[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
…
People like you are destroying the country. You seem to be missing the point of this whole argument. Go choke on something.[/quote]
Don’t take HH too seriously. He is a bit senile.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
…
People like you are destroying the country. You seem to be missing the point of this whole argument. Go choke on something.
Don’t take HH too seriously. He is a bit senile.[/quote]
yeah,i’m done with him…he projects himself too seriously.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
still rambling b.s…United States was founded on persecution by those supposedly persecuted…so your “it was said that you have a right to your life and property,did CIVILization return to the world.” point is worthless.
People like you are destroying the country. You seem to be missing the point of this whole argument. Go choke on something.[/quote]
I thought you were done? Didn’t you say this earlier?
Ah well, either some part of your dying soul knows that I’m right and pulls you back here, like a moth to the light of reason OR you just can’t believe that someone actually exists who believes that human life is sacred and not to be trampled upon by your IRS bureaucrats.
Each individuals life really is sacred. Its not up to your votes or your government thugs to take that away, whether to allegedly help others or for any other reason. Your life belongs to you and the GOOD is to live it.
Chew on it a while, Charlie…
[quote]jx_alain wrote:
HH:
Do you read anything other than Ayn Rand? Just curious.[/quote]
I’m now reading Charles and Mary Beard’s Rise of American Civilisation. When I need a change, I’m reading a book which hypothetically has Freud and C.S. Lewis debating the existence of God. Both are cool reads! Thanks for asking!
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
…
People like you are destroying the country. You seem to be missing the point of this whole argument. Go choke on something.
Don’t take HH too seriously. He is a bit senile.
yeah,i’m done with him…he projects himself too seriously.[/quote]
This is the second time you’re saying this. You’ll be back though — moth to the flame of reason.
Your soul is in dire need of help though! Start with something easy, like Rand’s Fountainhead. Think of the book as a life preserver I’m throwing to you. 
[quote]jx_alain wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Only when the United States was founded, and it was said that you have a right to your life and property, did civilisation return to the world. You are destroying it.
Check your history…There is an island country on the other side of the Atlantic that passed several acts of parliament guaranteeing property rights (among other things) long before the U.S.A “returned civilization” to the world.
Also, just curious, do you read anything other than Ayn Rand? I don’t mean to sound like a dick, I am just curious.
[/quote]
The United States was the first country to state axiomatically the inherent rights of Man. The British had expressed the effect, the Founding Fathers created a system deduced from the cause. “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” That’s a statement of our axioms.
It certainly is true that the British brought civilisation to huge areas of the world. For that, I salute them.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
…
[/quote]
HH,
This is your tenth post on the thread and you’ve yet to address the topic of the thread.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…
HH,
This is your tenth post on the thread and you’ve yet to address the topic of the thread.[/quote]
exactly…usually when making an argument,shouldn’t you apply it to the issues that were originally addressed??
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…
HH,
This is your tenth post on the thread and you’ve yet to address the topic of the thread.[/quote]
Are you certain?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…
HH,
This is your tenth post on the thread and you’ve yet to address the topic of the thread.[/quote]
Lixy,
Here’s a quote from the OPs first link:
“The government has failed all of us. It’s got to stop,” said Gina Martin, exiled to Houston because Katrina destroyed her eastern New Orleans home.
Do you realize that this parasite is demanding that all the rest of us pitch in and rebuild her home? What if I don’t WANT to help her rebuild her home? What if my money belongs to me and I object to being forced to help her?
Do you see now why I am arguing with these guys?
The common refrain is: “Oh, its only a few dollars!” But its the PRINCIPLE of the thing…you know, ETHICS. She has NO RIGHT to anyone else’s money and has NO RIGHT to send government thugs to steal our money. Unless you subscribe to altruism…
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…
HH,
This is your tenth post on the thread and you’ve yet to address the topic of the thread.
exactly…usually when making an argument,shouldn’t you apply it to the issues that were originally addressed??[/quote]
I did, but you’re too dumb to figure that out.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
…
HH,
This is your tenth post on the thread and you’ve yet to address the topic of the thread.
exactly…usually when making an argument,shouldn’t you apply it to the issues that were originally addressed??
I did, but you’re too dumb to figure that out.
[/quote]
Uhh,ok? Get off your self-righteous,“I’m an educator” high-horse and realize that you involuntary help people that you feel do or do not need your help WHEN YOU PAY TAXES!
That was my argument…remember??? I never said “HH,you pay taxes…so give up money in your pocket and help Katrina victims because you have to.” or “HH, I lost my home in Katrina,build me a new house.” I argued that its sad that people are so selfish to think that events such as Katrina significantly take away from them…or human life???,as you argued.
I don’t understand that argument from you when you blatantly say that your properties/money is more valuable than human life just because they’re yours.Isn’t it obvious how that could off as a little harsh? I understand totally if you were arguing the misuse of your and my taxpayer dollars that were aimed to help those in need.
I can’t take away how you feel,its just sad that you feel that way. If you were completely right…we might as well not even be a country(or pay taxes)…but just exist as is…every man,woman,child for itself…hmmm…can you say A-N-A-R-C-H-Y?
Anyways,a million people would agree with what you’ve said…and a million(well maybe a little more…haha) would agree with what I’ve said. Everybody’s “moral standards” are not the same…obviously. I agree with your idealism as far as the whole totalitaristic effects…but don’t you think you’re jumping the gun a little bit? Hell,its like you’re blaming the victims of Katrina for stealing money from you.
You wanted to attack Bush for not doing enough for the people of NOLA. I disagree with your premise, that anyone is REQUIRED at all to help anyone. Since government is an agent of force, you are, in effect, arguing that we should have been forced to do more and that Bush fucked up the process.
Well of course, there really is no way to make the irrational work, for very long. Any system based on an irrational morality, like altruism, can’t work — unless the goal is destruction.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
It is because I value human life that I value what makes life possible — money and property.
[/quote]
Those things that make life possible are freely given - air, energy from the sun, water, sex.
Money and property is a means of enriching life and exchanging one’s resources. They are not required, for life to exist. They are just peripherals.
For one who says they value human life, you sure have a screwy way of showing it.
True benevolence values the basic requisites of life itself, and the meaningful connections inherent in that, over the external material peripherals such as money and property.
From what I have gathered, you don’t seem particularly benevolent to me, and I suppose you would readily admit to that.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You wanted to attack Bush for not doing enough for the people of NOLA. I disagree with your premise, that anyone is REQUIRED at all to help anyone. Since government is an agent of force, you are, in effect, arguing that we should have been forced to do more and that Bush fucked up the process.[/quote]
Sure, but being required to help someone does not make you more of a victim than one who has suffered more losses than you.
[quote]
Well of course, there really is no way to make the irrational work, for very long. Any system based on an irrational morality, like altruism, can’t work — unless the goal is destruction. [/quote]
What do you propose as a solution, other than basing the system of government on altruism? What is a better model?
I also do not like the paternal aspect of forced morality. Sometimes, in some cases, it’s necessary, because we need a kick up the ass to see when we’ve been wrong, and some guidance in the right direction. However, if we all were raised right, in a better world or better system, we’d have the correct inner compass to guide ourselves WITHOUT external force. Thus, the incentive to help would come from within, rather than being forced by a model given to us by the society we were born into.
[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It is because I value human life that I value what makes life possible — money and property.
Those things that make life possible are freely given - air, energy from the sun, water, sex.
Money and property is a means of enriching life and exchanging one’s resources. They are not required, for life to exist. They are just peripherals.
For one who says they value human life, you sure have a screwy way of showing it.
True benevolence values the basic requisites of life itself, and the meaningful connections inherent in that, over the external material peripherals such as money and property.
From what I have gathered, you don’t seem particularly benevolent to me, and I suppose you would readily admit to that.
[/quote]
Benevolence is only benevolent when it is freely given. Charity ceases to be a virtuous act when it is something compelled of one. To compel charity in fact denies anyone that would be benevolent to practice the virtue of charity. There is never the opportunity to freely choose virtue.
Virtue and sin are all matters of interior movements and cannot be so easily read by what is seen on the surface. God does not compel anyone to believe in Him or follow His guidance. If we were so compelled our love and respect would be meaningless, and our soul empty.
Who among you would want the love of a girlfriend that you had to compel by some means of force? What value would you place on the things she may do for you when it is all by coercion of one form or another?
We owe no debt to those people in New Orleans who failed to own insurance of some kind. We certainly have an opportunity to choose charity here, but it must be a choice.
I am sure Headhunter helps those in need whenever possible. Maybe he can do more? I do not know, but that is up for him to discern. It is not my business.
Pick the beam out of your own eye before you go looking for the splinter in someone else’s.
[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It is because I value human life that I value what makes life possible — money and property.
Those things that make life possible are freely given - air, energy from the sun, water, sex.
Money and property is a means of enriching life and exchanging one’s resources. They are not required, for life to exist. They are just peripherals.
[/quote]
Try living without those things, where anyone can snatch away your money or property. Then call it a human existence. LMAO!!
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It is because I value human life that I value what makes life possible — money and property.
Those things that make life possible are freely given - air, energy from the sun, water, sex.
Money and property is a means of enriching life and exchanging one’s resources. They are not required, for life to exist. They are just peripherals.
For one who says they value human life, you sure have a screwy way of showing it.
True benevolence values the basic requisites of life itself, and the meaningful connections inherent in that, over the external material peripherals such as money and property.
From what I have gathered, you don’t seem particularly benevolent to me, and I suppose you would readily admit to that.
Benevolence is only benevolent when it is freely given. Charity ceases to be a virtuous act when it is something compelled of one. To compel charity in fact denies anyone that would be benevolent to practice the virtue of charity. There is never the opportunity to freely choose virtue.
Virtue and sin are all matters of interior movements and cannot be so easily read by what is seen on the surface. God does not compel anyone to believe in Him or follow His guidance. If we were so compelled our love and respect would be meaningless, and our soul empty.
Who among you would want the love of a girlfriend that you had to compel by some means of force? What value would you place on the things she may do for you when it is all by coercion of one form or another?
We owe no debt to those people in New Orleans who failed to own insurance of some kind. We certainly have an opportunity to choose charity here, but it must be a choice.
I am sure Headhunter helps those in need whenever possible. Maybe he can do more? I do not know, but that is up for him to discern. It is not my business.
Pick the beam out of your own eye before you go looking for the splinter in someone else’s.[/quote]
You said in one post what I’ve been trying to say in about 10. Good job.
[quote]Moon Knight wrote:
JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
It is because I value human life that I value what makes life possible — money and property.
Those things that make life possible are freely given - air, energy from the sun, water, sex.
Money and property is a means of enriching life and exchanging one’s resources. They are not required, for life to exist. They are just peripherals.
For one who says they value human life, you sure have a screwy way of showing it.
True benevolence values the basic requisites of life itself, and the meaningful connections inherent in that, over the external material peripherals such as money and property.
From what I have gathered, you don’t seem particularly benevolent to me, and I suppose you would readily admit to that.
Benevolence is only benevolent when it is freely given. Charity ceases to be a virtuous act when it is something compelled of one. To compel charity in fact denies anyone that would be benevolent to practice the virtue of charity. There is never the opportunity to freely choose virtue.
Virtue and sin are all matters of interior movements and cannot be so easily read by what is seen on the surface. God does not compel anyone to believe in Him or follow His guidance. If we were so compelled our love and respect would be meaningless, and our soul empty.
Who among you would want the love of a girlfriend that you had to compel by some means of force? What value would you place on the things she may do for you when it is all by coercion of one form or another?
We owe no debt to those people in New Orleans who failed to own insurance of some kind. We certainly have an opportunity to choose charity here, but it must be a choice.
I am sure Headhunter helps those in need whenever possible. Maybe he can do more? I do not know, but that is up for him to discern. It is not my business.
Pick the beam out of your own eye before you go looking for the splinter in someone else’s.[/quote]
Some wise words there.
For once, I agree with Headhunter. Good post.
You still haven’t answered my question HH - you said:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Any system based on an irrational morality, like altruism, can’t work — unless the goal is destruction.
[/quote]
What is the basis for a better system, other than altruism? Do you have a proposed superior model as a solution in the works? Or is it all just food for argument, philosophical discourse, and nothing else…