Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

"The poor": kill them

Re: "The poor": kill them
January 20, 2014, 08:45:25 PM
I had to look up Rawls. I'm interested where you think anything I've stated lines up with his positions?

Re: "The poor": kill them
January 20, 2014, 09:30:29 PM
The trajectory of your response to Imposition's statement (which was direct Rawls) pushes in a similar direction.

The real problem is the tendency to excuse an individual's inability to earn an income as being a problem outside of the individual's control that can (or should) be corrected by others.

Some people are not functional enough to earn an income.
Some people are functional enough, but choose not to for various personal reasons/drama.

They do not "have their shit together", to quote Conservationist.
They will earn less than those who do.

Some jobs pay more than others - usually due to the amount of work it takes to perform it.

None of the above is a problem that needs fixing.

Re: "The poor": kill them
January 20, 2014, 09:52:26 PM
The trajectory of your response to Imposition's statement (which was direct Rawls) pushes in a similar direction.

The real problem is the tendency to excuse an individual's inability to earn an income as being a problem outside of the individual's control that can (or should) be corrected by others.

Some people are not functional enough to earn an income.
Some people are functional enough, but choose not to for various personal reasons/drama.

They do not "have their shit together", to quote Conservationist.
They will earn less than those who do.

Some jobs pay more than others - usually due to the amount of work it takes to perform it.

None of the above is a problem that needs fixing.

This whole abstraction deals with a time period decades old.

The opportunities to earn an income contract steadily in declining societies who overshot their resource base. Demand does not create supply. The desire to succeed does not conjure up from thin air, the resources needed to be successful.

My question is, given the reality of the world before us, how is one to determine the wheat from the chaff when the yardstick (income) is no longer applicable?

If you took that as some call for fairness, egalitarianism or god knows what else, well, I don't really know what to tell you.

Ironically, the people who have their shit together are bucking this decades old ideology and running to the hills for more sustainable, decentralized household economies/homesteading. Though by the measures of income, they rank as being the poorest of the poor.

Re: "The poor": kill them
January 20, 2014, 09:58:15 PM
Quote
My question is, given the reality of the world before us, how is one to determine the wheat from the chaff when the yardstick (income) is no longer applicable?

In some ways, the yardstick is more potent than it was before - each level of income now requires a higher level of "having shit together"-ness.



Re: "The poor": kill them
January 20, 2014, 10:01:42 PM
Quote
My question is, given the reality of the world before us, how is one to determine the wheat from the chaff when the yardstick (income) is no longer applicable?

In some ways, the yardstick is more potent than it was before - each level of income now requires a higher level of "having shit together"-ness.

I included an edit and the last paragraph directly deals with this. Right now, the people you would be measuring and giving a pass to would be the ones maladapted to reality, as it is and where it is heading.

Re: "The poor": kill them
January 21, 2014, 06:01:42 AM
The real problem is the tendency to excuse an individual's inability to earn an income as being a problem outside of the individual's control that can (or should) be corrected by others.

Another incredulous stare.

Are you suggesting, as I think you are, that each of these two scenarios differ only in factors INSIDE the control of the individual?

FIRST SCENARIO

a) Child born of poor parents, in poor neighborhood, access to lesser quality schools, surrounded by peers who are into rap music, smoking weed, less high school achievement, lack of university education, less income

b) Child born of wealthy parents, in a neighborhood of high fences, pools, tennis courts, access to elite private schools, surrounded by peers who come from like minded families who value education, peer competitiveness at school - on the bus, in study groups, after school, higher high school achievement, access to ivy league university education, MORE INCOME. 

SECOND SCENARIO

a) Child born inherits genes for -90 IQ

b) Child born inherits genes for +130 IQ

Formidable!

Intervene to change the situation - for a single hypothetical child (imagine this could be done, do a 'thought experiment') - from a) in either scenario to b), and you would raise that child's income, holding other factors constant. In other words the move from a) to b), all else being equal, CAUSES income level.

The point: Well, since whether a) and b) pertains isn't (for the most part) under the child's control, and since whether a) or b) pertains causes income level for some particular individual child, the income level that some particular person ends up earning is in large part not under their control!

This isn't to jettison personal responsibility. This is to suggest that it's pretty fucking obvious that personal responsibility operates within certain strong limits.

It's also to suggest that the causal factors are significant on a population level. Some individual born in sub human conditions might be wired such that he rises up and becomes the president. But on a statistical/population level, your chances of earning a high wage if you are born in, say, Africa, are greatly reduced than if you are born in Oxford; through no fault of your own (unless, that is, you hold people responsible for where they are born, which is absurd!).

So, if you want to 'kill to poor', then in many many instances you will be holding people responsible for elements outside their control, which is a strange sense of justice, in my opinion. (Then again, maybe you just don't value justice - which is as it is, but in this case we will simply be talking past each other).

Re: "The poor": kill them
January 21, 2014, 10:51:18 AM
Quote
My question is, given the reality of the world before us, how is one to determine the wheat from the chaff when the yardstick (income) is no longer applicable?

In some ways, the yardstick is more potent than it was before - each level of income now requires a higher level of "having shit together"-ness.

I included an edit and the last paragraph directly deals with this. Right now, the people you would be measuring and giving a pass to would be the ones maladapted to reality, as it is and where it is heading.

There is a distinction between those too dysfunctional to earn an income and those who choose to leave the modern economic system behind. This thread was referring to the first group.

Even referring to the latter, the principle remains the same: those who are able to consistently deal with problems and put in enough work will do better than those who don't.

Re: "The poor": kill them
January 21, 2014, 11:01:33 AM
Quote
Are you suggesting, as I think you are, that each of these two scenarios differ only in factors INSIDE the control of the individual?

No. That's your straw man.

The central part was this: no-one should be obligated to ensure that fairness is absolute. Life is unfair. Deal with it.

Quote
So, if you want to 'kill to poor', then in many many instances you will be holding people responsible for elements outside their control

EVEN WITH WELFARE I COULDN'T SUCCEED BECAUSE MY MOTHER NEVER TUCKED ME IN AT NIGHT. THIS CAUSED A LIFETIME OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS THAT I COULDN'T OVERCOME PLEASE DON'T KILL ME!!!!

Re: "The poor": kill them
January 21, 2014, 12:29:15 PM
Quote
Are you suggesting, as I think you are, that each of these two scenarios differ only in factors INSIDE the control of the individual?

No. That's your straw man.

The central part was this: no-one should be obligated to ensure that fairness is absolute. Life is unfair. Deal with it.

Thank you, Hemmingway. Perhaps I will go and cut some wood, so that I feel more manly, rough and ready in the face of rugged reality. It's the last I can do after all my denial of the Word ("life is unfair"), right?

I would think a society geared towards absolute fairness, or equality, would be hideous. I'm talking about a bit more sensitivity to equality of opportunity. Not equality of outcome.

Even the former is not absolute. I was simply trying to bring some balance to your views.

A society that allows its best to rise, and provides the conditions under which this can occur, is going to prosper over one that doesn't more often than not, I would have thought.

Re: "The poor": kill them
January 21, 2014, 03:35:41 PM
Quote
My question is, given the reality of the world before us, how is one to determine the wheat from the chaff when the yardstick (income) is no longer applicable?

In some ways, the yardstick is more potent than it was before - each level of income now requires a higher level of "having shit together"-ness.

I included an edit and the last paragraph directly deals with this. Right now, the people you would be measuring and giving a pass to would be the ones maladapted to reality, as it is and where it is heading.

There is a distinction between those too dysfunctional to earn an income and those who choose to leave the modern economic system behind.This thread was referring to the first group.

Even referring to the latter, the principle remains the same: those who are able to consistently deal with problems and put in enough work will do better than those who don't.

Yes, but how do you make the distinction between the actual poor, the adapting and the functional-but-caught-off-guard? Income is not an accurate measure of dysfunction these days.

 It's worth mentioning that those sitting at the top of the income scale are largely engaged in shuffling around paper to maintain the illusion of wealth based on invalid presuppositions of the nature of growth.

Re: "The poor": kill them
March 02, 2014, 08:50:41 AM
Quote
Compassion is a non-sequitur.

If you want to fix humanity:


1. Segregate the ethnic groups -- nationalism is a stronger principle than politics, which is all they have to unite them otherwise.
2.  IQ test everyone. Under-120s get shown the door. You now have 20% of your population (for Caucasians, about 25% for Asians and 5% for Negroes/Mexicans/South Asians/Arabs).
3. Abolish your police force.
4. Take your best people (health, intelligence, character) and make them
 (a) Knights who administer society
 (b) Covert spies who have no official role
5. The Knights run a noble society
6. The spies peer around and find the people of degraded character (criminals, perverts, liars, passive aggressives, bullies, thugs, jerks, creeps) and make them silently disappear.
7. Make a caste system by ability and make it hereditary to bring stability to society

Natural selection returns as does social balance.

The poor would mostly be eradicated under the under-120 rule. Your asshole politicians, bankers, etc. under rule 6. But not all of either group. You would preserve the best and throw out the rest.

The only reason society does not follow this path is the pretense of individuals. They don't want to be seen as socially offensive, not because of fear, but because they want to use idiots as their own stepping stones. Never mind that this is a self-defeating strategy, since it makes idiots essential.

Then again, after the purging above, very few of such dangerous idiots would exist.

Hey Conservationist,

Yeah, you too kontinual,

What's up? I'm your type b covert spy.

You're a criminal because you promote mass murder. You've been targeted for "silent disappearance".

Have a nice day.

Re: "The poor": kill them
April 01, 2014, 03:55:38 AM
Many of these poor are just thieves. They go to voting stations in droves and always elect candidates who falsely claim it is moral to steal resources from stable working families for poor people and their useless social programs. Compulsory donations from everyone's paycheck is theft not charity and theft is something that any moral society would punish. That's the lesser evil.

The greater evil is the devaluation of the currency from decades of cramming money into the war on poverty gopher hole. Infrastructure, emergency services, airports, national defense, research and development, environmental conservation, schools and the very cost of food are all pressured because of this useless, wicked burden. Rich, middle and poor alike are all worse off from the pity based ill logic that is murdering civilization.

Re: "The poor": kill them
April 01, 2014, 05:01:28 AM
Many of these poor are just thieves. They go to voting stations in droves and always elect candidates who falsely claim it is moral to steal resources from stable working families for poor people and their useless social programs.

Your claim that the cause of social welfare is the mass movement of poor people to the polls such that parties that do not give out welfare cease to get into office is amazing.

I would vote for a party that had social welfare programs over those that don't. Why? Because it means poor people will not come into my fucking home with a hunting knife wanting my computer. People like a (certain) safety net, so that our towns and cities don't turn into some Johannesburg slum. For christ's sake.

Moral: it's not just poor people who vote for social welfare. It's people who have some (realistic) idea of social realities.



Re: "The poor": kill them
April 01, 2014, 05:16:33 AM
Good point. Maybe computer owners need to also have bear traps and even bigger hunting knives.
It would still be far less expensive than welfare programs, and would involve the fat-cat computer owners in actively looking after their own shit.
Bit of mayhem, initially, but after the scheme finds its own level...



Re: "The poor": kill them
April 01, 2014, 06:35:34 AM
Good thing we have safety nets no matter the cost because now there are no car jackings, drug dealings, ransomings or home invasions. You right wingers were starting to scare me there. Beats the pre-modern time when there wasn't a welfare system as such and crime was just rampant. True story.