YJ to be honest, krellin is more crass than he has been as of late, he is actually making points the past few days that seem to make sense.

Self[sufficient is certainly nt the same as 'self-reliant', but we can agree to disagree.

Example, I am 'almost' Food self-sufficient if I desire, and if the proverbial 'crap hit the fan' I would be, because I would be doing without some stuff I can buy now.

However, jsut becasue I have solar power, I still had to buy theswe things, but for me, I am trading something I earned (money) for something else I need (solar panels, wiring, etc), I am energy self sufficient by the very termsof it.

I dont think anyone here is suggesting we all live on our own island away from each other, but if someone is not contributing to society, whats the point?

If you simply a parasite on society, then should I have any compassion for them? I dont. I know plenty of trailer trash around here mooching off the government. I avoid them at all costs, and have nothing but contempt for them, and let them know it.

I think the difference between you and I thucy, is that I am not afraid to call them out for being a POS, and you seem to think its 'okay' for them to be sucking up my hardwork, because, I guess it is in some strange, magical way, my and/or society's fault?

The crapping his pants anaoly was not only classic - it was perfect. It define Thucy's particular brand of "self-whatever" Liberalism to perfection

As for YJ -- he is no longer worth responding to. He proved a year ago that he is a coward, unable to address anything with intellectual honesty. Infact, he is SCARED to confront me....it's difficult to hold the moral highground as he claims when he can't even address how I am wrong when I state...

I believe in equal access to society and language for all, regardless of race, gender or creed.

Somehow this brand of equality if offensive to a Liberal.

What does "responsible" for shitting my pants even mean?

I thought we were discussing moral responsibility.

If I have a heart attack in the street, it is the responsibility of people around me to render aid. That's what I mean by responsible to each other.

It's also my responsibility to try to reduce the overall rate of heart attacks, by discouraging people from adding more salt to their meal, for instance.

Not just for myself, but other people too. But I am also responsible for myself and therefore try to eat healthy as well.

If I am shitting my pants because I have a disease I should be responsible for myself and try to get it treated. But if I cannot pay to do so despite my best efforts, others should assist in that regard. Such is their responsibility to me, as it is my responsibility (and everyone else's) to raise the alarm bell that something is wrong with our country if we have people who are starving within it, for instance, even if I myself am well fed.

It is not just the responsibility of the starving people to do something about that, it is the responsibility of everyone.

I know why you harp on personal responsibility. You point out the cases where people could help themselves, but do not. To be crystal clear, I do agree that these cases exist (though probably not about how frequent they are), and I also agree that these people do not deserve to receive aid.

An so, your implication is that if they do not help themselves, they do not deserve help.

This line of thinking is one I am willing to discuss but a much more prevalent point is this:

You are wrong to assume that all people who are in dire straits are their because it is their own fault.

That is the core wrong in your way of thinking of personal responsibility - it is, in fact, not always the fault of the one in an unfortunate position.

Often, they have in fact done whatever it is they could do.

Blaming them is a repugnant course.

Frankly, and again, I am aware you disagree, I would rather have some moochers getting food stamps who don't deserve it than to have any people who have no other options, who do deserve help, starve to death. I certainly have resources to spare, as do a large number of Americans. And this, of course, does not even address the billions of people who are not Americans.

Unfortunately the latter - deserving people starving - is currently the reality. I suppose you're happy about that. I'm not.

Similarly, better to let a guilty person walk free than to hang an innocent.

If you go back to the Trayvon Martin threads you will notice I never made any comments about George Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. That is because that was not the point I was making all along, my point was then, and still is, very simple - race was an issue in the case. You denied this, in fact, you denied racism is even a problem in our country - it was this that provoked our spirited... shall we say...exchange.

But as to the trial itself, it occurred in a court of law, the man was found not guilty. Probably justly, though I was not a juror.

And now... wait for it... krellin will proceed to accuse me of double-talk or some such. I'll allow my words to speak for themselves however.

Good night.

Thucy -- you don't know what it means to be responsible for your own bowel movements????

Ahhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Oh my god...this is even better than I thought!!!!

Woo hoo....oh god...geesh....I'm laughing so hard I can barely catch my breath!

Good lord, I suppose we should probably all do the socially responsible thing and take up a collection to send you some Depends, eh? After all, a man that isn't responsible for his own bowel movements is probablhy got his hand out for the free adult diapers...

Woooo hooo...haaa ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Keep it up, Thuc-wad. Good you make my night so much fun!!!

That being said....I have no interest in living in your Authoritarian HELL where you are responsible for my salt intake and taking care of my health.

I have described for you and your mind-hive ilk many times what society would be like if we took your fantasy to its logical conclusion...elimination of private ownership of automobiles and homes, everyone living in the group government housing, of minimal necessary square footage, a government dining room in which all will eat the appointed government food at the appointed times in the appointed proportions, each working our assigned government jobs.

There would be no internet, as it is simply a waste of electricty and natural resources, given that society/government, in it mandate to protect us, will provide us all our needs, including whatever will pass for "entertainment"....

This IS the world you dream of, is it not?

TO say anything different simply exposes the utter ridiculousness of your half-steps you suggest.

MAn up, Thucy.

No...you don't double talk at all. You expose your Authoritarian Utopia dreams quite clearly....you just aren't intelligent enough to ride them out to their logical conclusions.

NOW....What size Depends do you wear?

Authoritarian hell is where people care about people's health other than their own?

Lol. I rest my case. You apparently have no soul.

Stop asking me to man up, the phrase means nothing to me.

My utopia is not one of specific policies, rather it is one of outcomes. So, however it may be achieved the world I long for is one of results:

A world of people who are treated equally in moral terms by their government and their neighbor, who all have a basic standard of living, and who show compassion for each other's physical and emotional needs.

I personally doubt people would be very happy living in centralized housing with set meal times and the like. Seems like a policy that would fail, so I reject it.

It's consequentialism.

It's this same principle that leads me to say there should be reform in our policies when our policies produce unacceptable results, such as the jailing of more black men in 2013 than there were slaves in 1850.

That's unacceptable, that needs to change.

Not to mention the fact that 1% of our population is incarcerated. We have more total prisoners than China, a country with four times our population.

These results are unacceptable, so the current policy regimen, as well as social atmosphere (since the two are inextricably connected), must change in a way that will correct such problems.

Same for public health, etc.

No, authoritarian hell is where I have the **responsibioity** for others health, etc. Responsibility implies it can be enforced....enforced implies authority.

Words have meaning, fuckwad,mthough it becomes ever more clear that your grasp of the language you toss arounf is woefully inadequate.

I would request a refund from your institution of higher learning...it failed you miserably.

"No, authoritarian hell is where I have the **responsibioity** for others health, "

You do. You have a moral one, anyway. One you apparently ignore.

Thucy did you see the picture of krellin's wife?

Lol and by the way, not to be the guy that calls out typos, but there is a certain irony in being berated for failing to grasp a language by a post that contains no less than four typos.

I think it's a good time to bring out John Donne again, he put it so cogently:

any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

I think this exchange demonstrates a problem with how Conservatives are perceived... and I can understand why, looking at it.

The way I see it, at least, Conservatism does not state that a person is responsible for himself (using male pronoun for convenience's sake) and only himself, and no one else; or that, if a person is in trouble, it is their own fault.

Conservatism states that a person should shoulder a greater share of responsibility for himself than anyone else. If he's dying of a heart attack on the street, then yes, I would hope someone would render aid, because there is next to nothing that that person can do for himself. But if he's unemployed, he should primarily seek another job over unemployment benefits. I'm not an evil rich person who thinks poor people who can't find a job should starve; I'm from a middle-class family and my mother was on unemployment for a while when the job she'd worked at for over twenty years closed. But she looked for a new job, she didn't kick back her heels and mooch off the government. And I take exception to the government forcing me to pay for those who refuse to lift a finger to help themselves.

Bottom line, according to Conservative philosophy, almost anyone CAN get back on their feet if they work for it. They may need a little help getting started, but perseverance can pull them through. Liberals, though, seem to say that people CANNOT get back on their feet without extensive aid from the outside, and in many cases not at all. Therefore, it is the responsibility of everyone who does work for success to support those who won't.

/rant.

Who's Kafka, is he new?

"Lol and by the way, not to be the guy that calls out typos, but there is a certain irony in being berated for failing to grasp a language by a post that contains no less than four typos. "
I confess - I was on my tablet, and didn't feel like editing with the shit screen keyboard. I know...it gave you a good distraction so that you wouldn't have to address the real topic.

Breath a sigh of relief, Thuc-wad...way to not confront a topic (but then again, you usually don't)

I did confront it, did you read the quote that has now been posted twice?

Do you need it repeated again?

I can paraphrase it - the fortunes of any person are my fortunes, because I am a person, and so are they.

And thus, responsibility and obligations to each other, not just me for myself.

Here is another quote, please read it:

"Each person you know about and can affect is someone to whom you have responsibilities: to say this is just to affirm the very idea of morality."

-Kwame Anthony Appiah

It's a depressing thought. But I concur with Krellin.

The only responsibility I have to anyone else, is to respect their liberty, and inflict no violence upon them. Thats it. I don't owe anyone anything else. That is where my moral responsibility ends.

If someone else wants to ruin their health, that is there prerogative. I am compelled not to forcibly interfere, though I may choose to suggest that they make wiser choices.

The only instance where I am justified in using force, is in response to force.

tl;dr:
Thucy: If you try and force me to give up salt in the name of the public good, I'll punch you in the face.

Notice how Thucy avoids addressing the vision of where his vision leads us.

“Responsibility” is a word with specific meaning, Thucy – I know you often get caught up using words that you don’t understand fully.

RESPONSIBLE: “Having an obligation to do something as part of a job or role.”

This implies (obligation) that I can be *forced* to do something, whether or not I agree with it. My children are *responsible* to clean the cat box – a disgusting duty nobody wants to do – if they want their allowance.

You say I have a responsibility to my fellow man…which implies that failure to uphold my responsibility has a resulting consequence. What is that consequence, Thucy?

You throw out these high minded philosophies without ever thinking them through.

I say “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” and if to ME happiness is eating salt until my heart explodes, then who the fuck are YOU to tell me what happiness is?

And here we are once again…back to the point where Thucy and Thucy alone has defined what is right for the world. What? Women stay home to have babies? Can’t have that…we need X% in the work place saith Thucy – he has a study to prove it – if they aren’t working, they are brainwashed. What? You eat unhealthy food? Thucy will gladly take that from you – he knows you’d be much better off and happier with these carrots.

But Thucy is so short-sighted…because perfect happiness – in his world – where there is not risk, is a world without freedom, where the government protects us from all, correct? Government IS the people, right, and the people are supposed to be responsible for all…so the government needs to protect us from *every* possible harm….cars driven by people, food we eat, waste of energy and excesses use of raw materials for unnecessary goods and housing…public transportation for all, government housing, government food, government jobs. This **MUST** be your vision.

Tell me where I am wrong, Thucy.

""Each person you know about and can affect is someone to whom you have responsibilities: to say this is just to affirm the very idea of morality.""

Each person you know about...so, how about the unborn child you know about in a mother's womb. What do you think about that human, Thucy?

I just want to see if you can keep consistent in your assertions on morality...

Thucy: "
My utopia is not one of specific policies, rather it is one of outcomes."

Yes...he has NO interest in equality of opportunity...only *enforced* equality of outcomes. This is why a woman who Chooses to stay home and have a baby and not work irritates him…it screws up his statistics of equal outcome. See how his own words condemn him, and how it is all about artificial ends, and never about personal freedom?

Krellin, Thucy already said: "My utopia is not one of specific policies, rather it is one of outcomes. So, however it may be achieved the world I long for is one of results:

A world of people who are treated equally in moral terms by their government and their neighbor, who all have a basic standard of living, and who show compassion for each other's physical and emotional needs.

I personally doubt people would be very happy living in centralized housing with set meal times and the like. Seems like a policy that would fail, so I reject it."

You're not going to get a consistent system from that. Consequentialism of this ilk boils down to, just action is whatever the proponent thinks has the most acceptable consequences.

"A world of people who are treated equally in moral terms by their government and their neighbor, who all have a basic standard of living, and who show compassion for each other's physical and emotional needs. "

And here is Thucy's kafkatrap -- the unwinnable dilemma. Government already has eliminated racism by law and policy -- so this desire is achieved...he will deny it, and say if I believe what I stated I am racist.

As for my neighbor, I have no control over him, nor do I want it. and if my neghbor tries to control my thoughts, we will have problems. But, in short, thucy seeks thought police at every kitchen table.

The way a "capitalist" social system works, if I can blend the two, is that an asshole who says nigger in public (as opposed to on a WebDip thread to make a point) will be vilified and have no friends and will be unable to influence others, and thus the harm he can do is severely limited or eliminated. This is a natural process WHICH IS OCCURING in our society even today....UNTIL the race baiters and hate mongers on the Left hold another race riot because they don't like something that occurs between two private individuals and try to hold an entire society at fault...

I want MeepMeep back, he was very high on the Krellzer Scale.
Now that was a man who fancied himself a bit, no mirror really did him justice

@damian

that's right, you're not going to get a consistent system from me.

I happen to think society and the world is a more complicated place than a punchy political ideology can encapsulate.

You see a problem, you examine solutions, you test their efficacy, and you implement the best one.

"As for my neighbor, I have no control over him, nor do I want it. and if my neghbor tries to control my thoughts, we will have problems. But, in short, thucy seeks thought police at every kitchen table."

Not control, no. Influence, however, you do have. To repeat:

"Each person you know about and can affect is someone to whom you have responsibilities: to say this is just to affirm the very idea of morality."

And to this point:

"The only responsibility I have to anyone else, is to respect their liberty, and inflict no violence upon them. Thats it. I don't owe anyone anything else. That is where my moral responsibility ends. "

This is where we disagree. This is fundamentally why krellin so hates me. I disagree, flatly. This is a morally bankrupt position. No man is an island.

"This is why a woman who Chooses to stay home and have a baby and not work irritates him…"

Untrue. You can stop lying about me now.

@Thucy
First off, sorry about the aggressive tl;dr, I was going for a humorous and punch way to sum up the concept of liberty. Reading it again, I don't think I achieved my goal.

"that's right, you're not going to get a consistent system from me. I happen to think society and the world is a more complicated place than a punchy political ideology can encapsulate. You see a problem, you examine solutions, you test their efficacy, and you implement the best one. "

My problem with this argument, boils down to, who decides which solution is the best?
You? The populace (a la. direct democracy), representatives of the populace? Unanimous agreement?

If it is you, (or anyone else), what you are advocating is a benevolent dictatorship. Which frankly is not a position I can advocate, (and I hope not one you would either), it suggest that the dictator knows what is best for every citizen.

If it is a direct democracy, or an indirect democracy, we enter the domain of mob rule. To use the classic argument. If the majority voted that all your money should be confiscated and given to them. What can you do about it? What if they decide that you should be killed?

If you we are discussing evaluation by unanimous decision, why should I ever agree to policies that don't directly benefit me?

"This is where we disagree. This is fundamentally why krellin so hates me. I disagree, flatly. This is a morally bankrupt position. No man is an island."

You are correct. We disagree.

Even if we accept your argument that we are responsible for the well being of others, (I don't), how do you justify to stealing from me to give to any cause that you like?

Thucy....you can not *enforce* equal outcomes, and still have freedom. Period.

End of discussion.

You require an authoritarian rule.

It is **impossible**....literally impossible...to define "equal outcomes" but still suggest that it is OK for a woman to stay home and have a baby...i.e. not be in the work place...because it is now impossible to determine what a fair outcome is....

Stop trying to order people around, Thucy. Stop telling people their choices are wrong. Stop telling people that if they don't make YOUR choice for their lives, that the outcomes are not equal.

You are *the* most fucked up person around here, seriously. But...it all goes back to your self-confessed guilt.

I'm sorry for you, I really am.

After a quick review looks like Thucy won the debate ...... well done you !!