Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ShalmaneserIII t1_iqq8qjx wrote

Reply to comment by apriorian in Utopia”: meaning ‘no place’; from Greek: οὐ (not’) and τόπος (‘place’) by Sphaerocypraea

Okay, so do you have a duty to provide food to hungry people and care to injured people in your ideal society? Must you provide housing, education, etc?

9

apriorian t1_iqqavt2 wrote

The simple answer is absolutely not. I owe a duty to no one. But I reject your assumption an ideal society has beggars. But this is the problem isn't it? There are a huge number of people who embrace the idea of begging, who conspire to find ways of scamming society and getting things free? Do you disagree?

−8

n1a1s1 t1_iqqd96h wrote

bruh yes people want to get ahead and will do it by any means necessary

a utopia or perfect society is certainly not easy to create

9

apriorian t1_iqqfa5g wrote

OK, but which is easier, to create a car with no plan or design using faulty parts or by engineering the entire process?

Truth is always simpler than a lie.

Lets use a simple illustration. Lets assume democracy is the best possible system and money is an asset are two lies assumed to be true. Now if they are lies one predicts democracy will give us governments that are tantamount to evil and if money is not an asset we will get an economy that generates inequality, poverty and other ills.

You are free to claim these statements are true but then it behooves you to explain why they produce results that surely would be expected if they were lies.

0

n1a1s1 t1_iqqfsq5 wrote

idk what the fuck ur on about

society exists as it does and to change it to a perfect place is practically impossible

if you're claiming it to be so easy why are you here posting rather than doing it

8

apriorian t1_iqqgyc3 wrote

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you can figure out the answer to this question yourself.

−2

biedl t1_iqqgrpj wrote

Money is not a lie assumed to be true, neither is democracy. There is no absolute or objective truth about money. It's a human concept. It's a category error to call it a lie to begin with.

Your illustration is based upon aphorism and deepity.

4

apriorian t1_iqqh1yd wrote

Is that the answer you are going with or would you like to ask the audience if they have a better answer?

1

biedl t1_iqqh57f wrote

Ye, I see, you are not open to consider different viewpoints.

2

apriorian t1_iqqhbe6 wrote

I might be. I claim 4 is the answer to 2+2 if you can prove you have a different viewpoint and it is more credible we can move over to the tautological and analytical claims of my theory.

bTw you did not offer a different viewpoint you merely evaded the question .

1

biedl t1_iqqhioq wrote

I can only repeat what I already said, in hope of you at least trying to understand it.

You are committing yourself to a category error.

Saying that money is a lie and saying that 2+2=5 is a lie are two completely different claims. Only one of them can be evaluated as false.

3

apriorian t1_iqqisxw wrote

Irrelevant, but you seem intelligent enough to know that already. I did not even preclude the possibility the statement was not a lie, as you also well know but that is what you are evading. I have played these games a 1000 and more times before. I do not care you will not answer questions, atheists never do. Everything they do is based on making sure they are not accountable for anything they say or do.

You can keep playing your games all i am saying i am fully aware of what you are doing, i just do not care.

−1

biedl t1_iqqj3wk wrote

If your method fails a 1000 times, it's likely to be on you, instead of 1000 separate individuals.

It's not irrelevant, for your claim of money and democracy being a lie is mute, as soon as you understand that there is no intrinsic truth to either claim to begin with.

Try me. Ask questions.

3

ShalmaneserIII t1_iqqedzz wrote

So how do you prevent beggars?

5

apriorian t1_iqqfix4 wrote

The crucial thing is to understand how deep the problem is, it literally began in Eden, you can reject the divinity if you wish but the story perfectly encapsulates the problem. No man created the natural world and no man has a right to own any part of it, not publicly and not privately. So long as we permit this we have freeloading, that is the root of it. But as said, no one wants to admit how deep and pervasive the problem is.

−2

ShalmaneserIII t1_iqqfwev wrote

Okay, but do you have to own food to eat it? Or what of the food you gather or grow?

And it seems you're suggesting hunting and gathering?

5

biedl t1_iqqh284 wrote

Rights are human concepts. There are no intrinsic rights to humans. If a society agrees upon rights, man has rights.

4

apriorian t1_iqqh5sv wrote

Of course.

If a society can say a man is a slave and he is a slave the obverse is obviously true.

0

biedl t1_iqqh9nw wrote

Again, this has nothing to do with truth.

3

CegeRoles t1_iqqtehq wrote

So…what? You’re saying I don’t even have a right to own the house I live in?

2

apriorian t1_iqqva0b wrote

Technically yes but personal ownership is not the issue. The issue is owning a forest or waterfall or mine and robbing it of all its value. But even owning a factory and making money off the labor of workers is only justified because the employer was given the right to own the factory in the first place. But where does this right come from, who has the right to give anyone this right? Do you think a person has a right to claim a continent for his own or his monarch? Do you think a people have a right to say they own it, they can but the only way they can prove this is through killing anyone who challanges their right, as in war. But if they can do this why cannot a criminal do the same thing? Its precisely the same kind of behaviour.

0

CegeRoles t1_iqqzh2m wrote

The right is given to us via the social contract. We have all agreed upon on certain rules and conditions in exchange for the benefits of civilization.

0

apriorian t1_iqr2f13 wrote

You must have gotton me drunk. How could you have tricked me like this? Its not fair.

0

CegeRoles t1_iqr2p84 wrote

What isn’t fair?

3

apriorian t1_iqr3fz9 wrote

You guys getting me drunk and having me sign a social compact when i was not fully conscious of what i was doing.

How about if I told you that you all agreed to send me $100.00 next week, how would you feel about that. And do not tell me you do not remember. I said you did and so that is that, case closed.

0

CegeRoles t1_iqrm5nc wrote

Where exactly did you get the idea that the social contract was meant to be fair?

3

apriorian t1_iqrvwr9 wrote

I never said that.

1

CegeRoles t1_iqrx4qo wrote

Then why are you complaining about it?

3

apriorian t1_iqssepg wrote

I cannot explain what is in your mind or why, sorry.

I certainly was not commenting on an invisible, thing that does not exist.

0

CegeRoles t1_iqsv69y wrote

Could have fooled me. Your entire history is nothing but comments about an invisible thing that doesn't exist.

1

apriorian t1_iquusdx wrote

Could have fooled me. Your entire history is nothing but comments about an invisible thing that doesn't exist FOR ATHEISTS.

You give me a picture of your personality and i will share one of my God.

1

CegeRoles t1_iqr3wd5 wrote

So? No one will stop you from leaving. Go buy a boat and live in the ocean.

−1