benji wrote:Lamrock wrote:Surprising view was yours that humans are basically good.
I don't believe this. I think humans are selfish and that this results in enough humans acting in a good manner out of guilt or personal gain.
Guilt is actually a good point you bring up. Liberal guilt!!!!!!!!!!!
In some cases, yes, they do need to be forced. I'm not in favor of a Paul23 nanny society but if people aren't held accountable, then they'll probably end up causing harm that could have been prevented.
In other words, you'll murder people until enough act in the "right" manner. You claim you're "not in favor of a nanny" state but accept that "ends justify the means" and that people "need to be forced."
Do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody else. I don't want an extreme nanny society where your personal choices and individual liberties are infringed upon. However, I don't think everything needs to always be black and white all the time. You don't like moderates, but I think moderation is the best way to do things.
Would you kill people to save the world? (not a political question but an ethical one as I don't want to create such a hypothetical narrative)
What happens when the resources for all our cool shit runs out?
We adapt.
"No, I won't cut down on smoking! If I get cancer, I'll just adapt!"
Why don't you seem to care about or believe in global warming/climate change?
Because it has yet to present a falsifiable theory?
A theory that almost every scientist believes?
Answer this question for example: What's the proper global temperature?
The way it is now. It's not like Africa's supposed to be uninhabitable.
Second question: If man is affecting the climate unintentionally, why should man further affect the climate but intentionally
Because it's becoming an actual problem but it's preventable. Why don't we just solve our problems instead of adapting to them?
Should people born into wealth be entitled to emit shit tons of carbon for their private jet that is really everybody's (and I'm not just talking about humans)?
Why shouldn't they?
Because it harms us.
You call them "blackholes". I mean just taking care of each other.
Again, another thing that needs to be defined.
Yeah
Institutions we already have but are constantly cutting like education (this one is dodgy because I know the funds are often misappropriated and the stats don't back it up but who doesn't want a more educated and skilled populace (don't answer that)),
We spend more on education than any populace in the history of the planet. We spend gobs more than a half century ago. Where's the progress?
I don't know, but is that "gobs more" adjusted for inflation?
social security (this one's different because there's no reason to cut it)
How about the fact it's a fucking hybrid pyramid/ponzi scheme that steals from the minority poor and gives to the rich?
That's not even true. While the tax itself is regressive, the benefit system isn't, as it gives the poor a higher percentage of their income back. They also offer survivor and disability benefits, which benefit the poor far more often than the rich.
While it is similar to a ponzi scheme, it remains to be seen whether it actually is, because you don't know what the payout is going to be. It'll probably be shitty, but it could end up being higher than what you paid into.
Believe it or not, the poor aren't all lazy drug addicts. It is a rigged game but at least with that safety net, the American dream could be (and maybe even was, thanks to our favorite president) theoretically doable for all who are willing to work for it.
Doesn't justify theft, and especially doesn't justify the disaster of a system that exists today. We can easily provide a better life for the impoverished but it doesn't offer up the graft and political power the system we have does.
And why would graft and political power be lost by providing a better life for the impoverished?
I'll respond to rest later, I need a break
btw, cyanide, we are already so far in debt, but it's not like it'll be called in any time soon. We've always had a debt. It does eventually need to be cut, but it shouldn't be a focus right now. Money is already given to corporations and the myth is that the tax breaks will cause them to create jobs and the wealth to trickle down, so we may as well do the same for small ones.
