Hypothetical question

Uccisore

In my experience [and i have known a lot of hippies and unemployed etc] a minority of people actually want to be like that. Most are somewhat paralysed by their inability to function in the world, notably because they don’t want shit really bad deal jobs, and why should they. Secondly some people don’t have the disposition [and/or mental health issues] for mindless repetitive tasks.

Our aspiration based society is a lie, we ALL want to be self-empowered! We all want to have homes, families or what have you, and the few people who have everything they need ARE stealing from the rest and denying them basic human freedoms and needs. Let us make no mistake, capitalist multinationals have gone around the world destroying former worker cooperatives and forms of self-employment, replacing them [by force and death threats etc] with their own subsidiary companies who then employ the disaffected workers at low rates.

This is not a free society it is one based upon stealing from the powerless, and then they have the cheek to then complain about the welfare state. Can you imagine living on £72 a week minus fuel bills etc. The majority of people just want a job ~ but not ‘any job’.

_

Let them live on basic benefits, and leave the jobs for those that are able and willing to do them.
There are plenty of rich people doing nothing, I see no shame in poor people doing nothing.

Do you not think this line of enquiry is off topic BTW?

Thank you. That’s the nicest thing anybody has said to me all day.

One big hastily generalized equivocating red straw herring man. Serial killing is a whole 'nuther thing than paraphilia and promiscuity, and society’s merely wanting to discourage X does not mean X should be discouraged.

But neither do adults have a need for sex. It is about being able to experience the joy and pleasure of sexuality within a physically and psychologically safe context (whatever that may be). That, for children, is nearly impossible to do nowadays because as I’ve explained, we have long evolved out of the kind of social ethos which made such practice normal.

Nonsense. I have seen girls who couldn’t be a day older than twelve who were remarkably well developed and just emanating health and vital energy, an energy that is not yet sexual but will become sexual once they become aware of themselves sexually, and I experienced a paternal, aesthetic attraction to them; it was not the objectification of the girls sexuality, but the objectification of the girls strength, health, fertility and vitality that will emanate through her sexuality upon her maturation, that drew me.

There is no trace of trying to exploit or use a girl as such, here. Only a deeply felt admiration and appreciation for a beautiful, young female.

Rather than thinking ‘omg, would I have sex with this twelve year old’, I am thinking ‘where can I find the proper boy to match her with sexually.’

My love of young, pubescent girls could never be sexual because of an overpowering paternal instinct to protect, design and organize them so that they may develop their talents and skills naturally and free of restriction. None of this would involve any sexual contact with me. But, at an early age, they would be encouraged to experiment sexually (and responsibly) with boys around their age.

And yes, I know what you are thinking. I absolutely would be the ultimate cult leader. But my girls would be better than society’s girls. Straight uberwenchean.

That is unfortunately true today. Also known as “usury”.

You need help.

You would have to be sick to not feel the same as I do. This is understandable. We live in a very sick age.

 So  they aren't lazy people that want everything handed to them, they just don't want to work a job they don't like, and furthermore, you see no reason why they should have to.  Seems to me the difference between what you said and what I said is primarily phrasing, not substance.    You're giving me an argument for why hard work shouldn't be valued, and then proposing an alternate system where we can try to patch the catastrophe that ensues when hard work isn't valued.  This is precisely the model I described, and the reason why all this 'harm' talk is so two-faced; it's entirely too easy, when your favorite vice harms society, to simply explain the harm away. 

You can even do it with violence.  If you parse your terms of 'honor' and 'masculinity' and 'self-reliance' just right, you can make a society in which people are encouraged to kill each other or themselves over petty disagreements seem like 'the price of living in a free society' or 'a society that works' or whatever.

Applying the words ‘pleasure’ and ‘stigma’ and ‘freedom’ and “nurturing” together in order to justify pedophilia is no more difficult.

They will do jobs they don’t necessarily ‘like’ [in my experience] but not when they receive little reward and no prospects of it getting better = ‘bad deal jobs’. Deals are function of fundamental human intellect, you don’t want bad deals either! Why do you expect them to be different to you.

I was not. My arguments said they shouldn’t do [hard] work without the appropriate rewords or anything even approaching that. Why do you expect them to be different to you.

The rest of your argument relies upon a false basis accordingly.

"Them"? "you"? Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? Some rich investment banker or something? I just recently broke 24k a year and it's the highest paying job I've ever had.    

It's really very simple- if a society doesn't value hard work, then you won't have hard work getting done and their will be consequences- laziness and entitlement. If you don't disagree, then stop disagreeing. :slight_smile:  I don't really see what your vague claims that those people (who?) aren't getting paid enough (how much?) for all the hard work they do (what work?).  I was arguing hypothetically, and you're replying as though I'm talking about your neighbors or something.

How unutterably naive of you.
Hard work gets done, and always for the lowest wages.
Next time you buy a pair of shoes from Amazon, consider the children working in glues shops for 12 hours a day, and only getting enough to feed themselves.

Uccisore

You reiterated your position without answering to any of my points ~ which is a bit depressing coming from an intellect like yours. I clearly stated that i was not against hard work, and that only i expect people to get their just rewards for that. Secondly ALL people should be self empowered, not just employers.

I have nothing against your hard work for modest pay and wish you every success in achieving more. Surely you can imagine what its like to not have that potential.

Amazon is not to blame for this when these children’s parents and governments allow them to be employed. And many if not most of them are probably more than happy to have that job.

If the outsourcing countries used by big companies had any sense, they would form international unions… a perfectly legal and effective way to raise wages the right way- through hard negotiation.

Yeah - no one is to blame. Not the owner of the sweatshop who gets shit money from the distributor; not the designer of the shoe under pressure to make a profit; not Amazon he sells them; not the government who stand idly by and gather their sales tax, and not YOU who buy the shoes for a bargain price.
Shit - in fact no fucker ever takes responsibility, and prefers to turn their face and blame some one else.

And you arrogant ignoramus thinks those kids are “happy” - you are having a laugh!!

Zoot Allures
‘Happy’ is a comparative thing, those kids may prefer doing those jobs compared to having less, but would be happier still being children with happy parents earning a reasonable living.

Surely you are not saying they are more happy than e.g. English children in middle class homes with aspirations of virtually anything they want?

Bentham tried this kind of felicific calculus to determine the value of various kinds of pleasures. Didn’t work out very well. One would ask if the combined pleasure and happiness of all the people who buy the shoes made by those kids would equal more than the kids’ suffering. If it did, on utilitarian grounds, it would be justifiable, no?

The idea that kids working for a few pence a day are ‘happy’ to have a job, is just a way of dismissing your moral responsibility in the matter.

If I were king, there would be no children laboring like that anywhere on the planet. You have my word.

It is okay for children to work, but under what I consider much different circumstances. Children would not be making shoes of that volume at that rate in those conditions, if I were king. I could find infinitely more important things for a child to do than something as dull and monotonous as making shoes. Low skilled jobs like that would be reserved for the lower scoring strata in my society. Children, since they are still developing, should be given every opportunity to enhance themselves… and this is not done sitting in front of a conveyor belt or sewing machine all day making cheap shoes.

When they hit twenty or so, if they still have the skill level, mentality and intellect they had when they were fifteen, then they go make shoes.

Other than that, I can’t be held responsible for what happens. I’m sorry.

Good day to you, sir.

We are all responsible. Not personally, but still responsible.
You don’t have to take direct blame; but you don’t get to pretend they are “happy”.

I’m not sure how much effort you want me to put into addressing a complete red herring that has nothing to do with what I said. If you really only mean to say that you expect people to get their just rewards for the work they do, why would you say that in response to me as though to imply it has anything to do with what I said? My assumption that you were against hard word was me generously assuming your post any any relevance to the topic at all…

Uccisore

I was addressing your statement implying the latter one here; “So they aren’t lazy people that want everything handed to them”, and made an argument against that notion. I don’t see how it’s a red herring or not referring to what you said. I do expect vigour if you are going to make such statements yes. However if you were saying that people [e.g. The unemployed] aren’t lazy and should be paid reasonable wages when they get a job, then indeed we have no argument.

You also suggested that society was whimsically manifesting such an attitude of laziness, when for the poor, society is in fact constantly attacking them and trying to make out they are lazy. If you didn’t mean that, then again we have no argument.

Are we speaking a different language or something?