quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio you can try to win an argument with simple metaphors, but it does not good. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you trust what you yourself, one individual have seen with your own eyes more then research done on thousands of people by someone who is a professional at doing that type of research? There are several problems with living like that. First of all you only see things through your bias, whether it be that you are a french-african-women or a British-Indian-man or a Canadian-Caucasian-male. The other big problem is that you are so subjective in what you see, and so limited in your scope that it nullifies anything you see as invalid as there is no logical way it is representative of a greater entity.

Firstly, I'm not trying to win anything. I have nothing to gain by outdebating you. You're obviously not interested in what I'm saying so I am not going to continue to waste my breath.

Reference Occrider's comments above regarding inefficiencies in communism, as well as the lack of motivation to do anything better in a communist system and you may start to see the tip of the iceberg of one of the fundamental flaws of socialist based systems and the cons of being a slave to society.

I am not disputing any scientific evidence that thousands of people have proven with empirical evidence. That's not even relavent, IMO, as I'm not referring to anything scientific. I'm referring to living for the self vs. living for other men (i.e. a slave to society).

This is like talking to a fencepost.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Firstly, I'm not trying to win anything. I have nothing to gain by outdebating you. You're obviously not interested in what I'm saying so I am not going to continue to waste my breath. Reference Occrider's comments above regarding inefficiencies in communism, as well as the lack of motivation to do anything better in a communist system and you may start to see the tip of the iceberg of one of the fundamental flaws of socialist based systems and the cons of being a slave to society. I am not disputing any scientific evidence that thousands of people have proven with empirical evidence. That's not even relavent, IMO, as I'm not referring to anything scientific. I'm referring to living for the self vs. living for other men (i.e. a slave to society). This is like talking to a fencepost.

Id be interested in what you were saying if you would provide ANY basis for ANY of it, aside from saying that your "real world" experience, is worth more then academia.

And I honestly don't see how the evidence of those countries is not relevent?

I think your central problem is you have such a bias that you can't look at this in any kind of an objective way. You say that living in communism is "living for other men", which is by the way quite sexist. When everyone in society prospers you prosper. If everyone had a place to live, food to eat and a good education then society as a whole would advance and that would benefit everyone. So really when your working for "other men" your working for yourself as well.

This is like talking to someone who just got out of the first grade.

___________________
If anyone can get me the following records please contact me:

DJ Tiesto - Battleship Grey (Miro remix)
Tilt - Invisible (Tilt's human mix)

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio Id be interested in what you were saying if you would provide ANY basis for ANY of it, aside from saying that your "real world" experience, is worth more then academia. And I honestly don't see how the evidence of those countries is not relevent? I think your central problem is you have such a bias that you can't look at this in any kind of an objective way. You say that living in communism is "living for other men", which is by the way quite sexist. When everyone in society prospers you prosper. If everyone had a place to live, food to eat and a good education then society as a whole would advance and that would benefit everyone. So really when your working for "other men" your working for yourself as well. This is like talking to someone who just got out of the first grade.

First off, I don't have a problem, let alone a 'central' problem. What are you, an amatuer shrink? I am extremely happy and fulfilled and I am not dependent on others to determine my level of success. Nope--no problem there.

Secondly, there's nothing remotely sexist about anything I have said. If that was your conclusion then you have misread everything I have said. Man refers to mankind. Didn't mean to set off your PC alarms--how about growing some thicker skin.

Thirdly, you are simply wrong. wrong. wrong. Working for other men is working for yourself? I imagine that you pray to Nietzche and Kant when you go to bed at night. Altruism is a crime against humanity.

When society prospers, you prosper? That's a laughable concept when the best that type of society can offer is the lowest common denominator--i.e. doing enough to get by.

Tell me, what's the motivation to do more than the minimum if there is no incremental personal gain to do more? This is where you need real world experience. Right now you are dabbling in theories. Try to put your theories into practice and prepare for disappointment.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa So the Conservative mindset IMO aspires for good life, and abandons all hopes for excellent life.

That makes some sense to me if you're thinking in terms of accumulating wealth.

Everyone is greedy, and most everyone in a capitalistic system desires to attain as much wealth as they can. This is one of the main reasons why these old money conservatives have been able to dupe these so called "nascar dads" (lower/middle class white southern/midwestern males) to vote for them. They promise them if they are elected they will share a piece of the pie with them. In reality they throw them crumbs.


Please don't turn this into a capitalism vs. socialism debate. This thread is about trying to understand the mentality behind conservatism. Just start a new thread if you want to debate the merits and demerits of both. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Go ahead. Flame me. I love this shit.

That's the spirit.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Oct-02-2003 at 13:45

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka First off, I don't have a problem, let alone a 'central' problem. What are you, an amatuer shrink? I am extremely happy and fulfilled and I am not dependent on others to determine my level of success. Nope--no problem there. Secondly, there's nothing remotely sexist about anything I have said. If that was your conclusion then you have misread everything I have said. Man refers to mankind. Didn't mean to set off your PC alarms--how about growing some thicker skin. Thirdly, you are simply wrong. wrong. wrong. Working for other men is working for yourself? I imagine that you pray to Nietzche and Kant when you go to bed at night. Altruism is a crime against humanity. When society prospers, you prosper? That's a laughable concept when the best that type of society can offer is the lowest common denominator--i.e. doing enough to get by. Tell me, what's the motivation to do more than the minimum if there is no incremental personal gain to do more? This is where you need real world experience. Right now you are dabbling in theories. Try to put your theories into practice and prepare for disappointment.

Clearly when I said what your problem was I was referring to in understanding my argument and not in your personal life.

I would laso say that the word mankind is also sexist, but that is irrelevent because you did not say mankind. You said working for other men which very very clearly implies gender.

You say that I am wrong and that altruism is a crime against humanity, but give no reasons why? you don't back yourself up in any way, shape or form.

As human beings we are not fast, or agile, or strong. All we have that allowed us to come out of the caves and form socities is cooperation. Given this, which is a fairly widely recognized fact in sociology, how can you say that working for everyone isn't working for yourself? cooperation is the essence of what our societies have been built.

I also don't see how it is untrue that when society prospers the people in it do? that's pretty basic logic. And those societies can offer more then the minimal amount possible. However that is not especially relevent. What is relevent is that people in the examples I stated have gotten considerably more then they did before socialism/communism took power. It's better to get enough to survive then nothing, is it not?

You say there's no motivation to do more then the minimum if there is no incremental personal gain. I would first like to point out that people do things that get them nothing. Such as the millions of people who spent theor time volunteering in various places to help people. Do you think they get any "incremental personal gain" out of it? And secondly I think Human nature is to want to produce and create. How many musicians are out there who spend hours each day playing? do you think any of us think were ever going to get any where with it? do you think any of us feel that were going to become rock stars? or superstar DJ's? of course not. People do many things that do not give them any personal incremental gain. That assumption is completely proposterous.

___________________
If anyone can get me the following records please contact me:

DJ Tiesto - Battleship Grey (Miro remix)
Tilt - Invisible (Tilt's human mix)

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio Clearly when I said what your problem was I was referring to in understanding my argument and not in your personal life. I would laso say that the word mankind is also sexist, but that is irrelevent because you did not say mankind. You said working for other men which very very clearly implies gender. You say that I am wrong and that altruism is a crime against humanity, but give no reasons why? you don't back yourself up in any way, shape or form. As human beings we are not fast, or agile, or strong. All we have that allowed us to come out of the caves and form socities is cooperation. Given this, which is a fairly widely recognized fact in sociology, how can you say that working for everyone isn't working for yourself? cooperation is the essence of what our societies have been built. I also don't see how it is untrue that when society prospers the people in it do? that's pretty basic logic. And those societies can offer more then the minimal amount possible. However that is not especially relevent. What is relevent is that people in the examples I stated have gotten considerably more then they did before socialism/communism took power. It's better to get enough to survive then nothing, is it not? You say there's no motivation to do more then the minimum if there is no incremental personal gain. I would first like to point out that people do things that get them nothing. Such as the millions of people who spent theor time volunteering in various places to help people. Do you think they get any "incremental personal gain" out of it? And secondly I think Human nature is to want to produce and create. How many musicians are out there who spend hours each day playing? do you think any of us think were ever going to get any where with it? do you think any of us feel that were going to become rock stars? or superstar DJ's? of course not. People do many things that do not give them any personal incremental gain. That assumption is completely proposterous.

It's not preposterous--I'll start a new thread later. Admittedly, I have not yet posted any of the philosophy that I said I would--simply due to my busy schedule as of late.

Whats the problem?

A conservative is a guy that by and large wants things to stay the same, as they are.

A liberal would be one that wants change.

Capish?

Maybe it's just me, but that's just way too oversimplified to begin to answer the question, though I appreciate the comic relief!