quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Why? In every example you give, the person still has the opportunity to make the choice, right? Unless they are being held at the point of a gun, there is no reason why they cannot make better choices. That they choose to do something voluntarily is what it is to have free will. People rise above dire, extreme circumstances like you have used in your examples ALL THE TIME. Now how about looking at the vast majority of humanity and don't try to create isolated examples of extreme circumstances that might produce the resulting forumla you want to apply to all of society. I can accept that a few people may somehow grow up under such EXTREME circumstances that their perception of reality, right and wrong can become skewed--but even then, if they have the capacity of choice, then all choices have implications. To try to apply a blanket statement that people are simply victims of societal influence and cannot think for themselves is what I find ridiculous.

To use general blanket statements to refute his arguement and claim that people never react to their surroundings is just as rediculous.

I believe both qualities play a part in what people do and react to - but people are influenced by how and where they grew up|

(just like all us market oriented Westerners arguing on the internet)

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

Again you missed my point. I clearly said that it is not true in every instance. That not every single decision everyone always makes is only the result of society. However to argue that people are not influenced, affected and coerced by society and their socialization is not only ridiculous but has also been largely proven not to be true. Their is a great body of work dealing with this and it is generaly believed in sociology that what Im saying is right, and that people do do things for reasons other then their own free will.

___________________
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 biznology I believe both qualities play a part in what people do and react to - but people are influenced by how and where they grew up|

To what extent our decisions are influenced by intrinsic versus extrinsic factors is largely irrelevant - one still must bear sole responsibility for those decisions.

I do not see how any vestige of personal responsibility might otherwise be maintained. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio Again you missed my point. I clearly said that it is not true in every instance. That not every single decision everyone always makes is only the result of society. However to argue that people are not influenced, affected and coerced by society and their socialization is not only ridiculous but has also been largely proven not to be true. Their is a great body of work dealing with this and it is generaly believed in sociology that what Im saying is right, and that people do do things for reasons other then their own free will.

It's not that I missed the point, it's that I think you're using an irrelavent point to try to prove your argument. Do people make decisions based on social influences? Sure they do! ALL decisions are made by weighing a set of variables, inputs, and possible outputs. Social influences are most certainly a factor in everyone's thinking process (Probably a person stranded on a desert island will even make decisions weighing social consequences (even though there are none, since he is the only person there...but alas I digress)). Point being, at the end of the day, when a choice is made, it is the chooser who has taken action, knowing what the consequences of his/her actions may be.

What I believe you are suggesting is that people have no other choice, no other course of action--i.e. that their decision making process is essentially predetermined and they have no control over their actions. That is where I think we're losing touch.

I fully support your view that society can influence a person's decision making process, but I also support the idea that a person is completely responsible for his/her actions based on the right of free will.

"Society made me think McDonalds is good, therefore it's not my fault that I'm a fat slob, rather society made me do it. It has nothing to do with the fact that I've been eating fried potatoes and double-quarter-pounders with extra cheese for the last 15 years..."

I think a lot of it has to do with people who make the choice to take the easier path of less resistance vs. the often more difficult, more proper, more rewarding path.

Will there be exceptions to the rule? Of course--we don't live in a vacuum, but let's not give up too much in order to rationalize something we know to be wrong.

EDIT: One more late breaking thought: If everyone is subject to the 'social influences, etc.', then isn't government, by definition, also subject to the same cultural/social influences, and therefore prone to making the same bad decisions everyone else makes? Bottom line, all things being equal, I'm a whole lot more comfortable making decisions for myself than giving that power to an equally faulty (if not more so) organization to tell me what is or is not in my best interest.

Last edited by Shakka on Nov-10-2003 at 17:58

your still not seeing the big picture. The point is not that you weigh societal influences among a variety of other factors when making a decision. The point is your thought processes are largely shaped by society. You at one point said something along the lines of, its your decision unless someone is holding a gun to your head. Social influences can first of all produce the same effect. But more importantly Ill go back to my first point and reiterate that its largely not a concious decision.

Theres a reason people do things, and people think in certain ways, and let me tell you its not completely free will.

___________________
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 your still not seeing the big picture. The point is not that you weigh societal influences among a variety of other factors when making a decision. The point is your thought processes are largely shaped by society. You at one point said something along the lines of, its your decision unless someone is holding a gun to your head. Social influences can first of all produce the same effect. But more importantly Ill go back to my first point and reiterate that its largely not a concious decision. Theres a reason people do things, and people think in certain ways, and let me tell you its not completely free will.

I can see you don't think very highly of people in general. And regardless, it still isn't a justification of handing that decision making power over to someone who isn't necessarily any more competent to make the choice than you.

One thing I said a while back is that if you think the role of gov't is to take care of you and make decisions for you, then you should apply for a government job. You will have security, steady income, an HMO, and a pension. You will not, in all liklihood, end up successful or content by social standards. Why is it that so many "postal workers" have the reputation that they do, but software programmers, industrialists, etc. do not carry the same stigma?

Shakka:
You still miss the whole point. True, all people do make their own decisions, the only difference is that some people know what decisions are made and why they do them as they do. But some people do not REALLY choose, they doesn't think very long and they doesn't realize what significance a single decision can make or in what direction they should go to make them self a better life.

Is that cause they are born/raised wrong or is it because they don't want a better life?

And one of the main points with a welfare system is to make it easier for the people to choose right. Of course if you are smart like occrider you can go the long way around in a society like yours, but in a welfare society much more people choose the "good way" cause it isn't that tricky...

I'm not missing the point--I just don't believe that more government is better. 1) It is risky to assume that the government will make the best decisions for you based on it's own self-interest. Yes, government will not always act in your best interest--I think that is obvious. There are plenty of people and organizations that can help those who for some reason need help to make a good decision, but I don't think it's bigger government that is the answer.
2)Bigger and bigger government becomes a bigger and bigger drain on society as a whole as more tax dollars are needed to provide more programs that cost twice as much and help half as many people, until eventually the tax burden is so great and that so many individual voices go without being heard, that it is a big negative for society as a whole--revolutions and civil wars have ignited over less, but those are potential results of such a policy that gets out of hand, not to mention a plethora of others including lower standard of living, poor healthcare services on an even broader scale, lack of incentive to work, etc.

Edit: And St. Andrew--does it suddenly become my obligation to fix/take care of someone else's problem simply because they didn't think long and hard enough about the potential consequences???

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm not missing the point--I just don't believe that more government is better. 1) It is risky to assume that the government will make the best decisions for you based on it's own self-interest. Yes, government will not always act in your best interest--I think that is obvious. There are plenty of people and organizations that can help those who for some reason need help to make a good decision, but I don't think it's bigger government that is the answer. 2)Bigger and bigger government becomes a bigger and bigger drain on society as a whole as more tax dollars are needed to provide more programs that cost twice as much and help half as many people, until eventually the tax burden is so great and that so many individual voices go without being heard, that it is a big negative for society as a whole--revolutions and civil wars have ignited over less, but those are potential results of such a policy that gets out of hand, not to mention a plethora of others including lower standard of living, poor healthcare services on an even broader scale, lack of incentive to work, etc.

1. Of course the government will not act in _your_ best, it will act in the society's best (example: perhaps marijuana is fun for you but it's not good for society in whole, therefore it's illegal).
why don't you think government is the answer on that question? why should organizations help better?

2. Again, it doesn't have to be like that. Why do you think so? how can this kinds welfare systems actually work in some (more or less most European) countries? Haven't seen any civil war here for a loooong time btw

quote:

And St. Andrew--does it suddenly become my obligation to fix/take care of someone else's problem simply because they didn't think long and hard enough about the potential consequences???

Yes. as i see it, it isn't really their fault, they just can't think that long (especially when they are young).

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Yes. as i see it, it isn't really their fault, they just can't think that long (especially when they are young).

But why does society owe them something?

ok, this is turning into a sematics war which will never end...

basically there are differences of culture and opinion, but i think the main reason that there is confusion and no agreement is the fact that Sweden has a population of 9 mil people, the size of a US state.

its alot easier to reach a consensus and basic agreement on necessary things when you are dealing with 1/30 the size of a country.

__________________

tho, i DO think there are things that the govt can do to help society that cannot be screwed up or misrepresented for the most part. within services, many of these are already to some degree federalized: water, gas, elec.

Canada does have it right in the fact that the govt opens certain *necessary* business ventures, oil, insurance, etc. so that prices are realistic and people have a reasonable choice rather than sheer competition - which in some cases drives prices higher than they prolly should AND provides services or necessary commodities that people need|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew what i meant is that you will not give up everything because poor people have access to the same heath care / schools etc as you. There is so much more in life worth fighting for than that. And again, all i ask for is to give the poor a better life not to give them everything.

And I agree that people should give more to the poor. What I'm arguing is that one cannot forceably take that which is not theirs.

quote:

and you are a smart guy, you benefit from this kinds of societies.

It's less smartness as it is taking personal responsibility in your life

quote:

I think there is big a difference between your domestic problems and world wide problems. When you are a rich country even the poor people should have a good life, and if you see to how rich US is, the poor should have access to more things than just survival stuff.

Why should society provide more than survival stuffs to those who are unwilling to make any effort at all to help themselves out of their existence of enjoying simple survival stuffs? If my system were in place, it would help those willing to help themselves. But it would under no circumstance tolerate laziness, inaction, and indifference. Furthermore, it would eliminate much abuse.

quote:

About the rich being greedy, they really are sometimes. This time i can take my family as an example, my parents pay like 100 000$ in tax (around 50%) every year (you can add 10-25% VAT to that too and you see that they pay the government a LOT of their earned money) and i can't see how we have a bad life cause of that (nor how our rights are violated). Sure we could get a lot more if we didn't "waste" so much money on the poor in this country, BUT ffs we got what we (my family) need and sooo much more, and richer people have more money sure they can pay this without feeling to bad, so i think it's greedy whining about your right to spend money when you have such much! (and yes there are a lot of rich people in this country whining about high taxes, although it's only one of seven major political parties in this country who advocate lower taxes.)

Ahhh it's greedy to enjoy the fruits of one's labor whereas it is not greedy to take that which is not yours? So why should you have the LUXURY of an expensive, higher education when people are starving from a lack of basic necessities such as food? You should be taught the basics of how to get by in life and the rest of the money you have shouldn't be wasted on such things as physics lessons and other "luxuries." Instead it should be used to help the needy lacking in the BASICS. As a matter of fact, it should provide even MORE than the basics! It should be used to equalize the disadvantegous starting positions of the stupid or genetically lazy. It should be used to provide a better than basic life to those who don't give two shits about making an effort to better themselves because, even with your sub par education, your generic brand shoes, your p3 500mHz computer, your economical sparse flat, even with all of this ... you are still economically a thousand/a million times better off than that person who doesn't give two shits.

quote:

you did exaggerate a bit, but basically yes of course we are not doomed the day we are born on how are life should be, BUT ask this to yourself: Why do people choose to rob a bank or murder someone instead of getting a well paid job? (did they actively choose that, yes they did choose that indirect buy they had no clue about it, why? cause they are born stupid ) Could you murder a man? (no you wouldn't cause you are raised good and know that you don't do that (and you are smart (born)) Did the poor choose to be poor and unemployed? (sure they did in a way but they did never realized it, why? cause they where born/raised thinking wrong) So imo a lot of people (not all) don't choose as much as you are trying to make it sound like.

I respectfully disagree . By this line of reasoning, the rich never committ crimes. The poor are all stupid. And allll our mommy's and daddy's did a good job raising us whereas everyone who's a failure in life had parents who are fuckups. And similarly success dictates that your parents were all great. All those raggs to riches stories? All those non poor people who committ crimes? All those wealthy/middle class people who are stupid/fuckups? Mere anomolies ... it should be relatively easy to statistically prove all of this. Why I'll even be so gracious as to give you the latitutde of a 90% confidence interval! Just make sure you use a normally distributed random sample with an appropriate size of n .

quote:

No but you can't make a welfare system without taking from the rich, and as i said before, this "right" is just greedy.

Ahhh ok ... so once we've decided that society has the "right" to "take," the line stops where? What is rich? What defines rich? Everybody can be "rich" because it is a relative comparison. Oh sure ... right now you could say it's the 1% wealthiest component of society, but why stop there? What's stopping us ... or rather, WHY should we stop? At what point does "taking" that which is not ours go from being a morally righteous act to an amorally reprehensible act? Why should you have THREE times as much wealth as me??? It's not MY fault I'm the way that I am. I had bad parents. I was born stupid. I'm genetically lazy! I simply don't care ... but that's NOT my fault! Therefore you should only have twice as much as me! C'mon you're still RICH. You can afford DOUBLE of what I have!

quote:

If you do force them (the unemployed) to search for job everyday or even force them to work for their money, then they for sure isn't being uneployed for fun, then they are on welfare cause they need it, so why then don't give them a decent life?

Because it is at the expense of others. They are living on borrowed money. They have a LIFE as a result of societal benevolence of which they should be grateful for and therefore capitalize on their second chance.

quote:

Yes i do agree with that, mostly. So my idea is give everyone exactly the same opportunities to health care, school etc, and in return they have to work / try to get a work / educate themself. They have to do something, and they get money for that, and not just basic stuff, but a decent life

Keep everything except for the "decent" life part and I agree! And why can't a basic life be a decent life? Don't look the gift horse in the mouth!

quote:

Its good to hear that you were able to do that. But I think you are still in an advantaged position. If you had to work 30 hours a week to help support your family when you were in school, do you think you still would have the time to work enough to get that scholorship?

Let's sayyyy I broke both my legs preventing me from doing everyday activities. Going to the grocery store, cooking in the kitchen, washing myself, etc., I'm basically in a wheel chair. Now then, I'm clearly fucked! What do I do? How am I supposed to perform everyday activities? Ok, people SHOULD help me. My friends or family SHOULD give me a hand, but what if they don't? What if, instead, I FORCE you, to stop by my house to help me clean/cook/shop/etc.? Is this ok? Is it right for me to do this ... to force you? Now obviously those who have not broken their legs are in a more advantageous position, so does this mean it is ok to penalize them for my transgressions ... inadvertant or not? I don't think so ...

So what does this unlucky guy in your scenario do? He sucks it up. He takes it like a man and works his ass off. He takes one or two classes and graduates in 6 years. He gets his GED, he takes night classes for a job skill to better himself in life. He ASKS family or friends for help. He does not FORCE family or friends to help him because they are better off than him ... he does not rob a bank because they have tons of money. He takes the shitty hand that life dealt him and he makes the CHOICES in life that will turn that hand around.



Sorry if this thread was dying ... i didn't get my opinion in

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Nov-12-2003 at 05:35