitive nature.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

In regards to "fairness" theme.ultimately we are strains of DNA that want to continue its existence and spread, and we are not so different in this regard from "animals", we just use different tools now.

No offense, but that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at life, humanity, or just biology in general. Altruism is an inbuilt imperative for many species, including humans.

Yes but it does not override the overall competitive nature.

 

 

I'm just saying, there are people sitting on a mountaintop and giving zero ****s about conflict in general. Even if we accept the proposition that competitiveness is somehow "inherent to human nature" (which we shouldn't), it doesn't determine what you must do. And it's not like this is some isolated incident, sitting on mountaintops and contemplating the nature of eternity has been a time-honored tradition for millennia. It couldn't have taken root if it was somehow fundamentally alien to us.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Cooperation has been a much greater contributor to the success of species than competitiveness. Kropotkin proved this a long time ago in his book "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution".

 

Today's emphasis on "competitiveness" is the mentality of cut-throat capitalism and business forced onto everything else to make people better wage slaves and dissuade the kind of cooperation employers fear. Its seeping into everything, including individual's private lives does not make it an axiom that has always been present - at least not as much even if a degree of competitiveness is ingrained in human nature.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Cooperation has been a much greater contributor to the success of species than competitiveness. Kropotkin proved this a long time ago in his book "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution".

 

Today's emphasis on "competitiveness" is the mentality of cut-throat capitalism and business forced onto everything else to make people better wage slaves and dissuade the kind of cooperation employers fear. Its seeping into everything, including individual's private lives does not make it an axiom that has always been present - at least not as much even if a degree of competitiveness is ingrained in human nature.

 

This is basically what I was getting at, yes.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Yet that is a very broad argument where everyone can draw their own line at will. Its nice to think of "us" in terms of "the whole of humanity", but that is at best a theoretical concept. 

 

Frankly "us" is how its defined day to day, epoch to epoch basis and even that is filled with injustice sometimes even in close family relations (aka some are more "us" than others), to speak nothing of the workplace, neighborhood, the tribe/religion/nation etc. 

 

In other words, its a flimsy social/psychological construct. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Yet that is a very broad argument where everyone can draw their own line at will. Its nice to think of "us" in terms of "the whole of humanity", but that is at best a theoretical concept. 

 

It's no more theoretical than defining it as "Americans", like GD did. Never quite understood the mindset that causes one to profess commonality with a group that encompasses a significant number of rapists, murderers, pedophiles, people from a bunch of different religions and political persuasions, and hold that group up, saying "See these? Even a single one of these people, including the really horrible ones, is worth more than the millions whose homes and livelihoods were destroyed by war."

[Drowsy Emperor]

In a debate you can equate the two, but in practice that's how it works.  Its a basic human concept. There's "us" and there is the "other" and the other as close to you as you define it yourself. 

 

Obviously when claiming participation to a group you're not self identifying with its pathological members, rather with the average or the best of such a group and that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[213374U]

 

In regards to "fairness" theme.ultimately we are strains of DNA that want to continue its existence and spread, and we are not so different in this regard from "animals", we just use different tools now.

 

No offense, but that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at life, humanity, or just biology in general. Altruism is an inbuilt imperative for many species, including humans.

 

 

Yeah, it's rather appalling how these reactionary, quasi-Randian outlooks are unfailingly based on... factually incorrect premises.

 

On cooperation vs competition

 

On DNA unfair bluh bluh

 

On meritocracy

 

Bonus series, because why the **** not (not directly related, fascinating nonetheless, free will mind over matter yadda yadda)

 

These links have all appeared in these boards in one shape or another, btw.

 

But really, it wouldn't be so bad if you guys just up and admitted that you live by "I got mine, **** you (because my grandaddy XYZ)". At least be honest, if nothing else, with yourselves.

[BruceVC]

 

 

In regards to "fairness" theme.ultimately we are strains of DNA that want to continue its existence and spread, and we are not so different in this regard from "animals", we just use different tools now.

 

No offense, but that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at life, humanity, or just biology in general. Altruism is an inbuilt imperative for many species, including humans.

 

 

Yeah, it's rather appalling how these reactionary, quasi-Randian outlooks are unfailingly based on... factually incorrect premises.

 

On cooperation vs competition

 

On DNA unfair bluh bluh

 

On meritocracy

 

Bonus series, because why the **** not (not directly related, fascinating nonetheless, free will mind over matter yadda yadda)

 

These links have all appeared in these boards in one shape or another, btw.

 

But really, it wouldn't be so bad if you guys just up and admitted that you live by "I got mine, **** you (because my grandaddy XYZ)". At least be honest, if nothing else, with yourselves.

 

2133 its good to give other people advice on how they should be looking at this whole refugee crisis.....especially since Spain is  not on the receiving end ......but its okay, I sincerely hope Spain fulfills it responsibility to the EU by taking in 20k refugees or so

 

The truth is Spain is a large and resourceful country and being part of " old Europe " you don't really have a choice

 

Oh and you probably already have refugees ...so sorry then for this post  

[Bartimaeus]

 

 

Edited December 11, 2015 by Bartimaeus

[Tigranes]

In a debate you can equate the two, but in practice that's how it works.  Its a basic human concept. There's "us" and there is the "other" and the other as close to you as you define it yourself. 

 

Obviously when claiming participation to a group you're not self identifying with its pathological members, rather with the average or the best of such a group and that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. 

 

Yep. "We love America, except the millions of Americans composed of [whites/blacks/the poor/the rich/latte liberals/Republicans/Trump supporters/rapists/racists/etc/etc] that are not really American" is the basic move we see all over the world. We love us and we hate the other, except we make sure that everybody we hate can be moved to 'other' whenever we need to. Which is why we need to be careful about pretending that it's some kind of eternal classification that cannot be disobeyed.

[BruceVC]

 

In a debate you can equate the two, but in practice that's how it works.  Its a basic human concept. There's "us" and there is the "other" and the other as close to you as you define it yourself. 

 

Obviously when claiming participation to a group you're not self identifying with its pathological members, rather with the average or the best of such a group and that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. 

 

Yep. "We love America, except the millions of Americans composed of [whites/blacks/the poor/the rich/latte liberals/Republicans/Trump supporters/rapists/racists/etc/etc] that are not really American" is the basic move we see all over the world. We love us and we hate the other, except we make sure that everybody we hate can be moved to 'other' whenever we need to. Which is why we need to be careful about pretending that it's some kind of eternal classification that cannot be disobeyed.

 

Tigranes I am sorry I haven't said this earlier but I want to recognize this point in the interests of general SJ commitment 

 

 

Its not very common on these forums and I find most of the US members very seldom seem to support certain events that I would think everyone should. Anyway its good to see you making this point ...it may seem banal but its relevant. So nice one 

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

In a debate you can equate the two, but in practice that's how it works.  Its a basic human concept. There's "us" and there is the "other" and the other as close to you as you define it yourself. 

 

Obviously when claiming participation to a group you're not self identifying with its pathological members, rather with the average or the best of such a group and that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. 

 

Yep. "We love America, except the millions of Americans composed of [whites/blacks/the poor/the rich/latte liberals/Republicans/Trump supporters/rapists/racists/etc/etc] that are not really American" is the basic move we see all over the world. We love us and we hate the other, except we make sure that everybody we hate can be moved to 'other' whenever we need to. Which is why we need to be careful about pretending that it's some kind of eternal classification that cannot be disobeyed.

 

 

No one ever said the issue is actually logical. 

 

If you want to live in a more unified society (and one not necessarily enforced through terror or fear) you have to support that sort of social order. In secular capitalist democracies, where money can buy influence to say and do practically anything, where you're encouraged to say practically anything in the public sphere to get "one up" over your opponents and where there's no overarching moral system (not "in god we trust" written on money, lol) to guide society public discourse will always be a cesspool.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

In secular capitalist democracies, where money can buy influence to say and do practically anything, where you're encouraged to say practically anything in the public sphere to get "one up" over your opponents and where there's no overarching moral system (not "in god we trust" written on money, lol) to guide society public discourse will always be a cesspool.

 

 

I do not think any of those is an inherent property of secular capitalist democracies.

[Nonek]

 

In a debate you can equate the two, but in practice that's how it works.  Its a basic human concept. There's "us" and there is the "other" and the other as close to you as you define it yourself. 

 

Obviously when claiming participation to a group you're not self identifying with its pathological members, rather with the average or the best of such a group and that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. 

 

Yep. "We love America, except the millions of Americans composed of [whites/blacks/the poor/the rich/latte liberals/Republicans/Trump supporters/rapists/racists/etc/etc] that are not really American" is the basic move we see all over the world. We love us and we hate the other, except we make sure that everybody we hate can be moved to 'other' whenever we need to. Which is why we need to be careful about pretending that it's some kind of eternal classification that cannot be disobeyed.

 

 

Indeed the urge to demonise the other, to ascribe them with all manner of "sins" they are innocent of and hold oneself above them in a self righteous display of oneupmanship has still not been eradicated. In fact i'd say that it's now more popular than ever, fashionable even, no matter what the behaviour of the accuser, whose eye really should not see for the log in it. A shame that it utterly circumvents any form of empathy or self analysis.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Nonek

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

In secular capitalist democracies, where money can buy influence to say and do practically anything, where you're encouraged to say practically anything in the public sphere to get "one up" over your opponents and where there's no overarching moral system (not "in god we trust" written on money, lol) to guide society public discourse will always be a cesspool.

 

 

I do not think any of those is an inherent property of secular capitalist democracies.

 

 

No, but they bring it to an extreme.