|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Revolting middle class. If the rich keep funding war with the lives of the lower clas | |||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
I have already pointed out that there are no fixed subsets of "givers" and "takers". He who gives one day takes the next day. How do you measure contributions that don't involve dollars and cents? How do you determine what is a contribution and what is not?
The capability and capasity to give to a society is one of the measures of that individuals fitness. So is the lack of that ability. If not, show why not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
I asked how you determine what is a contribution and what is not, and how you measure "how much" each contribution is. Without some kind of objective metric, you have no basis for claiming that one person is "more fit" than another.
I did not say that tax takers do not contribute at all. I said that they are less fit and contribute less due to having to be tax takers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
No I'm not. I even used the word "objective". I'm asking for objective criteria which you can use to determine whether somebody is "more fit" than somebody else.
You are asking for subjective judgements of individual cases. Greatest I am writes:
We've been over that. There isn't one finite group paying taxes and another finite group receiving the benefits of taxes. Everybody pays taxes and everybody receives the benefits of taxes.
I gave one fitness metric, that being tax paying v/s tax taking.... Greatest I am writes:
We've been over that too. In fact, people with lower incomes tend to have more children.
Other metrics could be reproduction, ability to raise children... Greatest I am writes:
Again everybody has the ability to help others. How do you measure the value of grandpa taking the kids to the park? How do you measure the value of pushing your neighbour's car out of a snowdrift?
... the ability to help others. Greatest I am writes:
You should be looking at a metric that supports your claim, an objective criterion that can be used to determine who is "fit" and who is not.
So what metric, if not those, should I be looking at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
So, since you admit that your conclusion is based on subjective criteria, you must also admit that your conclusion is subjective. You might as well just tell us what your favorite colour is.
Since most issues are subjective, the only objective criteria I can give is death.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
So your whole point about "fitness" isn't really a point at all. It's just an opinion. But even that will be subjective as many of us are color blind. Edited by ringo, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
Then tell us how you determine that objectively.
The fact that there is a fittest human is objective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
If the method is subjective, the conclusion is subjective.
Via subjective judgement. Greatest I am writes:
Objectively you can't, which is what I've been saying all along.
How else can one differentiate between contestants?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
There is nothing more subjective than "the needs of the many".
The needs or good of the many outweigh the needs or good of the few must be judged subjectively but I think, since the conclusion is always for it. that might just be the only objective moral tenet I can think of.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
So your whole premise about "fitness" is dead.
That is what I just said, yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
You admitted it was all subjective. QED. Show the logic trail. Now YOU show the logic that bridges from subjective opinions to objective conclusions. Show us how you get reliable conclusions from unfounded premises.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
The premise that you can tell who is "fit" and who is not. You admitted that the judgement was subjective; therefore the premise is unfounded.
What unfounded premise?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
No, we will not. I have said that it is not possible to say who is "fit" and who is not. If the poorest person in the group has children, she is "fit", even if she depends on the richest person in the group to support them. If the richest person has no children, he is not "fit". Show any example of any group of diverse people and their characteristics and I think that both of us will likely agree on who is the fittest and who is the less fit. You can not look at a person and decide whether or not he is fit. You can only look back at his life and see whether he was fit.
Greatest I am writes:
Done, done and repeatedly done. Your point is refuted.
If we could not generally agree, that would refute what I put.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
You haven't said what your criteria are.
If the only criteria on your requirement for fitness is reproduction then you win this one. Greatest I am writes:
If you have better criteria, just tell us what they are.
You might remember that even brain dead people on life support can reproduce. They, to you, are the fittest as compared to nurses that might be caring for them who cannot reproduce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
As I have said several times, there is no way of telling what somebody's "fitness" is. Being a tax payer who can support his children instead of a tax taker who cannot without help we already spoke about.But you did not want to admit that the former is more fit than the later. Let me try again. Which of those two criteria is fittest to you view and why? Paying taxes is not the only way that people contribute to society. The recipient of benefits may contribute in other ways - e.g. as a volunteer. The child of a recipient may become a major contributor in taxes or in other ways. Stop running in circles and tell us how you can determine objectively whether a particular person is "fit" or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Greatest I am writes:
That's what I've been trying to tell you: Your claim about taxpayers being more "fit" than benefit recipients is nonsense.
In an evolving world, I don't think there can be an objective fitness because the environment is always changing and so would the description of fitness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024