|
Anonymous
Guest
|
 |
June 30, 2011, 12:10:29 PM |
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
hamdi
|
|
June 30, 2011, 12:16:13 PM |
|
joe is a nice guy for a wealth creator
|
|
|
|
|
|
epi 1:10,000
|
|
June 30, 2011, 01:12:15 PM |
|
What is Joe's IQ and or inherent capability?
|
|
|
|
|
Tawsix
Full Member
 Offline
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
I have always been afraid of banks.
|
|
June 30, 2011, 02:12:56 PM |
|
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?
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. |
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
June 30, 2011, 02:17:57 PM |
|
From the data provided, no, he doesn't appear to. Unless he's a plumber.  |
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
June 30, 2011, 04:04:58 PM |
|
Wait... You didn't say, 'Joe pays his taxes'!!!
EEEEEEVIIIILLLL!
|
|
|
|
|
finnthecelt
|
|
June 30, 2011, 05:38:10 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TiagoTiago
|
|
June 30, 2011, 05:58:24 PM |
|
I wanna see where this is going
|
(I dont always get new reply notifications, pls send a pm when you think it has happened) Wanna gimme some BTC/BCH for any or no reason? 1FmvtS66LFh6ycrXDwKRQTexGJw4UWiqDX  The more you believe in Bitcoin, and the more you show you do to other people, the faster the real value will soar! |
|
|
Anonanon
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 32
Merit: 0
|
|
June 30, 2011, 07:58:44 PM |
|
He doesn't appear to be, on the face of the scenario. How often does he resort to violence to solve his problems?
|
|
|
|
|
ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1060
|
|
June 30, 2011, 09:23:56 PM
Last edit: July 01, 2011, 10:11:02 AM by ribuck |
|
Is Joe an evil man?
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"? |
|
|
|
|
|
compro01
|
|
June 30, 2011, 09:53:32 PM |
|
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?
from presented data, no. |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
June 30, 2011, 10:09:37 PM |
|
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?
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. 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. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
June 30, 2011, 10:42:11 PM |
|
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?
Define evil. I think he's asking you to.  |
|
|
|
|
bitplane
|
|
June 30, 2011, 10:50:42 PM |
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Reikoku
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
firstbits: 1kwc1p
|
|
July 01, 2011, 01:32:39 PM |
|
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?
from presented data, no. This. |
Rei | 1Kwc1pqv54jCg8jvnm3Gu1dqFQYhS34Bow
Trades So Far: 7
|
|
|
|
finnthecelt
|
|
July 01, 2011, 02:44:49 PM |
|
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?
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. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
YoYa
|
|
July 01, 2011, 06:39:49 PM |
|
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!
|
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
|
|
July 01, 2011, 06:41:13 PM |
|
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! |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
finnthecelt
|
|
July 01, 2011, 06:46:00 PM |
|
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!  |
|
|
|
|
|
YoYa
|
|
July 01, 2011, 06:54:34 PM |
|
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! FU-- To hell with it, fuck Joe, I'm going drinking! |
|
|
|
|
|
