"starvation-wages" and "compulsory work" are not a thing when one volunteers to sign a labor contract. — Garrett Travers

It would seem somewhat incoherent to me if someone asserted that work could be compulsory, meaning involuntary, if you voluntarily agreed to work. Because in order for something to be voluntary it has to be free from compulsion. It’s almost tautological.

Go on... — Garrett Travers

Do you agree that folks with mental illness are victims of mental illness?

It would seem somewhat incoherent to me if someone asserted that work could be compulsory, meaning involuntary, if you voluntarily agreed to work. Because in order for something to be voluntary it has to be free from compulsion. It’s almost tautological. — Average

More contradictory than tautological. But, I've rarely seen anything more contradictory than the views that inform this kind of conclusion. It comes from a reading of history that did involve compulsory work, during the Enclosure Movement, when the commons were first shuttered by state expropriation and and declared ownership of land to be used for certain economic purposes regarding agricultural output. Such action, taking place after Charlemagne became Holy Roman Emperor, and the Feudal system really took off. In short, the state usurped land that had been the serf's one common commodity upon which to draw resources, for its own use, relegating humans to cut out pieces of land, know as "demesne." This process grew and grew until 18th and 19th centuries, after Mercantilism dawned on the world scene, which is an evolved form of Feudalism with lords chartering companies to be used as economic behemoths, which has now given birth to the modern economy that is, for some strange reason, referred to as "Capitalism." The difference is now, though, that people are at least respected in their property rights, which frees up the economy enough for people to create jobs, which you can voluntarily take employment with, based on your own standards for work. This freedom being mistaken for the wage-slavery and compulsory work that is no longer in existence.

Do you agree that folks with mental illness are victims of mental illness? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes. If we're talking neurological disorders.

Yes. If we're talking neurological disorders. — Garrett Travers

So you accept that it's rational to feel compassion for folks with mental illness?

So you accept that it's rational to feel compassion for folks with mental illness? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I do.

More contradictory than tautological. — Garrett Travers

I agree that it would be a contradiction to assert the voluntary work is compulsory work. What I meant by tautological was that voluntary work is automatically not compulsory.

I do — Garrett Travers

Do you accept that Hitler had a mental illness?

I agree that it would be a contradiction to assert the voluntary work is compulsory work. What I meant by tautological was that voluntary work is automatically not compulsory. — Average

Yes. As all propositions that are both valid, and sound are tautological, so too is the this presentation to you. It is voluntary, because it's voluntary. A=A. See how A=A is tautological? That's a logical truism. Everything that is true is tautological. How do I know if something is true? I'm looking at, it's right there. How do we know the sun is really there? Because it is self-evidently emergent in the universe. A=A.

Do you accept that Hitler had a mental illness? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes.

I don’t know if it makes sense to use mathematical symbols like the one for equality in the context of epistemology. 2+2=4 but I don’t know what A=A means.

I don’t know if it makes sense to use mathematical symbols like the one for equality in the context of epistemology. 2+2=4 but I don’t know what A=A means. — Average

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity

I’m familiar with the law I’m just not on board with the way it is represented Or symbolized.

Right, such is clear from the "how do we know what we know" discussion. Unfortunately it is something that simply cannot be argued with. Not in any falsifiable manner. But, exploring that is all perfectly good and well.

Not in any falsifiable manner. — Garrett Travers

I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make about falsification. Are you referring to my mirage hypothesis?

I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make about falsification. Are you referring to my mirage hypothesis? — Average

No, I'm saying that if an assertion about a fact of the world cannot be placed under the scrutiny of falsification, meaning it can be tested in a manner that has the potential to dispprove it in one or more ways, then it isn't science, per Karl Popper, and should thereby be dismissed from one's philosophical approach until such a time that it can.

Do you accept that Hitler had a mental illness?
— ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes. — Garrett Travers

My dear fellow, were you under the impression that this confirmation of mine ended our line of discussion on the topic?

Yes. — Garrett Travers

Okay, that gives us this syllogism:

It's rational to feel compassion for people with mental illness. Hitler had a mental illness. Therefore, it's rational to feel compassion for Hitler.

It's rational to feel compassion for people with mental illness. Hitler had a mental illness. Therefore, it's rational to feel compassion for Hitler. — ZzzoneiroCosm

It is rational. But, only on that basis. You seem to be forgetting something, so I'll turn the question around to see what you say:

Is it rational to have compassion for mass murderers?

Just a confirmation or a denial will do.

No, I'm saying that if an assertion about a fact of the world cannot be placed under the scrutiny of falsification, meaning it can be tested in a manner that has the potential to dispprove it in one or more ways, then it isn't science, per Karl Popper, and should thereby be dismissed from one's philosophical approach until such a time that it can. — Garrett Travers

What assertion are you referring to though? Is it the assertion that a thing isn’t what it is?

It's rational to feel compassion for people with mental illness. Hitler had a mental illness. Therefore, it's rational to feel compassion for Hitler. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Proper form would look like this:

If it's rational to feel compassion for people with mental illness, then it is rational to have compassion for Hitler as someone who suffered from a mental illness.
It is rational to feel compassion for people with mental illness,
Therefore it is rational to have compassion for Hitler as someone who suffered from mental illness.

p>q
p
-----
q

Modus Ponens

What assertion are you referring to though? Is it the assertion that a thing isn’t what it is? — Average

The one about it not being compulsory, because it is voluntary. But, logically, any valid proposition, or sound proposition is tautological.

oh ok thanks for clarifying.

oh ok thanks for clarifying. — Average

Does that makes sense? Or, still a little confusing?

no the only part that confused me was the introduction of the whole a thing is what it is and couldn’t possibly be what it isn’t concept. That concept traditionally being represented by A=A.

Proper form would look like this: — Garrett Travers

It's rational to feel compassion for people with mental illness. Hitler had a mental illness. Therefore, it's rational to feel compassion for Hitler. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Tidied up a bit:

(You've already accepted the premises.)

P1. It's rational to feel compassion for a person with mental illness.
P2. Hitler was a person with mental illness.
C. Therefore, it's rational to feel compassion for Hitler.

P1. It's rational to feel compassion for a person with mental illness.
P2. Hitler was a person with mental illness.
C. Therefore, it's rational to feel compassion for Hitler. — ZzzoneiroCosm

This is improper, but no worries I get the gist. Yes, I accept the whole argument as valid.

Yes, I accept the whole argument as valid. — Garrett Travers

Good.

On to the unskilled laborer.

If an unskilled laborer - in light of mental illness and lack of access to mental health services - is inhibited from self-development and career advancement, is it rational to feel compassion for him?

Good.

On to the unskilled laborer.

If an unskilled laborer - in light of mental illness and lack of access to mental health services - is inhibited from self-development and career advancement, is it rational to feel compassion for him? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes. I think I've already confirmed this position.

Yes. — Garrett Travers

Okay. So there's more room for compassion in your view than I originally thought.

Mental illness rates among the impoverished are about twice that of the rest of us.