GENIUS FORUMS

.



-Shah-
Shahrazad - For the purposes of welfare, if a person gets fired from job after job, or if they go on interview after interview and nobody wants to hire them, they should be regarded as unfit to work.

-tomas-
Care to rewrite this?



-Shah-
Would anyone deny that a person that can't hold / get a job doesn't belong in the workplace?

-tomas-
Please rewrite.



-Shah-
My question is aimed at Tomas, but anyone can answer.

-tomas-
I haven't been in Panama since 1967.

The USA and Panama are different worlds, literally 1st to 3rd world. And not referring to the slums which we both have.

Okay?

Tomas

7


.

Shahrazad - For the purposes of welfare, if a person gets fired from job after job, or if they go on interview after interview and nobody wants to hire them, they should be regarded as unfit to work.

-tomas- Care to rewrite this?

Are you retarded or something?

OK, I'll try to speak to you in simpler sentences. If someone cannot get a job because they are too drunk to get up and go to work half of the time, they should be rated in the "unfit to work" category. That means they qualify for welfare benefits.

-Shah- Would anyone deny that a person that can't hold / get a job doesn't belong in the workplace?

-tomas- Please rewrite.

What is it you didn't understand about this one, the double negative?

I haven't been in Panama since 1967.

Why should that matter? The questions I asked you have nothing to do with Panama.

The USA and Panama are different worlds, literally 1st to 3rd world.

Who do you think you're calling third world?

Okay?

STFU.

As an aside, seeing Panama in 67 is as good as not having seen it at all, except for the historical perspective you may have gained.

-

Shahrazad wrote:OK, I'll try to speak to you in simpler sentences. If someone cannot get a job because they are too drunk to get up and go to work half of the time, they should be rated in the "unfit to work

is it a distinctly feminine quality to take irresponsibility to its highest and call it a virtue?

The excuse of "Being too drunk to get up and go to work" is so bad for welfare reasons that I cannot imagine other idiotic things you could say.

Faust,

is it a distinctly feminine quality to take irresponsibility to its highest and call it a virtue?

Virtue? When did I call irresponsibility a virtue? Do you have serious reading comprehension problems?

Responsibility is a a prerequisite to have a job and basically, to participate in the capitalist system. [ The issue of whether responsibility is a "real" virtue or if it's just a value highly convenient for the capitalist system is not a topic that is being discussed here at all. ] Hence, a person who does not own this feature is unfit, just as much as a blind a man is unfit to drive a car. I am abstaining from making a moral judgement on irresponsible people.

The excuse of "Being too drunk to get up and go to work" is so bad for welfare reasons that I cannot imagine other idiotic things you could say.

Darn. I'm probably going to be up all night crying because an asshole like you called me an idiot, and because you may not be interested in reading my posts in the future. I mean, my self-esteem and self-concept completely depend on the opinion of self-admitted misogynists like yourself who aren't half as smart as me.

-

I am abstaining from making a moral judgement on irresponsible people.

That sentence is self-contradictory. "Irresponsible" implies a moral judgement, or at least a value judgement in the sense that others may not recognize the "responsibilities" in question as valid or meaningful.

Otherwise, a good series of posts by you. There's really nothing left in this thread but hecklers heckling (as hecklers do), and I don't really have the energy to deal with that. Glad you're speaking up.

Nat,

"Irresponsible" implies a moral judgement, or at least a value judgement in the sense that others may not recognize the "responsibilities" in question as valid or meaningful.

Well, I can't agree here. What else can I call a person who will drink on week nights, and not show up to work?

If you must know, I don't think that an irresponsible person has bad character. I and my brothers were taught responsibility at a very early age, and while it does have its merits, we paid quite a high price for it. It is not 100% clear to me that the benefit outweighs the cost paid.

-

Shahrazad wrote:Nat,

"Irresponsible" implies a moral judgement, or at least a value judgement in the sense that others may not recognize the "responsibilities" in question as valid or meaningful.

Well, I can't agree here. What else can I call a person who will drink on week nights, and not show up to work?

An alcoholic?

You have a point, Dan. But what if he just goes on occasional drinking binges?

Also, is it valid to use alcoholism as an excuse? If so, should you tell your boss that you're an alcoholic when you're hired?

Well, I can't agree here. What else can I call a person who will drink on week nights, and not show up to work?

Why the need to call them anything? Call him an asshole if his behavior causes you problems. I'd prefer that to "irresponsible" because I see it as more honest and more relevant to your own experience. His view of what his "responsibilities" are may be radically different than yours. For example, he may consider it a profound responsibility to always do what he wants to do as far as he is able, and by getting drunk and skipping work, he may feel he is honoring that responsibility.

"Responsibility" is one of the terms laden with hidden value judgements which cause people to get trapped in all kinds of dehumanizing situations.

Nat,

His view of what his "responsibilities" are may be radically different than yours. For example, he may consider it a profound responsibility to always do what he wants to do as far as he is able, and by getting drunk and skipping work, he may feel he is honoring that responsibility.

You either want to have a job, or you don't. If you don't, why are you working? If you do, you'll have to make a few adjustments. If this man considers doing what he wants all the time his main goal, he should not accept a traditional job, as those two things are incompatible. A rational person has to act in a way that furthers his own goals. It really is that simple, unless the guy is plain dumb.

Would you consider a man who drives drunk and gets people killed responsible? He may think it's a very responsible thing to do, don't you think?

-

Shahrazad wrote: You either want to have a job, or you don't. If you don't, why are you working? If you do, you'll have to make a few adjustments. If this man considers doing what he wants all the time his main goal, he should not accept a traditional job, as those two things are incompatible. A rational person has to act in a way that furthers his own goals. It really is that simple, unless the guy is plain dumb.

If you haven't, I would recommend reading some Charles Bukowski, particularly Post Office. He is willing to (barely) work because he can afford more booze that way, and that's about it.

You either want to have a job, or you don't. If you don't, why are you working? If you do, you'll have to make a few adjustments. If this man considers doing what he wants all the time his main goal, he should not accept a traditional job, as those two things are incompatible. A rational person has to act in a way that furthers his own goals. It really is that simple, unless the guy is plain dumb.

You're not factoring in family and relationships. Those can change everything in complex ways.

Would you consider a man who drives drunk and gets people killed responsible? He may think it's a very responsible thing to do, don't you think?

I'd call him a criminal. Anything else is kind of beside the point,in my view.

Nat,

You're not factoring in family and relationships. Those can change everything in complex ways.

I did factor them in. When a person elaborates his own goals, he includes his wife, children and other relationships. If he doesn't then they are not a priority for him.

I'd call him a criminal. Anything else is kind of beside the point,in my view.

I think that's b.s. Technically you can say that any man that violates the law is a criminal, even jaywalkers, but a man who never harms people on purpose but drives a car when he drinks cannot be said to be a criminal at heart, in my view. You obviously are calling him a criminal because you aren't at all comfortable with the word "irresponsible", and if you use it here, you would validate it. The reason you aren't comfortable with the word reveals that you hold responsibility as a desirable trait, but don't want to have to face the fact that the lack of this feature can and does cause a person to be unemployable. That would poke a hole on your view that all unemployed people have more integrity than those of us who are immoral enough to hold jobs to earn what we consume.

-

Responsible parents breeding are not the problem. There are too many dysfunctional having kids- who then grow up to be a drain on the system for the economy to remain competitive.

Inasmuch as there will be no political mandate to deal with this, responsible parents are voting with their feet, or a U-haul, moving to communities that have a generally higher level of rationality and a lower level of the welfare/criminal classes. There are websites now that report on which schools are doing better.

Vastly over-represented in such lists are schools from obscure small towns and rural areas that have not had their environments damaged by agribusiness, industry, or mining. Responsible parents read the data on the effects of diet, and reject raising kids on sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda. And look instead for those areas that have a higher ratio of organic gardeners and farmers with more local produce stands rather than fast food outlets.

Of course, responsible parents tend to be smarter, and their kids are more self controlled. This has a synergistic effect on the schools which get dramatically better results. The better schools attract better teachers, who are themselves smarter parents. But all this does nothing for the vast majority who will suffer from the politically correct blindsidedness and corporate media hype selling kids candy.

Unfortunately, its the majority that selects the leadership, which is therefore in denial about all this, and will remain so until there is some kind of economic crisis to sharpen their wits. Even then, there's a good bet that they will realize the extent of the problem too late to prevent the dissolution of the Untied States of Denial with communities that have more rational populations seceeding from the union.

The reason you aren't comfortable with the word reveals that you hold responsibility as a desirable trait, but don't want to have to face the fact that the lack of this feature can and does cause a person to be unemployable.

No, the reason I'm not comfortable with the word is that I'm a determinist. "Responsibility" means nothing to me, just as "choice" and "free will" mean nothing to me. All are terms of convenience which can sometimes be useful. But this is a philosophical discussion, no?

That would poke a hole on your view that all unemployed people have more integrity than those of us who are immoral enough to hold jobs to earn what we consume.

Is a little resentment poking through here?

BTW, I never said any of this applies to "all" unemployed people. In fact, I said the opposite earlier in the thread. It applies only to the unemployed who are unemployed because they reject the culture of work. If you reject the culture of work but continue to be employed, isn't there a pretty obvious problem?

I realize I'm a few months late to this thread but having just re-read all of it (for the entertainment value, mostly), I guess I would like to offer a thought or two.

First, Nat, I was going to question you about your sense of personal responsibility. I imagine there is still some sense of responsibility in that there are things you do for yourself that you would not insist others do for you. I was wondering where that line is and how you draw it.

But I noticed right at the end that Sher brought up responsibility and you denied it based on determinism. That seems like a disingenuous argument given that if you deny your own responsibility, how can you argue that others have a responsibility to you?

So, if you’re still around and care to discuss (admittedly, I'm not as much fun as Victor, but I'm not as abusive either!), we can do that.

Sam, I think Nat is starting to get tired of this discussion. Don't hold your breath waiting for him.

lol, yeah, oh well. I never get tired of the things I like to talk about. I was hoping the same was true with Nat.

samadhi wrote:I never get tired of the things I like to talk about.

Tell me about it. :-P

lol ... I noticed you lost interest in our conversation ... maybe I should join yours with mikiel? lol

No, I haven't lost interest, I've just become involved in other conversations that I've given priority to - for example the new thread that I started "A world without war" and the conversation that Sapius and I are having in the thread "the more entrenched injustices of the world...", which has the potential to produce a worthwhile idea that I might be able to pursue outside of this forum - actually do something useful with my time for a change. No disrespect intended by the prioritisation - we have after all been at it for a while and have a good understanding of each other's positions by now I would hope, so now it's more about the pleasure of conversation than discovery. I'll try to resume it when I find the time/energy (posting takes a lot out of me - dunno if it's the same for you - I tend to think quite a lot before/while I type - I also do a lot of rereading and proofreading too) but I'll likely respond to mikiel first.

I've just become involved in other conversations that I've given priority to - for example the new thread that I started "A world without war" and the conversation that Sapius and I are having in the thread "the more entrenched injustices of the world...", which has the potential to produce a worthwhile idea that I might be able to pursue outside of this forum - actually do something useful with my time for a change.

Yeah, I was reading it. I might post some comments there later.

I'll try to resume it when I find the time/energy (posting takes a lot out of me - dunno if it's the same for you - I tend to think quite a lot before/while I type - I also do a lot of rereading and proofreading too) but I'll likely respond to mikiel first.

It's okay. You are getting it from the source right now vis-a-vis mikiel. Notice, he isn't saying anything different than what I was talking about. Maybe I will comment over there.

There was a story on 60 Minutes last night about Denmark. It is supposedly the country that scores highest on the "happiness index". Some students were interviewed as to why that is and they said some interesting things. Like no one has to pay for education right through college, and that they are even paid to go to college. And of course, all health care is covered. Paternity leave at full pay for six months. I'm sure there is more. Taxes are higher of course (around 50%) but they seem to be getting their money's worth. Nat, I think you would be quite happy there. Take a few courses and they'll cover all your expenses (oh yeah, you can do that as long as you want). Quite a pleasant place to live.

Yeah, we saw that. It was discussed in my house and I pointed out that people are happier there simply because they have a lot less to worry about. I agree it would be a very nice place to live. Any idea what the immigration requirements are like? That's usually the stumbling block.

Well here you go ( http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_t ... _to_dk.htm ). Where there's a will, there's a way!