In Toronto, people go hungry all the time

[benny]

Apparently not as we have survived and thrived. If we have created conditions where we thrive, that is the new natural state.

I don't think I ever contended that there was NO hunger in Toronto. What I contend is that the basic welfare payment is sufficent to meet nutritional needs, and to do that all anyone would need to show is that there is at least one person on welfare who was not malnourished.

Sure they can, since you seem to read a lot more into the study than is reported. For example you extrroplate that people may be going hungry while providing internet service to their kids to secure a better future for their kids. This is pure speculation as you don't know if they have kids, and you don't know if what they are doing is surfing porn on the internet. Your prejudices lead you to make excuses to defend resuts which support your prejudices.

The question is not whether people follow a line between good and bad. The question is that line is purely subjective and why should one persons interpretation of the line be imposed upon another?

-What you call a new natural state is, in fact, normative state.

- We are speaking of families here, which is a very loose concept.

- I don't think they pay for internet just because they like to go hungry.

- Because without inter-subjectivity norms humans are nothing.

[jbg]

-Without redistribution, life chances would become skewed in favor of those already lucky.

With redistribution, why would those creating (and in your view over-consuming) do anything productive?

[Renegade]

-What you call a new natural state is, in fact, normative state.

so? what is your point?

- We are speaking of families here, which is a very loose concept.

Again, what is your point reletave to the statement I made.

- I don't think they pay for internet just because they like to go hungry.

You have already stated why you *think* they do so, but without any evidence. Without evidence it is just speculation tainted by prejudices.

Regardless of why they do so, the point is that the do make a choce. As I've said I don't have a problem with them making a choice, and they are entitled to the consequences of that choice.

- Because without inter-subjectivity norms humans are nothing.

With imposition of subjective norms we take away from each other's freedom. Despite you seeming to agree that morality shouldn't be imposed, you seem to defend it. So which your position? Do you believe morality should be imposed or are people free to follow their own moral code?

[Oleg Bach]

Go back to 1957 - and research how our agency system came into being - How charity was removed and replaced by brutal and sanitized social control...go back and see that a group of very abitious and cold corporate executives destroy Christian charity and took over - in order to control the common worker economically - and emotionally though his chidren and wife...our WELFARE system was devised by Darwinist extremist rich people..creeps. Big buisness created this mess. We have forgotten how this thing started..and now we blame each other when it was not us who made this mistake in the creation of a Draconian oppressive system - meant to destroy the percieved weak.

[Renegade]

Go back to 1957 - and research how our agency system came into being - How charity was removed and replaced by brutal and sanitized social control...go back and see that a group of very abitious and cold corporate executives destroy Christian charity and took over - in order to control the common worker economically - and emotionally though his chidren and wife...our WELFARE system was devised by Darwinist extremist rich people..creeps. Big buisness created this mess. We have forgotten how this thing started..and now we blame each other when it was not us who made this mistake in the creation of a Draconian oppressive system - meant to destroy the percieved weak.

So, lets eliminate the Welfare system and go gack to "Christian charity".

[Oleg Bach]

So, lets eliminate the Welfare system and go gack to "Christian charity".

At least with Christain charity - you gave freely and had the free will to choose on moral grounds on who to care for and who to ignore...our system is tax based and we are force to give money to those that should not be taken care of ... Why should I give to a cause an individual or group and empower them to bring harm upon society...You don't get it my dear friend - those responsible for the creation of our so-called safety net ...are not nice - and they don't have a problem with a welfare system that destroy what they consider undesirables...or useless to their cause....What I have leaned is that we do not have a real social safety net but a human meat grinder - Charity is human love...social assistance - assists society even when corrupt.

[Oleg Bach]

ONE more addition - Who ever controls the banks - the courts and the money supply controls the nation - and that is not always the government - is it correct that those with billions dictate social policy and what the poor should have or have not in a democratic nation? I believe not! Our government are mere puppets - after all only an amtitous mindless idiot runs for public office...and these idiot will do what they are told - and it will not be the public instructing them - eugenics is practiced vigorously in Canada - I saw all sorts of signs of this during my five year trek from the lowest court to the highest - it was all controlled and policy driven - and not a policy that stemmed from the voters - but a policy of control that came from else where - what I suspected in the begining was true in the end..that we are a private estate run by a few highly focused monsters - who are like mischievious spoiled little boys - with POWER.

[benny]

With redistribution, why would those creating (and in your view over-consuming) do anything productive?

Because doing nothing is boring.

[Oleg Bach]

Because doing nothing is boring.

Hammer a nail - build a house - grow a damned carrot - maybe a kind and encourageing word to you fellow human being - IS productive - selling "product" that consists of electronic digits is bull shit.

[benny]

so? what is your point?

Again, what is your point reletave to the statement I made.

You have already stated why you *think* they do so, but without any evidence. Without evidence it is just speculation tainted by prejudices.

Regardless of why they do so, the point is that the do make a choce. As I've said I don't have a problem with them making a choice, and they are entitled to the consequences of that choice.

With imposition of subjective norms we take away from each other's freedom. Despite you seeming to agree that morality shouldn't be imposed, you seem to defend it. So which your position? Do you believe morality should be imposed or are people free to follow their own moral code?

- Morality is a collective desire to do better than animals.

- You need to find one case in each social category.

- Evidences show that there is not much of a choice there.

- Freedom is one such inter-subjective norms among others.

[Oleg Bach]

- Morality is a collective desire to do better than animals.

- You need to find one case in each social category.

- Evidences show that there is not much of a choice there.

- Freedom is one such inter-subjective norms among others.

Morality is not a collective desire - it is a singular desire that sprouts from the individual not the collective - early Christianity was about the individual not the collective...some animals are quiet civlized by the way and loyal to each other and protective... What you the free - singular individual feel, believe and think is what is paramount. Morality is the capaicity to give or recieve love - some human being do not have that capacity..that is a reality.

[benny]

Morality is not a collective desire - it is a singular desire that sprouts from the individual not the collective - early Christianity was about the individual not the collective...some animals are quiet civlized by the way and loyal to each other and protective... What you the free - singular individual feel, believe and think is what is paramount. Morality is the capaicity to give or recieve love - some human being do not have that capacity..that is a reality.

All humans owe their individualities to their (caregivers) mothers' desire.

[Oleg Bach]

All humans owe their individualities to their (caregivers) mothers' desire.

To a degree - but I was a boy that grew up in the woods unsupervised...my mothers desire was that she should live her dreams though her children - takes a life time to shake off that "desire" Individuality comes from daring rebellion and a resistance to being possessed by those that seek to own you. It's lonely road - but someone has to do it - sure I loved my mother - and she was supportive of me when others were not - but she could be a witch also - and eat her young...as most mothers might and sometimes do - motherhood does not guarentee sainthood - unless you are some Italian Catholic virgin worshipper - you know the type......

My point was traditional ----- "I have not come to save the whole flock but to find the one lost sheep that has fallen into the pit" - I would say that the great teacher was saying that the individual is of utmost improtance...as was said in the movie Gladiator..."Is the life of one good man worth the empire of Rome?" I would say that once the right of ONE individual are trampled then the whole empire - the whole collective becomes ignoble and tainted - you are important - there is not such thing as the f**king common good!

[benny]

To a degree - but I was a boy that grew up in the woods unsupervised...my mothers desire was that she should live her dreams though her children - takes a life time to shake off that "desire" Individuality comes from daring rebellion and a resistance to being possessed by those that seek to own you. It's lonely road - but someone has to do it - sure I loved my mother - and she was supportive of me when others were not - but she could be a witch also - and eat her young...as most mothers might and sometimes do - motherhood does not guarentee sainthood - unless you are some Italian Catholic virgin worshipper - you know the type......

My point was traditional ----- "I have not come to save the whole flock but to find the one lost sheep that has fallen into the pit" - I would say that the great teacher was saying that the individual is of utmost improtance...as was said in the movie Gladiator..."Is the life of one good man worth the empire of Rome?" I would say that once the right of ONE individual are trampled then the whole empire - the whole collective becomes ignoble and tainted - you are important - there is not such thing as the f**king common good!

You emphasize individuality where you should emphasize weakness.

[Oleg Bach]

You emphasize individuality where you should emphasize weakness.

An individual is weak when the collective conspires against what is different even when that difference is needed for the good of the whole - like that ant that sees- and finds food - but is hated because the collective is in a state of blind envy... The indiviudal that has the endurance and the commitment to stand alone is not weak - one can conquer the mass - one is not weak - the collective will be won over - IF the individual is truely that - a singular.

[benny]

An individual is weak when the collective conspires against what is different even when that difference is needed for the good of the whole - like that ant that sees- and finds food - but is hated because the collective is in a state of blind envy... The indiviudal that has the endurance and the commitment to stand alone is not weak - one can conquer the mass - one is not weak - the collective will be won over - IF the individual is truely that - a singular.

The weakest person conquers the mass by being a universal singular (that is a revolutionary).

[Oleg Bach]

The weakest person conquers the mass by being a universal singular (that is a revolutionary).

What goes up must come down and what is down comes up - a revolving takes place - It's natural law..those that want things to remain the same even if those wants are detrimental and have outlived their usefulness...will go to great ends to destroy any revolutionary process - even if in doing they destroy themselves...much like the term anarchist - the movement was not intended to be one connected to violence - but because of that assassination back in about 1913 - the killing was blamed on the Anarchist movement - still to this day there is no total proof that an anarchist actaully assaisinated the duke.... change has to take place...adaptation must also take place - we have no choice - change or die..much like a heavy cigarette smoker of 40 years - give it up or pop a blood vessel in the head - Once the presure is on - we will do the right thing - no one in their right mind wants to parish....revolution need not be violent - but a controlled co-operative measure of neccessity.

[benny]

What goes up must come down and what is down comes up - a revolving takes place - It's natural law..those that want things to remain the same even if those wants are detrimental and have outlived their usefulness...will go to great ends to destroy any revolutionary process - even if in doing they destroy themselves...much like the term anarchist - the movement was not intended to be one connected to violence - but because of that assassination back in about 1913 - the killing was blamed on the Anarchist movement - still to this day there is no total proof that an anarchist actaully assaisinated the duke.... change has to take place...adaptation must also take place - we have no choice - change or die..much like a heavy cigarette smoker of 40 years - give it up or pop a blood vessel in the head - Once the presure is on - we will do the right thing - no one in their right mind wants to parish....revolution need not be violent - but a controlled co-operative measure of neccessity.

A revolutionary is someone who is empty or weak enough to remain true to a forever unfinished social ideal state.

[Renegade]

- Morality is a collective desire to do better than animals.

Did you make this up? It is nothing of the sort. Clearly you have your own language as you have a different definition of work, morality and I'm sure other words.

- You need to find one case in each social category.

I need to find nothing. To prove me wrong YOU need to show it is not possible to live on the welfare allowance.

- Evidences show that there is not much of a choice there.

What evidences? You have yet to provide any.

- Freedom is one such inter-subjective norms among others.

Huh? Clearly freedom is yet another word you have redefined on your own. I have to wonder Benoit, is English your primary language?

I have posed simple questions which you cannot, or will not answer or perhaps don't understand.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Renegade

[benny]

Did you make this up? It is nothing of the sort. Clearly you have your own language as you have a different definition of work, morality and I'm sure other words.

I need to find nothing. To prove me wrong YOU need to show it is not possible to live on the welfare allowance.

What evidences? You have yet to provide any.

Huh? Clearly freedom is yet another word you have redefined on your own. I have to wonder Benoit, is English your primary language?

I have posed simple questions which you cannot, or will not answer or perhaps don't understand.

- Kant is an unavoidable reference when it comes to define morality.

- One may feel a duty to send his welfare payment abroad as remittance.

- Having to choose between goods which one has a fundamental right to have all.

- Isaiah Berlin is the reference when it comes to concepts of positive and negative freedoms.

[Renegade]

- Kant is an unavoidable reference when it comes to define morality.

- One may feel a duty to send his welfare payment abroad as remittance.

- Having to choose between goods which one has a fundamental right to have all.

- Isaiah Berlin is the reference when it comes to concepts of positive and negative freedoms.

Have you no original thought that you need to refer to philosophers?

If one feels a duty to send welfare payments abroad, I see no need to address one's hunger.

[benny]

Have you no original thought that you need to refer to philosophers?

If one feels a duty to send welfare payments abroad, I see no need to address one's hunger.

- Ideas of renowned philosophers are much harder to reject than the ones I may have.

- If one would see foreigners as human beings, he would be saddened by the scope of hunger.

Edited May 13, 2009 by benny

[Renegade]

- Ideas of renowned philosophers are much harder to reject than the ones I may have.

Except that they all have different philosophies. Picking and choosing philosophers quotes doesn't mean any one of them is right. I see no point to responding to philosophers who are not here to defend their thoughts. If you want to express your thoughts and defend them, do so, other we are simply playing a game of dualing phislosphers.

- If one would see foreigners as human beings, he would be saddened by the scope of hunger.

Hunger wherever it occurs, local or foreign may be sad, but doesn't imply that others are responsible for its cause.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Renegade

[benny]

Except that they all have different philosophies. Picking and choosing philosophers quotes doesn't mean any one of them is right. I see no point to responding to philosophers who are not here to defend their thoughts. If you want to express your thoughts and defend them, do so, other we are simply playing a game of dualing phislosphers.

Hunger wherever it occurs, local or foreign may be sad, but doesn't imply that others are responsible for its cause.

- Neo-Kantians have an edge.

- One has to feel responsible.

[Renegade]

- Neo-Kantians have an edge.

More babble.

- One has to feel responsible.

You do. I don't.