A more specific link. — Devans99

So, I go through the effort of doing that, and my reward is...? What?

Going around in circles with you again with regard to your failed logic, or your now famous catchphrase: no valid counterargument!

Link to an example of where I have ignored a valid counter argument — Devans99

Here.

I’m not pretending. I’m just curious about your thoughts and who the worst people are? You did at least say “little sympathy” so I imagine you accept that not everyone in the 1% (relative to west only for clarity) is driven by excess and greed. — I like sushi

The consequences of their actions vastly outweigh any goodness in their intentions, in my judgement.

I don’t quite see that taking wealth and giving to lower classes would necessarily be helpful and/or welcome by those in lower income brackets. — I like sushi

It would be accepted on a wide scale by the lower classes, and it would certainly be helpful to them. You see, there's this thing called the cost of living...

It could be distributed in a way that would mean a decent increase to income or having to pay less tax, so they wouldn't even really have a choice, or even if they did, who on earth in that group would object to having to pay less in tax or receiving an increase in pay? I'm confident it could be done in a clever way.

It doesn't have to be dished out in one large sum, which we could call "a charity payout for skint chavs". That would most probably get rejected on a much larger scale, because of pride. Although I still wouldn't reject it. I'd say something like, "Great! Where do I sign?".

Of course though I’ll take that with generosity and assume you’re sensible enough to mean this is terms of using said redistribution to boost health, education and work toward improving the general environments of poorer areas - investing in future job prospects by creating jobs and developing skills and trades. You’d get no argument from me there. — I like sushi

I'm talking about proportional pay for work. More people would make more money, because the pot would be shared more equally instead of drained disproportionately by just a few, with the scraps being distributed amongst the rest. Those who get millions for kicking around a ball on a field would get less or be forced to find another profession. Nurses and teachers would get more.

That's closer proportionality, as I assess it.

Was that your first language? — Joshs

Potato, apparently. He strikes me as someone fluent in the language of potato. Either that, or herpaderp.

What is morality about then? It's a social thing isn't it? What would one person do with morality? — TheMadFool

Morality is about right and wrong, good and bad. Too many people on this forum confuse their own judgement about what's good with what morality is. There's a whole debate in ethics between individualism and egoism, on the one hand, and their opposites in collectivism and altruism, on the other. Like I said, it is not a good example of applying critical thinking skills to jump ahead and just assume that whatever side of that debate you are more sympathetic towards is what morality is all about.

I am one person. What I'd do with morality is seek to improve my character.

Where do you draw the line? — I like sushi

Somewhere that seems proportional. I haven't suggested that it's an easy job to come up with a really detailed and practical way of doing this. Who do you think I am? Am I a famed intellectual? Am I a politician? Am I an economist? Am I even remotely close to the genius of someone like Marx? No.

But I can easily point to the most clearcut cases of excess wealth, which is the 1%, and I know you understand what I mean by that, so stop pretending.

How would wealth be redistributed? — I like sushi

For a start, by taking the excess wealth from the wealthiest billionaires, and then redistributing it to those in the lower classes, with the aim of closer proportionality. All the details are open for debate, and don't expect me to have a fully worked out plan, because you'll be disappointed.

How would you prevent the wealthiest from grouping together in order to expand businesses, create jobs and/or invest in future projects? — I like sushi

I'm going to disregard your wording, and answer the question of what I'd do towards preventing the wealthiest from amassing excess wealth, and the answer would be the law, and law enforcement.

Is it a bad sign when the discussions you create quickly become damning parodies of your arguments?

I think so, and I'm right. Or, at least, I have an 89.52% chance of being right, because you have no valid counterarguments.

Are you really saying anything other than, "altruism is good", and, "morality should be about altruism"? I doubt it, and I don't think that that sort of thing is a good example of critical thinking skills at work.

1% on what scale? You’re right ask about context so it’d help if you gave some regarding whether you think the 1% matters on a nation, international, global, or other scale. I’m assuming you don’t mean global or you’d have to include a lack of sympathy for your own position (I’m making the assumption you’re not exactly in poverty and living in western society).

I believe the 1% on a global scale puts anyone earning something like $20,000 a year in the top 1% ... not massively fair given the relativity of financial wealth I admit, but it at least brings into question how you apply this 1% idea and whether you feel so strongly about everyone within said 1% at all/any particular level of analysis. — I like sushi

You're not familiar with what's meant by the 1%? No, funnily enough, I'm not talking about anything remotely close to my earnings. If we're pulling people down, then I say we should start with the richest billionaires and work downwards, not with people on the lowest incomes by Western standards.

0% — Terrapin Station

Which is the same chance anyone here has of getting through to Devans.

I would rather read your paper. Seems more promising. The author seems better qualified. Superior critical thinking skills, and a better writer. At least judging from what's on display here.

If people cannot be lifted up are you for pulling others down? — I like sushi

In what context?! Economically, yes. I am far from neo-liberalism, and I have little sympathy for the 1%. I would jump at a chance to pull them down.

Does such “proportionality” require handicaps to those with height? — I like sushi

In what context?

@Banno

The term "equality" isn't the best term, either, actually. I agree with you on that. The term "proportionality" is better, and I have used it before in place of the term "equality".

In your picture where each individual can see over the fence, they each have the right proportional adjustment, which leads to a better outcome.

Wealth proportionality would be a good thing. We don't have it. It is out of proportion, and grossly so in some cases. This is an injustice. I don't think you have the best understanding of Marxism.

No, its not a double standard. The standards are different between the two cultures. One is much worse on the gay issue. Clearly, much, much worse. Its not even a part of the culture in the west, its bad actors who are actively condemned by the culture who do it. In many Muslim countries it is supported by the culture, or a blind eye turned. Russian culture too. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities. — DingoJones

:100:

Just how far gone are you? You cannot see that throwing people from buildings IS FAR worse than a beating, and the rarity of the occurrence (or any act of bigotry towards gays) in the two cultures are not even close. Instead what do you do? Jump track to the False Equivalence Express. Staggering. — DingoJones

Staggering indeed.

Neither does the west. Just because we aren't actively throwing gay people off buildings or performing public executions does not mean the west is significantly better. — Anaxagoras

What are "we" doing to gay people that even comes close to throwing them off buildings or performing public executions?! That's an outrageous comment to make. Of course hate crimes against gay people still occur. Some gay people end up getting murdered for being gay. But it doesn't even come close to the situation in certain places in the Middle East and Africa. I remember a campaign about trying to get school children to think about using the word "gay" as an insult. That's an indication of the level of development we're at. Your comment isn't just clueless, it is downright offensive.

I'm not sure anyone here can help you. I'm leaning towards the assessment that you are beyond help, at least from a philosophy forum.

We have been through this before. You claim my points have been rebutted but you never give counter arguments or links to counter arguments. That is not a productive exercise from my perspective. Try to stay on topic. — Devans99

The topic can't even begin to proceed in any productive manner until you acknowledge the counterarguments. That's your step 1. And note well that step 1 doesn't require that me or anyone else do anything at all. You can, and you should, help yourself. I've said this before, but it is actually immoral not to do so, but instead to pass the buck to others.

Do you think I'm stupid enough to keep posting about it if it has been rebutted? — Devans99

Are you sure you want an honest answer to that question?

Isn't that a serious cognitive bias towards your own convictions? — Christoffer

He screams cognitive bias. Perhaps more than any other member of this forum that I have encountered.

Let's put it this way: if I died and discovered an afterlife, I would be extremely surprised. And your conclusion that there's roughly one third of a chance of there being an afterlife seems frankly laughable. You must have gone wrong somewhere in your reasoning.

You offered us once a personal account where you got wasted and belligerent to the point the police were involved. Obviously your belligerence was immoral, but wouldn't you say your decision to get wasted by itself was as well, even had you not become belligerent, just due to the fact that you recklessly exposed the public to a wild eyed S with no rational self control? Or do you maintain even your belligerence was excusable, as it was not really S doing those things, but a Mr. Hyde occupying your body? — Hanover

I don't excuse my belligerence, I accept proportional responsibility, then I make light of it and move on, because otherwise it would eat me up inside and I would be at great risk of doing something even more self-destructive.

Whether the decision to take drugs itself was immoral is complicated. Is it reckless to go to the pub and drink enough to get drunk? Is that immoral? Should that be illegal?

prevail — Merkwurdichliebe

:brow:

But that's impossible.

Sure, so start with the first phrase you quoted.

"If you substitute those terms in what I wrote"

You are not familiar with the idea of substituting one set of terms for another?

Or did you quote that part superfluously? I mean, I hope we don't need to start with explaining words like "if," or combinations like "If you" etc. — Terrapin Station

:lol:

Really? Then on your authority (you we're even the nick I borrowed from the old PF), I won't post anymore. — Wallows

Or less?

Anyway, I thought you were going to sleep over it. You were supposed to wake up to the magic, like an excited child on Christmas morning. You've peeked!

On my superior authority, I demand that you reconsider.

Guilty. — unenlightened

They're all guilty, even the innocent ones.

a paper I'm working on — Devans99

:grimace:

Which math is a belief and which is not a belief? — Christoffer

Sounds funny, doesn't it? Like asking which religion is a fruit and which religion is not a fruit.

I agree that his wording wasn't great, but I don't think he meant to tie himself up in logical problems. One could probably get more sense out of it and avoid those problems with a charitable interpretation.

You believe that there's a first cause, and that it is timeless and blah blah, and is God. That's a prime example of what I described.

It's good not to hold too many beliefs. I believe completely only in logic, probability, some of the rest of maths and what is deduced from 'I think therefore I am'.

Then there are things that I have such a high conviction in that they class as a belief even though they cannot be known with complete certainty (eg: gravity, evolution). — Devans99

You also have a set of beliefs which you have such a high conviction in that your psychology prevents you from being conscious of the logical faults with your rationalisations, in spite of your high valuation of logic.

Can you guarantee to control your drug use and it's effects on you and others? — tim wood

The obvious question in response to that would be: to what extent? Complete control in every situation where a recreational drug has been taken is both physically and practically impossible. To the extent that it accords with my sense of right and wrong, and personal responsibility, and my liberalism? I can try my best, and that's all you can justifiably expect of me. You might have a different sense of right and wrong, and personal responsibility, and you might be more of a conservative, but you're not right by default.

Previous posts include what I mean, primarily my answers to Daniel Cox digs deeper into the meaning of my original post. — Christoffer

No, you should take a leaf out of his book and repeat your point in the exact same wording over and over again on the internet for the next twenty years. :lol:

Oh, come on now. Was a repetition of your point necessary?

I don't need a mediator, man. What I want is a jury. So, I'll sleep over this thread and see if anything magical happens. — Wallows

Interesting term to use. I'm not trying to be a mediator, I'm just speaking my mind, and it just happens to come across that way. Sometimes I speak my mind and it comes across as fiercely critical. You probably wouldn't think of me as a mediator in that situation.

Yeah; but, there's no solution if I can't make any more at all, can I? So, I guess it is what it is? — Wallows

I don't get the need or desire to do so with such frequency. If I had the ability to create discussions revoked, it wouldn't bother me that much, in practice. There's already a million interesting enough topics to comment on.

Or, you know, just create less discussions. Or better ones. (I guess that falls under number two).

Even if it is an "implicit threat", what's the problem? I reckon it would be something like the following:

"Stop posting new discussions yourself (because it is causing a problem, and if the problem continues, then we will take action to resolve it)".

Yes, your rewording is much clearer. He would benefit from a change of script. Or maybe not going by a script at all, as that's not a good example of creative writing. And definitely lose the ALL-CAPS. And the excessive use of ellipsis.

Then why are you writing in the way you do? — Christoffer

Very good question.

I doubt any major publication would allow that type of writing. — Christoffer

Very true. It would almost certainly go straight in the bin.