5 ms·

Losing doesn't have to mean you 100% agree with another party at the end. Learning something new and changing your original position is good enough. > someone

by hbrn 4y ago

Losing doesn't have to mean you 100% agree with another party at the end. Learning something new and changing your original position is good enough. > someone thinks poverty is not upsetting Someone was able to find happiness in non-material things. Good for them. > Nazism is right Ok, but was it absolutely wrong? Should we dismiss anything that even remotely resembles Nazism? Were there any good parts that Nazism had? E.g. patriotism or anti-communism? Short-term dictatorship can be better than alternatives (especially during wars). Eugenics on it's own is also not bad (e.g. most people are pro-abortion when fetus has a deadly disease, which is a form of eugenics). > Rich people should become richer and poor people should become poorer Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world. Instead of fighting laws of nature (a battle you cannot win), maybe it's better to focus on improving well-being of "poor"? I.e. you should be able to live a good life even if you are poor. > Women should not have equal rights or vote Unequal rights doesn't necessarily mean someone is being taken advantage of. In theory, an optimal distribution of rights could very well be unequal. You can also do a thought experiment on how society would look like if only families are allowed to vote (with highest earner in the family voting, which essentially means "women cannot vote").

the_af 4y ago
> Someone was able to find happiness in non-material things. Good for them. Poverty is not having to eat. Poverty is a self-compounding problem: you cannot eat, you cannot work (or not enough), you get sick, so you cannot work, etc. Every accident impacts someone living in poverty way more than someone who is not. "Find happiness in non-material things" is something only those who have their basic necessities covered have the possibility to contemplate. > Ok, but was it absolutely wrong? Should we dismiss anything that even remotely resembles Nazism? Were there any good parts that Nazism had? E.g. patriotism or anti-communism? "Yes", "yes", "no", and "no". > Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer. Engage with that. (Also, poverty is not "a law of nature" and it's not true that every poor person in the US is among the most wealthy people in the world). > Unequal rights doesn't necessarily mean someone is being taken advantage of. Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit. PS: you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me. I don't care to debate with you about those awful, made-up and purposefully stupid statements. I don't want you to "teach me" anything, either.
- hbrn 4y ago
  > Poverty is not having to eat No, that's famine. Poverty has many definitions, but generally it's not being able to meet a certain standard of living. It may include nutrition standards, but again, malnutrition in US is very different from malnutrition in Africa. Again, if someone is "poor" by US standards, but lives a happy life - good for them. I could learn a thing or two from them. You could too. > "Yes", "yes", "no", and "no". Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear indication of a closed mindset. The exact opposite of what the post is about. > That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer. But it does. Rich are getting richer is the natural effect of positive feedback loops. You are rewarded for the value you produce, which allows you to produce more value. Streamlining those loops allowed us to create enormous amount of wealth in the last century. The only way to fight it is to create an artificial compensating negative feedback loop, i.e. punish people for creating value. Evidently, not a good idea if you look at famine in USSR (google for "Dekulakization"). People like you seem to focus on a few outliers without recognizing that "rich getting richer" has benefitted billions. If having a few billionaires is the cost of moving billions out of poverty, I'll gladly take it. So yeah, rich should be getting richer, because the only alternative is everybody being poor. > Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit. Is this really your best argument?
  - the_af 4y ago
    > No, that's famine. No, that's poverty. Poverty is a self-reinforcing loop, this is well studied. Malnutrition is malnutrition, you die from it in North America, Africa or whatever. I don't care for your new age "find happiness where you can" mumbo jumbo. I don't live in the US nor anywhere close to the US, so stick your assumptions where the sun don't shine! > Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear indication of a closed mindset I'm sorry you find denouncing and rejecting Nazism is boring. > "rich getting richer" You conveniently forgot "the poor must get poorer". > (google for "Dekulakization") I'm puzzled, is "assuming people don't know a term I'm using and need googling it" part of your "just listen, do not try to win debates" strategy of TFA? Thanks for teaching me though, I didn't know anything about the history of the USSR! It must be that I am not "producing value", haw haw haw! I wrote a longer post to your bullshit reply, but I won't bother, since you decided to ignore this: "you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me". Since you failed to engage with pretty simple instructions, and instead you chose to go your own way -- funnily enough, breaking the premise of TFA, which was "to listen"; instead of doing so you launched into an attempt to refute what you guessed were my objections -- I'll bid you adieu. Good luck with your debate tactics!

by hbrn 4y ago

the_af 4y ago

> Someone was able to find happiness in non-material things. Good for them. Poverty is not having to eat. Poverty is a self-compounding problem: you cannot eat, you cannot work (or not enough), you get sick, so you cannot work, etc. Every accident impacts someone living in poverty way more than someone who is not. "Find happiness in non-material things" is something only those who have their basic necessities covered have the possibility to contemplate. > Ok, but was it absolutely wrong? Should we dismiss anything that even remotely resembles Nazism? Were there any good parts that Nazism had? E.g. patriotism or anti-communism? "Yes", "yes", "no", and "no". > Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer. Engage with that. (Also, poverty is not "a law of nature" and it's not true that every poor person in the US is among the most wealthy people in the world). > Unequal rights doesn't necessarily mean someone is being taken advantage of. Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit. PS: you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me. I don't care to debate with you about those awful, made-up and purposefully stupid statements. I don't want you to "teach me" anything, either.

hbrn 4y ago
> Poverty is not having to eat No, that's famine. Poverty has many definitions, but generally it's not being able to meet a certain standard of living. It may include nutrition standards, but again, malnutrition in US is very different from malnutrition in Africa. Again, if someone is "poor" by US standards, but lives a happy life - good for them. I could learn a thing or two from them. You could too. > "Yes", "yes", "no", and "no". Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear indication of a closed mindset. The exact opposite of what the post is about. > That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer. But it does. Rich are getting richer is the natural effect of positive feedback loops. You are rewarded for the value you produce, which allows you to produce more value. Streamlining those loops allowed us to create enormous amount of wealth in the last century. The only way to fight it is to create an artificial compensating negative feedback loop, i.e. punish people for creating value. Evidently, not a good idea if you look at famine in USSR (google for "Dekulakization"). People like you seem to focus on a few outliers without recognizing that "rich getting richer" has benefitted billions. If having a few billionaires is the cost of moving billions out of poverty, I'll gladly take it. So yeah, rich should be getting richer, because the only alternative is everybody being poor. > Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit. Is this really your best argument?
- the_af 4y ago
  > No, that's famine. No, that's poverty. Poverty is a self-reinforcing loop, this is well studied. Malnutrition is malnutrition, you die from it in North America, Africa or whatever. I don't care for your new age "find happiness where you can" mumbo jumbo. I don't live in the US nor anywhere close to the US, so stick your assumptions where the sun don't shine! > Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear indication of a closed mindset I'm sorry you find denouncing and rejecting Nazism is boring. > "rich getting richer" You conveniently forgot "the poor must get poorer". > (google for "Dekulakization") I'm puzzled, is "assuming people don't know a term I'm using and need googling it" part of your "just listen, do not try to win debates" strategy of TFA? Thanks for teaching me though, I didn't know anything about the history of the USSR! It must be that I am not "producing value", haw haw haw! I wrote a longer post to your bullshit reply, but I won't bother, since you decided to ignore this: "you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me". Since you failed to engage with pretty simple instructions, and instead you chose to go your own way -- funnily enough, breaking the premise of TFA, which was "to listen"; instead of doing so you launched into an attempt to refute what you guessed were my objections -- I'll bid you adieu. Good luck with your debate tactics!