What on earth are you talking about? Oh for the love of God stop putting up that despicable facade. Only an irrational ideologue would sacrifice their financial security in exchange for becoming a social and political outcast. It's extremely relevant, and your failure to recognize that is proof of your status as an ignorant red. There's no reason to believe he mistyped anything, and even in the case he did, he was wrong. There is no instance in which you can be faulted for correcting a mistake. Your view of civilization and humanity is sickeningly idealistic, and the idea that the world would somehow be better off with one government is unfathomably childish. Right, academia is clearly ignorant and you're the one with the right idea. That's just false. It's not at all a decided issue. That "garbage" is material fact. Obligation is a concept that exists to coerce people into behaving as society expects them to behave. It's not an objective function of reality. Burdening yourself with obligation is the task of the ignorant; burdening others with obligation is the blasphemy of the slithering creatures that masquerade as our saviors. You recognize the worthlessness of your own argument. What more need be said? I cannot possibly do that, and to think that I could understand what their life is like is an unthinkable hubris. I think a better term is "sensible person". You and the rest of your foul brethren are infinitely worse than people who live without the burden of obligation. I do give to charity. Someone sharing my genetic makeup is not me. They are someone else. I do not have any obligation towards them, and I really don't have any reason to "help" them. I don't recall saying that, but it's certainly true. Living in a socialist society would be extremely disadvantageous to me as an individual, as it would be to most people living in the West. Population capping does not cap consumption, nor does it produce new resources. Hardly. I could care less about the environment. What matters is that your infernal ideology is itself only a band-aid solution, and that's assuming it works to full effect and has no drawbacks. Nihilism isn't my thing, but there's no doubting the truth value of its claims. I don't want to die; I get a lot of enjoyment out of life. You're denying basic mathematics with "morality". Remind me which one of us is being ridiculous here? Well, you're plainly wrong. Doing that is unnecessary and would no doubt be unpopular. Not to mention that it's sure to deal a major economic blow to the world. It's not a problem. It's a certain and necessary function of the world we live in. You don't actually care about those people. No one here does. Yes. I don't know where you're drawing that conclusion, but in this case you're behaving exactly like someone on a crusade. The level to which you're overvaluing yourself because of your beliefs and perceived character is vomit-inducing. Reality is just the world we live in. You know the truths of it just as well as I do. The difference is that I don't lie about the situation we're in, or the way I feel about it.
I'm not converted. For a start, achieving a post scarcity socialistic global community has always been my goal ever since, like, I watched Star Trek: The Next Generation. As far as I'm concerned all that's happened is I figured out that you are a secret socialist.
I've never really ruled out a post-scarcity society from ever existing. I mean, if you took someone from the middle ages to our time and showed them such relative luxuries as tap-water, they'd probably look at the 21st century the way we look at Star Trek. Who knows what we'll accomplish in 500 years or so?
In accordance with this source, humans migrated away from the central African plains about two hundred thousand years ago.
Where those even homo sapiens, or just hominids in general? And humanity spreading isn't civilization, civilization has only existed for about six thousand years.
My original post was about my belief that humanity has always been heading toward a global society, and if the start of human migration to the four corners of the globe does not represent it's start, then I would like very much for you to tell me whatever is the start, in that case. I never claimed that it was the start of civilisation, which is dependent on your definition of civilisation, a system of agriculture started about 12 thousand years ago, therefore I consider that point in time the start of civilsation.
Oh you were bitching about labor and workers being two separate things and I said that in the context they were used they could be used interchangeably. You were saying I was jealous of the Rich and I was saying I wasn't. How is that a facade? Or someone with principles. Not everyone is as money crazed as you, Kali. Silly me, expecting a Capitalist Pig to stick to the proper argument and not waste time with these trivial side details. Are you seriously considering he believes that nonsense? There's every reason to believe he mistyped the specific statement. Very rarely is something mistyped correctly. There is if it is corrected in the most dickish way possible. Especially given you glanced over his actual argument to find the one, obviously accidental, flaw. No it's not, the Socialist school of thought is incredibly cynical. Especially the Authoritarian Socialism I subscribe to. The majority of academia agrees with me. So by extention either the majority of academia is "unfathomably childish" or your statement is false. Did you read what I wrote? I said the academia agrees with me. In fact you acknowledge that I said that later in the post. You just plainly ignored what I wrote here for the sake of the argument. Of course it's not a decided issue. Nothing is "decided" in academia. However it is virtually decided, or may as well be in that the majority of academia believes in the concept. Anyone with any political sense could tell you there is no fact in political philosophy. Your view of obligation is incredibly biased. For instance, you've already assumed that expecting people to behave is inherently bad. Why is that so wrong exactly? Obviously, but I never presented it as such. No it's not. It's just human nature to accept obligation. People aren't ignorant for it. Especially if obligation is used in productive manors. Then they've bettered the world for it. Man you took the idea of taxation and turned it into something I don't even know. To say my argument is worthless is to say morality is worthless. And to say morality is worthless is to deny the product of an evolutionary line that has existed longer than we can even begin to dream. I might call it, as you always say, "an unthinkable hubris". Maybe impossible for you since you have no empathy, but you're supposed to at least try. It's really not an "unthinkable hubris" to show a little humanity to people. Furthermore, I think it is absurd to even begin considering empathy as an extreme form of pride. It's a basic human ability. You basically said we should let the poor starve because if we helped them we'd run out materials. At least my "foul brethren" wouldn't sell their principles for green paper. Something you seem more than eager to do. Then the fuck are you bitching about "giving up my happiness for a vague idea"? If you took a view a non-human outsider you'd find us all to be virtually the same, minus a few slight differences here and there. Didn't try me "Picture yourself in someone else's shoes" plan, did you? As you said, obligation is set by society. It's a matter of whether or not it says you have to help people, not whether or not you want to be a good person. To alleviate their suffering. And if you really want to be self-interested, because a Socialist world would improve the standard of living and by extension your life. No it's not. There's still luxury goods in Socialist society and you can still purchase just as many of them. At first perhaps a little, but it wont collapse the West and after the first few years things would begin rising again to a height higher than anything Capitalism could possibly generate. 7 billion human lives can do a lot. For the most part, it does as an inadvertent effect. There's no reason to assume people have to consume more and more with each passing generation. If you really want to talk horror stories, a Socialist society would be able to respond to a resource crisis and reallocate materials to finding new ways to produce resources. A Capitalist society would drink itself to death and go out with a whisper. Oh. Agreed. No it's not. If Leftism was ushered in the sky would be the limit. Well there could be some things like more bureaucracy and stuff. But that's hardly a price to pay for justice and progress and everything nice. Nihilism seems to be the emo kid in the back corner of the class of political thought. There's a million factors you've missed in your assumptions. It's not impossible for us to find plenty of raw materials in space. We've got entire planets full of delicious goods for us to use. And if we ever do break out of cage cradle of life and get into other solar systems we'll have more than enough to last us forever. But this really belongs in one of those Overpopulation threads. You. But you kind of set me up for that one, so I guess that's not all that clever. Ya, that was pretty mean. I apologize. Ya, maybe. Firebomb a little at a time to make sure that the economic impact is slighted. Of course it is, you just brought it up as a problem. No it's not. That's as absurd as saying that Capitalism is certain and necessary. But that does sound like something you'd say. As I feel an obligation to other men I care about them. No. In the same way Martin Luther King Jr. was on a "crusade"? Or how Ayn Rand was on a "crusade"? The Left is on a crusade no more than any other political visionary. I really don't see how you could draw any sort of idea that I'm "overvaluing" myself. If anything it is incredibly prideful to put aside everyone else and only care about yourself, something I would never consider doing. We're closer to Socialist paradise than anything you've suggested. I don't see how you've managed to fool yourself into thinking that people agree with you beyond fellow Randroids like TheShaw. Perhaps you've fooled yourself into some obligation-free fantasy land, but in no way have I lied about the World nor how I feel about it. It is the truth, unfiltered, and to deny it is to deny reality.
Reading this thread would give you impression that to be a capitalist you cannot care about other people.
In all honesty, someone that boasts about the fact that they frequently stone on an internet forum has no right to call anyone mentally deficient.
