Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 10:10:11 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: If an organism fails to sustain....  (Read 1178 times)
Anonymous
Guest

June 11, 2011, 12:00:08 AM
 #1

If an organism fails to sustain either through will or misfortune, should others be enslaved to sustain it?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480846211
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480846211

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480846211
Reply with quote  #2

1480846211
Report to moderator
1480846211
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480846211

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480846211
Reply with quote  #2

1480846211
Report to moderator
bitcredit
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 02:14:58 AM
 #2

Of course not! When you fail to defend yourself from the government agents coming after you for tax evasion, despite the wealth you were born with, your gold, bitcoins, and collection of guns, I'm certainly not coming to help you. No one will be coming to help you.

smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 02:49:01 AM
 #3

That is a great question and imho is what fundamentally distinguishes one ideology from another. Smiley

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 04:55:28 AM
 #4

The old adage goes treat others how you would like to be treated, which is usually soon forgotten and of-course things are never so simple. Based on that, then in some circumstances yes and others no.

But what distinguishes misfortune from individual will? Is the danger of an activity based upon some arbitrary Prob(BeingHurt), therefore if someone is harmed from an activity deemed dangerous based upon Prob(BeingHurt) they will not receive support from the community?

Should the community accept the future costs for interfering with natural selection? Is that in the community's best interest?

As a human what is my biggest threat? Up until recently the biggest threats were non-human, but in recent times a human's biggest threat is another human, the failure to understand other humans.

Ok now that is established, how should the human threat be mitigated? Maybe the answer is simple, understand other humans. Build an ideology/ society based upon this principle. Not an ideology that seeks to use implicit or explicit boundaries to isolate human behavior and interaction.

The obvious question is should I be forced to understand other people? Should I be forced to let the community understand me? IMO that depends on if you think that human threat is caused by the lack of understanding between humans.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
Jaime Frontero
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 11, 2011, 05:36:45 AM
 #5

If an organism fails to sustain either through will or misfortune, should others be enslaved to sustain it?

it depends.  how valuable is that organism... to you?

is the organism your mother?

would you beat a man into submission to bring her water if she were thirsty?

is the organism your brother?

a cousin that you don't particularly care for?

a soldier of your country during war-time?

a fellow citizen during war-time?

either... during peace-time?

some human from anywhere who has sustained or defended you?

do you posit a relationship between debt and altruism?  is there one?

are we moochers in need, but bankrupt in debt?

i dunno.  do you?
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
June 11, 2011, 09:13:13 AM
 #6

If an organism fails to sustain either through will or misfortune, should others be enslaved to sustain it?

it depends.  how valuable is that organism... to you?

is the organism your mother?

would you beat a man into submission to bring her water if she were thirsty?

is the organism your brother?

a cousin that you don't particularly care for?

a soldier of your country during war-time?

a fellow citizen during war-time?

either... during peace-time?

some human from anywhere who has sustained or defended you?

do you posit a relationship between debt and altruism?  is there one?

are we moochers in need, but bankrupt in debt?

i dunno.  do you?

If it is valuable to you why would you need to be enslaved to help it?!

He didn't ask if you would or should, just if enslavement is appropriate.

Anyone who doesn't answer no needs to be at my slave camp at 5am tomorrow.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
Sjalq
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280


View Profile WWW
June 11, 2011, 10:18:36 AM
 #7

Of course not! When you fail to defend yourself from the government agents coming after you for tax evasion, despite the wealth you were born with, your gold, bitcoins, and collection of guns, I'm certainly not coming to help you. No one will be coming to help you.



Well you are choosing not to go help him and being derogatory to him in the process.

I might not be able to help you when the government comes for you Atlas, either due to lack of courage or resources, but in my heart I will want to see you win. If it is due to lack of courage my inaction will haunt me the rest of my days.

We cannot enslave each other to force help for the down trodden but lack of enslavement will not improve the situation or remove kindness and charity from people.

Regarding your Waco picture, Waco was one of the reasons Timothy McVeigh listed for blowing up the FBI building. The more the government "comes for us" the more people will lose it.

Cheesy mine mine mine mine mine mine mine Cheesy
*Image Removed*
18WMxaHsxx6FuvbQbeA33UZud1bnmD7xY3
kylesaisgone
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 17, 2011, 01:12:50 AM
 #8

If you're questioning whether mentally handicapped humans should be kept alive, I'd say yes. I agree with what another post said earlier; we should treat other as we would want to be treated. I think this principle is really the basis for human social interaction. I don't have a fully developed view on Rights yet, but I do regard human rights above animal rights, etc., and I think human life can and should be preserved, even if it's the life of someone who isn't even aware of his own consciousness.

I think the problem here, is that people develop this sort of conception of social darwinism that big and smart = good, and anything else = bad. When in reality, Darwin himself explicitly said that being intelligent or strong is not what provides for natural selection, it's the individual animals who adapt the best that actually survive.

In cases of non-human interaction, I think the laws of nature should apply, but when it comes to humans, we have the power and intelligence to bend those laws.

Anonymous
Guest

June 17, 2011, 01:17:28 AM
 #9

If you're questioning whether mentally handicapped humans should be kept alive, I'd say yes. I agree with what another post said earlier; we should treat other as we would want to be treated. I think this principle is really the basis for human social interaction. I don't have a fully developed view on Rights yet, but I do regard human rights above animal rights, etc., and I think human life can and should be preserved, even if it's the life of someone who isn't even aware of his own consciousness.

I think the problem here, is that people develop this sort of conception of social darwinism that big and smart = good, and anything else = bad. When in reality, Darwin himself explicitly said that being intelligent or strong is not what provides for natural selection, it's the individual animals who adapt the best that actually survive.

In cases of non-human interaction, I think the laws of nature should apply, but when it comes to humans, we have the power and intelligence to bend those laws.



You avoided the question completely.
kylesaisgone
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 17, 2011, 01:22:36 AM
 #10

I didn't. I don't think taxes should go towards keeping those who can't care for themselves alive, but I don't think we should let them die, either. Your question is loaded, and is a false dichotomy. Just because taxes currently go towards keeping mentally handicapped alive, doesn't mean that we should just let them wither away. They should be kept alive through voluntary efforts, the same way all charity and welfare should be provided.

Anonymous
Guest

June 17, 2011, 01:28:21 AM
 #11

I didn't. I don't think taxes should go towards keeping those who can't care for themselves alive, but I don't think we should let them die, either. Your question is loaded, and is a false dichotomy. Just because taxes currently go towards keeping mentally handicapped alive, doesn't mean that we should just let them wither away. They should be kept alive through voluntary efforts, the same way all charity and welfare should be provided.
Well, I have never implied they wouldn't be cared for without slavery. I was just asking if slavery was justified if people had to be cared for, period.
kylesaisgone
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 17, 2011, 01:29:12 AM
 #12

In that case, no.

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!