The truth about minimum wage and income inequality

ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Dude, I was addressing your claim that socialism without force is what you are talking about, but you then you talk about enforcing equality. And no hell no equality is not natural. WTF? seriously. Your description of human nature compares to schools of fish. Even in those schools, some fish are bigger, faster and swimming in front getting the best shrimp. That's what is natural. It would take force to make those fish share with the fish in back before they had their fill.

If you can maintain equality without force then you have achieved the true communism dream.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
As an aside, there was a disturbing figure that came out of the 2011 Canadian Census.
In 2001, there were approximately ~20000 people that claimed their religion as JEDI
In 2011, that number has dropped to ~9000.

It is believed this fall is a result of a disturbance in the Force, or more have turned to the dark-side.

We now return to our irregularly scheduled thread derailment...
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Dude, I was addressing your claim that socialism without force is what you are talking about, but you then you talk about enforcing equality. And no hell no equality is not natural. WTF? seriously. Your description of human nature compares to schools of fish. Even in those schools, some fish are bigger, faster and swimming in front getting the best shrimp. That's what is natural. It would take force to make those fish share with the fish in back before they had their fill.
Click to expand...
You've been reading too much Ayn Rand talking about altruism is evil and Rothbard talking about egalitarianism as a revolt against nature.

The phrase "survival of the fittest" was not coined by Darwin, but by right wing economist Herbert Spencer and it is an inapt description of natural selection. Just like all who endorse neoliberal laissez faire, you're a social darwinist. Social darwinism is racism.

Again, the 14 words which defined the American Revolution:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal".

The revolution died when Americans stopped believing them.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
As an aside, there was a disturbing figure that came out of the 2011 Canadian Census.
In 2001, there were approximately ~20000 people that claimed their religion as JEDI
In 2011, that number has dropped to ~9000.

It is believed this fall is a result of a disturbance in the Force, or more have turned to the dark-side.

We now return to our irregularly scheduled thread derailment...
Click to expand...
It's over 9000.

[video]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/north_west/7360871.stm[/video]
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Of course all men are created equal, I didn't realize that was the argument. I thought you were trying to say equal outcomes are natural and that's just not true. In nature, If you and I are competing for the same food or woman and I am bigger than you, stronger, smarter and better looking she will choose me in an unequal percentage of attempts. I will get the food I want and leave you with what I don't. That's not some right wing talking point, where the hell did that come from? That's nature, there is science to back it up.

There is no science stating all of us are born with equal ability, drive, looks, height, body type. There is plenty of science that shows these things matter in ones outcome in life. This is not what they meant by all men are created equal. It may not be what you are talking about either, because you are not making sense to me if you think it was.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
I'm probably dropping out of this one. I'm not going to be convinced any of the following is true, so we are just chasing tails.
1. If we are truly given equal opportunities we will all be truly equal. Science
2. You can maintain any equality of outcomes without using governmental force. Opinion/Science
3. Socialism can exist without government. Opinion
4. Socialism is better than communism. Opinion

Your major claim flies against science so I'm wasting my time and yours too.

Sorry for bringing this thread in this awful tangent, it's been done to death.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
In nature, If you and I are competing for the same food or woman and I am bigger than you, stronger, smarter and better looking she will choose me in an unequal percentage of attempts.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my truck gets 5 gallons to the mile too.



So if you impose yourself on my garden or my girlfriend, I don't think anything you listed would increase your success in any percentage of attempts. You would have to be imposing yourself anyway.

Again, just want to highlight the way you think here.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Your major claim flies against science
Click to expand...
You are the social Darwinist, rather Malthusian, as the social view called social Darwinism does not reflect the views of Darwin. The belief that equality is not natural is what turns liberty into property.

You go ahead and drop out, but you haven't gone anywhere near science by demanding that equality is not compatible with human nature. How long do you think people will accept being dominated before they demand equality? How much effort does it take to dominate others continually?
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Yeah, my truck gets 5 gallons to the mile too.

So if you impose yourself on my garden or my girlfriend, I don't think anything you listed would increase your success in any percentage of attempts. You would have to be imposing yourself anyway.

Again, just want to highlight the way you think here.
Click to expand...
Again, we were talking about nature and natural until you changed it to "my" garden and "my" girlfriend. That wouldn't be equal would it?

To be right, you will have to deny the existence of the alpha in nature. I can't go anywhere else in a conversation with somebody who "believes" (not knows) this. Take care man.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Again, we were talking about nature and natural until you changed it to "my" garden and "my" girlfriend. That wouldn't be equal would it?

To be right, you will have to deny the existence of the alpha in nature. I can't go anywhere else in a conversation with somebody who "believes" (not knows) this. Take care man.
Click to expand...
Actually, you did in fact write an example about competing with me for food and woman. So you brought that up. "Deny existence of alpha in nature", so if I accepted hierarchy as natural I could be sheeple like you? I could say that my assumptions about nature were based on science, with out making any reference to anything resembling science, in retort to what I said about Darwin.

Yeah, take care man.
 
haight

haight

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Of course all men are created equal, I didn't realize that was the argument. I thought you were trying to say equal outcomes are natural and that's just not true. In nature, If you and I are competing for the same food or woman and I am bigger than you, stronger, smarter and better looking she will choose me in an unequal percentage of attempts. I will get the food I want and leave you with what I don't. That's not some right wing talking point, where the hell did that come from? That's nature, there is science to back it up.

There is no science stating all of us are born with equal ability, drive, looks, height, body type. There is plenty of science that shows these things matter in ones outcome in life. This is not what they meant by all men are created equal. It may not be what you are talking about either, because you are not making sense to me if you think it was.
Click to expand...
All sheep are created equal. Some men are created more equal than others. Some women are created with big boobs and some with small boobs. The ones with big boobs can get big jobs. The ones with small boobs want the minimum wage raised so they can afford implants. I'm sure Milton Friedman would agree.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
The surest way to convince me that inequality is natural is to keep saying stupid fucking shit and committing logical fallacies.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
you will have to deny the existence of the alpha in nature.
Click to expand...
I am not denying the existence of Alpha in nature, I am saying it is natural to smash that motherfucker. Smash some alpha trying to steal your food and fuck your girlfriend. Smash that alpha trying to own the world. Smash a system that turns liberty into property. Smash the hierarchy.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I am not denying the existence of Alpha in nature, I am saying it is natural to smash that motherfucker. Smash some alpha trying to steal your food and fuck your girlfriend. Smash that alpha trying to own the world. Smash a system that turns liberty into property. Smash the hierarchy.
Click to expand...
Liberty?

You want to take everyone's shit and give it to others.

Yeah, cos THAT'S liberty, how'd we all get it SO wrong for SO long?

I thought liberty was being able to own private property and do whatever you want (as long as it doesn't harm another person)?

We should all become libertarian socialists, that makes so much sense now.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I am not denying the existence of Alpha in nature, I am saying it is natural to smash that motherfucker. Smash some alpha trying to steal your food and fuck your girlfriend. Smash that alpha trying to own the world. Smash a system that turns liberty into property. Smash the hierarchy.
Click to expand...

Alpha dog, alpha wolf, alpha lion, etc you get the point. It's natural, it happens in nature without ownership. The pack doesn't gang up on the alpha because in nature he/she is their natural leader by a natural selection.

You keep going back and forth. Fuck the alpha who wants to own things, smash the alpha who tries to take your stuff. So you get to own shit and the alpha doesn't? That's not very consistent. Why is it YOUR food and not the pack?

You have displayed your lack of understanding on human nature repeatedly, add science in nature to another subject you should avoid debating. .......it's natural for the pack to smash the alpha........ where did you get that from?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
You have displayed your lack of understanding on human nature repeatedly, add science in nature to another subject you should avoid debating.
Click to expand...
Yeah you keep insisting that I'm doing this, but like I said, "survival of the fittest" is not natural law and it is not a fitting description of natural selection. It was not coined by Darwin, but by right wing British economist Herbert Spencer. This view on human nature, which you keep insisting is based on science is based on the view that "survival of the fittest" is a natural law. It is called Social Darwinism, although it does not reflect the views of Darwin.

I had to repeat this argument, because you keep insisting that you have been scientific. Actually my critique of your view all along has been that your take on human nature is all fucked up, so this last post is basically "I know you are but what am I" and you already retreated with all that "Take care bro".
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Got sucked back in by that last one. I am not referring to social Darwinism, I'm referring to natural selection. I'm not talking about survival of the fittest, I"m talking about how hierarchies come to exist in nature. I'm referring to how social animals interact with each other in their natural state.

When you see a flock of geese fly over in that beautiful V formation ask yourself how the lead geese got there. You think they take turns or maybe have a lottery? How do packs, dens, herds, hordes etc end up with alphas if they don't exist in nature? I can admit Tiger Woods is just plain better than me at golf no matter what I do. I accept that there are differing genetics within the same breed. I'm at a loss why you think this is unnatural and claim scientific critical thinking.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I am not referring to social Darwinism, I'm referring to natural selection.
Click to expand...
You keep insisting this and you keep using retarded examples that either don't fit the debate or fit very loosely. However, you're still not addressing the core of my argument, and still attached to your view and demanding that it is science.

You are saying that human nature requires some men to dominate others. Is this your argument or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top