Reply personal responsibility is a crock: here is why

Page 41 of 44 [ 704 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44  Next

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,505
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

09 Jun 2021, 11:58 pm

auntblabby wrote:
all my life i have been calumnied by bullies who told me that i was morally defective because i didn't "jerk myself up by my own bootstraps" - they always spouted "personal responsibility" even as god granted them superior genes and let them be born on third bass and thinking they hit a triple.

The Objectivist would ask why you care what bullies think or say? The success stories often include those who on their own initiative rise above their own limitations. One good step forward is refusing to define yourself according to the opinions of stupid people.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 103,520
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Jun 2021, 12:05 am

it is precisely the objectivist types who treat me like that. their motto seems to be "get rich or die trying." they don't understand people with a different philosophy.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,776

10 Jun 2021, 12:20 am

AngelRho wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
all my life i have been calumnied by bullies who told me that i was morally defective because i didn't "jerk myself up by my own bootstraps" - they always spouted "personal responsibility" even as god granted them superior genes and let them be born on third bass and thinking they hit a triple.

The Objectivist would ask why you care what bullies think or say? The success stories often include those who on their own initiative rise above their own limitations. One good step forward is refusing to define yourself according to the opinions of stupid people.


But, what if those people own the gold, make the rules, guard the doors and have all of the keys? Now what?



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,776

10 Jun 2021, 12:44 am

AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
How about Christina Sandefur? Lawyer. Fought for terminally ill patients’ rights by helping write Right To Try. Also fights for private property rights in Arizona. Basically, she’s a TRUE Robin Hood: Not one who steals from the rich and gives to the needy, but rather recovers what the government steals and returns it to the citizens. I wonder if she needs to ask permission before doing the right thing? #personalresponsibility


#hastygeneralization

If you actually knew what a hasty generalization is, you’d know I’m not making one.

The problem for you is every example challenges your narrative. I can keep going. You cannot rationally defend your point.


And, guess what the Bureau of Labor Statistics challenges your points. And, yes I know exactly what a hasty generalization is.

Find me stats in which the vast majority of people were able to pull themselves from their own bootstraps.

Find me stats in which the vast majority of people with disabilities were able to pull themselves from their own bootstraps.

All you're giving me is testimonials and selected samples. You can name 5000 people who were able to pull themselves from their own bootstraps. If you have 100,000 who could not then that would be a drop in the bucket.

Same thing with disabilities. For every Temple Grandin who succeeded how many autistics ended up claiming SSDI, live with their parents, end up in group homes or commit suicide.

You're giving examples of those who did succeed but that's meaningless without comparing it against those who sunk and could not succeed.

You believe I don't know the meaning of what a hasty generalization is. Okay, then define it then. You say I'm using it wrong. How? How am I using it wrong? What is the right way that it is supposed to be used and why is that the right way and why are other ways wrong? That's the thing! All you've have said in the pages of conversations is that I'm wrong and this is what is. No explanation. No explaining on how you even get there. Whether it is with God, personal responsibility or anything we've discussed or disputed.

You're drawing your conclusions based upon small and incomplete sample sizes. That's a hasty generalization.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... ralization

And, if you're kicking my ass at this. If you are so sure you're right on this. Why continue? Why continue to have any conversation with me? What exactly is your stake in this exactly? Why do you care what I say on here. You could easily drop out of the conversation which you said you would do many times? My friend, you're not beating me at anything. All you're doing is the erosion effect with the I'm right and you're wrong.

You've proven nothing good sir. All you've done is said a lot of sophisticated verbiage for the entire 37 or so pages of this entire conversation but it has little to no substance to it.

I ask how water is wet and how it gets to be wet. How does it get to be that way? You would say that water simply has that nature. It simply is wet.

Or, how do plants grow? Brawndo has electrolytes that makes plants grow? But, how does Brawndo make plants grow? Well, plants have electrolytes? But what are electrolytes?

This is you AngelRho even though your words are more sophisticated.

AngelRho, you refuse to see that your points, arguments and belief system could possibly have holes and flaws to them just like other personal responsibility advocates I've dealt with. You are completely and utterly locked into this whole American mythos that anyone can do anything and anyone can pull themselves by their bootstraps which is not true. Yes, you have people who do but how many do not and cannot?

The bureau of labor statistics I posted twice is staring at you in the face. Get your head out of your ass!

What makes you think that the vast majority of poor people are able to pull themselves by their boot straps? Same question with disabled people?

This is all mostly irrelevant.

My point in bringing up faith was to demonstrate how our beliefs are all built on our axioms and presuppositions. You are committed to a victim mentality; I am not. You made the assertion that “Personal responsibility is a crock” and supported that statement with quasi facts about victims and personal grievance groups. The problem there is that if your standard for defending your position is “personal responsibility is a crock because victims,” which you support with flimsy, politically motivated, government statistics that you assume are reliable, then there’s little or no reason for someone like me to expend effort in defeating your argument. You do a good enough job of that on your own. Instead, it’s more fun for me to dismiss your assertion on purely logical grounds. If personal responsibility is a crock because victims, then all it takes to defeat this argument is ONE example of a person who owns up to personal responsibility. Doesn’t even have to be a success story. Could be failures: the Chosin disaster, the NAZI last stand at Stalingrad, Masada, the CSA, Mike Sherman’s coaching career (haha). Could be Brian Piccolo or Temple Grandin.

Denial of personal responsibility is often disastrous. Pharm regulations force pharms to depend on government grace before they are allowed to release life-saving medicine. Once government got out of the way, a completely new kind of vaccine was rapidly developed, and now it appears for the time being that America’s Biden Flu fever might almost be broken if not already. The opposite would be the NAZI command structure, which was consistent with party ideology—the German people were victims of Jews, Hitler was a victim of traitors and power struggles, and so forth.

You know who DIDN’T toe the NAZI party line on the battlefield? Erwin Rommel. Rommel was an unstoppable force in North Africa. His policy towards enemy POWs was always to be a gentleman and grant captives dignity, earning the awe and respect of the enemy. He did this out of his own initiative, not by waiting for the blessings of high command.

Rommel was what I consider a true victim. He was recalled to Berlin, asked to defend the German homeland, was swiftly ignored, and then for all the good he did HE was put on notice as a traitor. What was left of Germany was worse off for it. Yet in the face of an absurd government gone insane, Rommel maintained his own integrity all the way to his death. #personalresponsibility


Anything that does not support what you accept to be true is considered flimsy? You call me biased? Pot calling Kettle....



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,505
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

10 Jun 2021, 2:33 am

auntblabby wrote:
it is precisely the objectivist types who treat me like that. their motto seems to be "get rich or die trying." they don't understand people with a different philosophy.

Depends on the Objectivist. I’m more of the David Kelley objectivist. Peikoff objectivism is more hardline objectivism that doesn’t allow much room for compassion. Comparing Peikoff to Kelley is like comparing Shakers to Hillsong. Old-style Objectivists will ultimately endure the pain of extinction. For a brief time I tried to align my own beliefs along Peikoff’s philosophy. I thought the idea that the clique closest to Ayn Rand had no soul was really just a misunderstanding. Now I’m finding that I think Peikoff was more ignorant of Rand’s philosophy.

I think, too, you find that “Objectivist types” often are not objective at all. If you’re being bullied over things you really cannot help, that just shows a lack of maturity on their part. All human beings have value, regardless of physical or intellectual ability. Any Christian, Libertarian, or Objectivist who says otherwise has no idea what he’s talking about.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,776

10 Jun 2021, 8:33 pm

I think there has been a misunderstanding. When I say personal responsibility is a crock I don't mean it absolutely 100%. I mean it to the extent that the USA and the culture takes it to. Personal responsibility presumes internal locus of control.

https://www.edglossary.org/locus-of-control/

Quote:
Students with an “internal locus of control” generally believe that their success or failure is a result of the effort and hard work they invest in their education. Students with an “external locus of control” generally believe that their successes or failures result from external factors beyond their control, such as luck, fate, circumstance, injustice, bias, or teachers who are unfair, prejudiced, or unskilled. For example, students with an internal locus of control might blame poor grades on their failure to study, whereas students with an external locus of control may blame an unfair teacher or test for their poor performance.


I teach in China and I have a student who is struggling in another class. The student is doing well in their other classes including mine. They go to the tutorials that they need to go to. The problem is that the concepts simply don't click with them and it is the only class they're failing in. What does this student do next? Is this student considered lazy and not taking charge and investing in their education enough? Is this student not studying enough?

If the student did everything they were supposed to do and it still doesn't work how does personal responsibility apply anymore in this case?

This is one example of where one can do everything right and still fail. But, personal responsibility advocates will not accept this idea. That student didn't try hard enough. They didn't study for the appropriate amount of time. They're not paying attention in class. Just arbitrary reasons that the student did and the possibility can't even enter the mind of the personal responsibility advocate like AngelRho and others that the person really did try, failed and really and simply can't do it.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 103,520
Location: the island of defective toy santas

10 Jun 2021, 9:05 pm

this is a determinism vs. existentialism thread. the personal responsibility/horatio alger boosters are big believers in "free will" being a great social equalizer somehow. :scratch:



ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,275
Location: New Jersey, USA

11 Jun 2021, 4:36 am

auntblabby wrote:
this is a determinism vs. existentialism thread. the personal responsibility/horatio alger boosters are big believers in "free will" being a great social equalizer somehow. :scratch:


So, you have a top tier that subjects a lower tier. There are layers in between. A gray area of sorts. These folks weren't born on top and had to fight their way up. Conversely, they weren't born on the bottom, can't fathom the bottom, may think that their middle layer is the bottom, and assume the real bottom tier are just like them with all the same experiences, but they're just being lazy.

These middle-tier people weren't doing the bullying, but weren't experiencing it either. They didn't get the silver spoon handed to them, but they didn't have their hand smacked when they tried to reach for it. They didn't have it the best, and wanted more; but they never realized that there were those out there who had it even worse than them. Middle-tier could look up and look around, but had no idea what was going on beneath them. Assumed they were equal with anyone not in top-tier, not realizing the ability to rise up is itself a privilege of their mid-tier class.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 103,520
Location: the island of defective toy santas

11 Jun 2021, 4:42 am

^^^that is a succinct explanation of why it is useless to argue with right wingers. period.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,505
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

11 Jun 2021, 8:03 am

cubedemon6073 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
all my life i have been calumnied by bullies who told me that i was morally defective because i didn't "jerk myself up by my own bootstraps" - they always spouted "personal responsibility" even as god granted them superior genes and let them be born on third bass and thinking they hit a triple.

The Objectivist would ask why you care what bullies think or say? The success stories often include those who on their own initiative rise above their own limitations. One good step forward is refusing to define yourself according to the opinions of stupid people.


But, what if those people own the gold, make the rules, guard the doors and have all of the keys? Now what?

Why assume that?



The_Znof
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 404
Location: Dream Police

11 Jun 2021, 8:34 am

Fnord wrote:
[color=black]Brainwashing is like hypnosis: No one can brainwash you without your cooperation.


Source?

Image

Quote:
Agency officials noted how their experiments had the potential gain “control of bodies whether they were willing or not.”



https://medium.com/conspiracy-theories- ... 4477714a96



The_Znof
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 404
Location: Dream Police

11 Jun 2021, 8:41 am

auntblabby wrote:
determinism vs. existentialism :scratch:


is not an either/or war!

Quote:
. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two.


-anti Climacus



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 103,520
Location: the island of defective toy santas

11 Jun 2021, 9:45 am

The_Znof wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
determinism vs. existentialism :scratch:


is not an either/or war!

Quote:
. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two.


-anti Climacus

can you kindly and patiently explain to this slow student, how they both can be simultaneously true? :scratch:



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,774

11 Jun 2021, 9:59 am



DarK Makes LiGHT

It's All Relative

And It's All

Whole

Complete

And Enough Now

When We Realize

We aRe DarK LiGHT All (GoD)

Yet of Course it's More Than
'THiNK' It is Bliss And Nirvana

Eternally Now How to Get THeRE

i Dance Sing Free FLoWinG With Wings
And Fur It All Falls Rises Wave Water
Ocean Whole in Eternal PLaCE Now DarK iS LiGHT

Hehe in Other Words THiS Ain't A Dam Science Project

Alone ALWaYS Worth ReMeMBeRinG Art is 60 Percent

of smART And heART LiTeRaLLY So If Not All You (We) ReAlly

Have Left is the 'TRuMP MeMe' of S And M And HE Yuck! HeLL oN EartH NoW!..;)



_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,275
Location: New Jersey, USA

11 Jun 2021, 10:07 am

auntblabby wrote:
The_Znof wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
determinism vs. existentialism :scratch:


is not an either/or war!

Quote:
. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two.


-anti Climacus

can you kindly and patiently explain to this slow student, how they both can be simultaneously true? :scratch:


I suppose one can be existential within their determined environment. "Should I use a cane or a walker to get around, which will actually be more beneficial for me in the long run?"

But if this is your lot in life, there's a lot of things that have already been "determined."



The_Znof
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 404
Location: Dream Police

11 Jun 2021, 11:16 am

But Cease Ye, and nevermore lift up this lament.

for all this is determined.
- Sophocles

auntblabby wrote:
The_Znof wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
determinism vs. existentialism :scratch:


is not an either/or war!

Quote:
. A human being is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short, a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two.


-anti Climacus

can you kindly and patiently explain to this slow student, how they both can be simultaneously true? :scratch:


I tried to explain but Im not determined enough I guess. :mrgreen:

Image