Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

[Taylor]

Okay so the left do work, while the right works for them, on their behalf?

The act of taxation to pay for public welfare spending projects is taking directly of the effort of those with to give to those with less.

I don't think anyone disputes that.

 

[Chief]

Gee you read that fast. I thought I was a quick reader.

Safe (space) to say we aren't going to agree here, and it appears we aren't really talking about the same thing either.

Yes we are.

Some people have a fixed idea of what constitutes acceptable student support services. It's not such a simple issue, and it wouldn't hurt to look at the realities that different people face day to day without judging them wholesale as "weak" or "coddled".

 

[its free real estate]

Really? What about inheritance? Lottery wins? The share market?

Are lucky wins a measure of effort? Winning what Buffett called the ovarian lottery?

Inheritance shouldn’t be viewed as luck. It’s your parents and forebears accumulating resources to ensure the proliferation of their descendents. This should not be penalised or viewed as an injustice.

 

[Chief]

Inheritance shouldn’t be viewed as luck. It’s your parents and forebears accumulating resources to ensure the proliferation of their descendents. This should not be penalised or viewed as an injustice.

It absolutely is luck. One of the greatest lottery wins of all for the recipient.

I won out with parents that fed and clothed me and didn't abuse and bash me at random. Who gave me time to get a Uni degree and get myself a job and a share flat.

Inheritance is nothing to do with converting your own time to dollars. Nothing at all.

 

[its free real estate]

It absolutely is luck. One of the greatest lottery wins of all for the recipient.

And it is nothing to do with converting your own time to dollars. Nothing at all.

It isn’t luck. It is deliberate.

Will you give your children no inheritance when you die, in the interests of justice?

 

[Chief]

It isn’t luck. It is deliberate.

Will you give your children no inheritance when you die, in the interests of justice?

You're reading things into my posts that aren't there. This one is an absolute straw man.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So a thing has to be specifically, intentionally, and overtly designed as a refuge for it to be considered a refuge?

Even if you think that, what do you think men's clubs are designed for? Of course they are refuges. They are marketed as such - just without using language that would get an old bloke thinking he has a mental weakness.

Yes they are marketed as escapes from "work, the kids and the missus" completely different from the safe spaces in this conversation i:e the uni safe space designed to "shield" fragile Gen z types from their own thoughts that reality brings them or an escape from an individual or group they fear.

I don't see why you see the need to prove that men's clubs are "safe spaces" when they're almost completely irrelevant to the conversation. Unless of course you can give me an epiphany to something I'm missing?

 

[its free real estate]

You're reading things into my posts that aren't there. This one is an absolute straw man.

Where is the luck? There is no chance for you to be born as anyone but you. You are either born as you or not born at all. Your being born is the result of an accumulation of decisions made by the people who came before you. There is no luck involved in who you were born to.

 

[Chief]

Yes they are marketed as escapes from "work, the kids and the missus" completely different from the safe spaces in this conversation i:e the uni safe space designed to "shield" fragile Gen z types from their own thoughts that reality brings them or an escape from an individual or group they fear.

These are exactly the same motivations for creating these two spaces.

If you want to use the emotive language, mens clubs shield fragile people from the things that scare or stress them.

I don't see why you see the need to prove that men's clubs are "safe spaces" when they're almost completely irrelevant to the conversation. Unless of course you can give me an epiphany to something I'm missing?

People upset at other people for doing something everyone does.

In this instance: Create safe spaces for themselves.

 

[Chief]

Where is the luck? There is no chance for you to be born as anyone but you. You are either born as you or not born at all. Your being born is the result of an accumulation of decisions made by the people who came before you. There is no luck involved in who you were born to.

Luck abounds in our every day lives. But for a bottle of wine on the wrong day of your gestation, you could have been a completely different person. We accept you, though.

 

[its free real estate]

Luck abounds in our every day lives. But for a bottle of wine on the wrong day of your gestation, you could have been a completely different person. We accept you, though.

Lol. That's not luck. If my mother drank a bottle of wine while pregnant with me, then that would be a deliberate decision made by her.

Do you understand?

 

[Taylor]

It absolutely is luck. One of the greatest lottery wins of all for the recipient.

I won out with parents that fed and clothed me and didn't abuse and bash me at random. Who gave me time to get a Uni degree and get myself a job and a share flat.

Inheritance is nothing to do with converting your own time to dollars. Nothing at all.

Ooo this is interesting. The choices independent humans have made to be kind to their child are seen as luck to the child, but not to adult who made the choices.

I want to put in a separation here so the to not speak of your family, because that wouldn't be appropriate.

To me, a child raised in a supportive, nurturing environment that considers themselves purely lucky to have had that is selfish as the world is only influenced by themselves and random chance. The child that appreciates that the circumstance was entirely engineered by the parents is less so.

You can absolutely live both sides of that coin.

 

[Chief]

Lol. That's not luck. If my mother drank a bottle of wine while pregnant with me, then that would be a deliberate decision made by her.

Do you understand?

You seem not quite able to distinguish an argument here.

The current evidence suggests that day 19 is the specific day where you might have gotten FAS from your mum downing a bag of goon.

Before your mum was even aware she was pregnant.

What is the decision there? To have a drink? To give you FAS?

Was this decision completely out of your hands, and in the hands of, say, the chance of your mum having a win on the pokies and treating herself to some grog?

 

[its free real estate]

Ooo this is interesting. The choices independent humans have made to be kind to their child are seen as luck to the child, but not to adult who made the choices.

I want to put in a separation here so the to not speak of your family, because that wouldn't be appropriate.

To me, a child raised in a supportive, nurturing environment that considers themselves purely lucky to have had that is selfish as the world is only influenced by themselves and random chance. The child that appreciates that the circumstance was entirely engineered by the parents is less so.

You can absolutely live both sides of that coin.

Chief's philosophy all presumes that we are souls in a production line, waiting to be inserted into empty vessels, which is governed by chance.

You can only ever be you, Chief.

 

[Chief]

Ooo this is interesting. The choices independent humans have made to be kind to their child are seen as luck to the child, but not to adult who made the choices.

I want to put in a separation here so the to not speak of your family, because that wouldn't be appropriate.

To me, a child raised in a supportive, nurturing environment that considers themselves purely lucky to have had that is selfish as the world is only influenced by themselves and random chance. The child that appreciates that the circumstance was entirely engineered by the parents is less so.

You can absolutely live both sides of that coin.

Would it be luck if my parents died in a car crash and I was left in the care of abusive foster parents?

Of course it would.

 

[its free real estate]

You seem not quite able to distinguish an argument here.

The current evidence suggests that day 19 is the specific day where you might have gotten FAS from your mum downing a bag of goon.

Before your mum was even aware she was pregnant.

What is the decision there? To have a drink? To give you FAS?

Was this decision completely out of your hands, and in the hands of, say, the chance of your mum having a win on the pokies and treating herself to some grog?

Yes, that is the decision, what else could it be? If a mother drinks a bag of good while not using contraception, that's not luck.

 

[Chief]

Chief's philosophy all presumes that we are souls in a production line, waiting to be inserted into empty vessels, which is governed by chance.

You can only ever be you, Chief.

Again, you love those straw men.

Say hi to your mum for me.

 

[its free real estate]

Would it be luck if my parents died in a car crash and I was left in the care of abusive foster parents?

Of course it would.

You are now talking about extremely rare events. Would it be luck if your parents were eaten by wolves and then you were raised by wolves? Yes.

You could then justifiably be resentful to those who learned to walk, talk and not eat raw meat.

 

[its free real estate]

Again, you love those straw men.

Say hi to your mum for me.

Thanks Rove.

 

[Taylor]

Would it be luck if my parents died in a car crash and I was left in the care of abusive foster parents?

Of course it would.

Can we establish a reasonable baseline for what constitutes an adequate and average upbringing for a child before we dance around the extremes of hyperbole?

I think your example is right on the top of the bell curve.

 

[Chief]

Can we establish a reasonable baseline for what constitutes an adequate and average upbringing for a child before we dance around the extremes of hyperbole?

I think your example is right on the top of the bell curve.

Of course it is.

But it is an example of the myriad points of fortune - good or bad - that lead to someone inheriting a pile of assets they never lifted a finger to accumulate, or dying in malnourished squalor.

 

[its free real estate]

Of course it is.

But it is an example of the myriad points of fortune - good or bad - that lead to someone inheriting a pile of assets they never lifted a finger to accumulate, or dying in malnourished squalor.

But the parents lifted the finger to accumulate with the expressed desire to give it to their children. It's not luck. There was a deliberate, planned set of actions.

What you are imagining is that it is possible to be born into a different body at random.

 

[Chief]

You are now talking about extremely rare events. Would it be luck if your parents were eaten by wolves and then you were raised by wolves? Yes.

You could then justifiably be resentful to those who learned to walk, talk and not eat raw meat.

This is the dumb part of the conversation where people obtusely ignore any subtle example, then triumphantly declare that the less subtle example is invalid or not likely, and so the whole argument is invalid.

As if there couldn't possibly be anything in between the subtle and the non-subtle example, and the examples given comprise the entire argument.

Or to give a name to this logical fallacy: the straw man argument.

 

[Chief]

But the parents lifted the finger to accumulate with the expressed desire to give it to their children. It's not luck. There was a deliberate, planned set of actions.

What you are imagining is that it is possible to be born into a different body at random.

It is false to assume that the only thing that matters in the accumulation of wealth is hard work and accurate foresight.

 

[its free real estate]

This is the dumb part of the conversation where people obtusely ignore any subtle example, then triumphantly declare that the less subtle example is invalid and so the whole argument is invalid.

As if there couldn't possibly be anything in between the subtle and the non-subtle example, and the examples given comprise the entire argument.

Or to give a name to this logical fallacy: the straw man argument.

It's not a strawman. You need to explain how it is luck. A person works hard, accumulates wealth. They decide to have children. They decide to leave an inheritance to their children. Where is the luck?