Analysis, Polemic and Speaking the Truth in an Age of Deciet

[_The Nehor]

Droopy, your argument falls apart when you realize you're basing the honor of a job based solely on how much wealth it gives you. People enjoy excelling at hobbies with no income involved and worst of all by this standard the best Bishop or best master of prophecy won't enjoy their gift unless they get paid more then the person who gets nothing.

Have you thought this through?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Droopy thinks that money is fungible with the highest good a human can experience. He's a caricature of himself -- a Scrooge McDuck without the swimming pool full of money.

[_Yoda]

(Moderator Note) Moved to Off Topic. This is a political thread. No reference to Mormonism. Carry on.

[_Brackite]

(Moderator Note) Moved to Off Topic. This is a political thread. No reference to Mormonism. Carry on.

Thanks, Liz!

While I do strongly condemn Moksha's use of describing Tea Party Express People as "domestic terrorist" teabaggers, I do Not agree with every single issue that the Tea Party Express People agrees with. And I do Not support every Candidate that The Tea Party Express has endorsed. For Example, The Tea Party Express has endorsed Conservative Republican Chuck Devore of California for U.S. Senate. I am not supporting Conservative Republican Chuck Devore of California for U.S. Senate. Instead, I am strongly supporting Moderate Republican Tom Campbell of California for U.S. Senate. Tom Campbell is a fiscall Conservative, but he supports Same Sex Marriages and the de-criminalize use of marijuana among adults.

Tom Campbell for U.S. Senate:

[_bcspace]

Will the human condition accept that a group of kids banging away at their instruments in their parents' garages are equal in worth to our human existence as a group of chemists with a list of patents that cure diseases? Yet our Utopians conspire to select who must be raised up and who must be cut down to size. Concocting an equal opportunity is as difficult a task as turning lead into gold, yet the Utopians gather their statistics and infer conclusions to produce a new reality. Although each of us is as unique and individual as snowflakes, Utopians view us as mere pigeons nesting in our holes, with them in the role of our fowlers.

The truth is that in The United States of Equality, inspired individuals would choose to remain within the freedom of their own minds. Their soaring ideas could be safely enjoyed imaginatively, rather than in the outside world of crushing, leveling, spirit-numbing equality. Or else they may risk their lives and furtively create in secret, their inspired creations becoming true acts of terrorism against the state.

Equality is the path to spiritual immolation. Give me inequality, or give me death.

This has been proven over and over in history and is a foundational economic principle. It does not matter what kind of college degree a liberal has, not a single one of them understands history or economics and when put in power, are dommed to make the same historical mistakes over and over again. That is, if you believe they all have good intentions.

[_Brackite]

What is a Deciet dude?

From Dictionary.com:

deceit - 4 dictionary results

...

de·ceit    /dɪˈsit/ Show Spelled[dih-seet] Show IPA
–noun
1.the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating: Once she exposed their deceit, no one ever trusted them again.
2.an act or device intended to deceive; trick; stratagem.
3.the quality of being deceitful; duplicity; falseness: a man full of deceit.

Link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deceit

[_Droopy]

Who's advocating for perfect equality of income? Not even Marx did that. You and your fellow dip****s are thrashing at a straw man, Droopy. Boring.

What is "perfect" equality of income, and where did the author of the piece make a claim for it?

Marx's two primary societal structures, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and "communism" were both theoretic radical egalitarian societies.

Communism in practice (applied socialism - the dictatorship of the proletariat) is a massive exercise in quantitative and qualitative egalitarian leveling (most severely seen in Maoism) that attempted a broad equality of outcome among the masses of the population. This did not include, of course, the ruling nomeklatura or its hangers on in the general population. That this was not "perfect" equality no one is asserting (nor have I or the author of the essay above attempted to define such a concept). You have brought it up here only to squirt ink, as I am well aware.

Marx' final stage of human development, communism, was envisaged as a classless society, or, for all intents, a "perfectly" egalitarian, equal society.

All forms of Leftism, or progressivism (save perhaps, the radical social libertine variety that deals less with the remaking of societies and more with the satiation of sensate perceptions) are collectivist in nature, favoring a society in which equality of outcome, across a number of dimensions, is sought. No one has claimed (except Marx and his orthodox disciples) that a "perfect" form was possible.

Only you have claimed that I have claimed it (which I patently have not) to set up a straw man powerful enough to allow you to dismiss serious intellectual engagement in the argument - your standard conduct on this board.

[_Droopy]

As if that wasn't a ridiculous enough strawman, advocating lack of qualifications in skill professions?!

Its called "affirmative action", and its been around for some forty years now.

Can abyssal ignorance such as this be taught, or is it an aptitude with which one is born?

[_Droopy]

She assumes (not argues) that "our spirit" requires us to be paid at market rate - a very odd claim for starters.

Here's what she actually said:

Our spirit requires that we be rewarded according to what others are willing to give or pay for our services.

In other words, our human dignity and sense of worth as human beings requires that we are rewarded to the degree that we serve others and provide them that which they are willing freely to purchase without coercion or bribery.

I shudder at the kind of mentality that is unable to grasp this concept.

But anyway, equality supposedly kills the spirit making us like the animals that only live for their present needs. But, isn't the "law of the jungle" sort of the ideal of capitalism?

No, there is no anology whatever.

And aren't animals rational regarding their compensation? A lion won't pursue just any prey and risk tearing a muscle, the payoff has to be compensatory which indicates not only an intuition into salary, but investment -- consideration for the future. Hasn't this bitch ever watched The Discovery Channel?

Actually, that's instinct, not rationality. I doubt there's much point at all attempting a rational discussion with Gad at all.

And then in the next paragraph, instead of explaining the connection assumed between spirit and salary or even defining the spirit, she promotes the importance of the spirit in a bunch of different tangents. Including, disconnected musings on how God provides man with all the answers to engineering questions and techniques for art. So we really have to wonder, why does the spirit need to be "rewarded" for stuff that God gives us for free?

I mentioned at the outset that this was a polemic and a personal manifesto of sorts, not a structured philosophical argument (as if most in the Trailerpark would have any idea what that was all about).



JSM: late thirties?[/quote]

I'm 52

[_Droopy]

Droopy, your argument falls apart when you realize you're basing the honor of a job based solely on how much wealth it gives you.

Neither I nor the author of the above essay has made or implied such a claim. I agree with her that, in a temporal or economic context, our sense of self worth, dignity and sense of value to both ourselves and the larger society with which we interact is only satisfied when we serve others to the best of our ability in a free market where the choices, or "votes" of others in the marketplace determine our relative level of temporal attainment.

Living at the expense of our neighbors, or our work being valued, not on its merits to those who value it, but according the the arbitrary whims of commissars and state supported ideological thoerists, debases and demeans the human spirit.

I think this is verily true.

People enjoy excelling at hobbies with no income involved and worst of all by this standard the best Bishop or best master of prophecy won't enjoy their gift unless they get paid more then the person who gets nothing.

No kidding Sherlock

Move along, nothing to see here...

Very clearly, discussing/debating these ideas and concepts with you is an utter and nerve wracking waste of my time (and probably yours).

Fin