BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

The Breeding Exam - what would you put on it?

  
  

Page: 12345(6)7891011... 12

 
 
Mourne Kransky
20:05 / 17.04.03
I find the trailer trash term equally offensive, yet no problem is raised when such is used here. It points to low income as somehow making you ‘inferior’ as a person; an offensive and quite inaccurate label. It is in essence snobbishness.

I am no misogynist though xoc; as I said earlier…the men involved are as much at fault as the women.

Where have I ever used the termk "trailer trash"? I don't see where I have been guilty of snobbery of any sort. I wish you would just answer the questions people put to you instead of haring off at a tangent. The core argument you're making is interesting enough not to need all this white noise on the periphery.

As for misogyny, you can huff and puff all you like. You have repeatedly used the word "slapper", to which I object for the reasons I have given, and there's nothing else you're coming up with that demonstrates attitudes contrary. The women are "slappers" but I don't see any snarky, offensive terminology being applied to the naughty boys.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
20:15 / 17.04.03
I objected to the use of the term 'trailer trash', but it was several pages ago.

The word 'slapper' isn't really even that appropriate - I remember reading some Guardian article which cited research showing that educated women who have children later in life sleep with many more people than young mothers, whether single or not. I bet I'm more of a 'slapper' than loads of single mothers...
 
 
Mourne Kransky
08:48 / 18.04.03
I rather fancy I'm a "slapper" too by most definitions, KCC, if one were to apply the term equally to both sexes. That's probably why Leap's managing to wind me up with his social theories. I have to say you're a much lovelier slapper than I am, in that case.

It has been interesting but is all getting fairly bad-tempered now and no further explanation is forthcoming to ground any of this in reality. I am trying to see LeapTopia as a genuine attempt at promoting a workable, fairer social system, for the sake of argument, but there's altogether too much emphasis on how you stigmatise and punish for my conception of an ideal community or even a workable social structure.

Possibly my fault for leaping in with historical associations that show LeapTopia in a negative light, but I have only done so when the parallels were genuinely there to be drawn, IMO. I am aware that I must sound like Dr Pangloss but I think what we've got now is preferable to the cure suggested here. Leap's medicine is being prescribed to fix all the wrong complaints and, I think, would only make things worse.

It's another lovely, optimistic, sunshiny day out there and the bluebird of happiness is tapping at my windows, so I shall take my leave. Shit, the cat just caught the bluebird. *crunch, crunch*
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:57 / 18.04.03
This is essentially an extreme right wing wet dream, isn't it? The moral outrage at spongers and the underserving poor and unfortunate. The defence of the common, hard working, man who struggles to provide for his family only to have the fruits of this labour stolen by slappers. The insistence that current provisions for the unfortuante will be met in a voluntary system which anyone can opt out of. (Note that such a voluntary system is seriously less efficient than a communal one and it is being proposed as a way to save the "good" individual money. I think we can all do the sums.)

Its a fantasy that is about finding a moral (puritannical?) base for total lack of compassion and justifying an often arbitrary distribution of wealth.

The insistence that communal projects - health, education, all the functions of governement - can be met by charitable contributions is a particular favourite of the hard right. It is also complete nonsense. This is always code for a system whereby the wealthy provide for their own services and the less wealthy do without. Health and education being prime examples where some would prefer to pay more for an exclusionary system than benefit from a cheaper inclusionary one - even if no benefits accrue. Us and them.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously support such an amoral system. I need to get out more, perhaps.
 
 
w1rebaby
11:41 / 18.04.03
You should try going on a few US boards. It's amazingly common...
 
 
Jack Fear
11:53 / 18.04.03
It's a fantasy that is about finding a moral (puritannical?) base for total lack of compassion and justifying an often arbitrary distribution of wealth.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!
 
 
The Natural Way
13:35 / 18.04.03
Ive followed Leap's advice to *get involved* and, I can tell you right now, the locals simply can't believe how they ever got on without me. I'm loving it: the village football team, the fete commitee, my new position as head altar boy at the church and, of course, my even more exciting role as a *Baloo* for the local cub-scout troop. I've also signed up for the Young Farmers, but last time I paid them a visit I ended up strung up by my ankle and suspended from the ceiling, so I'm thinking I might give that one a miss.

Everyone assures me that if I should ever hit rock bottom I can depend on them to help me out. Oh, and that they no longer think I'm a weird queer.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:45 / 18.04.03
Deir Deirdre,

My entire parish, with the exception of me, is composed of slappers. They don't think I'm worthy, and don't give a fuck about my previous character, as our ideas on such judgments differ. What shall I do?

Mrs Trellis, North Wales.
 
 
Ganesh
13:52 / 18.04.03
Dear Mrs Trellis,

Starve them all to death.

Deirdre
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:01 / 18.04.03
Dear Deirdre,

Thank you for your excellent advice. Having starved all the slappers, I have recently attempted to relocate to a new parish, only to be told that my character is not of good enough standing (I have "previous", y'see- the next parish aren't really into starving slappers- they prefer to EDUCATE them until they're of sufficient moral fibre and modesty). I think they may just be feeling reasonably defensive as they are currently suffering from sickness due to the fact that the parish next door is filled to the brim with decaying corpses, and that even the new parish's undertaker is about to be stoned to death and nailed to a horse for the crime of slappery, so therefore can't even help out the neighbours...

I've been considering going back to the old parish, eating all the corpses, fencing myself in, hanging onto my gun and waiting for Armageddon.

Is this rash?

Mrs Trellis, North Wales
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:05 / 18.04.03
Dear Deirdre,

With regards to my previous correspondence, I know I've outlined a contradictory position taken by my new parishmates, vis a vis the treatment of slappers. But the further complicating factor is that they're all human beings. Apparently (I never read the small print) they aren't the consistently wonderful superbeings I've come to expect.

Should I write to your paper's consumer champion for advice?

Mrs Trellis, North Wales
 
 
Leap
07:01 / 19.04.03
Ganesh –

I believe a centralised, needs-based sliding-scale should operate.

But can you give a reason, a basis, why foolish people should be supported in their foolishness at the cost of wiser people? I am simply saying that the price of their support should be a reasonable chance of them mending their ways (and that anything given should be on a personal charity basis under the judgement of the giver). You instead appear to propose an institutionalised [and largely unconditional, although “means tested”] approach. Can you please explain to me how an enforced, depersonalised, unconditional system that makes no need for learning is in any way superior to a voluntary, personal judgement based, conditional system that requires the recipient show a reasonable chance of actually being dependent for only a short period of time?

At most around 1% of that 'severe' group might reasonably have worked or otherwise manifested "good character". Call it 9% if that makes it more morally palatable to you.
If your figures regarding incapacitating mental illness were accurate would we not be able to see about one in ten of us on incapacity benefit or on the streets?

The children of "slappers" (who have not, as yet, been defined in any even remotely objective sense) are, under your creaky LeapTopian manifesto, punished as thoroughly for their mothers' vaguely-defined whorishness as are their mothers

The judgement is upon the mother but the repercussions do in truth impact upon the child. But then I am only saying that their support should not be a matter for all, but a matter for her family/friends/community….and if they find her unsuitable then so be it.

I repeat: your so-called manifesto appears, thus far, to be based upon a ludicrously naive faith in the ability of (what you, in your deeply, deeply skewed, idiosyncratic way, consider to be) "normal people" to assess the (nebulous) 'deservingness' of the psychiatrically unwell, accurately judge the moral 'deservingness' of all mothers (you may say the male partner is 'equally to blame' for unwanted pregnancies, but you focus exclusively on punishing women via starvation and death - what's that about?) and never, ever, ever move out of the neighbourhood in which they were born.

‘So called manifesto’: but not so called by me.

you focus exclusively on punishing women via starvation and death

How am I forcing women into starvation and death? How am I not simply allowing them to live with the results of their actions; 1. Show insufficient previous character to be supported by family/friends/community/ 2. Get pregnant in a situation where she is unable to support the child.

An example (assuming you are willing to attempt to respond sensibly). Man a points a gun at man c and tells man b that if he does not kill man d, then man a will shoot man c. If man b tells man a to go **** himself, resulting in man a shooting man c, who was responsible? Man a (who shot him) or man b (who refused the action that would supposedly save man c)?

Man a, obviously.

The same situation applies here. You however are seeking to move responsibility to man b (in our case the giver of charity who refuses to reward what is wrong).

Xoc –

I rather fancy I'm a "slapper" too by most definitions

The term slapper was being used to denote those women who use children as a means to income.

Lurid –

This is essentially an extreme right wing wet dream, isn't it? The moral outrage at spongers and the undeserving poor and unfortunate. The defence of the common, hard working, man who struggles to provide for his family only to have the fruits of this labour stolen by slappers. The insistence that current provisions for the unfortunate will be met in a voluntary system which anyone can opt out of. (Note that such a voluntary system is seriously less efficient than a communal one and it is being proposed as a way to save the "good" individual money. I think we can all do the sums.)

No it is not. Right wing politics typically advocates profit and luxury as the target in life, raising yourself above others. They promote the exceptional at the cost of all others. I do not promote this – I advocate that only the incompetent are left behind (rather than the right wing idea that both the incompetent and the generally competent but not exceptional are left behind). Many here appear to promote the more left wing principles that none should be left behind (which is probably why I appear “right wing”….I am certainly ‘right’ of many here).

I am not promoting a money saving or individual ‘wealth through power’ building initiative, simply one that depersonalises charity, makes it conditional upon change in behaviour (or the possibility of such) and makes it voluntary rather than enforce.

This is always code for a system whereby the wealthy provide for their own services and the less wealthy do without. Health and education being prime examples where some would prefer to pay more for an exclusionary system than benefit from a cheaper inclusionary one - even if no benefits accrue. Us and them

Which is why there is need for an education centred approach to re-align folks into the centrality of dignity (privacy, self-restraint, egalitarianism, vigilance) in order for it to work – something I believe possible because I believe that people are by and large inherently oriented towards this (although are mislead by ignorance and misinformation).

And you all seem to think that this makes me a monster?!!! What strange understandings you all have?!!!
 
 
Leap
07:21 / 19.04.03
"I am not promoting a money saving or individual ‘wealth through power’ building initiative, simply one that depersonalises charity, makes it conditional upon change in behaviour (or the possibility of such) and makes it voluntary rather than enforced."

Should have said RE-personalising, not DE-personalising.....typo with cold fingers
 
 
Rev. Orr
10:48 / 19.04.03
I believe a centralised, needs-based sliding-scale should operate.

But can you give a reason, a basis, why foolish people should be supported in their foolishness at the cost of wiser people?

A basis, yes. Ganesh has given several, not least of which was his belief that a society should be judged on its treatment of the least forntunate. Several posters appear to share the view that a society, nation, community, call it what you will, should set a level below which we shall not let anyone fall. To some of us, it is more important that no-one starve whilst we have more than we need than to to crticise or condemn their actions. To my mind there will always be some who abuse the system (although I am thinking of organised dole cheats rather than the monstrous regiment of slappers) and there will always be some who repeat the same 'mistakes' over and over, there will even be people that slip through the net and who we fail. That's the price that we pay for trying to follow what our consciences demand. Yes, that's a judgement call, a moral line in the sand and you are free to come to a different conclusion, but there is no irrefutable chain of emotion-free reasoning to prove either side's case.

I repeat: your so-called manifesto appears, thus far, to be based upon a ludicrously naive faith in the ability of (what you, in your deeply, deeply skewed, idiosyncratic way, consider to be) "normal people" to assess the (nebulous) 'deservingness' of the psychiatrically unwell, accurately judge the moral 'deservingness' of all mothers (you may say the male partner is 'equally to blame' for unwanted pregnancies, but you focus exclusively on punishing women via starvation and death - what's that about?) and never, ever, ever move out of the neighbourhood in which they were born.

‘So called manifesto’: but not so called by me.

Purely for the purposes of clarification, Leap, but this is an example of what people are complaing about in your debating style. Picking out one very minor element of rhetorical flourish to answer from a dense, detailed question or challenge and ignoring the rest tends to cause frustration in the ranks of those attempting to debate the issue. Given the long, proud tradition of the snark hereabouts, it's likely to trigger more of the sarcasm and insults that obscure the debate. Just a friendly piece of advice (honest!).

This is essentially an extreme right wing wet dream, isn't it?

No it is not. Right wing politics typically advocates profit and luxury as the target in life, raising yourself above others. They promote the exceptional at the cost of all others. I do not promote this – I advocate that only the incompetent are left behind

Okay, we all accept that there are more things in heaven and earth and so on. A binary split for political belief will always fail to fit at times. However, as a very basic rule of thumb, if a theory advocates the primacy of the individual even at the expense of others then it's right-wing; if it places the needs of society as a whole at its core then it tends to be labelled left-wing. In this case, your radical libertarian agenda is from a long line of right-wing theory. Your rejection of re-distributive taxation, the primacy you afford to an individual's right to retain or dispose of hir earnings only as they choose, your insistance that charity or support is a privilige to be earned not a duty owed by society and your belief that marginalisation (such as unsupported pregnancy or long-term unemployment) is always the result of personal choices or weakness rather than potentially outside factors, are all markers that flag the scheme as quite far to the right. That doesn't make them wrong except in my opinion, but placing them in a anarchist framework doesn't change their reactionary nature.

In all, there are elements in this argument that aren't up for debate. If we can acknowledge which elements are a subjective, moral choice or assumption that we aren't going to convince anyone to change their minds over, we can move on to the rest with minimal bile. Can we stop calling LeapWorld evil and just explain why it won't work?

Oh, and Leap? Education ahs a nasty habit of creating people who think for themselves and who might come up with conclusions you don't like - much like your sweet self. Education by and of itself cannot convert an entire population to believing in the same ideals, I think the word you're looking for is indocrination. But that has such unfortunate undertones...
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:56 / 19.04.03
I've been struggling for the words to express that for quite a while now... I wanted to ask Leap whether he could see that his system might turn out to be just as socially, ideologically and personally restrictive as any other, and more so than some, as it relies on an explicitly manufactured consensus to provide its infrastructure; and if so, what would happen to those who disagreed with that consensus - how would they be accommodated? Or would they not be accommodated, but required to alter or exist without the community? In which case their survival would, presumably, be subject to the charity of others.

I'm not saying that people don't run into problems under the current system for not adhering to certain principles embodied in the government (I was going to say 'beliefs of the majority', but I don't think that's necessarily accurate), whatever they may be; but that, in a society where beliefs and viewpoints are prescribed through education, it's easier for dissent to criminalise people.
 
 
Leap
09:38 / 22.04.03
Kit-Kat –

I wanted to ask Leap whether he could see that his system might turn out to be just as socially, ideologically and personally restrictive as any other, and more so than some, as it relies on an explicitly manufactured consensus to provide its infrastructure; and if so, what would happen to those who disagreed with that consensus - how would they be accommodated?

Explicitly manufactured? Do you mean by my reliance upon education?

The education necessary would only be regarding the centrality of dignity (privacy, self-restraint, egalitarianism, vigilance) and modesty, supported by argument that well places these things in regards to human nature / the environment ( the latter being used in a general rather than a particularly ‘green’ sense). No more manufactured than adulthood is about the manufacturing of maturity as opposed to the juvenile/childish.

Or would they not be accommodated, but required to alter or exist without the community? In which case their survival would, presumably, be subject to the charity of others.

The ‘infrastructure’ would arise through personal contract rooted in the above notions regarding dignity and modesty. If you cannot or will not adhere to such do you really have any place in any decent society anyway?!

I'm not saying that people don't run into problems under the current system for not adhering to certain principles embodied in the government (I was going to say 'beliefs of the majority', but I don't think that's necessarily accurate), whatever they may be; but that, in a society where beliefs and viewpoints are prescribed through education, it's easier for dissent to criminalise people

Whenever you set down principles as the foundation of a society you will criminalise some group or other – the trick is to not criminalise what is inherently human (dignity and modesty) as opposed to the way society works now (which is to degrade dignity and modesty in favour of supervision, behavioural enforcement, elitism, sleepiness and the quest for ‘the exceptional’).


Orr –

a society should be judged on its treatment of the least fortunate.

Why should a society be so judged though? Why not by its treatment of the vast majority (and by this I do not mean a simple ‘political’ majority but instead the ‘standard’ folks of the world).

Several posters appear to share the view that a society, nation, community, call it what you will, should set a level below which we shall not let anyone fall. To some of us, it is more important that no-one starve whilst we have more than we need than to criticise or condemn their actions. To my mind there will always be some who abuse the system (although I am thinking of organised dole cheats rather than the monstrous regiment of slappers) and there will always be some who repeat the same 'mistakes' over and over, there will even be people that slip through the net and who we fail. That's the price that we pay for trying to follow what our consciences demand. Yes, that's a judgement call, a moral line in the sand and you are free to come to a different conclusion, but there is no irrefutable chain of emotion-free reasoning to prove either side's case.

But WHY should those who are willing to work support those who are unwilling?

as a very basic rule of thumb, if a theory advocates the primacy of the individual even at the expense of others then it's right-wing;

This I do not promote. I am advocating the primacy of the PERSONAL over the IMPERSONAL, not the INDIVIDUAL over the GROUP. They are NOT the same.

Your rejection of re-distributive taxation, the primacy you afford to an individual's right to retain or dispose of her earnings only as they choose, your insistence that charity or support is a privilege to be earned not a duty owed by society

Yes I advocate all of those, and they are indeed traditional something of the ‘right’.

and your belief that marginalisation (such as unsupported pregnancy or long-term unemployment) is always the result of personal choices or weakness rather than potentially outside factors, are all markers that flag the scheme as quite far to the right.

I do not hold that all such factors are a matter of personal choice and / or weakness. I recognise that society itself can force upon people situations that are ‘bad’ – although the problem remains that it is our ‘fault’ that these are not changed (although we cannot act alone).

That doesn't make them wrong except in my opinion, but placing them in a anarchist framework doesn't change their reactionary nature.

Reactionary? Or simply responsive and based on principles?


Oh, and Leap? Education has a nasty habit of creating people who think for themselves and who might come up with conclusions you don't like - much like your sweet self. Education by and of itself cannot convert an entire population to believing in the same ideals, I think the word you're looking for is indoctrination. But that has such unfortunate undertones...

I disagree. We all agree on gravity. Education or indoctrination?

Education can point out the basics of what it means to be human: personal, social, multifaceted, historically aware beings, the vast majority of which are competent to control their own lives rather than require ‘managing’. Taxation based systems, big govt, manages us; it is opposed to the idea that the vast majority of us are suited to being private (not supervised), self-restraint born of a sense of perspective (not behavioural enforcement) and that we should live lives rooted in egalitarianism (not elitism – and thus should embrace the ‘modest’, the ‘competent’, that which is approachable for the many, rather than the ‘exceptional’ that is only approachable for the few) and vigilance (not sleepiness).

If we all embraced those simple basic facts of human nature, rather than living with a half-formed view that creates evil through its ignorance, then would you still accuse me of fostering indoctrination and selfishness?
 
 
Ariadne
09:49 / 22.04.03
You are a scary man, Leap, and I'm very glad you don't run the world. Not yet anyway.

Can you expand on the 'modesty' you keep mentioning? Do you mean I would have to give up boasting about how fab I am, or would you have me in a headscarf and long skirt?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:55 / 22.04.03
I disagree. We all agree on gravity. Education or indoctrination?

Actually, even if gravity were an ethical question, we *don't* all agree on gravity. Some will see it as the force which makes apples drop to the floor. Others as the attractive force betwen two objects, others again in terms of complex patterns of force. On a quantum level, gravity means something else entirely. Gravity works differently if you accept orthodox muslim cosmology, because the world is flat, so if you throw a ball the Earth is not curving away from it as it falls.

Just saying, like. That's before we even get onto the fact that, unlike laws of physics, human beings are unpredictable above a quantum level. Plato also argued that if one could just EDUCATE people as to what was right, they would inevitably then do what was right. It was not an entirely convincing argument 2,400 years ago either.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:59 / 22.04.03
Indeed. The idea that 'dignity' and 'modesty' are self-evident moral absolutes that we can all agree on - or at least those of us deserving of a place in 'decent society', another very scary term - well, quite frankly the mind just boggles.

Leap, have you considered a career as either

a) a columnist for the Daily Mail

or

b) a member of the Bush administration, most likely working closely with John Ashcroft?
 
 
Leap
10:25 / 22.04.03
Ariadne –

Can you expand on the 'modesty' you keep mentioning? Do you mean I would have to give up boasting about how fab I am, or would you have me in a headscarf and long skirt?

We have been conditioned to focus on ‘exceptional’ (take a look at, for example, how much our ‘stars’ are paid (whether in sport, movies or whatever) or in the increase of relationship breakdown in the era of searching for the “perfect partner”, or even the recent ‘Honda’ TV Advert (the ‘Ok/What-if?’ one)). We are no longer encouraged to aim at mere ‘competent’ levels, but are instead taught to aim for the highest ‘product’, and now live in a society where feelings of inadequacy/depression/suicide are endemic (and indeed increasing at an accelerating rate). In a society of league tables, pop idols and massive credit card debt, we deride the normal, the merely competent, as “mediocre”, and in doing so we are casting aside a humanly meaningful society.

Modesty is not a matter of how much flesh you expose , modesty is about not being so demanding, so hyper-competitive. It is about seeking the everyday rather than the extreme/exceptional, and setting our values accordingly.

You are a scary man, Leap, and I'm very glad you don't run the world. Not yet anyway.

Would you be so kind as to tell me why you find me scary? What is scary about what I have said?

Haus –

Actually, even if gravity were an ethical question, we *don't* all agree on gravity.

We all agree how it impacts upon us haus (except for the angel-duster who believes (briefly) that they can fly.

Plato also argued that if one could just EDUCATE people as to what was right, they would inevitably then do what was right. It was not an entirely convincing argument 2,400 years ago either.

Why do you find my argument unconvincing Haus?

Flyboy –

The idea that 'dignity' and 'modesty' are self-evident moral absolutes that we can all agree on - or at least those of us deserving of a place in 'decent society', another very scary term - well, quite frankly the mind just boggles

Would you care to try to actually counter the points I raised directly, Flyboy? On what grounds would you say that dignity and modesty are NOT self-evident absolutes?



Leap, have you considered a career as either

a) a columnist for the Daily Mail

Personally I cannot stand the mail.

or

b) a member of the Bush administration, most likely working closely with John Ashcroft?

Why?
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:33 / 22.04.03
Not sure it is worth contributing further to this as the most charitable thing one might say about leap is that ze ignores the gross inadequacies of hir proposed model for society due to some kind of frustration. With what, I'm not sure. Anyway...

First of all, although leap seems to concede that not all economic misfortune is "deserved", the system proposed makes few allowances for this. Perhaps, on a personal level, charity might be granted to someone who was starving. But since the assumption is that worth needs to be demonstrated, it is willfully blind to assume that this charity will always be forthcoming. So people will starve who (even in leaps rather frighteningly judgemental terms) are "deserving". The point is that mistakes in leap's world let people die.

Fair enough, perhaps we resign ourselves to losing a few people on the bottom rungs. They couldn't have been that worthwhile anyway.

Now look at something like education. It isn't paid by taxation, but by *donation*. Of course, the point of this is that the unworthy should not receive our money. (Can't give money to the slappers in Newcastle, or whereever). So, we all pay for ourselves. But this is impossible on a strictly personal level (unless one restricts education to the few who can afford personal tutors). So people group together to pay for schools and teachers. And maybe, if some unfortunates are deemed worthy, we have charitable places in these schools.

OK. The greatly increased cost of such a system - it is hugely more than one paid for via taxation - means that a large percentage of society will have, at best, limited access to education. The same goes for health care, and many other services, thus creating an underclass.

(In fact, it is patently clear that this will happen. The US is probably closest to leap's model in terms of levels of taxation. The levels of literacy are quite poor and despite propoganda to the contrary, socio-economic mobility is weak.)

To be honest, leap's model only really makes sense if the overriding priority is to punish the poorest. (Leap might call them undeserving, but any serious analysis would recognise that there are many reasons why a person might be poor. Leap's insistence that these can be extricated is both unjustified and contradicted by experience.)

By any other measure, leap's society is ridiculous. It guarantees the creation of an underclass, a huge increase in the cost of what are now public services and a callous attitude to life that would be bound to breed bigotry. Not that leap necessarily considers hatred of the poorest a bad thing - that is a value judgement - but it does tend to undermine social stability.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:41 / 22.04.03
On what grounds would you say that dignity and modesty are NOT self-evident absolutes? - leap

On the grounds that, I'd wager, the majority of people answering you here do not hold them to be so? At least in the way you mean them. That would be a good start.

Persoanlly, I might go for dignity. But my understanding of it would be almost completely at odds with yours. I can't imagine a society that acts with such callousness to the poor (as yours would) having any kind of dignity.

Are you really unaware that people have different values from you?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:43 / 22.04.03
I find your argument unconvincing because....well, because it's an unconvincig argument. From a forensic point of view, that is. The reasons it currently fails as an arguemnt include the use of terminology as sacred object (dignity, modesty) - you are behaving as if these buzzwords should forestall discussion rather than begin it.

Also, from a formal point of view, the conclusions you reach are based on unsound grounds. One reason for this is that dignity, modesty et al do not really have any weight behind their definitions, except for a breakdown of how, in Leapworld, people *should* think. This seems to stand at odds with both a priori and a posteriori considerations of how people *do* think.

Also, the bases, once established, are used to justify leaps of logic that they cannot sustain. For example, that society places unfair demands on us to excel, that we should all aim to celebrate the competent and strive for an egalitarian society, and thus that people who fall below our standards should be allowed to starve. Quite simply, your position is riddled with these hypocrisies and inconsistencies, most of which come from the inability to understand that a society focused on one person's moral benchmarking (in this case, yours) is going to be as idiosyncratic as its founder. This, incidentally, is why consensus is frequently the source of more complex but more comprehensive societal models.

Also, because your argument has the signs of the nutter, which stands independent of your own status as nutter or indded the nuttiness of he ideas. Things like We have been conditioned to focus on ‘exceptional’ (take a look at, for example, how much our ‘stars’ are paid (whether in sport, movies or whatever) or in the increase of relationship breakdown in the era of searching for the “perfect partner”, or even the recent ‘Honda’ TV Advert (the ‘Ok/What-if?’ one)), quite simply, sound like a nutter. Yanking in random bits of cultural and social impedimenta, assembling them into a rickety driftwood sculpture, and claiming that it is the cathedral of wisdom *always* make people sound like nutters. When it works, it works. Otherwise, you just get "Holby City *proves* that women are whores".

The strict part of the arguemnt that I found unconvincing here was that there was a transcendent quality of EDUCATION, the application of which would make everyone agree with the wisdom of Leap. This is just silly, and was pretty silly when Plato assembled an entire cosmology around the function of virtue as knowledge. It assumes that education, or rather EDUCATION, is a process of anamnesis, of uncovering that which is already transcendentally evident, and that simply isn't the case.

Oh, and you need a better antithesis to "vigilance" than "sleepiness". That sucks.

That's why you sound unconvincing, in short. Why you might be said to be *wrong*, or misled, or mistaken, or dogmatic, are other questions, of course.
 
 
Leap
11:25 / 22.04.03
Lurid –

By any other measure, leap's society is ridiculous. It guarantees the creation of an underclass, a huge increase in the cost of what are now public services and a callous attitude to life that would be bound to breed bigotry. Not that leap necessarily considers hatred of the poorest a bad thing - that is a value judgement - but it does tend to undermine social stability.

In truth it would create only a tiny underclass (those incapable of being self-responsible who have not previously shown themselves to be of good character and thus not a case of “throwing pearls before swine”), public services would be funded at a local level and have lower standards (rather than the insane ‘league table chasing’ we have today), and although attitudes would have to be harder than the lefty nonsense that says those who are willing to work somehow owe a living to those who are not, by repersonalising the choice we would be removing the patronising dictatorship approach we have now.

Are you really unaware that people have different values from you?

So let me get this straight, the majority of people here would deny that we humans are personal, multifaceted, historically aware, social critters, largely capable of directing their own lives, and instead turn away from the centrality of privacy, self-restraint, egalitarianism (setting the standard at the common, modest and competent rather than the exceptional) and vigilance that such an understanding brings…..embracing instead a society where supervision, behavioural enforcement, elitism and sleepiness (it is a perfectly adequate term for a society only half-awake Haus) are central?

Haus –

One reason for this is that dignity, modesty et al do not really have any weight behind their definitions, except for a breakdown of how, in Leapworld, people *should* think.

I have defined them Haus. Would you care to say which parts of the definition you disagree with (and what you would replace it with)?

For example, that society places unfair demands on us to excel, that we should all aim to celebrate the competent and strive for an egalitarian society, and thus that people who fall below our standards should be allowed to starve.

That is part of living in the real world Haus, having to deal with it and live by the standards it sets us. Nature is kind of harsh like that; it does not cater to our demand for the exceptional (one part of which is to be set aside from natures demands upon us).

Also, because your argument has the signs of the nutter, which stands independent of your own status as nutter or indded the nuttiness of he ideas. Things like “We have been conditioned to focus on ‘exceptional’ (take a look at, for example, how much our ‘stars’ are paid (whether in sport, movies or whatever) or in the increase of relationship breakdown in the era of searching for the “perfect partner”, or even the recent ‘Honda’ TV Advert (the ‘Ok/What-if?’ one))”, quite simply, sound like a nutter.

Well that is a nice indepth analysis Haus. Call someone a ‘nutter’ because they point out that society is hyper-competitive (do you actually deny this point I have made???). I do wonder if you actually have any connection with the real world or whether you sit at your little monitor all of your ‘virtual’ life.

The strict part of the arguemnt that I found unconvincing here was that there was a transcendent quality of EDUCATION, the application of which would make everyone agree with the wisdom of Leap.

Wisdom of Leap? You have lived too long in the elitist society Haus, assuming that when anyone states their principles that they are in some way an expression of their own desire for one-up-man-ship.

Common sense is common sense – and the facts I have stated are open to common sense.

Do you deny that we are personal beings; That we are suited to dealing with things personally, on a personal basis, and that when we do not do this we feel ‘left out’ of life?

Do you deny that we are multifaceted beings, generalists, or would you claim that we are specialist creatures?

Do you deny that we are in general social beings, with a need for our own space, rather than isolated beings with an occasional need for sociality?

Do you deny that we are creatures capable of perceiving history and the ongoing orderliness of the world; leading us to value the stable things in life?

Do you deny that the VAST majority of us are inherently capable of looking after ourselves and directing ourselves rather than being mere drones?

Do you deny that a personal, social, multifaceted, historically aware bunch of creatures who are generally suited to directing their own lives are actually demeaned by a removal of privacy in favour of supervision, a removal of self-restraint in favour of behavioural enforcement, a loss of egalitarianism in favour of elitism, and a denial of vigilance in favour of living only half-awake? Or would you advocate such removals of what I believe to be essentials; and what sort of a world would that make?

Would you seek to protect even the most incompetent at the cost of the supervision and management of the many by an elite few who insist on keeping the many in a state of sleepiness, milking them in the great tax milking machine (rather than encouraging personal acts of charity) in order to protect the incapable and / or feckless?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:42 / 22.04.03
Leap, I was only explaining why your lack of skill in formal discussion was making your premises appear weak. That is, why your lack of literacy skills and analysis skills made you *sound* like a nutter, and how you might amend that. If you don't have the reading skills to accept that in the spirit in which it was intended, I'm afraid you fall below the bellweather of "competent", certainly as regards competence to deliver edicts on social engineering. And the sad, harsh truth of the REAL WORLD is that people like you never get to change the world, because you don't understand how to express yourselves coherently, and you cannot take criticism. You are, in the view of the REAL WORLD, a failure. See how comprehensively you have failed so far to convince a single person here if the wisdom of your claim? That is the REAL WORLD, where I live while you sit and tap away at your keyboard about magic kingdoms.

Not only does impoliteness not get us very far, Leap, I am also far better at ti than you. Try to behave.

As you keep failing to understadn, the question is not whether we like the idea of human dignity, human modesty (in fact, you mean "moderation", but never mind), human versatility....the part you seem to struggle with is that we can approve of them without a) accepting what you believe to be contingent qualities and b) accepting how you believe them to fit into your divine plan as right and good.

I accept that human beings are versatile, intelligent, historically aware, social animals. I could argue that the case is then inarguable for providing them with the opportunity to preserve their lives through a welfare state, thus allowing people to continue to be versatile, historically aware, social la la la la la aaaarggh animals, and perhaps transcend the meanness of their current circumstances in the future. Because I have faith in human beings, and I don't see unnecessarily discarding human life as a good thing. There is a yawning logical chasm between your first set of propositions and your second.
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:53 / 22.04.03
In truth it would create only a tiny underclass (those incapable of being self-responsible who have not previously shown themselves to be of good character and thus not a case of “throwing pearls before swine”), public services would be funded at a local level and have lower standards

OK. Lets ignore the fact that this local organisation makes any kind of education or health resembling a modern one unrealisable. What you are saying here, leap, is that through the power of EDUCATION, those who are better off in society will not take use their means to provide a better health and education for themselves and their family. Hence no underclass. Right.

So let me get this straight, the majority of people here would deny that we humans are personal, multifaceted, historically aware, social critters, largely capable of directing their own lives

I think the majority of people here value compassion and empathy rather more highly than you do. I think that many regard it as monstrous to allow a person to starve when the means exists, many times over, to feed them. Regardless of their circumstance.

I think many of us think that your insistence that the poor are lazy or incompetent (rather than ill or unfortunate, say) is extreme callousness, as well as contradicting experience. Unemployment is as much a consequence of econmic policy as anything else, for instance.

Would you seek to protect even the most incompetent at the cost of the supervision and management of the many by an elite few who insist on keeping the many in a state of sleepiness, milking them in the great tax milking machine (rather than encouraging personal acts of charity) in order to protect the incapable and / or feckless?

Yes. However, I reject your characterisation of "them" as universally incompetent, incapable or feckless. I reject your characterisation of tax as theft (I think it saves us money). I reject your notion that the universal provision of basic needs in a society of great wealth is somehow unhealthy - quite the opposite.
 
 
Leap
12:15 / 22.04.03
Haus –

Leap, I was only explaining why your lack of skill in formal discussion was making your premises appear weak. That is, why your lack of literacy skills and analysis skills made you *sound* like a nutter, and how you might amend that. If you don't have the reading skills to accept that in the spirit in which it was intended, I'm afraid you fall below the bellweather of "competent", certainly as regards competence to deliver edicts on social engineering.

Gee, I guess the 2:1 with philosophy as subsid was all for nothing then…..unless I am simply speaking to someone who enjoys playing (attempts at) superiority games….

And the sad, harsh truth of the REAL WORLD is that people like you never get to change the world, because you don't understand how to express yourselves coherently, and you cannot take criticism. You are, in the view of the REAL WORLD, a failure. See how comprehensively you have failed so far to convince a single person here if the wisdom of your claim? That is the REAL WORLD, where I live while you sit and tap away at your keyboard about magic kingdoms.

I have not met someone with such a pole-up-their-arse superiority complex as you have for a long time Haus. The catch is that I cannot source my work directly as it is still very much in discussion in other circles; so whilst trying to make an argument with limited access to my sources ‘things’ are a little tricky. Of course if you actually directly addressed you complaints to specific points I may find it easier that actually addressing the ego-inflated nonsense of your strutting around in ‘attack mode’ seeking fodder for your own insecurity; of course if you were actually willing and able to address any point from a perspective other than you customary cynicism and sniping it might prove a little easier.

Not only does impoliteness not get us very far, Leap, I am also far better at it than you. Try to behave.

Yet MORE one-up-man-ship. My I DO have you rattled do I not?

As you keep failing to understand, the question is not whether we like the idea of human dignity, human modesty (in fact, you mean "moderation", but never mind),

No, I mean modesty, Thankyou

human versatility....the part you seem to struggle with is that we can approve of them without a) accepting what you believe to be contingent qualities and b) accepting how you believe them to fit into your divine plan as right and good.

Then address the plan rather than the keywords perhaps?

I accept that human beings are versatile, intelligent, historically aware, social animals. I could argue that the case is then inarguable for providing them with the opportunity to preserve their lives through a welfare state, thus allowing people to continue to be versatile, historically aware, social la la la la la aaaarggh animals, and perhaps transcend the meanness of their current circumstances in the future. Because I have faith in human beings, and I don't see unnecessarily discarding human life as a good thing. There is a yawning logical chasm between your first set of propositions and your second.

If the provision of a welfare state system comes at the cost of a society rooted in privacy, self-restraint, egalitarianism and vigilance, denies fundamental wisdom about how to live in the world, and implies that those who work owe a living to those who do not, how can it be a good thing?

Lurid –

OK. Lets ignore the fact that this local organisation makes any kind of education or health resembling a modern one unrealisable. What you are saying here, leap, is that through the power of EDUCATION, those who are better off in society will not take use their means to provide a better health and education for themselves and their family. Hence no underclass. Right.

The point I am making, though the modesty part, is that the vast majority of people are capable of learning to not seek one-up-man-ship profits, and thus the whole idea of “better off” becomes a moot point. If you disagree with me, instead claiming that people are NOT capable of such behaviour, can you please tell me i. What sort of policing system you suggest, and ii. Why such a system should be created when people are apparently in you opinion fundamentally inherently opposed to egalitarianism in any case?

I think the majority of people here value compassion and empathy rather more highly than you do. I think that many regard it as monstrous to allow a person to starve when the means exists, many times over, to feed them. Regardless of their circumstance.

Regardless of whether the feckless are laughing at you for feeding them when they do no work? Regardless of whether your own dignity is being stripped (even if only partially) from you to feed them?

I think many of us think that your insistence that the poor are lazy or incompetent (rather than ill or unfortunate, say) is extreme callousness, as well as contradicting experience. Unemployment is as much a consequence of economic policy as anything else, for instance.

Who says I am hitting the poor? I am hitting the LAZY; those who refuse to work, not those who are disenfranchised by society. The very enfranchisement of people is what I am talking about!

Yes. However, I reject your characterisation of "them" as universally incompetent, incapable or feckless. I reject your characterisation of tax as theft (I think it saves us money). I reject your notion that the universal provision of basic needs in a society of great wealth is somehow unhealthy - quite the opposite.

I am opposed to a “society of great wealth”, which encourages greed (seeking the exceptional), and instead favour a society of modest wealth (where power-elites do not remove the ability of many of the currently poor (but not lazy) to look after themselves (especially whilst supporting the feckless with taxes!).

Regarding tax – it is taken without my consent, to provide services regardless of whether I desire them, and if I withhold it for ANY reason I face imprisonment. Can you please say how that is NOT theft?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:48 / 22.04.03
Oh yes, that's me on the ropes. Please, don't punish me.

A 2:1 in philosophy "as subsid", eh? How about A-levels? How were your A-levels? Presumably you have them framed on your wall, so it can't be that hard to find out. GCSEs? I'm sure you have a highly vindicating story about how you were not given the tutorial support you needed in French...

Your common sense appears neither common nor necessarily sensical, Leap, and no amount of whining about how much better you are than me is going to change that. Try instead to address the basic counterargument:

While restricting access to "charity" on an arbitrary basis determined by nebulous ideas of "prior conduct", Leapworld engineers not a community but a series of monads, on the sides both of the poor and the "benefice-givers". It fosters greater fragmentation and selfishness, and applies moral qualifiers to the human right not to starve while others have more than enough to go around. It is constructed according to the highly specific, tabloid-driven morality of a single person, who interprets that not as a problem but as an argument for a magical process of EDUCATION that will make everybody think as him, which is naturally assumed to be the correct way to think. He believes that this would give everybody the level of perspicacity and discernment to decide who among the poor should live and who should die, without prejudice or malice. In essence, Leapworld is the application of a single person's prejudices across an entire society, backed up by admirable but almost completely irrelevant broad statements about what it is to be human, which could be used to support almost any piece of social engineering one wished.

But of course we already know what will result: a restatement of the "we believe that kittens are lovely" rights-of-man section, followed by a huge leap to your retro wonderland, and a strenuous insistence that the two follow naturally as night follows day.

In short, Leap, your utopia is narrow-minded, solipsistic and...well, just *tabloid*. For God's sake, you are arguing for it using *Honda adverts* as an academic resource for our fallen world. Your utter failure to process that there might be reasonable objections, your aggrieved tone at the suggestion that anyone could disagree, and your pusillanimity in the face of people not like you do little to convince me that the implantation of your ethical structure in the hearts and minds of children everywhere is the saving of Albion. You seem unable to produce any economic argument in opposition to Lurid's contention that this system would be expensive and unworkable. Maybe you could start there. Or the idea that your idea that letting people starve to death is more suitable and fitting to human dignity than allowing them to eat without forcing them to pass a "worthiness exam" first. Because a fairly simple statement might be that a situation in which the poor are forced to demonstrate their worthiness to live with prior acts of "good character" is demeaning not only to them but also to the people forcing them to do it if they do not want to starve. It all sounds rather dehumanising to me (of course, you will answer that it is in fact REHUMANISING, and then probably say "dignity" and "modesty" a few times. That'll larn me. Before you even get your "sources" back from your allies in Mirkwood).
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:05 / 22.04.03
I think Haus has said it pretty well there.

BTW, the economic argument is, in some sense, a minor objection to leap's world. After all, ze is proposing callous dystopia as far as I'm concerned. The point is, it isn't even reasonable on its own terms.

The idea that in a much more costly health service, those with money will not pay extra to help their children, for instance, is ludicrous. Given that this pattern will be reflected in all public services, you would get a pretty nasty hierarchy. But I've already said this. TBH, given the level of this debate, it is probably a waste of our time to engage in it

Who says I am hitting the poor? I am hitting the LAZY; those who refuse to work, not those who are disenfranchised by society.

Right. Because i) the rich are never lazy and ii) we have some magical means to assess someone's worthiness that isn't in any way arbitrary or inhumane.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:08 / 22.04.03
Be fair, Lurid. In Leaptopia, people aren't rich - they have modest wealth. Therefore people could not be rich and lazy, and would be unable to pay extra for better health care, unless they did so by cutting down on their charitable contributions to the worthy, and nobody would do that just to ensure their child gets better medical care - it would be antithetical to human dignity.

Bit stuck on ii) mind - I suspect he will simply tell us again that with EDUCATION previous good character will be apparent and a simple matter to judge, both ethically and financially.
 
 
Leap
13:20 / 22.04.03
Haus –

Oh yes, that's me on the ropes. Please, don't punish me.

Ah, a wind-bag AND a drama queen; you must be a constant trial to your friends (assuming you actually have any).

A 2:1 in philosophy "as subsid", eh? How about A-levels? How were your A-levels?

Mature student entry – no ‘A’ Levels required, sorry.

Try instead to address the basic counterargument:

Ok, lets see you give one.

While restricting access to "charity" on an arbitrary basis determined by nebulous ideas of "prior conduct", Leapworld engineers not a community but a series of monads, on the sides both of the poor and the "beneficent". It fosters greater fragmentation and selfishness,

How so? How is favouring the personal over the impersonal and the modest over the exceptional fostering “greater fragmentation and selfishness”? How is making charity a matter of personal judgement (as opposed to institutionalised judgement) doing so?

and applies moral qualifiers to the human right not to starve

I am sorry for interrupting again, but could you please state where your got this ‘right’ from?

It is constructed according to the highly specific, tabloid-driven morality of a single person, who interprets that not as a problem but as an argument for a magical process of EDUCATION that will make everybody think as him, which is naturally assumed to be the correct way to think.

Please explain how a morality based on modesty and privacy is in any way “tabloid driven” given their propensity for extremist and privacy invading ‘reporting’?

He believes that this would give everybody the level of perspicacity and discernment to decide who among the poor should live and who should die, without prejudice or malice.

Oh, you mean I think that most people are capable of deciding this rather than relying on an elite to direct them?

, backed up by admirable but almost completely irrelevant broad statements about what it is to be human, which could be used to support almost any piece of social engineering one wished.

Please give examples of such alternative social engineering.

But of course we already know what will result: a restatement of the "we believe that kittens are lovely" rights-of-man section, followed by a huge leap to your retro wonderland, and a strenuous insistence that the two follow naturally as night follows day.

Could you make you mind up. Am I fluffy kittens or hard nosed callous fascist-dictator-for-life ?

In short, Leap, your utopia is narrow-minded, solipsistic and...well, just *tabloid*.

I have countered all of your claims on this matter so far. Do you have any better attempts?

For God's sake, you are arguing for it using *Honda adverts* as an academic resource for our fallen world.

No, I am using it as one of several examples on a message board discussion.

Your utter failure to process that their might be reasonable objections, your aggrieved tone that anyone could disagree, and your pusillanimity

I am sorry – my what?

in the face of people not like you do little to convince me that the implantation of your ethical structure in the hearts and minds of children everywhere. You seem unable to produce any economic argument in opposition to Lurid's contention that this system would be expensive and unworkable. Maybe you could start there.

How can I counter claims of price when no examples are given as to what is being bought?

Or the idea that your idea that letting people starve to death is more suitable and fitting to human dignity than allowing them to eat without forcing them to pass a "worthiness exam" first.

Have I ever said they must starve? No. I have said that they must FEED THEMSELVES, and if they cannot be bothered then let them starve.

Because a fairly simple statement might be that a situation in which the poor are forced to demonstrate their worthiness to live with prior acts of "good character" is demeaning not only to them but also to the people forcing them to do it if they do not want to starve.

So we should give to all and sundry without judgement and discernment?

It all sounds rather dehumanising to me (of course, you will answer that it is in fact REHUMANISING, and then probably say "dignity" and "modesty" a few times. That'll larn me. Before you even get your "sources" back from your allies in Mirkwood).

For a two year old in the middle of a temper tantrum, it probably would seem dehumanising.

Lurid –

The idea that in a much more costly health service, those with money will not pay extra to help their children, for instance, is ludicrous. Given that this pattern will be reflected in all public services, you would get a pretty nasty hierarchy. But I've already said this. TBH, given the level of this debate, it is probably a waste of our time to engage in it

How about addressing the points I made, in response to you, instead of continuing to sound off on your own agenda?

Right. Because i) the rich are never lazy and ii) we have some magical means to assess someone's worthiness that isn't in any way arbitrary or inhumane.

So may I assume you do not support democracy either?

Haus –

Be fair, Lurid. In Leaptopia, people aren't rich - they have modest wealth. Therefore people could not be rich and lazy, and would be unable to pay extra for better health care, unless they did so by cutting down on their charitable contributions to the worthy, and nobody would do that just to ensure their child gets better medical care - it would be antithetical to human dignity.

Although when you consider the greatest dangers to health are poor sanitation, excessive stress, environmental pollutants and a poor diet/level of exercise, you realise that it is not quite the cash heavy matter you seem to think it is.

Bit stuck on ii) mind - I suspect he will simply tell us again that with EDUCATION previous good character will be apparent and a simple matter to judge, both ethically and financially.

If people are not generally capable of such, as a rule, are you instead proposing that such decisions can only be made by an elite (in which case, the same question on democracy applies to you)?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:31 / 22.04.03
I'm suggesting that your view transcends elitism and becomes solipsisism - it presupposes that everybody, if only they are taught correctly, will naturally believe in the rightness of your tabloid project.

"Tabloid" by the way, because intransigent, inflexible, loathing of the "unworthy" and aimed at punishing those that the arbiter of public morality (that is, you and your solipsistic EDUCATION) deems "feckless", "lazy" or whatever other handy term of abuse is to hand.

As for alternatives...how about this one:

Humanity has the right to its dignity. Humanity is social. Humanity is versatile. Humanity is aware of history. Modest means are desirable. therefore, high taxation should provide a reasonably consistent standard of living for everyone, with social incentives (company, companionship, social standing) encouraging people to contribute to the most suitable job for them. Because people are able to remember the history in which they have been maintained to a decent standard of living through the taxation of others, they seek to work hard and contribute to their society, as in this society people are cared for and happy.

Same precepts, used to justify a high-taxation system. This is, of course, going to sail uncomprehended past, but I did at least try.

It's really pretty simple. And simply telling people that you have refuted their arguments is, alas, only going to work as a rebuttal if we have all had EDUCATION.

So, reality check - is anyone here remotely convinced by Leaptopia? Has literally *anyone* felt that his beliefs are sensible, humanitarian and coherently expressed?
 
 
The Natural Way
13:35 / 22.04.03
Leap, it's perfectly bloody valid and proper for people to address the basic assumptions behind Leaptopia before they get onto the specifics of yr "counter-points" (although, TBH, I'm not sure that they haven't). It's the first test of any argument - as I'm sure you must realise, having studied philosophy and all.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:53 / 22.04.03
So, reality check - is anyone here remotely convinced by Leaptopia? Has literally *anyone* felt that his beliefs are sensible, humanitarian and coherently expressed? - Haus

I seriously doubt that anyone has been convinced, but speaking for myself, I'd say it is interesting to come across someone like leap. Someone, who out of what are probably good intentions, is proposing a horrifying vision for a society. The fact that it is so badly thought out is either cause for comfort or despair, depending on how you look at it.

Luckily, I don't think there is the remotest chance of it coming about. I don't doubt that the extreme right would find it attractive, but they aren't all as devoid of critical examination as leap. The sorts of measures he is proposing would probably cripple a country economically as well as stirring up a good deal of unrest. There are *reasons* we have a welfare system that aren't all to do with a fluffy love of humanity.

That said, The War on Terror is being interpreted by some as a political move to make exactly the sort of things leap is talking about more palatable - or at least, less immediate. Even this has its limits, however.
 
 
Leap
14:21 / 22.04.03
Haus –

I'm suggesting that your view transcends elitism and becomes solipsism - it presupposes that everybody, if only they are taught correctly, will naturally believe in the rightness of your tabloid project.

Not MY way, natures way, based upon an appreciation of human nature that applies to the vast majority as a general rule. So if I believe that people are personal, social, multifaceted, historically aware beings who are as a rule capable of directing their own lives (and are suited to modesty – being only brought to believe in the seeking of the ‘exceptional’ (whatever that may be) through a lack of sense of perspective (itself brought about by education that is not up to the job)) I am being solipsistic?

"Tabloid" by the way, because intransigent, inflexible, loathing of the "unworthy" and aimed at punishing those that the arbiter of public morality (that is, you and your solipsistic EDUCATION) deems "feckless", "lazy" or whatever other handy term of abuse is to hand.

Oh, so the holding of firm principles, combined with a sense of right and wrong which actually says the feckless are not owed a living by those who work, makes me intransigent. What does that make you in disagreeing with me?

As for alternatives...how about this one:

Humanity has the right to its dignity. Humanity is social. Humanity is versatile. Humanity is aware of history. Modest means are desirable. therefore, high taxation should provide a reasonably consistent standard of living for everyone, with social incentives (company, companionship, social standing) encouraging people to contribute to the most suitable job for them. Because people are able to remember the history in which they have been maintained to a decent standard of living through the taxation of others, they seek to work hard and contribute to their society, as in this society people are cared for and happy.

Same precepts, used to justify a high-taxation system. This is, of course, going to sail uncomprehended past, but I did at least try.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten the ‘personal’ part.

CDR –

Leap, it's perfectly bloody valid and proper for people to address the basic assumptions behind Leaptopia before they get onto the specifics of yr "counter-points" (although, TBH, I'm not sure that they haven't). It's the first test of any argument - as I'm sure you must realise, having studied philosophy and all.

If only they would do so instead of ignoring the very basic essence of what I am saying in favour of flying off on some tangent that because some right winger once said what I say I must a daily mail reader…….

Ok folks, can we take this one point at a time, with you answering each of the following points I make with your opinions on the matter?


People are by nature multifaceted generalists rather than rather two-dimensional specialists; being human is made up of a variety of things.

People are personal critters – we are ‘suited’ to being personally involved in our lives rather than hand aspects of them over to others; when things are too much for us to do alone, it is better to share than delegate (keeping our hand in, maintaining personal involvement in what is an intimate part of being human).

People are social critters – although we often need time on our own, as a rule we welcome living in groups (feeling distressed and lonely when not part of them).

People are generally capable of seeing to their needs and directing their own lives without interference – this is what marks the difference between an adult and a child; in nature, it is the role of the parent to bring the child up to be self-reliant (not to be confused with selfish or asocial). We are not drones by nature (in need of managing – except, that is, when we are children or kept artificially in a child-like/ish state).

People are generally born equal; there are differences but none are actually born with a suitability to serve, nor rule (this comes as an amalgam of our personal and generally capable aspects).

People are historically aware – we gain a sense of perspective and a sense of the ongoing and orderly nature of life / the world, the bigger picture into which we fit and by which we are contextualised.

Okay that is part one over. Now onto part two.

As personal, social, capable, historically aware, multifaceted beings we are demeaned by a loss of the centrality of the personal, the social, our capability (or natural path to such), our historical awareness and our many facets. Thus our dignity is intimately tied into the centrality of the concepts of privacy (to replace it with supervision is an attack on our ‘personal’ and ‘capable’ nature), self-restraint (to replace it with enforcement is an attack on our ‘capable’ nature and a denial of our ability to learn for ourselves from history and taker personal charge of our own lives), egalitarianism (to replace it with elitism would be to deny that we are all, as rule, equally capable of being human and equally endowed with our human nature (and so all of this argument should be respected, and the modest, the common, should be sought whilst the exceptional, the superiority granting, is denied)) and vigilance (to replace it with sleepiness denies the value of our human nature to live private and personal, egalitarianistically expressed, self-restraint guided, lives – vigilance teaches that we should as a rule neither deny these things to others nor to ourselves).

A tax funded, institutionalised, big govt, welfare statist, system denies the above by replacing the personal/private/self-determined/egalitarian/intimate way of living that we are suited to with an impersonal/managerial/supervisory/elitist/interactive way of living by means of giving control to an institutionalised elite that formalises social processes, stripping away personal judgement/responsibility and a generally egalitarian view of life in favour of a hierarchical mechanisation of life.

Now please answer what I have said, point by point, if you would be so kind.
 
  

Page: 12345(6)7891011... 12

 
  
Add Your Reply