Oh but he is back! We had two blokes claiming to be Jesus locked psych ward at work last week, they ended up punching on after accusing each other of being liars. Was ****ing hilarious.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary
Oh but he is back! We had two blokes claiming to be Jesus locked psych ward at work last week, they ended up punching on after accusing each other of being liars. Was ****ing hilarious.
Or there are multiple ways to pursue it, but "only my way is the right way and people pursuing it another way are idiots" seems to happen.
Too much I'm right, no middle ground thinking going on.
I know Bullet thinks I've already told a couple of lifetimes of stories, but life is just like that if you pay attention.
So here's my story about my roomie at college. I understood he grew up in Hayward, CA and got roughed up a bit on the street. I also understand that for a while he tried to be really, really, really "good", as in doing whatever anyone thought he ought to do...… maybe he was even LDS.
He wore his bright carrot-red hair long, over his shoulders, and had very blue eyes, and a gold ring in his nose. He had already been gone over by the psych professionals and released as harmless and marginally self-sufficient, given a monthly allowance for rent and food.
He did not claim to be Jesus, but Jesus's bride-in-waiting. I listened to his talk, as much as he cared to offer, several times. He did have a van, and a driver's license, so if he wanted he could drive up into Idaho where he could park, and wait. As long as he cared to, or as long as his grub would last.
He was actually a good friend...… and fairly decent. There were some girls who came around hoping to displace Jesus in his affections.
But the sorriest night in my life(well, that year, anyway) was when the reservation Ute assaulted him in the shower, and I had to drive him up the U hospital emergency to get him patched up.
At any rate, he's still about, still waiting. So for whatever that evidence is worth, Jesus hasn't come yet.
And for whatever my opinion is worth, he wasn't nuts in reality, but a very good actor who duped the professionals, for free rent and food. Well, who could really be sure about that..... maybe the staff didn't care what the truth was..... he came in, submitted the claims, and it wasn't their money they were passing out......
And...…. no, he never hatched the notion that I might be Jesus.
Last edited:
Progressives are well ware that the cause of equity will not be accomplished in our lifetime. Does that mean we should abandon the goal? Should we allow your belief that you are a fundamentally unfair person (if you don't believe that about yourself, why is it an unchangeable condition for society?), therefore everyone always will be, to dissuade us?
Culture has inertia, of a sort, and inertia can be altered.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
IMO throwing racism and sexism cards into every discussion is bad. Defining the players in every interaction by the groups they can be ascribed to is bad. I do not think that most people are racist. I do not make my decisions based on the race or sex of the person I am dealing with. I know people of various races who I would never be willing to do business with again. I also know people of various races who I give my highest recommendation to. But in no case does their race or sex enter into my decision on whether to recommend someone. When I discover someone who provides a good service I work with them again and encourage others to give them business as well. In the community where I live people who provide quality services tend to flourish. Race and sex aren't part of the equation, and they shouldn't be.
So here's a notion that has worked..... for some.
roll outta bed in the morning and find someone who needs some help. Make an offer.....oh, like.... I'll do this and this if you pay me so.....
viola! Daily Justice in a momentarily perfect world. Do you bit every day, and you whole life will be like that.
I do agree that culture has inertia and it can be altered, sped up, and slowed down.
I'm not attempting to change the subject, but to move it to a related topic from here.
I think both the capitalistic and socialistic based people are pushing for what they feel is equitable and fair, they just see the end result differently. I'm throwing out any non-sincere people on either side that have their own agenda. In general the socialistic based argument is that people will not choose to help each other if it's their own choice, so therefore they see capitalism as a way for the rich to get richer while limiting the options of those that do not have the same advantages from day 1. It is a valid point. In general the capitalistic based argument is that people should obtain the full reward of their labor/work/smarts and let them decide if or how they give help to others. This is also a valid point. It seems to me a main argument of the sincere supporter of capitalism is that the choice lies with you and in their view socialism takes the choice and reward from you.
In a utopia setting I think either way will work out wonderfully. If all people were generous and helpful and good citizens... in a socialistic world there would not be hard feelings over spreading the wealth to those in need, and in a capitalistic world there would not be the greedy people not giving of their excess to help and benefit those that did not receive enough.
Why I am more in line with capitalism is I feel people should be able to decide, even if it isn't what I feel a good choice. I support a capitalistic society with social policy in certain areas, but not near as strong or reaching as those of you with socialistic feelings/leanings. I see issues in today's world with either, but feel a mixture would serve us best at this point in the world. There are too many messed up people that pursue taking advantage of others, pushing for power by holding others down, and all sorts of messed up things for either to work well. I do understand the more socialistic views and desires to go that direction, even if I can't get on board with it.
tldr version - i think at the heart the difference between capitalism and socialism is an agency/choice issue.
I read about Nathan Bedford Forrest when I was in 3rd grade. A little series of biographies for kids in orange covered books, over a hundred in all. He was a hero somehow. Lately his name has been thrown around for being a racist. On that kind of history, every tribal hero since the first cave cast a spell over the first human cooked meal has been a racist, I'm sure.
"Me good. Him bad."
I bring that up because that's your excuse for not parting company with Bill Ayers, Trotsky, and Machiavelli..... Hegel, Nietzche, Marx and a thousand other proponents of "The Ends Justifies the Means".
The philosopher's problem is just who gets to say what's right or wrong. Religionists have the convenience of ascribing their notions to "God", but secular humanists stand naked, having no one to point to but themselves.
the specious notion of inexorable "History" marching towards an envisioned utopia is often invoked as justifying the imposition of force on the reluctant or non-compliant "deplorables".
socialism, even religious "caring", is always a projection of one person's dream upon others', and is always an exercise in taking away someone else's ideal and trashing it.
So you've got nothing, and you should..... really, honestly.... just stop it.
And ya'll oughtta be as pissed as me at what Hillary and Obama have done to destroy human liberty. It takes determined blindness to claim Obama's admin was without scandal when he used US govt. taxpayer money to try to defeat his political opposition. that's a thousand times what Nixon did.
If you actually believed in your "ideals", you'd make haste to distance yourself from that kind. Hillary, Obama, even Sanders and the cute little snob who knows nothing. These people use you, and abuse you.
I'm not giving Trump a pass either. He needs to fire McConnell's wife Elaine Chou as Sec of Trans, and replace AG lego-boy with someone who will do the job. Rosenstein needs to resign, citing conflict of interests. Call it recusal if he wants. But he needs to be prosecuted and jailed.
The most intolerable offense against our national interest and human rights is the deployment of our own government agencies and personnel to defeat our electoral process. Damn any other government, but damn our own a thousand times over, when they do that.
It is beyond any defense or argument to claim Hillary and the DNC and Obama did not break our laws and use their inside influence with partisan officials to do that.
Period.
Last edited:
Sorry, but how does Nieztche's philosophy relate in any way to "the ends justify the means"?
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I do not think I'm fundamentally unfair, but I would say that there are a lot of things more important to me than fairness.
In the progressive form of fairness a black student with below average grades and MCAT scores has a higher acceptance rate to medical school than an Asian student with above average grades and MCAT scores. Since I'd prefer high-quality doctors to low-quality doctors I'm not really a fan of any brand of fairness that puts some of the most qualified medical school applicants at a disadvantage. The applicant's race should not matter at all.
While I agree with what you are saying, I also think that the measures we have in relation to grades don't often translate to who is the best applicant. There are many skills and attributes that don't translate to grades, paper, etc. If the only difference between applicants is race, then yes I agree. Life is never that simple though, and that is true both directions. We need to allow those qualified to decide to do so free of fetters. There is so much bias in the world that it's hard to do so, and attempts to mitigate these issues may result in over correction. It's not a simple fix for these scenarios.
It's interesting you phrase that agency/choice issue as upon whom money is spent. I see a different agency/choice issue; should I have the agency to pass the medical boards, the bar, produce a thesis, design a bridge, or anything other thing, I should be able to make a choice to do so facing no different obstacles than those who have a different skin color, gender, inherited wealth, etc. Enabling stronger social safety nets creates a more meritocratic society.
He was not a hero "somehow". He was a hero because he became wealthy owning slaves, because he fought to preserve slavery, because he murdered black soldiers that had already surrendered, because he terrorized black families after they were legally freed. The part he spoke out in favor of black advancement is curiously absent in his monuments.
It's so odd that someone who owned slaves, fought to preserve slavery, murdered black soldiers after they surrendered, and joined the KKK is thought of as racist. It must be historical revisionism; there can be no other explanation.
Most of those people were dead before I was born, I have never met the one who was not. How can I part company of people I have never met?
When have I ever said "the ends justify the means"? If anything, I emphasize the means over the ends.
I agree there is no difference there.
I bet you think you have a point. What's your evidence?
What's the conflict?
It's up to you to provide evidence that they did.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm not aware of anyone who is making the claim that the differences in acceptance rates based on grades and MCAT scores is attributable to anything other than race. Are you?
It is illegal to make race the only reason you accept a lower-scored applicant over a higher-scored one. Therefore, no one who actually does diversity hiring/enrolling claims race is the only factor.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Everyone wants as much equity as reasonably achievable. Pure equity isnt possible without pure equality, which we think would lower average standards and defeat the purpose.
Does it have to be one or the other?
I was also lazy, but will add this in now. It wasn't just upon whom money is spent, it is that the reward go to the person that earned the reward, and the decision to do whatever with that reward is up to that person.
I do agree that there should not be roadblocks or speed bumps in the way of any people in their efforts to get there. I do also think help can and should be given to people in difficult circumstances to help them get to where they want to be. I see much of the disagreement today as to what the definition of help is vs what is too much. I have seen in life that things that are merely given to someone that does not need to work for it, they don't appreciate it nor use that opportunity the way someone that poured their heart and soul into getting there would. A doctor that had it handed to them compared to one that scratched and clawed and fought imo would not be as good of a doctor, it wouldn't mean as much to them.
I don't think the agency topic is mutually exclusive.
Last edited:
The existence on topic should not be construed as to imply the other does not exist.
We seem to largely agree on the benefits of the meritocracy, and most of those benefits can be (and are) maintained even when a society uses a strong social safety net to come closer to equity.
Jonah
Well-Known Member
Interesting article on a book (Twilight of the Elites) that argues that a true meritocracy is a myth.
"As America becomes more unequal, it’s ever harder to claim that it is a meritocratic country. It still looks like one to the people at the top, who continue to prosper. However, their view of the world is increasingly at odds with the view of people below, who like the idea of equal opportunity but don’t believe it is working.”
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/10/13/13259860/twilight-elites-trump-meritocracy