Guilty By Association. How Everyone Within Society Partakes In Human Suffering.

[Mr Hyde]

Well the people who paint the world as such are wrong. And perhaps irresponsible. And who says that equal is fair? If someone works twice as hard and gets the same pay as another who doesn't that is injustice. You see there can never be total justice because of all the complexities in the world.


Well, then this seems to be the contrary point to your openning post in this thread.


I certainly don't believe that human nature can be altered. It's in our genetic make up. Unless we mutate into angel-like personalities then we are what we are. Is that hopeless too? Perhaps. But I just accept it and try to make the best of it.


Ok. Peace. Happy discussing.

Well the people who paint the world as such are wrong. And perhaps irresponsible.

Probally so.

And who says that equal is fair?

Well it is political correctionists with their use of words like equality, morality, virtue, ethics, noble, progress, betterment, and improvement that use such words.

Perhaps one of them could help us out in understanding why they believe in the things that they do.

If someone works twice as hard and gets the same pay as another who doesn't that is injustice.

Rightly so. That is why we have the lower class who we socially alienate and disenfranchise which we deem to be a more impure group of people.

You see there can never be total justice because of all the complexities in the world.

Yes there certainly is alot of selfish complexities all over the place and sometimes they can leave one confused.

Well, then this seems to be the contrary point to your openning post in this thread.

Do explain.

I certainly don't believe that human nature can be altered. It's in our genetic make up. Unless we mutate into angel-like personalities then we are what we are. Is that hopeless too? Perhaps. But I just accept it and try to make the best of it.

Those who call themselves moral or religious don't seem able to just accept it.

Those who call themselves progressivists, idealists and trans-humanists don't seem able to just accept it.

Why do you think that is?

Don't you at all find it contrary?

Ok. Peace. Happy discussing.

The discussion is over just like that?

[NikolaiI]

I'm not whining. I'm merely making the point that all of humanity is selfish, egotistical, and hypocritical.

The first couple of people's responses to this are the right ones. People are basically good. You will see goodness everywhere. The way you are talking it sounds like you've given up, but don't give up. You get to a large degree what you give. If you give pure negativity, then you will see nothing good. If you're not open to the good as well as the bad, just like if you're not open to the bad but only the good; then you will become close minded and see nothing at all. I hope you can see beyond the thought that your own intellect is the supreme and final word. Some things can be harmful. Thoughts, words, ideas. You're a pessimistic philosophical writer, but you might want to be open to some of the greats of history. Some of the good people. If you think that a person saying anything is good is the evidence of the contrary, and you let it spiral like it seems like you might, this is nothing but reactionary, and it is not rational or true.

[Mr Hyde]

The first couple of people's responses to this are the right ones.

Right are they?

People are basically good.

You will see goodness everywhere.

I totally disagree. Inequality,war, conflict, violence, blackmail, and hypocrisy are just some of things that go on everyday which puts your statements as contradictions.

The way you are talking it sounds like you've given up, but don't give up.

Given up on what exactly? If anything I have opened my eyes to the world of realism instead of some pretend fantasy.

You get to a large degree what you give. If you give pure negativity, then you will see nothing good.

If you're not open to the good as well as the bad, just like if you're not open to the bad but only the good; then you will become close minded and see nothing at all.

There exists no good or evil, right and wrong in my eyes.

The only difference between the so called virtuous man and the despised outcast is that the virtuous man is more effective at hiding his hypocrisy or malice than the other.

I hope you can see beyond the thought that your own intellect is the supreme and final word.

Where should I be giving my unflinching attention towards?

Some things can be harmful. Thoughts, words, ideas. You're a pessimistic philosophical writer, but you might want to be open to some of the greats of history.

What greats of history?

Some of the good people.

And what are good people?

If you think that a person saying anything is good is the evidence of the contrary, and you let it spiral like it seems like you might, this is nothing but reactionary, and it is not rational or true.

I see...........You are describing me as nothing but a no good filthy reactionist void of logic, truth, and reason.

Please tell me what logic,truth,and reason is. Please tell me how the contructs of logic, reason, and truth themselves are not reactions of man's existential anxiety of being.

[Mr. Vandemar]

To say that society thrives on such sufferings is not correct. I think that although a "utopia" is not possible; striving for one is the only thing that one can do. Why not improve society? Why would we abandon our hopes because of a philosophy that states that an improved condition is enigmatic and impossible? Good < Better < Best, why choose Good over Better simply because Best is impossible?

Peter Kropotkin, guys. Man has enough resources to make life decent for everyone. That is most certainly true. To say that we cannot redistribute the "resources" (or tools of happiness) to change this society of "blackmail", "war", and whatever is not only wrong but it is foolish!

This feeling of hopelessness and pessimism that you demonstrate has been implemented by the very society you are trying to point out! It's difficult for someone to say such concrete objective things as you have said in this topic without acknowledging the subjective twist that you add to it and the influence that others have given on you.

Personally, the people that I surround myself with are people filled with love and that I do not think that they manipulate me. My intentions are certainly not to manipulate them. However, I am a very strong political radical and am completely dissatisfied with our Liberal "democracies". I think that there are many things wrong with this world, things that can be changed, and things that will be changed. The French Revolution? The Cuban Revolution? They destroyed the former way of life (if a bunch of underfed and uneducated peasants can overthrow an aristocracy and a monarchy, can't we [the most educated generation yet] change our environment?) and society within their domain and completely rewrote history because of it. Why do you think that such a thing is not impossible?

Sure, society is bad. Feudal society was worse. Capitalism is the necessary follow up to the oppression of Feudalism. Perhaps with the given liberalism we can continue to evolve society to reach that unattainable utopia and perhaps we can take the next necessary step...

Oh shi- I just revealed myself as a Marxist.

[Mr Hyde]

To say that society thrives on such sufferings is not correct.

Oh, Why not?

I think that although a "utopia" is not possible; striving for one is the only thing that one can do.

Why strive for somthing that will never happen? What is the point?

Why not improve society?

How can you improve the human condition when human nature the main driver of the human condition itself cannot be altered?

Why would we abandon our hopes because of a philosophy that states that an improved condition is enigmatic and impossible?

To answer this post I shall let my previous statement explain my views.

Good < Better < Best, why choose Good over Better simply because Best is impossible?

I don't understand what you were trying to illustrate here.

Man has enough resources to make life decent for everyone.

Than why has humanity refused to lift a finger in doing so? Explain that.

If we have enough resources and if we are supposedly innately moral as a species aspiring toward equal fairness wouldn't you think we would of already done it by now?

Yet look around at the entire world and all you will see is nothing but inactivity on the subject. Ironic!

( Perhaps man himself is not innate moral and fair afterwards as previously assumed.)

This feeling of hopelessness and pessimism that you demonstrate has been implemented by the very society you are trying to point out!

Your correct. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

It's difficult for someone to say such concrete objective things as you have said in this topic without acknowledging the subjective twist that you add to it and the influence that others have given on you.

However difficult it may be I'm saying it.

I think that there are many things wrong with this world, things that can be changed, and things that will be changed.

How novel. Tell me great revolutionist how will this be done?

[B-Mental]

It sort of feels like you are just baiting people with your opinion, and then replying with your personal belief, which must be superior (I mean really you did start the thread). I should point out that your bank heist analogy is inherently wrong, because the actions of the driver will benefit the driver and the group, therefore he shares responsibility for the crime. Maybe you can come up with a better analogy, one that isn't flawed like your arguement.

[Mr. Vandemar]

How novel. Tell me great revolutionist how will this be done

Who knew that "pessimist" and "prick" went hand in hand?

[Scheherazade]

.

Please do not personalise your comments.

Posts containing inflammatory and/or personal comments will be deleted without further notice.

.

[Mr Hyde]

{edit}

I should point out that your bank heist analogy is inherently wrong, because the actions of the driver will benefit the driver and the group, therefore he shares responsibility for the crime.

If you actually read my post that was the general direction I was going with.

And who is the driver and main energy source of the government who then creates and thrives on human inequality or suffering along with the rest of society?

I believe we call the driver of the government the people themselves, wouldn't you agree?

The government is nothing without the people's willing conscent or obedient submission.

The people give the government their conscent of approval or docile obedient submission in which the government takes them as it's foundation where it later on creates human suffering and inequality in which the profits of other people's misery is shared amongst society in which everybody consumes.


{edit}

[Mr. Vandemar]

The government is nothing without the people's willing conscent or obedient submission.

No. The government is nothing without a bureaucracy and a military. You don't need the support or "submission" of the people to rule them. You just need power.

Ever heard of a coup?

[Mr Hyde]

No. The government is nothing without a bureaucracy and a military. You don't need the support or "submission" of the people to rule them. You just need power.

Ever heard of a coup?

And a military and bureaucracy is nothing without the willing bodies of the people that fund them.

It is the people who allow the government to create human suffering and inequality in which the people themselves profit and partake in simultaneously. That is the entire theme of my thread if you read it.

Too many times people from all walks of life use the government as a scapegoat in order to conceal their own dealings in human suffering and inequality but at the end of the day such a excuse is absurd considering the government itself derives it's own power from the same people who use it as a scapegoat.

It is not only the government who creates human suffering or inequality that it then thrives on later but it is the people who are the foundation of the government who create the supply and need of it. The government only acts as the intermediary force on the supply and demand of things within society as it is the people themselves who create the orders of everything in the end.

[billyjack]

It is the people who allow the government to create human suffering and inequality in which the people themselves profit and partake in simultaneously.
.

i wouldn't quite say we, the people, allow it; as if we have a choice in the matter. we could choose not to partake in society: not pay taxes, not work, ect...but there is a name for that already and its called a bum. If the choice is between being a bum or being a contributing member to society i wouldnt call that a choice; unless you wear a guy foxx mask

[Mr Hyde]

i wouldn't quite say we, the people, allow it; as if we have a choice in the matter. we could choose not to partake in society: not pay taxes, not work, ect...but there is a name for that already and its called a bum.

The homeless do not choose their plight but instead are forced into it.

You say that the people do not allow it where in contrast I couldn't disagree anymore.

The people choose docile submission instead of rebellion or revolt and in that submission they still nonetheless profit and partake in the inequality around them.

[Sweets America]

{edit}
The government is nothing without the people's willing conscent or obedient submission.

The people give the government their conscent of approval or docile obedient submission in which the government takes them as it's foundation where it later on creates human suffering and inequality in which the profits of other people's misery is shared amongst society in which everybody consumes.


{edit}

I don't remember I ever though of it this way, but it sounds very true to me. That's my epiphany of the day.

[Mr. Vandemar]

You make way too many generalizations for someone who doesn't have any friends. 'The People'? What people? The people you talk to on the internet? Or the people you watch on tv? Or the people who you watch from your window? Without any real relationships, you can't tell me what people are like. You don't know any people.

You keep referring to these 'People' who you've never clearly defined. I know lots of people who are dedicated to improving the lives of others and no; their motive is not selfish. If you can't comprehend genuine compassion, well, it's something that can't be explained.

This little theory of yours is entirely one dimensional. You act as if your words are considered concrete fact and unquestionable, therefore it is really difficult to argue with you. And yeah, I did read your post. You don't need to point out how mine contradicts yours, I did that on purpose (but thanks for telling me the theme of your post, it was so subtly stated and your concepts are so wise and intelligent that I couldn't have comprehended without your condescension).

Maybe if you change 'The People' to 'The Majority' I would agree with you. The way you're stating it is as if everyone is exactly the same (without an socio-cultural or socio-economic standards). You don't know everybody. From what I read on your blog, you don't even know ANYBODY! So please don't enlighten us, the less intelligent than yourself, on how people work and function. Your supreme intellect might just blow our minds.