A philosophical struggle of mine

[utopian]

This is not the exact issue I have. The exact issue would take so much explaining, most people would fall off before they got around to finishing understanding it, so this will have to suffice.

 

I see this problem where there are 100 people standing on a train track, messing around, having fun and living our their regular lives. I see a train coming. I start yelling and screaming to everyone, hey, there's a train coming, get off the train tracks.

 

Most people ignore me. Some make fun of me. Some half jokingly ask for proof. Now, I can show them some fairly obvious proof; the ground shaking, the whistle blowing, the train actually being there in the distance. Yet despite all this, many people will not even bother to listen to me. Many are not even smart enough to understand that the evidence presented is actually a train that could kill them. Many may have the intelligence, but find it painful to bother looking and listening, and seem to choose subconsciously living out their short lives happily and ignorantly before they get killed by the coming train. Maybe around 10% of people listen and get off the tracks. 

 

 

Now, after having gone through this struggle of trying to warn people against the impending death of the train, and being faced by such ignorance and resistance, I can't help but feel like these people deserve to die of their own stupidity. 

 

If people are so stupid that, not only do they not care to consider they are playing on train tracks, but do not bother to listen to someone warning them about the impending dangers or even care to consider evidence (and furthermore, sometimes choose to stay on the train tracks, knowing there could be a train coming) are these people even worth saving? Because if people have become so ignorant and desensitized, how can I justify striving to maintain their existence? I mean for god's sake, when people reach this level, it goes against the very philosophy of survival of the fittest that produced them in the first place.

 

 

I have generally concluded that people like this are not worth saving, and that I would rather let them get hit by the train. Furthermore, I position myself to profit in the instance that these people do in fact die, proverbially, investing in the local casket shop, etc. knowing that eventually a lot of these things are going to be sold because of the impending deaths. I feel justified seeing these "humans" get run over by the train and profiting from it.

 

And though I do feel justified, some part of me wonders why these people have turned out this way. Was it that no one taught them that trains are dangerous, when someone should have? Is it my responsibility to teach someone about trains, if they never were? And if I do take time out of my life to do so, and I am ignored and shunned for it, is it ethical to profit from a person's stupidity?

[MMX2010]

Now, after having gone through this struggle of trying to warn people against the impending death of the train, and being faced by such ignorance and resistance, I can't help but feel like these people deserve to die of their own stupidity. 

 

If people are so stupid that, not only do they not care to consider they are playing on train tracks, but do not bother to listen to someone warning them about the impending dangers or even care to consider evidence (and furthermore, sometimes choose to stay on the train tracks, knowing there could be a train coming) are these people even worth saving? Because if people have become so ignorant and desensitized, how can I justify striving to maintain their existence? I mean for god's sake, when people reach this level, it goes against the very philosophy of survival of the fittest that produced them in the first place.

 

You do realize that the "train" is a metaphor for something you never clarified, despite having seven paragraphs to do so? 

 

Is the "train" ebola, a large-scale economic collapse, an energy crisis, a severe water shortage? 

 

And do you accept how annoying it is that you "made us" ask you what the "train" represents? 

[Jeridan Kowal]

I feel your pain. You obviously have some amount of empathy and that makes you want to help, but in doing so you get negative responses or none at all.

I'm not sure I understand the whole metaphor. In what way would you be "profiting" from stupidity? 

 

I know that continuing to talk to people about sensitive topics (taxation as force, the voluntary family) is important. But if you're having trouble getting through to people, maybe you need to re-evaluate your methodology? 

 

I can only speak from my experience, but I cannot exert influence or help change someone's mind unless they already want to change. I assume the people you talk to are probably comfortable where they are mentally/philosophically. This was and is the case for me now. Since I can't change in them what I consider irrational, I have to be curious and empathetic as to why they are there at all. I need to listen to them and hear what is and isn't said. I've found that being truly curious allows my questions to be especially potent when it comes to irrationality. I don't want to change them, I don't care which of us is right and the purpose of even talking to them is to find joy in our differences. That way, they can see me as the empathetic, happy philosopher that I am. I can be that example of how philosophy doesn't have to be this frustrating burden to carry around and be exacerbated when I encounter someone who has not been reasoned with.

 

It's easier said than done of course, but I say keep talking to people. Speak with them and frame the experience with a healthy dose of compassion for the person before you.

[Donnadogsoth]

Shouldn't you be doing something else?

[utopian]

Other than what?

[Phuein]

You were asking people to do something about a problem that they don't recognize. That won't work. People smoke cigarettes, when they're proven as harmful. The actual threat&response mechanism is intuitive rather than logical, for people without a strong foundation in logic.

 

Immediate threats are different from complex threats. The threats you point out aren't akin to a train. They aren't immediate. A train going to hit you is immediate. Also very graphic.

 

Finally, not only will you be attacked for this behavior, they would be justified in attacking you. You aren't responsible for others. If an old lady doesn't want my help crossing the road, then me badgering her about it won't do. :+D

[Donnadogsoth]

Other than what?

 

Other than wasting time on people who don't want to be saved.  I'm sure there are plenty elsewhere who do.  Focus on the convertible, not the train wreck.

[utopian]

 

I'm not sure I understand the whole metaphor. In what way would you be "profiting" from stupidity? 

 

Well, if I know people are going to get injured or die, I might invest in bandages and caskets, knowing people will be needing them soon, and being able to sell them at double the price. People will only be needing these things (in this situation) because they were too dumb to get off the tracks when I told them to get off. 

 

 

I feel your pain. You obviously have some amount of empathy and that makes you want to help, but in doing so you get negative responses or none at all.

I'm not sure I understand the whole metaphor. In what way would you be "profiting" from stupidity? 

 

I know that continuing to talk to people about sensitive topics (taxation as force, the voluntary family) is important. But if you're having trouble getting through to people, maybe you need to re-evaluate your methodology? 

 

I can only speak from my experience, but I cannot exert influence or help change someone's mind unless they already want to change. I assume the people you talk to are probably comfortable where they are mentally/philosophically. This was and is the case for me now. Since I can't change in them what I consider irrational, I have to be curious and empathetic as to why they are there at all. I need to listen to them and hear what is and isn't said. I've found that being truly curious allows my questions to be especially potent when it comes to irrationality. I don't want to change them, I don't care which of us is right and the purpose of even talking to them is to find joy in our differences. That way, they can see me as the empathetic, happy philosopher that I am. I can be that example of how philosophy doesn't have to be this frustrating burden to carry around and be exacerbated when I encounter someone who has not been reasoned with.

 

It's easier said than done of course, but I say keep talking to people. Speak with them and frame the experience with a healthy dose of compassion for the person before you.

 

I know that continuing to talk to people about sensitive topics (taxation as force, the voluntary family) is important. But if you're having trouble getting through to people, maybe you need to re-evaluate your methodology? 

I am in the process of this. Last time this event happened, I tried telling people about it, and I could not quite rally the crowd, or the individual. I went to college and got an award from one of my professors for best speech in the class, among other things I have so far accomplished. Despite my improvements, there is still a problem on the other side of the coin, where people are simply unwilling to listen. Partially, I argue, because the media and other entities have made them that way. 

 

 

I feel your pain. You obviously have some amount of empathy and that makes you want to help, but in doing so you get negative responses or none at all.

I'm not sure I understand the whole metaphor. In what way would you be "profiting" from stupidity? 

 

I know that continuing to talk to people about sensitive topics (taxation as force, the voluntary family) is important. But if you're having trouble getting through to people, maybe you need to re-evaluate your methodology? 

 

I can only speak from my experience, but I cannot exert influence or help change someone's mind unless they already want to change. I assume the people you talk to are probably comfortable where they are mentally/philosophically. This was and is the case for me now. Since I can't change in them what I consider irrational, I have to be curious and empathetic as to why they are there at all. I need to listen to them and hear what is and isn't said. I've found that being truly curious allows my questions to be especially potent when it comes to irrationality. I don't want to change them, I don't care which of us is right and the purpose of even talking to them is to find joy in our differences. That way, they can see me as the empathetic, happy philosopher that I am. I can be that example of how philosophy doesn't have to be this frustrating burden to carry around and be exacerbated when I encounter someone who has not been reasoned with.

 

It's easier said than done of course, but I say keep talking to people. Speak with them and frame the experience with a healthy dose of compassion for the person before you.

 

 Since I can't change in them what I consider irrational, I have to be curious and empathetic as to why they are there at all.

I have absolutely no time for any of that. I spend enough time working to support myself as it is, I don't have time to listen to people's unimportant daily lives. Especially when they could be dead in a moment, like in the case of the train. There is a certain urgency here in my issue. I have enough time to explain things to people, the problem being no one wants to listen until it's too late. And if people are not my responsibility anyway... then I would rather work on profiting from their death.

 

 

You were asking people to do something about a problem that they don't recognize. That won't work. People smoke cigarettes, when they're proven as harmful. 

This is exactly my point! If people are gonna do things they know will kill them, well shit, I will be happy to be the one selling them cigarettes! How can these people's lives be justified? As Stef sometimes says, it is important the way you conduct yourself in the world, because his children are gonna grow up in the world you exist in. 

 

 

 

Finally, not only will you be attacked for this behavior, they would be justified in attacking you. You aren't responsible for others. If an old lady doesn't want my help crossing the road, then me badgering her about it won't do. :+D

 

An old lady is easy to write off. Your sentiment here reminds me of a very relevant quote from someone who also thought others were not his responsibility;

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

 

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

-Martin Niemoller

The problem with your sentiment is, unfortunately, yes, these fools I am surrounded by are my responsibility. Because a train is coming. And if I am not there to help them when they need me, no one will be there when I need them. I certainly can't stop this train by myself.

[Phuein]

That argument is both a strawman - not what I said, and an argument from emotion.

 

I said you aren't responsible for other people. There is, of course, utility in cooperating with others. Choosing who to cooperate with, finding them, and then how to do it, are the actual issues.

 

Martin Niemoller was not responsible for what the Nazis did. Thinking that he should have or could have given more resistance, if at all, is useless rhetoric. Emotions. "We should have all known better. Done more." He made the mistake of thinking the Nazis won't abuse him, and so stayed to be abused later on. A utilitarian mistake, not a moral one.

 

Your fear is justified. The stupid masses might ruin it for all of us; or for you, specifically. But it is also tautology... The hoards may always ruin it for everyone else, in many ways. They already are doing it, to many people; like myself. This is not a specific problem. There is no one train to stop, and even worse, those many trains are more complex, than a mere fast moving object on rails.

[MMX2010]

Your fear is justified. The stupid masses might ruin it for all of us; or for you, specifically. But it is also tautology... The hoards may always ruin it for everyone else, in many ways. They already are doing it, to many people; like myself. This is not a specific problem. There is no one train to stop, and even worse, those many trains are more complex, than a mere fast moving object on rails.

 

It's not a specific problem because utopian refuses to name it as a specific problem. 

 

Once he names it as a specific problem, (say ebola), then every philosophically rigorous individual will ask him crucial questions like: (1) What degree of control do you have over the problem itself?  (2) Who are the individuals, if any, who have more direct control over the problem AND what influence do you have over them?  (3) Has this type of problem existed in the past and what did we learn about our attempts to solve it?  (4) Why, specifically, do you choose this problem to focus on?  (5) Has this problem existed for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, thereby suggesting that the problem itself is not really problematic? 

 

This devoted questioning will get utopian to the root of understanding the problem, and will provide a meaningful course of action that utopian must follow if he wants to be known as a follower-of-truth. 

 

But utopian refuses to specify the problem, because he doesn't want to get to the root of it. 

 

(Go ahead and ask him to pinpoint the problem.  See what happens.  I double-dog dare you.  ) 

[utopian]

 

Other than wasting time on people who don't want to be saved.  I'm sure there are plenty elsewhere who do.  Focus on the convertible, not the train wreck.

 

The thing is, stupidity is a trillion dollar industry, and I want a piece of it. Most of the money happens from train wrecks. Ask Rainbow Jamz, he has seen pics that are testament to my profits.

 

 

 

Other than wasting time on people who don't want to be saved.  I'm sure there are plenty elsewhere who do.  Focus on the convertible, not the train wreck.

 

The thing is, stupidity is a trillion dollar industry, and I want a piece of it. Most of the money happens from train wrecks. Ask Rainbow Jamz, he has seen pics that are testament to my profits.

 

I said you aren't responsible for other people. 

 

And what if it was people that I loved? My wife, children, family? Good friends? Sure, I don't HAVE to be responsible for any of them. That's some cold philosophical truth. It is also true that, that is very inhuman. Would you expect me to just let the train run these people over?

 

 

 

There is, of course, utility in cooperating with others. Choosing who to cooperate with, finding them, and then how to do it, are the actual issues.

The people I choose to cooperate with, is part of my struggle. My example is beginning to reach the extent of its usefulness... I take it you are a fairly dedicated libertarian? What if I told you, I "cooperate" with statists in reducing your liberties, because I find it very profitable? I could choose to cooperate with libertarians exclusively, but this forum is full of examples on how the libertarian side is the losing side. And yet, despite my statist profits, I do have a moral conflict, seeing as how my liberties and the liberties of those I love are reduced. The more statist profits I acquire, the more capable I am of reinstalling liberties... if my countrymen were my responsibility. Do you still argue, they are not?

 

 

 

Your fear is justified. The stupid masses might ruin it for all of us; or for you, specifically. But it is also tautology... The hoards may always ruin it for everyone else, in many ways. They already are doing it, to many people; like myself. This is not a specific problem. There is no one train to stop, and even worse, those many trains are more complex, than a mere fast moving object on rails.

 

This argument goes to support the idea of a state controlling the stupid masses. I agree with it, but if the state is not managed responsibly, as in comparison to you saying "people are not my responsibility", then the state becomes an institution to suppress the masses and not take care of them. Which of course manifests in reduced liberties for you and me. As well as my philosophical conflict of interest, making money off the stupidity of the masses and being disturbed by the loss of liberties. 

[Phuein]

Responsibility over an object or person means that you both have authority over it, and that you are at fault if it threatens or harms others. Responsibility isn't being kind or caring. Those are separate terms.

 

So, how you treat your family only regards your own utility of them - and is none of my interest. You are responsible for your children, however, and so you also have authority over them; and how they are raised to handle any such "trains". So that's up to you.

 

But, it is very much in my interest to avoid you, if you clearly say that you cooperate with immoral people (statists) out of utility, while ignoring morality, because of the practical value it gives you. Were you just playing devil's advocate?

 

I don't identify as a Libertarian. Also, evidence shows that cooperation with statists only reduces freedoms. Also, morality trumps utility, unless the issue is basic human needs being denied.

 

Further, your obvious frustration with "people" is expected, when you try to be logical with those (statists) who practice initiating force on others. They are clearly illogical, won't bow down to evidence and reason, and thus aren't worthy allies.

 

I cringed, when you said my argument supports the State. >< It doesn't. The State is the organization that gives the stupid masses the power, the ability, to congregate into a destructive force. Without it, the masses are too stupid to cooperate to the extent of causing such harm. They are aloof and idle, mostly.

[Donnadogsoth]

 

 

 

The thing is, stupidity is a trillion dollar industry, and I want a piece of it. Most of the money happens from train wrecks. Ask Rainbow Jamz, he has seen pics that are testament to my profits.

 

Fair enough.  Do you plan to charge people for saving them, or obtain a government contract to pick up the pieces?

[utopian]

 

But, it is very much in my interest to avoid you, if you clearly say that you cooperate with immoral people (statists) out of utility, while ignoring morality, because of the practical value it gives you. Were you just playing devil's advocate?

 

Before I go on, I want to denote how much I appreciate the clarity and thought you have provided me. It has been very helpful, and given me food for thought on things I have not yet considered.

 

I don't think I meant to play devil's advocate, just provide an example of the feeling I get when I try NOT to impose statist mechanics, and warn people against them. I find that doing this tends to justify my imposing of statist mechanics. If people are so stupid that they will not strive to get out of the way of a train, and/or learn about the statist mechanics that enslave them in order to dismantle them, then I see no reason why I should strive to prevent either of these situations, much less refrain from joining in on imposing them and profiting from it. 

 

I have my own issues to deal with, but never have I ever found people to be worthwhile. They rarely have been kind and inviting to me. They have rarely been useful to humanity, people involved in their lives, or even themselves. They rarely seem to be able to comprehend higher education. Furthermore people on average are rarely virtuous and moral, and I rarely see a reason to treat the average person morally, or even as human. I am largely here to see if there is a reason to justify not being a money hoarding statist. I can't find any.

 

 

 

I cringed, when you said my argument supports the State. >< It doesn't. The State is the organization that gives the stupid masses the power, the ability, to congregate into a destructive force. Without it, the masses are too stupid to cooperate to the extent of causing such harm. They are aloof and idle, mostly.

 

Your argument supports the idea that the stupid masses that could ruin everything for us, requires a responding institution which can control, mitigate and/or prevent the masses destructive tendencies. Because if there is no such institution, then the masses will continue to be the proverbial 5 year old running with scissors, until he or someone else gets hurt.

 

Fair enough.  Do you plan to charge people for saving them, or obtain a government contract to pick up the pieces?

 

The "charge people for saving them" seems to work fairly well. Although I am more poised to profit from the masses panics.

[Phuein]

Your argument supports the idea that the stupid masses that could ruin everything for us, requires a responding institution which can control, mitigate and/or prevent the masses destructive tendencies. Because if there is no such institution, then the masses will continue to be the proverbial 5 year old running with scissors, until he or someone else gets hurt.

 

No. Stop misrepresenting my argument. My argument is clear. This "institution to control them" is exactly the tool that lets them be so destructive, as a whole. Without such a tool, the idiot masses are unable to cooperate to such a degree; both in scale of people, and in scale of time.

 

I am largely here to see if there is a reason to justify not being a money hoarding statist. I can't find any.

 

My experience with most people is negative, as well. Few perpetrate coercion, while the rest either ignore it, or encourage it for their own benefit.

 

However, this doesn't mean that I should join in. I have set a logical standard of morality, for myself, which some others agree with and apply as well. So, the stupidity of others doesn't excuse my abusing them. This is akin to knowing that young people are less experienced, and thus easier to trick and con. Not a justification for doing so!

 

I'm seeing two options for this dilemma, both of which should apply. The first is getting away from the masses; living in a remote place, where I'm not bothered, but still have access to technology. The second is applying a strategy - through environmental conditions, that encourages myself, and those around me, to grow towards a logical moral society; rather than over-populate and regress into a stupid mass; or even regress as a small group, which does happen. This strategy would, generally, emphasis Logic, self-defense, communications, and ecological sustainability. I suspect access to Research&Development would be crucial.

[utopian]

 

I cringed, when you said my argument supports the State. >< It doesn't. The State is the organization that gives the stupid masses the power, the ability, to congregate into a destructive force. Without it, the masses are too stupid to cooperate to the extent of causing such harm. They are aloof and idle, mostly.

 

 

 

No. Stop misrepresenting my argument. My argument is clear. This "institution to control them" is exactly the tool that lets them be so destructive, as a whole. Without such a tool, the idiot masses are unable to cooperate to such a degree; both in scale of people, and in scale of time.

 

Your argument does not seem very clear to me. Are you assuming that the foolish masses would not be able to congregate into a destructive force without the state? In what way do you think that the current US capitalist system is GIVING people power as opposed to suppressing them? Your theory that the stupid masses are aloof and idle disregards the drug cartels operating just over the border I live buy, as well as operating within the city and country I live in. It doesnt take much intelligence for people to grow and sell drugs, shoot innocent people, traffic children and plenty of other crimes that are far from aloof and idle.

[Phuein]

Your argument does not seem very clear to me. Are you assuming that the foolish masses would not be able to congregate into a destructive force without the state? In what way do you think that the current US capitalist system is GIVING people power as opposed to suppressing them? Your theory that the stupid masses are aloof and idle disregards the drug cartels operating just over the border I live buy, as well as operating within the city and country I live in. It doesnt take much intelligence for people to grow and sell drugs, shoot innocent people, traffic children and plenty of other crimes that are far from aloof and idle.

 

Capitalism is a system of trade - whether involving a state or not, and has nothing to do with systems of governance. From Wiki: "The government of the United States of America is the federal government of the republic of fifty states..." Trade and capital don't have the pretense of coercion. That is the realm of governance; the state.

 

So, yes, according to evidence, there is no reason to assume that any mass of people would congregate to become dangerous; without a government. Only a government regularly collects resources from the population, in order to become a menace, ever growing.

 

And the drug cartels - which are more than a simple cartel (a trade organization), but a mafia (have an army), are just that. All mafias are that. A group of people who force themselves on a population. An equal definition to the government. Even the "protection" schemes work the same.

 

A government is simply a mafia that had managed to take such control, that no other mafia is able to directly or publicly confront them. Take North Korea, for example. Their government is worse than many known mafia organizations, yet due to their power and control over the population, they are recognized as a "government". A meaningless distinction, when scrutinized against definitions.

[utopian]

But surely you can see that people would not need to even congregate to be destructive. Any five year old, who are inherently unintelligent, can pick up a pair of scissors and start running around with it, endangering you and possibly injuring you or himself. Other 5 year olds may see this and think it looks fun, and choose to do it as well. It should be no problem for you to extrapolate this example into every day life.

 

What about the heaven's gate cult? What about organized religion? Drunken college frat parties? What other examples do you need to be convinced that yes, people do indeed congregate naturally to participate in stupidity?

 

I agree that governments can be gangs in disguise, but I still don't see how either organization would be giving people control. Perhaps an actual government would, if it had an established method for the common man to change it.

[Phuein]

You're misrepresenting my argument, again.

 

I am strictly speaking about the masses being destructive. Individuals and small groups being destructive is none of my interest. I am not responsible for every conflict or harm in existence, and neither are you. If you make the pretense of being "world police" (responsible for everyone), then you'll be rightfully hated for it, and fail miserably in upholding such an impossible standard. Just like governments fail and are hated. [You're fundamentally mimicking the government.]

 

The logical error of making an analogy between a government and a college fraternity, their capacity for destruction entirely dissimilar, is exactly why you need to be precise in your arguments, rather than talk about "trains".

 

And again, I did not say that a government is a gang in disguise. I said that it is, by definition, the exact same thing as a mafia. Different names and attitudes, for the exact same type of organization.

 

Also, it isn't that the people "gain control" through such organizations. It's that those evil few who control the masses, use the masses' resources to destroy and harm, for their own personal benefits. The masses are being threatened into this, and are too stupid to organize against it, efficiently. Just like cattle in a ranch.

 

Notice that you are repeatedly misrepresenting my arguments, even though I have defined my terms very strictly. This means that you are not defining your terms strictly enough, which is why you stand in confusion, rather than reach conclusions. So, make sure you either agree with my definitions, or have strict and concise definitions of your own, for all relevant terms in this discussion.

[utopian]

Also, it isn't that the people "gain control" through such organizations. It's that those evil few who control the masses, use the masses' resources to destroy and harm, for their own personal benefits. The masses are being threatened into this, and are too stupid to organize against it, efficiently. Just like cattle in a ranch.

 

We seem to be getting away from the point here. This is the basis of my argument, that the masses are so stupid, they are signing up for institutions that are destructive and harmful even to themselves, just like you said about the cigarettes.

 

Perhaps its time to talk about the real issue. The real issue is the banking system. I am still working on a condensed history of banking I mean to post on this forum. Central banks have enslaved just about the entire world, and they did it in such a sneaky and complex way that most people would never be able to even figure out how it works, much less comprehend its existence. 

 

So when I began to study the system, it was more or less my goal to save myself from it, and everyone else in the process. But as I studied the banking system I realized that people did not seem to have the capacity to even understand that this is the source of most of their problems. So you tell me that, for wanting to save people from a problem too complex for them to understand, I should be rightfully hated. Well, if saving people gets me hated, then I have no problem suppressing those very people who indulge in such stupidity. I get money and power and my way with humanity. If haters are gonna hate either way, then I would rather have all the bonuses. 

 

The struggle comes when I consider, that this is not necessarily virtuous or philosophical, but I cannot justify being either, when people are so generally stupid.

[shirgall]

The struggle comes when I consider, that this is not necessarily virtuous or philosophical, but I cannot justify being either, when people are so generally stupid.

 

Part of why it is not philosophical is that you have broken people into classes, which are in conflict, which is a *political* struggle, not a philosophical one.

[MMX2010]

@shirgall: Another reason the struggle isn't philosophical is that he's complaining about human stupidity as if it's a tragic problem that, if we don't overcome it, will doom the entire planet.  But people have never been smarter, and stupidity has always been with us.  And we're still here. 

[utopian]

 

-37 This post by MMX2010 is below the user reputation threshold. View it anyway?

 

Ahahahaaaa! Ooh MMX, I am not sure what you posted to get everyone so pissed at you, but I saw this coming a long ways off. There is a good reason you are so downvoted, and it is well deserved. You're a troll. You debate without consideration for truth, if debating is what I would actually call what it is you do. You insult people based on your insane justifications of trolling. I bet you went and backed yourself into some horrible corner of trolling, trying to argue for child abuse or racism or something that really got people mad. I told you when I first started chatting with you, I was not the only one who recognized your trolling, and now you have gone and proven it.

 

The thing that amazes me is that you are so delusional, so convinced of your own righteousness. I have never seen someone so without introspection. You seem to have this insane desire for recognition, for people's attention, even long after they have let you known they arent paying attention to you. As if you could just become such a great debater or something that, even if someone is completely right, you will feel proud of yourself for making every argument possible to negate a person's topic. Not once do you seem to ever stop and take a look at yourself and see what everyone else sees.

 

So much of your time and energy wasted trying to convince me and others of your capabilities, and now you have gone and ostracized yourself. You're still trying to do it, even though you are blocked by the forum from anyone ever having to be bothered by your foolishness again. It's pathetic. Fortunately for me, I don't have to be bothered by having to scroll past your wall of text any more, all I will ever see of you again is what I have quoted. But do post again... every time I see you in the quote, I will get a little chuckle. 

 

 

Part of why it is not philosophical is that you have broken people into classes, which are in conflict, which is a *political* struggle, not a philosophical one.

 

I would argue people have put themselves into classes, as most of them do not strive to understand the thorn that is creating pain in their side, as well as angrily attacking anyone who is trying to remove it for them.

[shirgall]

 

I would argue people have put themselves into classes, as most of them do not strive to understand the thorn that is creating pain in their side, as well as angrily attacking anyone who is trying to remove it for them.

 

 

But you have cited a classic divide between the great unwashed and the intelligentsia. It may not be intentional, it just rings of the classic political struggle Engels writes about.

[Devon Gibbons]

"...seem to choose subconsciously living out their short lives happily and ignorantly..."
- they aren't subconsciously happy, they are consciously happy, and subconsciously miserable

"..how can I justify striving to maintain their existence? "
- Well, god, I thought your story went that their existence was their mess and was under their control after you snapped them into existence? If that's not the case, just snap them out.

"...it goes against the very philosophy of survival of the fittest that produced them in the first place."
-Fitness isn't genetic.

". I feel justified seeing these "humans" get run over by the train and profiting from it."
-Well, god, you may as well. It's your game. I always wondered what, sort of, "justice" would mean to a universal entity since usually the term is used when negotiating costs and benefits between two ppl, but that doesn't really apply, paradigmatically speaking, to you with your privileged position as omightycreato transcendent goop entity-man.

"And though I do feel justified, some part of me wonders why these people have turned out this way. Was it that no one taught them that trains are dangerous, when someone should have? Is it my responsibility to teach someone about trains, if they never were? And if I do take time out of my life to do so, and I am ignored and shunned for it, is it ethical to profit from a person's stupidity?"
- To not answer any of your questions, I can tell you why you "feel" justified. It's because you ask these questions of should-I's and jump to ethical consequences while AT THE SAME TIME trying to figure out WHY they are like that in the first place. The way you're talking here seems as though you're just short of admitting responsibility for 7,000,000,000 people's bad behavior.

 

-If you don't like that you are responsible for me cutting myself, then stop using language to delude yourself that you have god-like powers. But until then, I'm going to blame all of what I do to myself on you. Thanks for the sanction

...

"I "cooperate" with statists in reducing your liberties, because I find it very profitable"
-You cannot make your entire tax pen aware of your "help" so you will always be uncertain and corrupt until each and every one of them know your virtuous goal. Otherwise its stealing. A lot of people aren't smart enough to cheat the cheaters, but ignorant of the knowledge, understanding, and wisdom of the whole situation (duh-take for instance all children). They still have the potential to change, and you're limiting their potential. This event that you are describing, it's not going to be a train crash, its going to be drawn out real slow. If it were something that was going to happen quickly, it would be easier to see your immorality.

-You're the one standing in the train tracks as the barrier to their demise. They aren't on the tracks, but on the train - blind passengers. Now I understand why you see yourself as a god.

".. my philosophical conflict of interest, making money off the stupidity of the masses and being disturbed by the loss of liberties..."
- why would anyone give a rats ass about you and YOUR "disturbed"ness? You're taking MY money, and everybody else's money who you are talking to in this post!

"people on average are rarely virtuous and moral, and I rarely see a reason to treat the average person morally, or even as human. I am largely here to see if there is a reason to justify not being a money hoarding statist. I can't find any.
-That's a very profound statement. If you find virtue in yourself, children, and your wife, those 3 reasons should logically be more than enough, and give you enough hope to contradict your displayed nihilism. 

"The struggle comes when I consider, that this is not necessarily virtuous or philosophical, but I cannot justify being either, when people are so generally stupid."
-The only stupidity in the people around you, that I witness on the thread here at least, is that no body is telling you that you are an asshole for stealing from them. If you're American, you are stealing from me. Jackass. Philosophy is about the love of wisdom, not using it against people.

[utopian]

wall of text

 

I pretty much stopped reading after the second time you called me god, since your related comments are more about satirically responding to a conclusion you have an emotional reaction to. Don't waste my time with this drivel. Give me a respectable and well thought response, or I will have you trolling yourself by me not reading your post and thereby having you waste all that time making a post you meant for me to read. 

 

 

But you have cited a classic divide between the great unwashed and the intelligentsia. It may not be intentional, it just rings of the classic political struggle Engels writes about.

 

 

Perhaps I have, I have no knowledge of this Engles. Care to summarize?

[shirgall]

Perhaps I have, I have no knowledge of this Engles. Care to summarize?

 

Friedrich Engels was the co-author of the Communist Manifesto. I think he was more the idea man than Marx, although Marx gets the credit. Marx was more like a skilled writer than anything else.

 

At any rate, these two wrote of the proletariat (the working man) and its struggle against the bourgeoisie (the capitalists). There are even divides between wage earners (paid-by-the-hour workers) and salary workers.

 

By putting class against class they made a political struggle, which some can take advantage of by championing the poor, unwashed masses for their own good.

[utopian]

Friedrich Engels was the co-author of the Communist Manifesto. I think he was more the idea man than Marx, although Marx gets the credit. Marx was more like a skilled writer than anything else.

 

At any rate, these two wrote of the proletariat (the working man) and its struggle against the bourgeoisie (the capitalists). There are even divides between wage earners (paid-by-the-hour workers) and salary workers.

 

By putting class against class they made a political struggle, which some can take advantage of by championing the poor, unwashed masses for their own good.

 

Very interesting! I have heard about Marx and the Manifesto, but not of Engels. It does seem very much related to my issue.

 

Profiting from created conflicts is certainly at the heart of this issue with banking. The banks are profiting from creating strife in the country I love, America. As an American, I should probably be fighting against this. Americans simply never give me a reason enough to care about them long enough to try and help them. In fact I would say I have more reason to side with the bankers, as I understand what they are doing, and can profit from it.

 

But so, I am not quite sure what you are trying to get at here. Is there a well known fallacy which nullifies any legitimacy for being on the banker side of the struggle? A predetermined argument for supporting the unwashed, perhaps?

[shirgall]

What I'm getting at is that you are not describing a philosophical struggle but instead a political one, and political struggles are all about gaining consent, not discovering truth.

[utopian]

I am afraid I don't understand. Perhaps I need to learn more about what Engles wrote about the political struggle. What the bankers do is largely done without the consent of the general public. As Henry Ford once said, "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." Considering that, I feel there should be a philosophical issue with siding with the banking system.

[shirgall]

Conflict between classes is termed a "political struggle". Getting enough people to agree with your position is "generating consent". It's all about garnering enough influence to make government do what you want it to do. Sorry that this conversation has gone down a rathole, I don't think I'm adding value anymore. :/

[MMX2010]

@shirgall: You are.  It's just not reaching the intended target. 

[mohandes]

What if the train is just YOUR perception? What if in reality, the train (a metaphor for a big moving object that can kill people) is really a mosquito biting them and it's just not really serious (does not have the impact you think it is going to have)? What if your perception is skewed?! How do you know that you know the "truth" about the relative seriousness of various issues impacting people (what you see as a threat might be the 10th item in terms of magnitude)?! What if the people just don't care about mosquitos?!!

 

P.S. I'm talking in the most abstract terms and not saying anything specific. Just a food for thought.

[utopian]

 

Conflict between classes is termed a "political struggle". Getting enough people to agree with your position is "generating consent". It's all about garnering enough influence to make government do what you want it to do. Sorry that this conversation has gone down a rathole, I don't think I'm adding value anymore. :/

 

It's ok man, I may have screwed it up before it even started, having introduced a metaphorical scenario instead of the actual one. I do appreciate your contribution of Engles writings, I will have to get to reading it when I have time. Thank you.

 

 

What if the train is just YOUR perception? What if in reality, the train (a metaphor for a big moving object that can kill people) is really a mosquito biting them and it's just not really serious (does not have the impact you think it is going to have)? What if your perception is skewed?! How do you know that you know the "truth" about the relative seriousness of various issues impacting people (what you see as a threat might be the 10th item in terms of magnitude)?! What if the people just don't care about mosquitos?!!

 

P.S. I'm talking in the most abstract terms and not saying anything specific. Just a food for thought.

 

That might have been the case, except the actual scenario I am talking about is the economic system. and the train coming is the crash that left lots of people homeless and jobless. 

[Armitage]

Now, after having gone through this struggle of trying to warn people against the impending death of the train, and being faced by such ignorance and resistance, I can't help but feel like these people deserve to die of their own stupidity. 

 

If people are so stupid that, not only do they not care to consider they are playing on train tracks, but do not bother to listen to someone warning them about the impending dangers or even care to consider evidence (and furthermore, sometimes choose to stay on the train tracks, knowing there could be a train coming) are these people even worth saving? Because if people have become so ignorant and desensitized, how can I justify striving to maintain their existence? I mean for god's sake, when people reach this level, it goes against the very philosophy of survival of the fittest that produced them in the first place.

 

 

I have generally concluded that people like this are not worth saving, and that I would rather let them get hit by the train. Furthermore, I position myself to profit in the instance that these people do in fact die, proverbially, investing in the local casket shop, etc. knowing that eventually a lot of these things are going to be sold because of the impending deaths. I feel justified seeing these "humans" get run over by the train and profiting from it.

 

And though I do feel justified, some part of me wonders why these people have turned out this way. Was it that no one taught them that trains are dangerous, when someone should have? Is it my responsibility to teach someone about trains, if they never were? And if I do take time out of my life to do so, and I am ignored and shunned for it, is it ethical to profit from a person's stupidity?

No unchosen positive obligations  

If these people were your property, then your position would be justified. But you are not a slave owner, they own themselves. 

Stupidity is not a reason to give up on people, because you do not have a positive moral obligation to save them, so you don't need to look for a moral way out of it. In fact, I think Stefan advocates to exercise triage, take only those best of the best worth saving. 

 

I'd say the rest are just an average gene pool - if you can get to their children or persuade them towards peaceful parenting, all the better. There are some  business activists who do that completely unrelated to anarchism and I consider them superior to most libertarians. Remember, as long as you are not dealing with children and parents, most of what you do is just managing consequences. There is very little choice, very little morality.