3 ms·

“1 in 7 billion uses luxury of online anonymity to play at being a nihilist. Forgets real world self and political power is limited to whatever the masses enabl

“1 in 7 billion uses luxury of online anonymity to play at being a nihilist. Forgets real world self and political power is limited to whatever the masses enable. Would rather ostricize self politically than speak up.”

mrow84 6y ago
I presume you are aiming this at me, and if so it doesn't apply - I was simply asking for a rationale for the original claim that "Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair." I would suggest that your retort, presuming that is what it is, is mere posturing; either you have a substantive answer to the question or not - so far you have not provided one.
- unfortun8 6y ago
  I would suggest you disabuse yourself of the notion such an answer is owed. Someone putting time into a response you’ll accept is a privilege you earn, not an obligation you demand. If your take is “so what”, fine stay home. You become politically irrelevant. “So what” that you even exist and to your political positions then. Our biology doesn’t allow for altruism. John Stuart Mill already covered this; the government should strive to be blind to bias in its institutions, but there’s no stopping a community from literally ejecting the dead weight. Don’t get involved in political conversation that doesn’t draw you in. Whatever. Nobody has to take your indifference to any topic as anything more than the emotional fart of a nobody who is indifferent to supporting people that to them end up being total nobodies. Exist in your circularness of nobody caring. It’s easier when nobody matters.
- ghostwriter 6y ago
  Because no one owes you nothing by their unalienable right to be in charge of their own life, and you only get what you deserve by your actions. That's the fundamental moral principle of fairness. If your actions oriented towards creation then you get to hold your earnings by the right of your productive work. If your actions oriented towards extorting the value from those who create it, you deserve to be ostracized.
  - mrow84 6y ago
    > Because no one owes you nothing by their unalienable right to be in charge of their own life The question isn't whether people are obliged to provide for others, but whether or not it is necessarily unfair for them to do so. Your statement only addresses the former case, not the latter (irrespective of whether it is labelled "the fundamental moral principle of fairness").
    - ghostwriter 6y ago
      > The question isn't whether people are obliged to provide for others, but whether or not it is necessarily unfair for them to do so. sure, let's take a practical exercise and see how you feel about spending your days at cotton fields working for free. Doesn't have to be forever, just a few years, to get a meaningful conclusion about the level of that "necessarily" that you doubt about.
      - mrow84 6y ago
        As a reminder, this is the original claim: > Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair. I had asked for an explanation of why this should be so. Your example, "being forced to work in the cotton fields for free", is only rhetoric - it does not actually address the question. There are an infinity of circumstances that would involve "everyone getting the same amount just for existing" that do not involve "being forced to work in the cotton fields", "being forced to work", or indeed "being forced (to do anything)". I find it interesting that in all the replies to my query, none have really been able to provide anything approaching an answer. The closest (in my opinion) is [0] by aeternum, but that boils down to saying that it is unfair if things don't progress as quickly as they could, but doesn't explain why - this in itself seems pretty radical, when made explicit (hopefully I haven't done too much of an injustice in my paraphrasing). These claims are made boldly, but the rationale seems more difficult to tease out. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24215835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24215835

mrow84 6y ago

I presume you are aiming this at me, and if so it doesn't apply - I was simply asking for a rationale for the original claim that "Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair." I would suggest that your retort, presuming that is what it is, is mere posturing; either you have a substantive answer to the question or not - so far you have not provided one.

unfortun8 6y ago
I would suggest you disabuse yourself of the notion such an answer is owed. Someone putting time into a response you’ll accept is a privilege you earn, not an obligation you demand. If your take is “so what”, fine stay home. You become politically irrelevant. “So what” that you even exist and to your political positions then. Our biology doesn’t allow for altruism. John Stuart Mill already covered this; the government should strive to be blind to bias in its institutions, but there’s no stopping a community from literally ejecting the dead weight. Don’t get involved in political conversation that doesn’t draw you in. Whatever. Nobody has to take your indifference to any topic as anything more than the emotional fart of a nobody who is indifferent to supporting people that to them end up being total nobodies. Exist in your circularness of nobody caring. It’s easier when nobody matters.
ghostwriter 6y ago
Because no one owes you nothing by their unalienable right to be in charge of their own life, and you only get what you deserve by your actions. That's the fundamental moral principle of fairness. If your actions oriented towards creation then you get to hold your earnings by the right of your productive work. If your actions oriented towards extorting the value from those who create it, you deserve to be ostracized.
- mrow84 6y ago
  > Because no one owes you nothing by their unalienable right to be in charge of their own life The question isn't whether people are obliged to provide for others, but whether or not it is necessarily unfair for them to do so. Your statement only addresses the former case, not the latter (irrespective of whether it is labelled "the fundamental moral principle of fairness").
  - ghostwriter 6y ago
    > The question isn't whether people are obliged to provide for others, but whether or not it is necessarily unfair for them to do so. sure, let's take a practical exercise and see how you feel about spending your days at cotton fields working for free. Doesn't have to be forever, just a few years, to get a meaningful conclusion about the level of that "necessarily" that you doubt about.
    - mrow84 6y ago
      As a reminder, this is the original claim: > Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair. I had asked for an explanation of why this should be so. Your example, "being forced to work in the cotton fields for free", is only rhetoric - it does not actually address the question. There are an infinity of circumstances that would involve "everyone getting the same amount just for existing" that do not involve "being forced to work in the cotton fields", "being forced to work", or indeed "being forced (to do anything)". I find it interesting that in all the replies to my query, none have really been able to provide anything approaching an answer. The closest (in my opinion) is [0] by aeternum, but that boils down to saying that it is unfair if things don't progress as quickly as they could, but doesn't explain why - this in itself seems pretty radical, when made explicit (hopefully I haven't done too much of an injustice in my paraphrasing). These claims are made boldly, but the rationale seems more difficult to tease out. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24215835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24215835