Public Civic Roles And Disgusting Absurdity.

[Joker]

@north

@Joker

@north

@Joker

@Tortoise

@north

1. If I don’t benefit from the participation in society why should I be obliged to do anything?

for your own good

I don’t know if you realize this, north, but that sounds really silly.

Joker- “If I don’t benefit from [action a], why should I do it?”
North - “Because you will benefit from it.”

haha, silly goose

Now we see the absurdity of economics guided by moral aims all the more clearly.

how so ?

“Thou art what I make you.”

Thou art what I make myself

Tell that to all the millions of people in poverty all around the world.

I am sure they will get a good laugh followed by them bringing out the knives on you. =D>

[north]

@Joker

@north

@Tortoise

YOU’RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!
WHY CAN’T YOU SEE IT?

North - “You should do something that doesn’t benefit you so that you can benefit from it.”

DO YOU SEE?
WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU?

ahh but it is all in how you define benefit , is it about material objects or position in the work place or about the soul ?

Soul? ( Hears the trumpets of religion in the background.)

either you cannot learn when I tell you I’m not religious or you play ignorance.

so a man connot be a good man unless religion plays a role .

if so wrong

Also:

1. I can’t aquire material objects or good positions if the moral so called benevolent economical systems don’t let me to them.

so this is about materialism . ahh well thats a different ball game

then get an education in business

[north]

@Joker

@north

@Joker

@north

@Joker

@Tortoise

@north

1. If I don’t benefit from the participation in society why should I be obliged to do anything?

for your own good

I don’t know if you realize this, north, but that sounds really silly.

Joker- “If I don’t benefit from [action a], why should I do it?”
North - “Because you will benefit from it.”

haha, silly goose

Now we see the absurdity of economics guided by moral aims all the more clearly.

how so ?

“Thou art what I make you.”

Thou art what I make myself

Tell that to all the millions of people in poverty all around the world.

I am sure they will get a good laugh followed by them bringing out the knives on you. =D>

I see so you will ignor the fact that I said I have no problem of out sourcing by the US or Canada ( which has happened by the way years ago to mexico etc in this country ) because it improves ones standard of living in that particular country where ever it my be .

or spread the wealth

[Joker]

@north

@Joker

@north

@Tortoise

YOU’RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!
WHY CAN’T YOU SEE IT?

North - “You should do something that doesn’t benefit you so that you can benefit from it.”

DO YOU SEE?
WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU?

ahh but it is all in how you define benefit , is it about material objects or position in the work place or about the soul ?

Soul? ( Hears the trumpets of religion in the background.)

either you cannot learn when I tell you I’m not religious or you play ignorance.

so a man connot be a good man unless religion plays a role .

if so wrong

Also:

1. I can’t aquire material objects or good positions if the moral so called benevolent economical systems don’t let me to them.

so this is about materialism . ahh well thats a different ball game

then get an education in business

either you cannot learn when I tell you I’m not religious or you play ignorance.

so a man connot be a good man unless religion plays a role .

if so wrong

You may not believe in god but that economical conservatism you pride yourself in is nothing but a play of the religious choir from my observation.

so this is about materialism . ahh well thats a different ball game

then get an education in business

To be more precise this thread is about materialism and whole bunch of other interesting subjects around the gamut of economics.

Let’s just say this thread concerns itself with the dignity of individual bodies.

[north]

@Joker

@north

@Joker

@north

@Tortoise

YOU’RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!
WHY CAN’T YOU SEE IT?

North - “You should do something that doesn’t benefit you so that you can benefit from it.”

DO YOU SEE?
WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU?

ahh but it is all in how you define benefit , is it about material objects or position in the work place or about the soul ?

Soul? ( Hears the trumpets of religion in the background.)

either you cannot learn when I tell you I’m not religious or you play ignorance.

so a man connot be a good man unless religion plays a role .

if so wrong

Also:

1. I can’t acquire material objects or good positions if the moral so called benevolent economical systems don’t let me to them.

so this is about materialism . ahh well thats a different ball game

then get an education in business

either you cannot learn when I tell you I’m not religious or you play ignorance.

so a man cannot be a good man unless religion plays a role .

if so wrong

You may not believe in god but that economical conservatism you pride yourself in is nothing but a religious choir from my observation.

I’m not conservative either , depending on the subject I can be either liberal or conservative.

and your observation is out of whack. with how I think . your obsessed with religion which blinds you to the truth of my thinking . plain and simple

[Joker]

@north

@Joker

@north

@Joker

@north

@Tortoise

YOU’RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!
WHY CAN’T YOU SEE IT?

North - “You should do something that doesn’t benefit you so that you can benefit from it.”

DO YOU SEE?
WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU?

ahh but it is all in how you define benefit , is it about material objects or position in the work place or about the soul ?

Soul? ( Hears the trumpets of religion in the background.)

either you cannot learn when I tell you I’m not religious or you play ignorance.

so a man connot be a good man unless religion plays a role .

if so wrong

Also:

1. I can’t acquire material objects or good positions if the moral so called benevolent economical systems don’t let me to them.

so this is about materialism . ahh well thats a different ball game

then get an education in business

either you cannot learn when I tell you I’m not religious or you play ignorance.

so a man cannot be a good man unless religion plays a role .

if so wrong

You may not believe in god but that economical conservatism you pride yourself in is nothing but a religious choir from my observation.

I’m not conservative either , depending on the subject I can be either liberal or conservative.

and your observation is out of whack. with how I think . your obsessed with religion which blinds you to the truth of my thinking . plain and simple

Technically I’m a atheist obssesed with the absurdity of history being guided by religion. ( Get it right! )

Don’t feel bad.

If you are a atheist too I can lament.

After all you wouldn’t be the first modern atheist who still hasn’t shaken off the religious disease of humanism yet.

( Our modern atheists are so pious.)

I’m not conservative either , depending on the subject I can be either liberal or conservative.

Call yourself any political association for all I care.

All politics, forms of government and economics look like religious manifestations in my eyes struggling for ideals that are doomed in futile sequence.

[north]

@Joker

@north

@Joker

@north

@Joker

@north

@Tortoise

YOU’RE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!
WHY CAN’T YOU SEE IT?

North - “You should do something that doesn’t benefit you so that you can benefit from it.”

DO YOU SEE?
WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU?

ahh but it is all in how you define benefit , is it about material objects or position in the work place or about the soul ?

Soul? ( Hears the trumpets of religion in the background.)

either you cannot learn when I tell you I’m not religious or you play ignorance.

so a man connot be a good man unless religion plays a role .

if so wrong

Also:

1. I can’t acquire material objects or good positions if the moral so called benevolent economical systems don’t let me to them.

so this is about materialism . ahh well thats a different ball game

then get an education in business

either you cannot learn when I tell you I’m not religious or you play ignorance.

so a man cannot be a good man unless religion plays a role .

if so wrong

You may not believe in god but that economical conservatism you pride yourself in is nothing but a religious choir from my observation.

I’m not conservative either , depending on the subject I can be either liberal or conservative.

and your observation is out of whack. with how I think . your obsessed with religion which blinds you to the truth of my thinking . plain and simple

Technically I’m a atheist obssesed with the absurdity of history being guided by religion. ( Get it right! )

got it

Don’t feel bad.

you misunderstand me

If you are a atheist too I can lament.

don’t

After all you wouldn’t be the first modern atheist who still hasn’t shook off the religious disease of humanism yet.

Humanity and the belief in ourselves is the only way we can shake off any other religion(s) and their influence on us . don’t you see this ?

( Our modern atheists are so pious.)

no they are optimist about our own Humanity

I’m not conservative either , depending on the subject I can be either liberal or conservative.

Call yourself any political association for all I care.

the point is , is that , there really is no association in the first place . thats my point

All politics, forms of government and economics look like religious manifestations in my eyes struggling for ideals that are doomed in futile sequence.

perhaps but if a goverment and economics had Humanity only in mind is that not better than the path that we are going on now ?

are you familar with the series of " Babylon 5 " if not , get familar with it , it is a terrific series and in the end we break free of the forces of gods and evil. they are both bannished from their influence on our lives.

[Existentialist]

First off, what do you mean when you use the word “we?” Do you mean yourself and the others you are engaged in conversation with? Do you mean all human beings, or perhaps human beings in general. What ever the case, I take exception to it’s use.

How then do we address men as lower class identities or identities that are tied into public roles of occupation?

I freely admit I do categorize people as lower class, middle class, and upper-class. Society has set clear definitions for each of this categories. I do not in anyway equate this to their identity. As for public rules of occupation, I assume you mean jobs. I do think that a person’s occupation s, if he is truly actualizing his potential, should be a reflection of ones personal identity. For example a person who loves animals may actualize himself by becoming a vetenarian, or a person who feels an affinity with food may become a chef. Just because society has roles for these people it does not define them. They define themselves and then they seek the role.

Why should a man or woman accept any role?

They don’t have to accept any role, and I think they should only choose roles that help them actualize themselves.

Why must men and women be defined by institutions?

I don’t think institutions define people. People define themselves. Don’t you agree? Are you defined my an institution?

Why must some men be defined as poor undesirable souls in the face of other men which the institutions desire and praise as the better man?

There is no one you find undesirable or pitiful? For some reason there are people who like to size themselves up against others. That is their choice. I am sure their are several psychological theories as to why some people behave this way and it probably wouldn’t be to had for you to research. I don’t see this behavior as inherently good or bad.

Why should people be any public role on stage in acting by dramas installed in them by institutions?

I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don’t have maps and I believe that our education like such as South Africa and the Iraq everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the US should help the US.

Specifically on the subject of the lower classes which are seen to have no applicable function beyond servitude and consumerism why should the lower classes be anything that the institution applies them to be?

The institution sees some individuals as obsolete when it can no longer find luxory in their existence. Such individuals are seen as worthless anachroisms.

Why must they be forced into purposeles work, public roles and even more purposeless lives?

Again these individuals define themselves through there choices. If they choose to be part of society so be it. They are not forced into purposeless anything. If you feel your life is purposeless then that is your own fault, not societies.

Why must a lower class man feel guilt that he himself hasn’t reached a mythological nonexistent idealistic standard of another being?

If a person would not set their standards based on societal conditions of worth, this guilt would never arise.

What gives one man the justification in saying to another, “thou art that” ?

Is it the economy? Is it the government? Is it some supernatural godhead?

It is a man’s choice in speaking that gives him justification. However, what obligation do you have to accept the definitions of others?

[Joker]

North

perhaps but if a goverment and economics had Humanity only in mind is that not better than the path that we are going on now ?

are you familar with the series of " Babylon 5 " if not , get familar with it , it is a terrific series and in the end we break free of the forces of gods and evil. they are both bannished from their influence on our lives.

I have no faith in false hope.

As for the rest of what you have said I am not a fan of science fiction.

[Joker]

@Existentialist

First off, what do you mean when you use the word “we?” Do you mean yourself and the others you are engaged in conversation with? Do you mean all human beings, or perhaps human beings in general. What ever the case, I take exception to it’s use.

How then do we address men as lower class identities or identities that are tied into public roles of occupation?

I freely admit I do categorize people as lower class, middle class, and upper-class. Society has set clear definitions for each of this categories. I do not in anyway equate this to their identity. As for public rules of occupation, I assume you mean jobs. I do think that a person’s occupation s, if he is truly actualizing his potential, should be a reflection of ones personal identity. For example a person who loves animals may actualize himself by becoming a vetenarian, or a person who feels an affinity with food may become a chef. Just because society has roles for these people it does not define them. They define themselves and then they seek the role.

Why should a man or woman accept any role?

They don’t have to accept any role, and I think they should only choose roles that help them actualize themselves.

Why must men and women be defined by institutions?

I don’t think institutions define people. People define themselves. Don’t you agree? Are you defined my an institution?

Why must some men be defined as poor undesirable souls in the face of other men which the institutions desire and praise as the better man?

There is no one you find undesirable or pitiful? For some reason there are people who like to size themselves up against others. That is their choice. I am sure their are several psychological theories as to why some people behave this way and it probably wouldn’t be to had for you to research. I don’t see this behavior as inherently good or bad.

Why should people be any public role on stage in acting by dramas installed in them by institutions?

I personally believe that US Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don’t have maps and I believe that our education like such as South Africa and the Iraq everywhere like such as and I believe that they should our education over here in the US should help the US.

Specifically on the subject of the lower classes which are seen to have no applicable function beyond servitude and consumerism why should the lower classes be anything that the institution applies them to be?

The institution sees some individuals as obsolete when it can no longer find luxory in their existence. Such individuals are seen as worthless anachroisms.

Why must they be forced into purposeles work, public roles and even more purposeless lives?

Again these individuals define themselves through there choices. If they choose to be part of society so be it. They are not forced into purposeless anything. If you feel your life is purposeless then that is your own fault, not societies.

Why must a lower class man feel guilt that he himself hasn’t reached a mythological nonexistent idealistic standard of another being?

If a person would not set their standards based on societal conditions of worth, this guilt would never arise.

What gives one man the justification in saying to another, “thou art that” ?

Is it the economy? Is it the government? Is it some supernatural godhead?

It is a man’s choice in speaking that gives him justification. However, what obligation do you have to accept the definitions of others?

I freely admit I do categorize people as lower class, middle class, and upper-class. Society has set clear definitions for each of this categories. I do not in anyway equate this to their identity. As for public rules of occupation, I assume you mean jobs. I do think that a person’s occupation s, if he is truly actualizing his potential, should be a reflection of ones personal identity. For example a person who loves animals may actualize himself by becoming a vetenarian, or a person who feels an affinity with food may become a chef. Just because society has roles for these people it does not define them. They define themselves and then they seek the role.

I do not in anyway equate this to their identity.

You don’t have to. The market already does that for you and just because you don’t there exists thousands of others who do.

I do think that a person’s occupation s, if he is truly actualizing his potential, should be a reflection of ones personal identity. For example a person who loves animals may actualize himself by becoming a vetenarian, or a person who feels an affinity with food may become a chef. Just because society has roles for these people it does not define them. They define themselves and then they seek the role.

So the next time I see a cashier at a grocery store we should assume his identity as poor with himself being a mechanical automaton?

They don’t have to accept any role, and I think they should only choose roles that help them actualize themselves.

We live in a world where one cannot actualize themselves without docile submission to religious governments or equally religious markets.

I don’t think institutions define people. People define themselves. Don’t you agree? Are you defined my an institution?

Foolish nonsense. Millions of people are categorized and defined by the market everyday as number percentages of a monetary gain or loss as commodious assets.

You know this.

Again these individuals define themselves through there choices. If they choose to be part of society so be it. They are not forced into purposeless anything. If you feel your life is purposeless then that is your own fault, not societies.

Choice is an illusion in a standardized market even more so in a fanatical government.

If a person would not set their standards based on societal conditions of worth, this guilt would never arise.

People are a product of their enviroments. If their enviroment constructs worth on a market level many people are forced to play the game or be outcasted into oblivion.

[Existentialist]

@Joker

You don’t have to. The market already does that for you and just because you don’t there exists thousands of others who do.

You don’t have to either. Nobody has to and nobody has to listen to the market.

So the next time I see a cashier at a grocery store we should assume his identity as poor with himself being a mechanical automaton?

If he as actually actualizing his potential, which he may not be be. Again I wouldn’t call him poor, I know plenty of cashiers who live full lives and get paid well. I also wouldn’t call him a mechanical automaton, because I don’t see how that jobs limits his choices.

We live in a world where one cannot actualize themselves without docile submission to religious governments or equally religious markets.

I don’t accept that. Please support this claim.

Foolish nonsense. Millions of people are categorized and defined by the market everyday as number percentages of a monetary gain or loss as commodious assets.

You know this.

People are categorized by many different entities everyday, I know this. There is a difference between definitions and categories. Institutions do not say: "You are joker, you will be a nihilistic anarchist who enjoys romantic comedies and kittens, your favorite foods are hot dogs and corn, you will not apply yourself in school and you will get a lousy job. Would you agree that you define yourself or not?

Choice is an illusion in a standardized market even more so in a fanatical government.

How so? The illusion in my opinion is that there is no choice.

People are a product of their enviroments. If their enviroment constructs worth on a market level many people are forced to play the game or be outcasted into oblivion.

This sounds like a false dilemma. What do you mean by out-casted into oblivion? I agree that environment plays a role in affecting a persons choices, but it does not make the choices for them.