| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
the current difference between free and not free is that not free accounts for people being assholes. it's a little more than that actually, it's a form of entitlement: being an asshole is considered an a priory attribute to living and as such, you deserve to be charged for things. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18487 Posts
On December 03 2016 03:24 xM(Z wrote: thing is, you can get away with more things here; fuckers are snipping the other threads. the current difference between free and not free is that not free accounts for people being assholes. it's a little more than that actually, it's a form of entitlement: being an asshole is considered an a priory attribute to living and as such, you deserve to be charged for things. Seems like a rather liberal use of the word asshole. Either way, if you define "everybody" as an asshole, and your "economic" theory requires nobody to be assholes, your theory doesn't work. And because this is the stupid questions thread, I will turn this into a question by adding: "does it?" | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 03 2016 02:17 JimmiC wrote: Please describe something that is free then. And you are totally over complicating he wanted to know if celebs got extra stuff they didn't need to spend money on. You went into a philosophical rant on what "free" really is. This is not complicated. Something is free if it is given without cause. For example: I decided to give money away, so I walk outside and leave a hundred dollar bill on the ground. If someone finds it, then they have free money. When you have a specific exchange then it stops being free and becomes economics. For example: Someone labors in something and becomes famous, as a reward for that labor that person gets something. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On December 03 2016 03:52 Acrofales wrote: nah, you don't see the sides.Seems like a rather liberal use of the word asshole. Either way, if you define "everybody" as an asshole, and your "economic" theory requires nobody to be assholes, your theory doesn't work. And because this is the stupid questions thread, I will turn this into a question by adding: "does it?" one side believes humans to be by nature bad and the other believes humans to be by nature good. the former finds taxation(charging for things/other forms of payments) as fair game(best case scenario here, you see the taxation as insurance for human badness(assholery is here), the later sees such taxation as inherently evil since they've done nothing wrong, so why should they pay for things?. i subscribe to the later mostly but as a fail safe thinggie, i kind of realize the need for an enforcer; someone in a God-like status/position that would smite the heathens. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On December 03 2016 03:52 Acrofales wrote: Seems like a rather liberal use of the word asshole. Either way, if you define "everybody" as an asshole, and your "economic" theory requires nobody to be assholes, your theory doesn't work. And because this is the stupid questions thread, I will turn this into a question by adding: "does it?" If there's one thing I learned in the European megapolitics thread is that "liberal" and "asshole" are apparently synonyms. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 03 2016 05:04 JimmiC wrote: First off you can get famous by your parents working and being great at something, fame is not really a merit based equation. Second you get the joy and excitement of wondering who got that money and how it helped them. So they paid that not free by your own definition. Are you suggesting famous parents don't place efforts to be successful at what they do? Are suggesting that, as a reward, their progeny getting better treatment is not one of the goals for that? That is the exchange, I work X much, I (or my family) gets Y much. As for the example, there is no exchange. No one gave you anything, no one placed effort into earning your money. The act was simply on your own for own pleasure. Masturbatory as it is, it is simply you giving away something for free so that you feel good about. This is different, for example, as giving a homeless man on the street money. He performs his part, you being affected by his performance, play your part, an exchange of funds is given, your money for his performance. If that same homeless man found your hundred dollar bill, there is no exchange. You simply are down $100 and he is now up $100 without interaction from parties involved, ie, he got it for free. EDIT For reference, here is a good outlining of this philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments I am of the belief that Adam Smith's eventually discussion about free markets and capitalism comes directly from his explorations of sympathy and exchange of experience being exactly the same as economic barters. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18487 Posts
On December 03 2016 04:46 xM(Z wrote: nah, you don't see the sides. one side believes humans to be by nature bad and the other believes humans to be by nature good. the former finds taxation(charging for things/other forms of payments) as fair game(best case scenario here, you see the taxation as insurance for human badness(assholery is here), the later sees such taxation as inherently evil since they've done nothing wrong, so why should they pay for things?. i subscribe to the later mostly but as a fail safe thinggie, i kind of realize the need for an enforcer; someone in a God-like status/position that would smite the heathens. You're using this word bad as if it means something universal. Is a wolf bad because it hunts a deer and eats it? How about the wolf that is sickly, and is less effective at hunting, but eats more despite that? What about the praying mantis female who kills and eats the male after sex as an easily accessible source of food (which she needs more of to produce lots of healthy eggs)? | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 03 2016 07:43 JimmiC wrote: I'm actually suggesting that the first question was about free stuff as in money, because it was and trying to show how ridiculous you are being in making it some big philosophical argument on whats truly free. And I'm not getting into the discussion, and your snowball is rolling with no hope of stopping it so I'm gonna end with this post. Using money is a pretty limiting metric. Trump has simply not paid people and told them that they at least get exposure. Were those contractors working for free? What about artists who provide a service, and then get their pay cut or cancelled because they get publicity--is that the same as giving out for free? Or is something being free or not specific to the interaction itself, with one person providing something to another who is reciprocating in kind. EDIT I think the issue comes by the qualitative value you project into people you define as "famous" If intent of the action does not matter, then a "famous" person/company not paying someone less famous produces the same effect as someone not famous giving resources to someone who is. This is not what you mean, which means intent matters to you. If intent matters to you then we get caught in Adam Smith's dialogue of Sympathy, where we place value in the experience of another, and are willing to make decisions based on the sharing of said experience, usually in the form of bartering for that experience. This is also not what you mean because you want the idea of the famous person getting something for free, and this is specifically an exchange for labor. That means that the question places an assumption that the labors of one person should have less than the labors of another. For the exchange to be free you must also assume that the efforts to be famous has no value. Now, if the plebeian had the same opinion as you then he would not give the famous person anything since he does not place value on that person's fame. This means that for your axiom to work you have to assume that the plebeian is wrong for placing valuing the famous person and hence you see it as a dumb human giving away something to someone who you believe has no value. But this doesn't work either, because you as the 3rd party observing the interaction are not part of the actual exchange. The plebeian still places value in the famous person's efforts and hence is willing to make the economic exchange of his goods for that person's experience, i.e. fame. So even then its not the famous person getting free stuff its literally the observer getting upset that a human he does not value was given something that the observer actually values. TLDR: haters be jealous folk. | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On December 03 2016 12:08 Epishade wrote: If you fed a pig solely bacon, and then butchered that pig and fed another pig that first pig's bacon, and repeated this process for a few more generations, would you create the world's tastiest bacon? I don't think pigs eat meat. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
Pigs are omnivores, so they'll eat bacon. However like humans they need a balanced diet, so eating only bacon would probably cause the pigs to die prematurely due to heart disease or something. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5236 Posts
On December 03 2016 08:55 Thieving Magpie wrote: + Show Spoiler + On December 03 2016 07:43 JimmiC wrote: I'm actually suggesting that the first question was about free stuff as in money, because it was and trying to show how ridiculous you are being in making it some big philosophical argument on whats truly free. And I'm not getting into the discussion, and your snowball is rolling with no hope of stopping it so I'm gonna end with this post. Using money is a pretty limiting metric. Trump has simply not paid people and told them that they at least get exposure. Were those contractors working for free? What about artists who provide a service, and then get their pay cut or cancelled because they get publicity--is that the same as giving out for free? Or is something being free or not specific to the interaction itself, with one person providing something to another who is reciprocating in kind. EDIT I think the issue comes by the qualitative value you project into people you define as "famous" If intent of the action does not matter, then a "famous" person/company not paying someone less famous produces the same effect as someone not famous giving resources to someone who is. This is not what you mean, which means intent matters to you. If intent matters to you then we get caught in Adam Smith's dialogue of Sympathy, where we place value in the experience of another, and are willing to make decisions based on the sharing of said experience, usually in the form of bartering for that experience. This is also not what you mean because you want the idea of the famous person getting something for free, and this is specifically an exchange for labor. That means that the question places an assumption that the labors of one person should have less than the labors of another. For the exchange to be free you must also assume that the efforts to be famous has no value. Now, if the plebeian had the same opinion as you then he would not give the famous person anything since he does not place value on that person's fame. This means that for your axiom to work you have to assume that the plebeian is wrong for placing valuing the famous person and hence you see it as a dumb human giving away something to someone who you believe has no value. But this doesn't work either, because you as the 3rd party observing the interaction are not part of the actual exchange. The plebeian still places value in the famous person's efforts and hence is willing to make the economic exchange of his goods for that person's experience, i.e. fame. So even then its not the famous person getting free stuff its literally the observer getting upset that a human he does not value was given something that the observer actually values. TLDR: haters be jealous folk. Perhaps we should first define what free actually means. Is it getting something for absolutely nothing in return, or does free mean the total resource balance where you still haven't broken even and it's still a net gain for you (i.e. profit)? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On December 03 2016 08:27 Acrofales wrote: bad should've been the last word to pick on from there. the amount of implied meanings, predefined contexts and assumed hypothesis in there is staggering even by my standards. You're using this word bad as if it means something universal. Is a wolf bad because it hunts a deer and eats it? How about the wolf that is sickly, and is less effective at hunting, but eats more despite that? What about the praying mantis female who kills and eats the male after sex as an easily accessible source of food (which she needs more of to produce lots of healthy eggs)?  i italicized the word so that already means there's something debatable there(when that happens it's your job to fit the word to match the meaning of the phrasing) but to somewhat define it: bad in the context of human = social animal; society -> individual(socialism/communism leaning). your animal analogy is strawmanish at best, think of biological entities being the best that they can be, the best they know how to be; but even that needs expanding, explaining, categorizing, setting up new contexts and all that because you, on a personal level, need some kind of reassurement from me; in your world, you prepare for the worst and don't care about the best because ... you're insured anyway. in mine, you don't need insurance because bad doesn't happen(dealing with/talking in absolutes). the tangent you started comes after you agree, in theory, on the point/main line of the argument; it's a practicality issue, now that we have X, how do we apply it to Y, what is holding it down etc etc. you use it to make the argument stick not to tear it apart. on the other hand, PoE started so i don't know, while i appreciate some good old time fun i need to burn myself out for a while. (i may check this(rarely) but if it becomes to explainy well, i'll be to burned out to do something about it  ) | ||
|
AbouSV
Germany1278 Posts
On December 03 2016 04:46 xM(Z wrote: nah, you don't see the sides. one side believes humans to be by nature bad and the other believes humans to be by nature good. the former finds taxation(charging for things/other forms of payments) as fair game(best case scenario here, you see the taxation as insurance for human badness(assholery is here), the later sees such taxation as inherently evil since they've done nothing wrong, so why should they pay for things?. i subscribe to the later mostly but as a fail safe thinggie, i kind of realize the need for an enforcer; someone in a God-like status/position that would smite the heathens. The imbalance of your parentheses makes me tilt. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 03 2016 15:11 Uldridge wrote: Perhaps we should first define what free actually means. Is it getting something for absolutely nothing in return, or does free mean the total resource balance where you still haven't broken even and it's still a net gain for you (i.e. profit)? I actually touched on that when I said in the quoted text: "That means that the question places an assumption that the labors of one person should have less [value] than the labors of another. For the exchange to be free you must also assume that the efforts to be famous has no value." EDIT: Original text was missing a word, inserted missing word in quote of original text. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On December 03 2016 12:25 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Pigs are omnivores, so they'll eat bacon. However like humans they need a balanced diet, so eating only bacon would probably cause the pigs to die prematurely due to heart disease or something. I dunno about you. I've been eating nothing but bacon since I was a wee lad and I'm gonna live forever. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6658 Posts
| ||
|
Thouhastmail
Korea (North)876 Posts
*Aurora black ink is the best one so far, but it's a bit too fluid. | ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
OSC
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Reynor vs Solar
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs MaxPax
herO vs Rogue
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
WorsT vs nOmaD
Dewalt vs andersOn
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
