Bitcoin Forum

He takes care of himself very well. He maintains a good shelter, feeds himself and waters himself whether it be through nature or exchanging with his neighbors. He hasn't particularly created any wealth but he always returns what he takes. Joe has caused no loss to another man nor any particular gain.

Is Joe an evil man?

joe is a nice guy for a wealth creator

What is Joe's IQ and or inherent capability?

Are you saying that people who don't create wealth are evil?  I'd like to hear the reasoning behind why anyone would possibly consider this man evil.  His net effect on the system is 0, to say that one way or the other is evil is to so that there is a moral obligation to leech or to produce, and that is absurd.

From the data provided, no, he doesn't appear to. Unless he's a plumber.  ;D

Wait... You didn't say, 'Joe pays his taxes'!!!

EEEEEEVIIIILLLL!

Could be.

If his neighbors expectations are that people contribute more to their community than they take he's right out evil. That Joe's a real SOB!

Good and evil, right and wrong; perceptions of white and black, black and white.

I wanna see where this is going

He doesn't appear to be, on the face of the scenario. How often does he resort to violence to solve his problems?

No, Joe is not an evil man.

Oh hang on, is this one of those feminist tricks where the right answer is "We can't say for sure that Joe is not an evil man, because Joe might be Josephine or Joanne rather than Joseph"?

from presented data, no.

I don't know where he is going, but according to certain social  theories, a person who doesn't produce a net gain for society is still a burden upon society, for no other reason than he takes up space.  This is an argument used by Marx himself, and some of his immediate followers, to rationalize away an individual's right to life away.  The basic argument is thus....  As long as an individual is producing at least as much, if not slightly more, than he consumes (including landspace consumption) then he is a net benefit for the society at large.  Once he is no longer producing a net benefit for society at large, and has little prospects toward doing so, then he is of no further benefit to society and his life is forfit.  This is the basis for the 'total life' theory of health care management, or something like that, that attempts to place a social value to the average individual based upon their age.  Thus, small children are of low value, because they can be replaced and educated and little benefit (to society) has been lost, and old people are also of little value because they have already produced the greater part of their lifetime productivity, but teens and young adults have a high value because they have already been 'vested' with education and resources for life and have a high future potential for productive returns to society.  if you take this viewpoint as valid, then the self-supporting hermit is evil because it is assumed that he took the resources from society (by the act of growing up and being 'educated' and 'socialized' and presumedly eating along the way) and has chosen a life that fails to return those resources to society.

I think he's asking you to. ;)

This is an interesting viewpoint, though I wouldn't say it would be evil or even vaguely wrong to do this. If the hermit is indebted to society for his upbringing then he is essentially a slave to that society, that there should only be one type of society and that there should be no experimentation with new ways of life, no matter how unjust the society you were raised in is.

This.

And that is what makes Marx such an f'ing asshole. This guy mooched upon others nearly his whole existence and justified his existence via his "intellectual contributions". Bullshit. This guy fed a a bunch of crap to the elitist power structure of the world who ate it up because it helped them sleep easier at night.

None of us truly knows why we even walk this planet so therefore we shold tread lightly and respect the way people choose to live. But that's where it gets sticky isn't it? We can expect that others should at least take care of themselves if they are capable but if they are capable and do not take care of themselves do we have the right to "forfeit" their very life? The consequences to forfeiting someone's life is unknown so should not be endeavored.

Joe's a cunt, I hate him, he never returned my tv table or any of the tools that I lent him. If you see Joe, tell em I said go suck a bag of cocks!

No wonder I got those tools so cheap!

Hey Karl said I could "borrow" your hammer!   :D

FU--

To hell with it, fuck Joe, I'm going drinking!

joe kick my dog

It appears Joe is Evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rADdKqPNdaM

if everyone lived like this nobody would have power

Dam it Joe.... Where are you going with that gun in your hand?

But that's just the point. Haven't you understood by now the system is designed to enslave you. Your entire life is pretty much dictated in one way or another from the moment you were born. I never asked to go to school and "rob society of it's resources". In all actuality, I was forced to go to school regardless of my desires. And if my parents didn't get me a proper education they too would face punishment. We are crafted into robots designed to give our whole life (or the better part of it) away in return for the betterment of all of society. Humans are much like ants, anyone who can't perform as expected is considered entirely useless. All they know how to do build upon their empire and work as part of a larger organism that churns away mindlessly expanding it's domain. Advancement is good and all, but it shouldn't be treated as something that "must be done or die".

Atlas, we need you back in this thread to reveal the punchline.

I saw him today but I couldn't instruct him when he asked me if you meant to suck the bag containing the cocks; or to suck individual cocks originating from a bag full of them.  could you clarify which you meant so I may get back to him?  btw, he says hi. :)