No, value as however you choose to dictate it. If you don't believe dollars have value, or you don't believe dollars are an appropriate vehicle of exchange, find another.
As I tried to illustrate before, men of our attitude come back to the dollar, and the ethic of working for that dollar. That is the minor tragedy, if you don't see the Dollar for what it is.
You use your entire being to buy into that contract in everyday. You use the resources available to you with all of your being--your entire being drives on the roads, your entire being provides the police work to do when you speed, etc, etc. It's only in theory that you "live" otherwise. You can't use your entire being and partake of a system and expect people to deny that like you do in order to make your philosophy work. The terms of such an "invisible or imaginary contract" represents the human being named "farfromglorified", willingly, happily and deliberately supporting and interacting with the American system.
I do willingly, happily and deliberately support and interact with the "American system". The "American system" is much bigger than the government, angelica. Primarily, it is defined by the individuals who comprise this nation, the individuals I willingly exchange with and spend time with.
Furthermore, I willingly, happily, and deliberately drive on roads. Where in any philosophy I have do you see an opposition to roads? I don't oppose roads. I oppose forcing other people to build roads, or to pay for them. I've already been forced to pay for these roads. Why shouldn't I drive on them? If I were withholding my money from the system, you would have a point. I am not withholding my money from the system because the only way to do that is to stop working. And I will not sacrifice what I love based on the ridiculous set of "choices" I'm being handed.
If you offer me the choice between roads delivered by force, or no roads, I will take no roads. You don't offer me that choice.
Here we see your subjective emotions are actually painting a picture that does not exist. Emotion skews reality. You've imagined I said "drunken wife-beater". Can you show me where I said that?
You didn't say that. It was a joke. I'll happily amend my statement:
I think it's awesome that you effectively proclaimed America as partly the source of an unhappy marriage.
Not quite as funny that way, but maybe it wasn't funny the first way either.
No. You have, however, indicated that you have no problem with the general idea of considering one person's healthcare another person's obligation.
You are being dishonest again. You and I have been discussing this at great length and I have stated before that I do NOT feel someone's health care is another's obligation. I believe in personal responsibility. I feel health care is NOT a commodity like a car or a TV. I do, however, believe in giving the individual a reasonable option to CHOSE health care for themselves. As it stands now, there isn't even an option for some.
Sure. Regardless of whether or not you are going to "eliminate private industry" (as if you have any other right to do this outside of violence) or just impose additional obligations of some individuals, you're still violating what I see as correct ethics. It's not as if I consider you allowing private industry to exist as some kind of favor.
What? Proposing ways to better our system is unethical? This victim stance is not very becoming.
"Squat" implies ownership. You're showing, in your attitudes towards people's labor and property that ownership is nothing to more to you than possession. So you're invalidating any claim you have to "owning" something. I can't terminate a contract I never signed. All I can do is leave.
You're ignoring a whole lot of history here. The US government can demonstrate ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. But this is another issue.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
As I tried to illustrate before, men of our attitude come back to the dollar, and the ethic of working for that dollar. That is the minor tragedy, if you don't see the Dollar for what it is.
The dollar is a piece of paper, given value only by the fact that it can be exchanged by people who perceive it to have value. That's what the dollar is.
No, value as however you choose to dictate it. If you don't believe dollars have value, or you don't believe dollars are an appropriate vehicle of exchange, find another.
The dollar is a piece of paper, given value only by the fact that it can be exchanged by people who perceive it to have value. That's what the dollar is.
You are being dishonest again. You and I have been discussing this at great length and I have stated before that I do NOT feel someone's health care is another's obligation. I believe in personal responsibility. I feel health care is NOT a commodity like a car or a TV. I do, however, believe in giving the individual a reasonable option to CHOSE health care for themselves. As it stands now, there isn't even an option for some.
Ok, then perhaps I stand completely corrected. Are you saying that you do not believe it to be reasonable to allow any person to receive health care services at the cost of another, against that other's will? Are you saying that a person's health care is their responsibility or are you saying it is society's responsibility?
What? Proposing ways to better our system is unethical? This victim stance is not very becoming.
Proposing ways to better our system is certainly not unethical. Proposing unethical ways to "better" the system, however, would be.
You're ignoring a whole lot of history here. The US government can demonstrate ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. But this is another issue.
Certainly! I don't deny this at all. The United States Government owns every piece of land it didn't simply steal, in my mind.
What do you mean "where"? Anywhere you'd like. Use tree bark. Use art. Use love. Use labor. Use product. Use whatever you and the people you're exchanging with find of value.
What do you mean "where"? Anywhere you'd like. Use tree bark. Use art. Use love. Use labor. Use product. Use whatever you and the people you're exchanging with find of value.
I'll give you a sprout of alfalfa if you sniff my ass?
I do willingly, happily and deliberately support and interact with the "American system". The "American system" is much bigger than the government, angelica. Primarily, it is defined by the individuals who comprise this nation, the individuals I willingly exchange with and spend time with.
Furthermore, I willingly, happily, and deliberately drive on roads. Where in any philosophy I have do you see an opposition to roads? I don't oppose roads. I oppose forcing other people to build roads, or to pay for them. I've already been forced to pay for these roads. Why shouldn't I drive on them? If I were withholding my money from the system, you would have a point. I am not withholding my money from the system because the only way to do that is to stop working. And I will not sacrifice what I love based on the ridiculous set of "choices" I'm being handed.
If you offer me the choice between roads delivered by force, or no roads, I will take no roads. You don't offer me that choice....
You didn't say that. It was a joke. I'll happily amend my statement:
I think it's awesome that you effectively proclaimed America as partly the source of an unhappy marriage.
Not quite as funny that way, but maybe it wasn't funny the first way either.
It's not at all funny to me when you attribute your own view to another person in dramatic victim fashion. Couching your view as a "joke" in any way does not minimize the degree of distortion you are giving yourself permission to utilize. Just don't talk to me about ideals and contradictions, my friend. And I'm dead serious here. When you are willing to use illigitimate means to your ends you'd better build bigger and better scripts to justify that to yourself.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's not at all funny to me when you attribute your own view to another person in dramatic victim fashion. Couching your view as a "joke" in any way does not minimize the degree of distortion you are giving yourself permission to utilize. Just don't talk to me about ideals and contradictions, my friend. And I'm dead serious here. When you are willing to use illigitimate means to your ends you'd better build bigger and better scripts to justify that to yourself.
I don't find humor, even if you didn't find it funny, as an "illigitimate means". I just strongly disagree with your analogy.
How do you entitle yourself to use illigitimate means to express your disagreement?
I don't entitle myself to anything. I do, however, have a right to free speech. If my means are "illigitimate" in the context of an argument, then I'm wrong. I don't think a passing joke about an analogy I find incorrect qualifies as illegitimate, however. If you do, that's cool.
Q: headquarters?
A: yes?
Q: the un-american american seems to be conforming...
A: conforming to what!? there is no conformity here!
Q: I think he likes it here, sir.
A: well, so do I, do I get a ribbon or something?
Q: Well, no...sir...you don't.
Q: what do I get?
A: Um...the rest of us, the office workers and such, pretty much got you fired, and we want you to be homeless for awhile.
I don't entitle myself to anything. I do, however, have a right to free speech. If my means are "illigitimate" in the context of an argument, then I'm wrong. I don't think a passing joke about an analogy I find incorrect qualifies as illegitimate, however. If you do, that's cool.
I don't entitle myself to anything. I do, however, have a right to free speech. If my means are "illigitimate" in the context of an argument, then I'm wrong. I don't think a passing joke about an analogy I find incorrect qualifies as illegitimate, however. If you do, that's cool.
Whether you made a misinterpretation based on emotions and won't admit it, or whether it was a "joke" for you to deliberately misrepresent what I was saying for your own purposes, I am asking that you acknowledge this misrepresentation. I am disappointed if you don't appreciate the gravity of undermining our communication in such a way. I expect my base positions be allowed to stand whether you disagree with them or not. I am completely accepting of disagreement, wherein both views stand as they do. And of any processes that come from such disagreement, on the even playing field. What I'm not okay with is undermining and misrepresentation that is not being owned, whether accidental or deliberate.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Whether you made a misinterpretation based on emotions and won't admit it, or whether it was a "joke" for you to deliberately misrepresent what I was saying for your own purposes, I am asking that you acknowledge this misrepresentation.
I already did acknowledge it and will do it again right here. You didn't say that America was a drunken wife-beater. I amended my statement. If you'd like, I'll completely edit it out of the post. If you'd like the transgression to stand as is, it will.
I will not, however, say that a joke was some illegitimate means of communication. I thought your analogy was weak. I was attempting to use a little humor to demonstrate it. That's it. Anything beyond that per your reaction, you'll have to own.
I already did acknowledge it and will do it again right here. You didn't say that America was a drunken wife-beater. I amended my statement. If you'd like, I'll completely edit it out of the post. If you'd like the transgression to stand as is, it will.
I will not, however, say that a joke was some illegitimate means of communication. I thought your analogy was weak. I was attempting to use a little humor to demonstrate it. That's it. Anything beyond that per your reaction, you'll have to own.
I already did acknowledge it and will do it again right here. You didn't say that America was a drunken wife-beater. I amended my statement. If you'd like, I'll completely edit it out of the post. If you'd like the transgression to stand as is, it will.
I will not, however, say that a joke was some illegitimate means of communication. I thought your analogy was weak. I was attempting to use a little humor to demonstrate it. That's it. Anything beyond that per your reaction, you'll have to own.
I'm fully willing to own that it is my impression that it is illigitimate to either make a mistake and not own up to it, or to think it's funny to deliberately undermine someone's argument not on the even playing field.
I would like for the interaction to stand as it is.
To me, it's the spirit of what has gone down here that has saddened and disappointed me. I don't know if you realize that I have felt a certain degree of trust with you in our debates. And I'm not sure that you realize that I do not debate with very many people on this board. It concerns me that you are willing to let go of what I've valued as the basic individuation between us because you are seemingly upset with something I said (lack of individuation here as defined by not respecting my individuality as represented by what I said, even when you disagree.) If what I said crossed a line with you to begin with, and that is a part of or what precipitated this, I am fully willing to address that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm fully willing to own that it is my impression that it is illigitimate to either make a mistake and not own up to it, or to think it's funny to deliberately undermine someone's argument not on the even playing field.
I would like for the interaction to stand as it is.
To me, it's the spirit of what has gone down here that has saddened and disappointed me. I don't know if you realize that I have felt a certain degree of trust with you in our debates. And I'm not sure that you realize that I do not debate with very many people on this board. It concerns me that you are willing to let go of what I've valued as the basic individuation between us because you are seemingly upset with something I said (lack of individuation here as defined by not respecting my individuality as represented by what I said, even when you disagree.) If what I said crossed a line with you to begin with, and that is a part of or what precipitated this, I am fully willing to address that.
I thinkyour interpretation was correct.
I let the shit go about a week ago.
it was kind of liberating. I didn't feel like I was harming my parents when it was done. That always scared me the most.
I'm fully willing to own that it is my impression that it is illigitimate to either make a mistake and not own up to it, or to think it's funny to deliberately undermine someone's argument not on the even playing field.
Ok. I'd certainly agree with the latter. I wasn't trying to "undermine your argument", however. I just didn't feel the analogy was appropriate or even meaningful, given the context. I simply should have just spelled that out.
I would like for the interaction to stand as it is.
Then it stands.
I don't know if you realize that I have felt a certain degree of trust with you in our debates.
Are you sure? You accuse me of this kind of stuff all the time. Always have. So if this is what you're basing your trust on, I'd advise you not to trust me. I obviously don't meet the standard. I'd prefer if you did trust me, but you have no obligation to do so.
It concerns me that you are willing to let go of what I've valued as the basic individuation between us because you are seemingly upset with something I said (lack of individuation here as defined by not respecting my individuality as represented by what I said, even when you disagree.)
I'm very much willing to "let go" of the interactions if you have no desire to participate in them or if you're asking of me something I'm not interested in giving. I will certainly, in the future, not try to use that kind of humor to address any of your posts.
If what I said crossed a line with you to begin with, and that is a part of or what precipitated this, I am fully willing to address that.
Not at all. You didn't cross any lines, in my book. You just spoke your mind. I just disagree with some of what you said.
Ok. I'd certainly agree with the latter. I wasn't trying to "undermine your argument", however. I just didn't feel the analogy was appropriate or even meaningful, given the context. I simply should have just spelled that out.
I'd have willingly addressed that. I'm definitely in a personally off-kilter place, today, and that analogy is farrr more judgmental than I usually give myself license to be. My own issues of late have been regarding living my life and dealing with what arises, rather than how I've lived "restrained" in the past, with censoring myself before the fact, which is not as conducive to inner freedom. So I bumble around with this, and am sensitive to above board responses from others, that I may be out of line, or "inappropriate".
Are you sure? You accuse me of this kind of stuff all the time. Always have. So if this is what you're basing your trust on, I'd advise you not to trust me. I obviously don't meet the standard. I'd prefer if you did trust me, but you have no obligation to do so.
Trust is a bridge built by two people. I've taken issue with you to this degree three or four times in 1 1/3 years. I am as honest and as conscientious as I can be when due to circumstances I question our trust connection. If you prefer that I trust you, hopefully I'm not being presumptuous in getting the impression that you are willing to meet me in the middle to preserve what degree of trust we have.
I'm very much willing to "let go" of the interactions if you have no desire to participate in them or if you're asking of me something I'm not interested in giving. I will certainly, in the future, not try to use that kind of humor to address any of your posts.
What I was referring to is that I represented my individuality--who I am, and what I was seeing-- by my analogy. It's not humour per se that I am taking issue with, it's the fact that you were distorting what I said. That, to me, is distorting the only representation you or anyone here have of my base individuality and who I am. It's very important to me that who I am, as represented by my view, is respected. There are many people on this board who literally do not grasp this concept. You grasp it all to well. So, therefore, although in numerous ways, we are world's apart, that has always been the basis of our connection, from my persepctive. I very much value that both you and I have had a seeming mutual commitment to taking the relatively simple steps to keep this connection clear between us, whether or not I'm going to naturally be more sensitive to perceived slights, and therefore will naturally take issue with these things more often than you do. And I've publicly mentioned over and over the rarity of your being relatively quite individuated and able to navigate our fairly far-ranging differences fairly harmoniously in this manner.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
As I tried to illustrate before, men of our attitude come back to the dollar, and the ethic of working for that dollar. That is the minor tragedy, if you don't see the Dollar for what it is.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I do willingly, happily and deliberately support and interact with the "American system". The "American system" is much bigger than the government, angelica. Primarily, it is defined by the individuals who comprise this nation, the individuals I willingly exchange with and spend time with.
Furthermore, I willingly, happily, and deliberately drive on roads. Where in any philosophy I have do you see an opposition to roads? I don't oppose roads. I oppose forcing other people to build roads, or to pay for them. I've already been forced to pay for these roads. Why shouldn't I drive on them? If I were withholding my money from the system, you would have a point. I am not withholding my money from the system because the only way to do that is to stop working. And I will not sacrifice what I love based on the ridiculous set of "choices" I'm being handed.
If you offer me the choice between roads delivered by force, or no roads, I will take no roads. You don't offer me that choice.
You didn't say that. It was a joke. I'll happily amend my statement:
I think it's awesome that you effectively proclaimed America as partly the source of an unhappy marriage.
Not quite as funny that way, but maybe it wasn't funny the first way either.
You are being dishonest again. You and I have been discussing this at great length and I have stated before that I do NOT feel someone's health care is another's obligation. I believe in personal responsibility. I feel health care is NOT a commodity like a car or a TV. I do, however, believe in giving the individual a reasonable option to CHOSE health care for themselves. As it stands now, there isn't even an option for some.
What? Proposing ways to better our system is unethical? This victim stance is not very becoming.
You're ignoring a whole lot of history here. The US government can demonstrate ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. But this is another issue.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
The dollar is a piece of paper, given value only by the fact that it can be exchanged by people who perceive it to have value. That's what the dollar is.
Where?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It's a little more than that, Mr. Businessman.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Ok, then perhaps I stand completely corrected. Are you saying that you do not believe it to be reasonable to allow any person to receive health care services at the cost of another, against that other's will? Are you saying that a person's health care is their responsibility or are you saying it is society's responsibility?
Proposing ways to better our system is certainly not unethical. Proposing unethical ways to "better" the system, however, would be.
Certainly! I don't deny this at all. The United States Government owns every piece of land it didn't simply steal, in my mind.
What do you mean "where"? Anywhere you'd like. Use tree bark. Use art. Use love. Use labor. Use product. Use whatever you and the people you're exchanging with find of value.
I'll give you a sprout of alfalfa if you sniff my ass?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
It used to be. It was once backed by gold which has an intrinsic value that fiat currency does not have. But it no longer has that.
I don't value either of those things, so no thanks.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I don't find humor, even if you didn't find it funny, as an "illigitimate means". I just strongly disagree with your analogy.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
A: yes?
Q: he dont' seem to be a faggot earth monkey sorta type.
A: hmmm.
Q: might I suggest a Goldstein spiel, followed by a Ron Paul.
A: That might work.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I don't entitle myself to anything. I do, however, have a right to free speech. If my means are "illigitimate" in the context of an argument, then I'm wrong. I don't think a passing joke about an analogy I find incorrect qualifies as illegitimate, however. If you do, that's cool.
A: yes?
Q: the un-american american seems to be conforming...
A: conforming to what!? there is no conformity here!
Q: I think he likes it here, sir.
A: well, so do I, do I get a ribbon or something?
Q: Well, no...sir...you don't.
Q: what do I get?
A: Um...the rest of us, the office workers and such, pretty much got you fired, and we want you to be homeless for awhile.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Cool.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I already did acknowledge it and will do it again right here. You didn't say that America was a drunken wife-beater. I amended my statement. If you'd like, I'll completely edit it out of the post. If you'd like the transgression to stand as is, it will.
I will not, however, say that a joke was some illegitimate means of communication. I thought your analogy was weak. I was attempting to use a little humor to demonstrate it. That's it. Anything beyond that per your reaction, you'll have to own.
You're getting fancified, I'm proud.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I would like for the interaction to stand as it is.
To me, it's the spirit of what has gone down here that has saddened and disappointed me. I don't know if you realize that I have felt a certain degree of trust with you in our debates. And I'm not sure that you realize that I do not debate with very many people on this board. It concerns me that you are willing to let go of what I've valued as the basic individuation between us because you are seemingly upset with something I said (lack of individuation here as defined by not respecting my individuality as represented by what I said, even when you disagree.) If what I said crossed a line with you to begin with, and that is a part of or what precipitated this, I am fully willing to address that.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I thinkyour interpretation was correct.
I let the shit go about a week ago.
it was kind of liberating. I didn't feel like I was harming my parents when it was done. That always scared me the most.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Ok. I'd certainly agree with the latter. I wasn't trying to "undermine your argument", however. I just didn't feel the analogy was appropriate or even meaningful, given the context. I simply should have just spelled that out.
Then it stands.
Are you sure? You accuse me of this kind of stuff all the time. Always have. So if this is what you're basing your trust on, I'd advise you not to trust me. I obviously don't meet the standard. I'd prefer if you did trust me, but you have no obligation to do so.
I'm very much willing to "let go" of the interactions if you have no desire to participate in them or if you're asking of me something I'm not interested in giving. I will certainly, in the future, not try to use that kind of humor to address any of your posts.
Not at all. You didn't cross any lines, in my book. You just spoke your mind. I just disagree with some of what you said.
Strong word, FFG.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Trust is a bridge built by two people. I've taken issue with you to this degree three or four times in 1 1/3 years. I am as honest and as conscientious as I can be when due to circumstances I question our trust connection. If you prefer that I trust you, hopefully I'm not being presumptuous in getting the impression that you are willing to meet me in the middle to preserve what degree of trust we have.
What I was referring to is that I represented my individuality--who I am, and what I was seeing-- by my analogy. It's not humour per se that I am taking issue with, it's the fact that you were distorting what I said. That, to me, is distorting the only representation you or anyone here have of my base individuality and who I am. It's very important to me that who I am, as represented by my view, is respected. There are many people on this board who literally do not grasp this concept. You grasp it all to well. So, therefore, although in numerous ways, we are world's apart, that has always been the basis of our connection, from my persepctive. I very much value that both you and I have had a seeming mutual commitment to taking the relatively simple steps to keep this connection clear between us, whether or not I'm going to naturally be more sensitive to perceived slights, and therefore will naturally take issue with these things more often than you do. And I've publicly mentioned over and over the rarity of your being relatively quite individuated and able to navigate our fairly far-ranging differences fairly harmoniously in this manner.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I was never much good at fueling fights.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That always happens with abused children.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.