5 ms·

Two main issues with Basic Guaranteed Income: 1) It assumes that, just because you're a member of homo sapiens species, you ought to get resources that others

Two main issues with Basic Guaranteed Income: 1) It assumes that, just because you're a member of homo sapiens species, you ought to get resources that others produce. Why? I care more about my dog than I care about most people. If someone kidnapped my dog and 100k random people and told me: "You can either save your dog or 100k random people. Choosing one will mean me killing the other". I would choose my dog to live and permit 100k people to die. 2) Something very similar could be applied to dating and reproduction. Why not? You could argue that you live long enough to reproduce and that reproduction is the basic, biological purpose of life for all organisms. So, if someone is unattractive, just create a Basic Reproduction Guarantee. The same reasoning used for redistributing money could be used for redistributing sex. Since Basic Income is not considered stealing, then Basic Reproduction should not be considered rape.

Redoubts 11y ago
> I would choose my dog to live and permit 100k people to die. I imagine that sentiment is rather uncommon.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  I dunno, his dog is pretty amazing.
pikzen 11y ago
What the flying fuck >1) It assumes that, just because you're a member of homo sapiens species, you ought to get resources that others produce. Why? I care more about my dog than I care about most people. If someone kidnapped my dog and 100k random people and told me: "You can either save your dog or 100k random people. Choosing one will mean me killing the other". I would choose my dog to live and permit 100k people to die. If you thought the trolley problem was a nice ehtics question, that right there is pure neglect for the value of human life. Can't do anything about that for you mate. >2) Something very similar could be applied to dating and reproduction. Why not? You could argue that you live long enough to reproduce and that reproduction is the basic, biological purpose of life for all organisms. So, if someone is unattractive, just create a Basic Reproduction Guarantee. The same reasoning used for redistributing money could be used for redistributing sex. Since Basic Income is not considered stealing, then Basic Reproduction should not be considered rape. The term "basic" income is stupid, and should not be used. What is basic is being able to live in reasonable conditions. As it stands, the only way to do that reliably right now is to have a guaranteed income. Sex is not necessary for you to survive. And contrary to what you might think, no, basic income is not stealing. Taxes are not stealing. That's part of living in a society. If you wish to not have things stolen from you, I highly recommend going to live in a remote part of the world, where noone will prevent you from doing your job. Of course, your job is probably only possible because of the whole framework that your society has put into place.
- not-humanist 11y ago
  > that right there is pure neglect for the value of human life What value? If you believe in God and think that people were created in his image, then human life does have value independent of what anyone thinks. But, if you're not a believer, then people are just self-deluded carbon-based life forms with limited lifespans on some tiny rock in a vast universe with 100s of billions of galaxies and 100 of billions of stars in each of those. > Sex is not necessary for you to survive. Of course not. That is not what I wrote. The question is why you would value survival instead of reproduction. If reproduction is the basic, biological goal, then it should have more value than survival. - For example, the goal of working for the most part is to get the money. Since you like Basic Income, you would say that people should get the goal(money-basic income) and skip the work. - What I say is that people make money for the most part to find a partner and reproduce. So, using your reasoning, since the goal is reproduction, then they should get that goal(dating-sex-reproduction) and skip the money. Get it?
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    Ah, you're an anti-atheist using a stupid strawman to attempt to argue against the idea that morality can have a source other than divine commands. Most religious people aren't as stupid as you seem to be, so I doubt you'll find much buy-in for your arguments here. http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/
    - not-humanist 11y ago
      You're a total manipulator. First, you don't provide a definition of morality. You could say: "I have a dog named 'Morality', so it's possible that the source of morality is something other than divine commands". What is your view of morality? Second, you don't provide an argument for how it's possible that human life can have intrinsic value(independent of cultural of personal preferences). BTW, I'm a non-theist and a moral nihilist.
      - kaonashi 11y ago

Redoubts 11y ago

> I would choose my dog to live and permit 100k people to die. I imagine that sentiment is rather uncommon.

dllthomas 11y ago
I dunno, his dog is pretty amazing.

pikzen 11y ago

What the flying fuck >1) It assumes that, just because you're a member of homo sapiens species, you ought to get resources that others produce. Why? I care more about my dog than I care about most people. If someone kidnapped my dog and 100k random people and told me: "You can either save your dog or 100k random people. Choosing one will mean me killing the other". I would choose my dog to live and permit 100k people to die. If you thought the trolley problem was a nice ehtics question, that right there is pure neglect for the value of human life. Can't do anything about that for you mate. >2) Something very similar could be applied to dating and reproduction. Why not? You could argue that you live long enough to reproduce and that reproduction is the basic, biological purpose of life for all organisms. So, if someone is unattractive, just create a Basic Reproduction Guarantee. The same reasoning used for redistributing money could be used for redistributing sex. Since Basic Income is not considered stealing, then Basic Reproduction should not be considered rape. The term "basic" income is stupid, and should not be used. What is basic is being able to live in reasonable conditions. As it stands, the only way to do that reliably right now is to have a guaranteed income. Sex is not necessary for you to survive. And contrary to what you might think, no, basic income is not stealing. Taxes are not stealing. That's part of living in a society. If you wish to not have things stolen from you, I highly recommend going to live in a remote part of the world, where noone will prevent you from doing your job. Of course, your job is probably only possible because of the whole framework that your society has put into place.

not-humanist 11y ago
> that right there is pure neglect for the value of human life What value? If you believe in God and think that people were created in his image, then human life does have value independent of what anyone thinks. But, if you're not a believer, then people are just self-deluded carbon-based life forms with limited lifespans on some tiny rock in a vast universe with 100s of billions of galaxies and 100 of billions of stars in each of those. > Sex is not necessary for you to survive. Of course not. That is not what I wrote. The question is why you would value survival instead of reproduction. If reproduction is the basic, biological goal, then it should have more value than survival. - For example, the goal of working for the most part is to get the money. Since you like Basic Income, you would say that people should get the goal(money-basic income) and skip the work. - What I say is that people make money for the most part to find a partner and reproduce. So, using your reasoning, since the goal is reproduction, then they should get that goal(dating-sex-reproduction) and skip the money. Get it?
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Ah, you're an anti-atheist using a stupid strawman to attempt to argue against the idea that morality can have a source other than divine commands. Most religious people aren't as stupid as you seem to be, so I doubt you'll find much buy-in for your arguments here. http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/ http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/
  - not-humanist 11y ago
    You're a total manipulator. First, you don't provide a definition of morality. You could say: "I have a dog named 'Morality', so it's possible that the source of morality is something other than divine commands". What is your view of morality? Second, you don't provide an argument for how it's possible that human life can have intrinsic value(independent of cultural of personal preferences). BTW, I'm a non-theist and a moral nihilist.
    - kaonashi 11y ago