Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why

Page 9 of 51 [ 801 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 ... 51  Next

Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

03 Dec 2020, 4:33 pm

I've been thinking about this thread a bit, because it really represents a problem that I have a hard time with: messaging. As far I can tell all the posters (or almost all of the posters agree):

1. Life is a mix of things under your control and out of your control, you can't dictate how your life goes

2. Taking responsibility for the things under your control and making the positive decisions increases your chances of positive outcomes

3. Some people have circumstances so severe, no amount of positive decisions will make up for them

4. Poor decision making can guarantee negative outcomes regardless of circumstances

So we're not actually disagreeing on the merits of positive decision making. Everyone knows you can't dictate how your life goes. Everyone knows that making the right decisions will help you get better outcomes. Everyone knows that for some people circumstances are too extenuating that they can't rescue their life outcomes with positive decision making. Everyone knows there are people who made negative decisions that can't blame their circumstances for their poor outcomes.

So where do we disagree? Messaging.

OP's message: "Personal responsibility is a crock" (You're not responsible, luck and circumstances determine your life)

My message: "Somethings you can control, somethings you can't. If you take responsibility for the things you can control, your life will be better."

Traditional conservative message: "You're responsible for your life, stop blaming others for your outcomes."


The first message is incredibly toxic. It implies "I'm not responsible for my life," that decisions don't matter and that no one should ever take responsibility for their life. I know Cube doesn't believe this, but that is what that statement and much of the original post says. Basically why load the dice in your favor when you can still roll snake eyes with loaded dice and double 6es with unloaded dice?

I think my message is good, in that its accurate and people tend to agree with it. The problem is that there is a wide interpretation of "things you can control" and depending on that interpretation is skews to either the first message "I'm not responsible for my life," or the third message "I'm fully responsible for my life." Basically people can make it into whatever they want.

The third message has one positive component and two negative components. The positive component is it gives good advice. People who take responsibility for their lives and make good decisions have better outcomes. The first negative component, is that its not accurate. People aren't fully responsible for their lives, so they can suffer disillusionment when circumstances overwhelm them, or negative mental health effects of blaming themselves for things that truly aren't their fault. The second is that people have a negative reaction to it, because they feel like they're being blamed for everything in their life that isn't going well.

So my question is this? How can we encourage people to take responsibility for the things in their lives they can control without falling into the pitfalls of the third message? How do we help those in tough situations realize they control more than they think they do, without coming off as condescending?


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,807

03 Dec 2020, 5:33 pm

I think it looks like:
1 Stop giving generalised advice to strangers. Esp with words like 'should' in it. I am aware I'm being a hypocrite here...
2 Stop using words like 'scroungers'. Get that idea out of your head.
3 Come at it from a place where it's obvious you want to help.
4 Don't make fun of others. The more you stop gossiping about people, the more the people you talk to will trust you not to make fun of them.

Then:
1 If you have a healthy mind - tell yourself how to improve. Always have a few goals in mind. If you don't have a healthy mind, try to keep this in perspective and listen to your doctors' advice - remember you are still a worthwhile person even if you have not yet achieved all your goals. Keep your goals realistic and achievable.
2 Help out people you genuinely care about and know a lot about. Help them by knowing their strengths and how their strengths would match up with something such as for eg getting a specific job they're well suited to and in their area/an area they are financially, developmentally and mentally equipped to move to.
3 Sometimes this looks like stepping in at first. If someone is particularly unwell this is especially the case but it's even the case with mentally strong and healthy people. Do it with them, though, rather than 'taking over'. Maybe have the honest chats with them while you do this - this would require a very close bond such as a family bond or very close friends.

I think everyone or almost everyone (not people in comas for eg) can work on improving themselves somehow. Even if they're SLD. Mum taught SLD kids and sure, she couldn't get them to learn Shakespeare but she could get them to recognise the rhymes and rhythms in the rhymes they learnt. There's even a point in teaching these kinds of people.

I also think that 'self improvement' shouldn't be exclusively financial. Teach someone to boil a kettle if they can't. Teach someone who can boil a kettle to make some pasta. Teach someone who can make pasta the next dish up from that, etc, etc. Things which are almost entirely under one's control (or entirely under a specific individual's control) are really good focuses for this. Esp concrete things in my experience.

Keep in mind you are not 'changing the person'. You are giving them skills. It is a gift. You should hope they stay the same person at the end, just with additional knowledge and know-how. Doing this for someone you actually care about is a good way to ensure that you do want them to stay the same person and don't put 'change your entire personality' as one of the goals.

I think we can teach ourselves new skills as well. Look up concrete advice online or in books. Learn from those. Never believe you are a worthless person or someone who needs to change everything about yourself. If you do believe that, see a doctor because that isn't a healthy way to think.


_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him


cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,913

03 Dec 2020, 7:50 pm

Antrax wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Antrax wrote:
KT67 wrote:

What I hear is:
Your mental health condition doesn't exist or if it does exist then it isn't as bad as you and your doctors say it is. Go get a job. Refuse your benefit. Ignore the fact that nobody wants you and go apply for hundreds more jobs. Never mind the cost those rejections had on your mental health, we've already established that doesn't matter. Remember to mask, mask, mask.

What I hear from my dr is:
Yes, your mental health is severely bad enough to not work. Take things easy. Have a medical guardian. You must take medicine every day at 11am. Stop opening yourself up for rejection.

My dr is a trained professional who has been preceeded with other trained professionals.
You guys are a bunch of strangers online.
I know who I'm listening to.


I think you mistake general principles for specific messaging at you. I fully acknowledge some people are too disabled to work, and I fully acknowledge people with invisible disabilities face a tough road to getting those disabilities recognized. Listen to your doctor, and try to find a situation that works for you.

Truth is this isn't the case for most people in poverty. There are many many people living in poverty because of either not knowing the right decisions, or deliberately choosing the wrongs ones because they believe it doesn't matter or something.


Could it be possible that she tried to explain her situation in her past like yours truly did and she was given the same BS that she's making excuses, she should try to find work, you're owed nothing,etc? Is she mistaking general principles or is it that the conservative minded people she has met refuses to listen to what she has to say just like they refused to listen to what I had to say.


I bolded some parts because you greatly misinterpreted what I posted. Yes I know KT has encountered some ignorance in her quest to get her difficulties recognized in the real world, but no one here is telling her her problems aren't real.


I did. Sorry I misinterpreted.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,913

03 Dec 2020, 8:15 pm

Antrax,

I realized something myself. I believe some of my issues is pragmatic in nature. I have a pragmatic disorder to the extreme I think. When I wrote that personal responsibility is a crock I didn't mean it in an absolute way. I meant that the extent that conservatives and people in general in the USA take it to is a crock. I should've been more clear on that and that is my fault.

So, reading your message Antrax both are views for the most part are in alignment and agreement with each other. That's what I was trying to get at but I failed miserably because I didn't convey what I was trying to say well enough. Again, it is my pragmatic disorder which I'm trying to work on to this day. It has gotten better bit by bit but it's still a long road ahead.

I think NTs call it needing a more middle ground.

I will say this.

My pragmatic disorder affected me worse.

You're entitled to nothing as an example.

Without social context here is how I interpreted it. I will use the Nuremburg trials as an example. I believe that I am entitled to refuse to commit murder because I think murder is immoral and goes against God's law. And, when you murder someone it affects the person's loved ones and puts a stain on your soul. You're not only entitled to refuse to commit murder it is your duty to refuse anyone who would order a person to commit murder. And, the people who used I was obeying orders during the Nuremburg trials as a defense were found guilty and sentenced to prison or death by hanging. So, they were not only entitled to refuse to commit murder but were morally and duty bound to refuse to commit murder.

So, in this context a sense of entitlement is moral and just.

Do you understand where my issues are at Antrax?

KT67

I agree with you about generalized advice. Usually, it's not well thought through and it is usually overly simplified. As for the using the word should. To me, the word should conveys a sense of urgency and importance. If someone doesn't use the word should with a certain umph to it more then likely I won't see the sense of urgency or I will consider it optional. Again, that's a part of my pragmatic issue.

Without the word should or ought or other synonym and a certain (forceful? energy? I don't know what to call it) inflexion to the voice I will either think the person is playing around, joking and I will consider what they say as optional.

The rest of what you say is well thought out and I say I would need something similar as well.



KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,807

04 Dec 2020, 4:30 am

That's how I see it though - optional if you say could and not optional if you say should.

It's just that I see those 'shoulds' as 'you are a dreadful/broken person if you don't take this advice'.

I think again it's just about absolutes. Advise people you know well. If the person takes 'should' as a 'really strongly advisable could' then use it. If they take it as a 'or you are broken and dreadful and I hate you' then don't use it but really emphasise 'this is a good idea for you'.

I'm very much in favour of personalising responses. At a government level, I'm in favour of keeping JSA (most unemployed people's benefit) as 'if you look for work you get this', keeping ESA* level two as 'if you look for the suitable employment that we lay out for you, you get this' and keeping ESA level one for people who have had a conversation between the panel representing the benefits people who know there's not unlimited resources available, themselves/their guardians and their doctor who knows what's best for them.

And this will probably sound classist itself but if someone is being propped up elsewhere, by charity or by family for eg, it's not really the government's business to force them into work. That's between them and the people they're persuading to do that. It doesn't affect anyone (tax payers) except the people giving them money and the people giving them money are within their rights to stop. The only danger I see in this is if people decide to do cash in hand jobs and rip off the government in terms of dodging taxes. It falls into the 'it's up to you how you spend your money' free choice. I think people who this would apply to would mostly be home makers or disabled people who don't want to apply for ESA.

* I have a medical guardian so I'm not an expert on this stuff. The way I've had it explained to me is that Level One is the serious level in which they recognise you shouldn't work for mental/physical reasons and that it's unhealthy to do so. Level Two is for disabled people who can do some work but who can't just be like everyone else and go to the job centre, see what's available within their qualification level and apply for it. They find more tailored employment for them to take but they expect them to take what's offered to them, in that way like everyone else.


_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

04 Dec 2020, 1:44 pm

Antrax wrote:
So my question is this? How can we encourage people to take responsibility for the things in their lives they can control without falling into the pitfalls of the third message? How do we help those in tough situations realize they control more than they think they do, without coming off as condescending?[/b]

One solution is the *work for welfare* movement.

Likely, many people on government assistance can at least do volunteer work.

This would likely teach people the responsibilities of keeping a job and possibly help them transition to a paid job.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,913

05 Dec 2020, 8:33 am

KT67 if you want an image of the future 1000s of years from now archeologists of an advanced ( more advanced then us) civilization will be digging through the rubbles and ruins of American civilization and they will find this scrawled on the ruins of a mall.

Percy Shelley's "Ozymandias"

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,913

05 Dec 2020, 12:45 pm

Quote:
The experience requirement is a smokescreen. You know that, right?


No, I don't know that. So, what's their real agenda? And, it seems as though they're deceptive. So, if you accept deception and give your support to it which it seems like you do then how can I trust what you say as true?

Quote:
I took a new job this year as a band director. This school really prides itself on its marching band. I have NEVER successfully put a band on the field in my whole career. Not for lack of trying, just I was never in a school that really supported their band. I reached way back in the memory banks and dug up all the little tricks that made things work back in college, and BOOM...did my first ever show in 20 years. The last five years was repeating beginner band every semester. I got fired from two jobs and walked away from two jobs. I have no assurances this one will last another year based on my past experiences, but it’s a big improvement. So when I start shopping around next year to see if there’s a better deal and try to renegotiate my contract, if nothing else I’ll have a good idea what other schools are doing, and that can only help me do my job better if they bring me back and I choose to stay.


Ok.....

Quote:
Every experience required listing is a Catch-22. Sometimes they’re serious, but often not. What a lot of places do is put you through training programs so you’ll have the experience. You find that IF you make it to the 3-year mark with a company, you should expect bonuses or a raise. If that doesn’t happen, go shopping. Move up or move out.


Who does these training programs. I don't see this. So, if they're not serious then why put it and doesn't that mean they're deceptive about what they require and how can you support this as a Christian? Does this mean that capitalism supports deception and if so then how can you reconcile capitalism with deception and deceptive practices? So, how can I trust any word that comes from your mouth?

Quote:
That’s another one of those personal responsibility things. We value always telling the truth. But when people hold you back for things beyond your control, when they act like jerks, they don’t deserve the truth.


Which means that you don't always value telling the truth which means again can I really trust a word you say?

Quote:
You have to get ahead. Don’t say you don’t have experience. Look for different ways to log experience. Volunteer work. Church work. Internship. High school clubs/activities. Experienced programmer needed? Well, I’ve spent the last couple of years learning Python to automate making experimental music, so sure, I know numpy, pandas, keras, TensorFlow, etc. Do you have anyone who does GUIs? Because I suck at those... And that’s how a music man gets a programming gig. Nobody is going to care if I was a comp sci or data sci major in college. They care that I CAN do the job and that I’m available...and it’s really the availability thing that counts most in a small market. And if I make it in a small business for 3-5 years, I can interview in more competitive areas and HONESTLY say I have experience. If you’re actually good, you can beat out people from elite schools.


Am I required to do these things to get experience or do the employers have a deceptive agenda. Again, you're words come across as two-faced.

Quote:
But if all you see is experience required and you don’t even try, the only person you have to blame is yourself. No, you can’t always control your circumstances. But if you do absolutely nothing to take control of what you can, that’s YOUR problem.


Yet, you said that employers disguise their real agenda (which you haven't told me what that is) so that implies I really don't need experience yet at the same time it seems like you're saying I do need it. Which is it?

And, here is another thing. I never heard of the terms critical thinking and internship. Even while in college I only had a limited understanding of what an internship was and I didn't know my understanding was limited. If you say well I should've researched things like internship. My response would be how would I know that I was ignorant of what an internship was especially if I didn't understand the circumstances surrounding the problem. One can't make a positive choice if one only has part of the story and information and doesn't even realize he only has only a part. And, if one doesn't know that one doesn't know then how can one take the responsibility to find out?

I made the best decisions I could make with the limited understanding I had.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,913

05 Dec 2020, 12:50 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Antrax wrote:
So my question is this? How can we encourage people to take responsibility for the things in their lives they can control without falling into the pitfalls of the third message? How do we help those in tough situations realize they control more than they think they do, without coming off as condescending?[/b]

One solution is the *work for welfare* movement.

Likely, many people on government assistance can at least do volunteer work.

This would likely teach people the responsibilities of keeping a job and possibly help them transition to a paid job.


Please tell me more about it. Can you provide me a link please?

Personal responsibility assumes that one has choice and it is always possible for a person to make sound and positive decisions. I don't accept this as so and I think things beyond our control has influence over what our circumstances will be. I do accept that our choices also contribute to the circumstances we are in. Both are true in my mind and I think the USA leans to much to the idea of choice and that we have all this choice.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,913

05 Dec 2020, 1:06 pm

Here is my question(s) to AngelRho about Truth. How do you determine who deserves the truth or not? What is your criteria and how do you derive it? Do you even derive it? And, if you do then doesn't it mean that your determination of who deserves the truth is arbitrary? And, doesn't that mean that your decision to be moral or not is arbitrary? And, if that is then how can you expect that I or anyone else on here to even accept anything you say as truth?

And, this is what conservatives do when morality, truth and their values inconvenience them. They become selective about what they will follow as moral while expecting the rest of us to be moral. So you see KT67 you need to do you.

First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=394cv0LfcdE



goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,825
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

05 Dec 2020, 1:38 pm

This is silly and here’s why:

If outcomes are determined by choices, it means we have the freedom of choice - as we do; we’re not blindfolded.. so, this argument involving being blindfolded in order to make choices randomized is not representative of the reality of the choices we make.

Choices, decisions, actions, consequences. Sometimes we make good choices, other times we make mistakes and then hopefully learn from them. Sometimes we make a good choice but s**t happens and we have a setback, then we have options as to how we choose to deal with that and what choices we make and actions we take etc. Plus there are a lot of grey jelly beans.. not everything is a binary green/black good/bad decision. Sometimes we have to choose what we Think is best or even what we know isn’t and just make the most of it. That’s the beauty of being human vs a computer with only 0/1 choices.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,107
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

05 Dec 2020, 3:24 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Here is my question(s) to AngelRho about Truth. How do you determine who deserves the truth or not? What is your criteria and how do you derive it? Do you even derive it? And, if you do then doesn't it mean that your determination of who deserves the truth is arbitrary? And, doesn't that mean that your decision to be moral or not is arbitrary? And, if that is then how can you expect that I or anyone else on here to even accept anything you say as truth?

And, this is what conservatives do when morality, truth and their values inconvenience them. They become selective about what they will follow as moral while expecting the rest of us to be moral. So you see KT67 you need to do you.

First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=394cv0LfcdE

I’m not best described as a conservative. I just happen to share a lot of values with them.

Who deserves truth? I think that’s the wrong question. In my view, nobody deserves anything they didn’t earn. The right question is who has earned the right to be told the truth? I don’t owe you the truth just because you happen to be breathing. When I choose to tell you the truth, it’s because I have something to gain by doing so, which is a mark of what constitutes moral good. Because human life is real, it can be assigned value. How you enhance or destroy value is a measure of objective good or objective evil, with objective, physical reality itself being the criteria for morality and truth. The only difference between myself and other Objectivists is I believe true value can only be established through omniscience; actual values cannot be known unless they are revealed, and thus for anything to have value, it must first be GIVEN value. The human individual cannot value himself, others, or the material world unless that objective value was first revealed to him. Who first made that revelation to mankind? We know truth is best because it is written into the fabric of reality, and that means all rational people can access it. You don’t NEED me to tell you the truth—you already have what you need to discern it for yourself. I simply derive a selfish pleasure from helping people understand truth as well as doing so helps me know truth better for myself.

I have no problem admitting that I’m a selfish person. Morality is objective and is based in reality. That’s the reality: Something is true if it is real, not merely because I said it. Since human life is the highest measure of value, anything that preserves or improves human life, even if it sometimes comes at the cost of human life, upholds the best, highest moral standard.

Anyone I care about and anyone who comes alongside me to help me reach my goals deserves the truth, among other things. Anyone who tries to stop me or tries to harm me or those I love does not deserve the truth. I don’t have to deceive anyone. But I don’t have to reveal anything, either, if it doesn’t suit me to.

Truth is objective. It’s not arbitrary. Whether I tell the truth or not is more/less arbitrary in that I’m a fallible person and limited by my own knowledge. But even if I try to minimize that, the fact still remains that I have the FREEDOM to handle truth in any way it suits me to do so. If I tell the truth, it’s because I want to. I COULD outright lie about things, but deceit is a conscious decision that doesn’t serve my self-interest. If preserving yourself and your interests means withholding the truth, just remember your Miranda Rights: You have the right to remain silent.

As to what I expect from you: I don’t expect anything. You have a mind of your own to decide whether to accept anything I say or not. But along those lines, you also have the freedom to decide how much you are going to disclose and what information is irrelevant. Every individual possesses that same freedom, just like you possess the freedom to choose whether you’ll actually believe truth when you encounter it.

I think you are confused regarding conservative behavior and the handling of truth. They are free to disclose what they will as it pleases them. They don’t owe anyone anything beyond what gets the best results for the individual. I also think part of the confusion is your own flawed premises, that conservatives aren’t helpful and are always liars. What makes you so sure that conservatives, libertarians, and objectivists have NOT frequently tried to help or don’t continue to try to help? What makes you so certain that it is rather victim classes that have steadily refused help or dropped out and rather blame trainers and employers for failures that are entirely their own? It is frustrating for helpful people to sacrifice so much of themselves for things that bear little fruit or value or even prove costly for those who DO work hard and show promise.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,913

06 Dec 2020, 12:09 am

AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
Here is my question(s) to AngelRho about Truth. How do you determine who deserves the truth or not? What is your criteria and how do you derive it? Do you even derive it? And, if you do then doesn't it mean that your determination of who deserves the truth is arbitrary? And, doesn't that mean that your decision to be moral or not is arbitrary? And, if that is then how can you expect that I or anyone else on here to even accept anything you say as truth?

And, this is what conservatives do when morality, truth and their values inconvenience them. They become selective about what they will follow as moral while expecting the rest of us to be moral. So you see KT67 you need to do you.

First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=394cv0LfcdE

I’m not best described as a conservative. I just happen to share a lot of values with them.

Who deserves truth? I think that’s the wrong question. In my view, nobody deserves anything they didn’t earn. The right question is who has earned the right to be told the truth? I don’t owe you the truth just because you happen to be breathing. When I choose to tell you the truth, it’s because I have something to gain by doing so, which is a mark of what constitutes moral good. Because human life is real, it can be assigned value. How you enhance or destroy value is a measure of objective good or objective evil, with objective, physical reality itself being the criteria for morality and truth. The only difference between myself and other Objectivists is I believe true value can only be established through omniscience; actual values cannot be known unless they are revealed, and thus for anything to have value, it must first be GIVEN value. The human individual cannot value himself, others, or the material world unless that objective value was first revealed to him. Who first made that revelation to mankind? We know truth is best because it is written into the fabric of reality, and that means all rational people can access it. You don’t NEED me to tell you the truth—you already have what you need to discern it for yourself. I simply derive a selfish pleasure from helping people understand truth as well as doing so helps me know truth better for myself.

I have no problem admitting that I’m a selfish person. Morality is objective and is based in reality. That’s the reality: Something is true if it is real, not merely because I said it. Since human life is the highest measure of value, anything that preserves or improves human life, even if it sometimes comes at the cost of human life, upholds the best, highest moral standard.

Anyone I care about and anyone who comes alongside me to help me reach my goals deserves the truth, among other things. Anyone who tries to stop me or tries to harm me or those I love does not deserve the truth. I don’t have to deceive anyone. But I don’t have to reveal anything, either, if it doesn’t suit me to.

Truth is objective. It’s not arbitrary. Whether I tell the truth or not is more/less arbitrary in that I’m a fallible person and limited by my own knowledge. But even if I try to minimize that, the fact still remains that I have the FREEDOM to handle truth in any way it suits me to do so. If I tell the truth, it’s because I want to. I COULD outright lie about things, but deceit is a conscious decision that doesn’t serve my self-interest. If preserving yourself and your interests means withholding the truth, just remember your Miranda Rights: You have the right to remain silent.

As to what I expect from you: I don’t expect anything. You have a mind of your own to decide whether to accept anything I say or not. But along those lines, you also have the freedom to decide how much you are going to disclose and what information is irrelevant. Every individual possesses that same freedom, just like you possess the freedom to choose whether you’ll actually believe truth when you encounter it.

I think you are confused regarding conservative behavior and the handling of truth. They are free to disclose what they will as it pleases them. They don’t owe anyone anything beyond what gets the best results for the individual. I also think part of the confusion is your own flawed premises, that conservatives aren’t helpful and are always liars. What makes you so sure that conservatives, libertarians, and objectivists have NOT frequently tried to help or don’t continue to try to help? What makes you so certain that it is rather victim classes that have steadily refused help or dropped out and rather blame trainers and employers for failures that are entirely their own? It is frustrating for helpful people to sacrifice so much of themselves for things that bear little fruit or value or even prove costly for those who DO work hard and show promise.



So, you're an objectivist and you accept Ayn Rand's principle's to be true.

This is what I accept to be true that is in line with Rand's principles.

1. There is an objective reality outside of our hopes, wishes and dreams.

This is the only thing I accept.

Now, this is what I accept to be True based upon what I derived from reality.

There are Truths with a capital T and then there are truths with a small t. Truths are the ones we can measure and quantify. Truths are principles like how are universe works including gravity, the rotation of the earth, etc. These are the truths with a capital T.

Now, truths with a small t are what are open to the person's experience. These are truths in which society determines what they are as well. Like, a lot of businesses have a definition for what professionalism is. Part of that may be wearing a tie. And, organizations requiring experience. Society(s) requiring things as eye contact. These things are subjective and arbitrary truths determined by society.

And, what we value can be different then what others value.

Can all rational people access and determine truth? I don't accept this to be true because no one is completely rational in all cases. It presumes that all rational people has access to the full scope of the truth. All rational people or at least some may only have access to a limited scope. I gave you an example with my college experience. I acted and made decisions on what I thought was true and I had no reasonable reason to suspect otherwise.

Another thing, a person may think he is rational but when questioned he may not be as rational as he thinks he is.

You seem to think that everything must have a price tag, can be purchased, and can be and should be in the realm of the marketplace. I disagree with this notion.

If we believe that truth should be in the realm of the marketplace then I ask how can truth truthfully remain objective and not subjective to what would bring the value to the person who would be giving it or not? By your logic if it would ever one day become valuable to deny that gravity exists and it is more valuable to claim that frogs is what keeps us on the Earth and not float up then wouldn't this be accepted as truth instead of what we derive from reality?

Society, even businesses, is based upon relationships of differing kinds right? And, if the marketplaces comes to value deceptions and untruths more then truths derived from reality and if relationships is based in trust then how can we really have effective relationships? And, if we can't have relationships with trust being the glue that holds the relationships together then how can we truthfully have a civilization?

And, that begs the question of me and you. Since I consider reality as the determination of truth it begs the question would it be rational to believe anything you say on here? Should I believe a person who thinks himself to be rational when he really is not? It would be irrational for me to do so?

Now, onto the victim class. What kind of help has the conservatives given the victim class? What kind of help is out there for them and how do you know that help that you've all given them has really been helpful for them? Have you ever sat down with any one of them and were their Henry Higgins or did you only give them general advice that meant nothing to them? I believe it was KT67 who brought this up. She's always given general and overly-simplistic advice that is not helpful to her and even her doctor says she should not be employed. Yet, conservatives will deny this. So, how rational are you and they?

If we are going to speak in value then what kind of help was truly valuable to this victim class? How was the help given to them truthfully valuable to them? If the help didn't work for them or they wouldn't accept it then maybe the help that came from conservatives was not valuable? If what you accept as truth is really the truth then wouldn't a person accept something that would be valuable to them if they were capable of accepting it? Either they don't understand the value in it or it really isn't valuable. Maybe it isn't them but the conservative presentation that sucks.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,913

06 Dec 2020, 2:40 am

Of course it is not dishonest if one chooses to say nothing or say I don't wish to provide the answer but to put truth itself in the realm of the marketplace is one of the biggest mistakes a society can do. Truth is no longer objective but subject to the whims of value and the marketplace which is always fleeting.

So, Ayn Rand and objectivism is not objective at all and therefore full of s**t.



KT67
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,807

06 Dec 2020, 5:10 am

People who believe 'nobody deserves anything they don't earn' have to contend with either child labour or child poverty. I don't think that they would feel confident sitting down with a 5 yo whose school dinners (sometimes the only proper meal the kid will have that day) have been denied them and telling them, not 'it's your parents' fault' or 'it's the government's fault' but 'it's your fault, kid'. If they were that way inclined then they are absolutely selfish. And not in a rational way.

I think the government has a duty to feed (meals, not snacks) kids who don't get that resource elsewhere. Of course, parents who can afford to feed their kids have a duty to do that first. Which is why not every kid gets free school meals - unlike in the 50s when they would have done, I think that was overkill. But if they can't then it's not the kid's fault and the kid doesn't deserve to go hungry.

It's in the interests of everyone that the young are well fed, well educated, well clothed, have shelter etc. They're the next generation and families/individuals don't exist in a vacuum. We need 1 people around and 2 people who aren't embittered against society around.


_________________
Not actually a girl
He/him


Phoenix20
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

Joined: 5 Feb 2020
Gender: Male
Posts: 97

06 Dec 2020, 6:24 am

Luck plays a bigger role in life than personal responsibility. Most things in life we do not have control over and are not choices we make. Luck plays a huge role in the opportunities that come our way. Personal responsibility is a crock because most things in life are beyond our control.

Being born into a rich or poor family are circumstances beyond a person's control and luck plays the biggest role. There is no choice or personal responsibility in being born into a rich or poor family, random luck plays the biggest role. Luck plays a bigger role in determining whether you are born into a rich family or a poor family.

A kid born into a rich family will have more opportunities throughout his/her life than a kid born into a poor family with fewer opportunities in life. You can not choose the family you are born into and the opportunities that come with being born into rich or poor family. People would choose to be born into a rich family and the privileges and opportunities that goes with being rich instead of being born into a poor family.

Life is beyond your control. Luck plays biggest role in life and personal responsibility does not matter.