Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Wealth Destruction Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:31:50 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
1ball wrote:


Trying to appeal to people who want to continue engaging in magical thinking is pretty low on my priorities. For it to bother me to be treated like a jerk, I would have to respect the opinion of the person who was doing it. Respect is earned.


It sure is. As such, you'll get more when you demonstrate to have earned it. If you're not concerned with being respected by strangers on the Internet, then fair enough (I can relate, actually). Its good to see you feel similarly about this concept of earned respect. And hopefully this is the end of any suggestion that anyone's attempting to silence you. You know better than that. Otherwise, carry on; I've said what I needed to say.
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:41:38 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
1ball wrote:

This is reality. Judeo-Christian indoctrination and monarchism have had a lot of influence on the development of English speaking cultures. Monarchism has essentially been replaced by statism, but there's still a stench of "Divine Right of Kings" underlying the relationship between the individual and the state. A majority's will is no more infallible than a King's or a Pope's, but popularity still seems to carry weight disproportionate to its justification.

Both statism and Christianity have a lot in common as far as how they view and impede critical thinking. Both call on the individual to think first on what he can do for the joint venture (whatever it may be). JFK's famous "Ask not" speech is a great example on the statism side. "Ask what you can do for your country" was an attempt to guilt-trip Americans into patriotism. There's implicitly no room for believing that the best thing you can do for yourself and for your country is to require the joint venture to serve your interests by respecting your sovereignity. But for those who wish to cling to the comfort of a higher authority, critical thinking keeps getting in the way.

You'll never hear, "Hold your country accountable for its lip service to human rights.", from a statist government. You'll never hear "Let your conscience be your guide" from the Catholic Church, or the Mormon Church, or from any religion that wants you to refer to a book or a spiritual advisor on matters of morality. Both statism and Christianity use variants of the "might makes right" morality. Life is only good if spent in service to <insert your master's name here>. Unfortunately, the history of our culture has downplayed the importance of critical thinking in making decisions on what we are reasonably entitled to and what sacrifices we can reasonably expect from others and what can justifiably be taken from us. We use our minds to survive and our minds have been inundated with conventional "wisdom" that is anti-individual. We've been spoon-fed morality from the time when our minds were too simple to penetrate the inherent contradictions in it. Maturing intellectually and emotionally requires overcoming that.



First off, I see you are from the US. Have you been to any of these other English speaking cultures you speak of? I would argue that in Canada, we expect the government to be there to serve us, not the other way around. And, we also have the ability through "non-confidence" votes, to force a new election when the current government no longer has the support of parliament, and by extension, the nation.

I think I understand the point that you are trying to make in regards to Catholicism. But I think you chose your example poorly. Yes, they do get most of their values from a singular book, and advise you to consult an expert when you are unsure. But what's wrong with that? Don't we all want someone we can turn to for advice when we aren't sure how to proceed? And for the record, the Catholic church strongly encourages you to have a conscience and abide by it. That's why they have those confession booths.

This whole exercise has been amusing to watch. But it made a lot more sense once I read that you created this little scenario yourself, to teach some sort of a lesson you feel you need to teach. There's a reason why any story written should be read by someone else before publishing; and why every textbook needs to be reviewed by multiple professors before it can be published and used by accredited universities. It's to ensure that the writing actually does what the writer intends it to do. Too often writers will write things that make sense in their own minds, but when someone else reads them, the writer's intended meaning is not conveyed. You need to take a step back and understand how others might interpret your scenario before trying to teach them anything.

As for lessons on critical thinking, here are some things my business education has taught me:

When approached with a scenario or problem, don't assume you are being told all the facts. Ask yourself "what do I need to know to answer this properly?" This allows you to get a broader understanding of not only the problem itself, but the context of it; which can help you determine whether you are dealing with a problem, or the symptom of a larger problem. In the context of this exercise, many people wanted to know cultural facts and understand the mechanics of the wealth dispersal to be able to make a better judgement. That was critical thinking.

Secondly, never stop at one solution. If you only come up with one answer, you are not thinking broadly enough. Find at least three diverse solutions and examine them thoroughly for their effectiveness and fit for the situation. By forcing yourself to look beyond the obvious solution, you will find opportunities and answers others overlook. In the context of this exercise, you seem to have one very narrow idea of what the right answer is, and dismiss all others without consideration. That's not critical thinking. That's being critical.

And lastly, for an international scenario, which yours is. Don't get stuck in ethnocentric thinking. Don't believe that your culture's way of doing something is the best, or only way of doing it. Examine how others would handle it. In this case, the wording of your question using the terms "social security and medicare" show an American bias. Which is why I pointed out that the wealthiest person in the world right now is Carlos Slim, a Mexican business man. That changes the context of the scenario. If he was Canadian as I am, it would change it again. Medicare would be irrelevant as everyone gets state provided health care regardless of income or employment status.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:05:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
angieseroticpen wrote:




Hau Hi is a Chinaman?


I don't know.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:13:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
Some people are more interested in the quest itself rather than its actual completion. Circular arguments never end, for the one weaving them is motivated by keeping the discussion going.

This is a discussion driven by passion and emotion, logical results cannot be obtained in such an excercise.


I asked you some questions and the above non-answer emerged. Do you lack commitment to intellectual honesty? Your initial answer came fairly close to critical thought, but then you seemed to think that I made an argument and that it was flawed. Did you recognize otherwise?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:16:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


It sure is. As such, you'll get more when you demonstrate to have earned it. If you're not concerned with being respected by strangers on the Internet, then fair enough (I can relate, actually). Its good to see you feel similarly about this concept of earned respect. And hopefully this is the end of any suggestion that anyone's attempting to silence you. You know better than that. Otherwise, carry on; I've said what I needed to say.


I've asked you some questions and you neglected to answer them. Do you lack commitment to intellectual honesty?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Agrippa
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:14:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/29/2013
Posts: 50
Location: United Kingdom
Dear Kristind,

You are too kind my liege lady. I dedicate my humble offering to you.

Your obedient servant,

Agrippa.
Milik_Redman
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:11:32 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher
Moderator

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4,753
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
1ball wrote:


I asked you some questions and the above non-answer emerged. Do you lack commitment to intellectual honesty? Your initial answer came fairly close to critical thought, but then you seemed to think that I made an argument and that it was flawed. Did you recognize otherwise?


My point was discussed fully with someone who was actually willing to discuss until we reached a conclusion. The points stand and I leave them to be judged on their merits by resonable people who truly wish to look at the facts.

You clearly wish only to extend the circular argument adinfinitum. There can be no resolution and further banter on that point is useless. I respect the opinions of those who read it. Your 'rebuttal' is immaterial to me.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:17:38 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
1ball wrote:


I've asked you some questions and you neglected to answer them. Do you lack commitment to intellectual honesty?


I think I mostly lack continued interest in this thread. Could be subject to change at some point, though.
1ball
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:22:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Rembacher wrote:


First off, I see you are from the US. Have you been to any of these other English speaking cultures you speak of? I would argue that in Canada, we expect the government to be there to serve us, not the other way around.


Yes, I've been to Canada and it seems to be about as statist as the US.

Quote:
I think I understand the point that you are trying to make in regards to Catholicism. But I think you chose your example poorly. Yes, they do get most of their values from a singular book, and advise you to consult an expert when you are unsure. But what's wrong with that? Don't we all want someone we can turn to for advice when we aren't sure how to proceed? And for the record, the Catholic church strongly encourages you to have a conscience and abide by it. That's why they have those confession booths.


I don't think you understand the points I'm trying to make about statism or Catholicism. The point is that they both try to produce conformists by discouraging non-conformism.

Quote:
This whole exercise has been amusing to watch. But it made a lot more sense once I read that you created this little scenario yourself, to teach some sort of a lesson you feel you need to teach.


If I'm trying to teach a lesson, it's the value of not jumping to conclusions. Are the failures mine or the participants?

Quote:
As for lessons on critical thinking, here are some things my business education has taught me:

When approached with a scenario or problem, don't assume you are being told all the facts. Ask yourself "what do I need to know to answer this properly?" This allows you to get a broader understanding of not only the problem itself, but the context of it; which can help you determine whether you are dealing with a problem, or the symptom of a larger problem. In the context of this exercise, many people wanted to know cultural facts and understand the mechanics of the wealth dispersal to be able to make a better judgement. That was critical thinking.


Several people failed to ask pertinent questions and simply assumed they could invalidate the scenario by making pronouncements. That wasn't critical thinking. There was a lot that could logically be deduced from what was in the scenario. Astute questions were welcome. Attempts to dictate changes to the scenario were met with the same level of cooperation you would get if you tried to appoint yourself as the PM.

Quote:
Secondly, never stop at one solution. If you only come up with one answer, you are not thinking broadly enough. Find at least three diverse solutions and examine them thoroughly for their effectiveness and fit for the situation. By forcing yourself to look beyond the obvious solution, you will find opportunities and answers others overlook. In the context of this exercise, you seem to have one very narrow idea of what the right answer is, and dismiss all others without consideration. That's not critical thinking. That's being critical.


I believe there are at least three answers that can be supported with logically valid reasoning.

Quote:
And lastly, for an international scenario, which yours is. Don't get stuck in ethnocentric thinking. Don't believe that your culture's way of doing something is the best, or only way of doing it. Examine how others would handle it. In this case, the wording of your question using the terms "social security and medicare" show an American bias. Which is why I pointed out that the wealthiest person in the world right now is Carlos Slim, a Mexican business man. That changes the context of the scenario. If he was Canadian as I am, it would change it again. Medicare would be irrelevant as everyone gets state provided health care regardless of income or employment status.


The scenario contains what it contains. You're trying to impose an Earth-centric bias on it by naming an Earth person. You're failing to condense it down to its essence. He is the richest person in the world of the scenario. He has a yacht. The relevant metals are... The cost of recovery is greater than the value of the metals. Etc...

The first pertinent question might have been, "Is this Earth or a made up world?" The answer would have been that it's an imaginary world roughly analogous to Earth. Or you could just use your noodle and deduce from the fact that he collected social security and medicare that he must not be a Mexican business man and therefore the scenario must not be set in present day Earth. Either way, those that assumed the scenario was set in present day Earth jumped to a conclusion. So, what's your answer?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:26:59 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
1ball wrote: I've asked you some questions and you neglected to answer them. Do you lack commitment to intellectual honesty?

LadyX wrote:
I think I mostly lack continued interest in this thread. Could be subject to change at some point, though.


I see no useful difference between your answer and a lack of commitment to intellectual honesty. GroupThink Tank it is then.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:37:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:


My point was discussed fully with someone who was actually willing to discuss until we reached a conclusion. The points stand and I leave them to be judged on their merits by resonable people who truly wish to look at the facts.

You clearly wish only to extend the circular argument adinfinitum. There can be no resolution and further banter on that point is useless. I respect the opinions of those who read it. Your 'rebuttal' is immaterial to me.


I've stopped discussing it with every person who has produced an apparently logically valid answer, even those who did so by jumping to conclusions, when they were reasonable conclusions. So I'm going to call this a lack of commitment to intellectual honesty on your part.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Guest
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:47:04 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,413
1ball wrote:
I've stopped discussing it with every person who has produced an apparently logically valid answer, even those who did so by jumping to conclusions, when they were reasonable conclusions. So I'm going to call this a lack of commitment to intellectual honesty on your part.


Just a Rand-drone. A Levin-ite, whose Universal Paralysis is the core weakness in this thread.
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 3:57:10 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
1ball wrote:
If I'm trying to teach a lesson, it's the value of not jumping to conclusions. Are the failures mine or the participants?


Unequivocally yours. Especially in the case of unsolicited lessons, it is the responsibility of the teacher to reach the students. The students bear no responsibility to waste their time trying to understand what you are telling them.

1ball wrote:
The scenario contains what it contains. You're trying to impose an Earth-centric bias on it by naming an Earth person. You're failing to condense it down to its essence. He is the richest person in the world of the scenario. He has a yacht. The relevant metals are... The cost of recovery is greater than the value of the metals. Etc...

The first pertinent question might have been, "Is this Earth or a made up world?" The answer would have been that it's an imaginary world roughly analogous to Earth. Or you could just use your noodle and deduce from the fact that he collected social security and medicare that he must not be a Mexican business man and therefore the scenario must not be set in present day Earth. Either way, those that assumed the scenario was set in present day Earth jumped to a conclusion. So, what's your answer?

My answer is that I can not possibly know what your imaginary world is like. And I definitely made a false assumption that you were interested in any sort of logical discussion.
Magical_felix
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 4:01:45 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 5,196
Location: California
Rembacher wrote:

My answer is that I can not possibly know what your imaginary world is like. And I definitely made a false assumption that you were interested in any sort of logical discussion.


Stop being intellectually dishonest, jesus fucking christ.



1ball
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:34:35 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Rembacher wrote:

My answer is that I can not possibly know what your imaginary world is like.


Everything you needed was in the scenario. The choices you made were yours.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Monocle
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:03:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
1ball wrote:

I see no useful difference between your answer and a lack of commitment to intellectual honesty.


Here you demonstrate base intellectual blindness, on top of previously demonstrated intellectual dishonesty and cowardice.
Dani
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:34:39 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 5,655
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
If you feel a need to post a thread just to somehow shoot down the opinions of anyone who offers, that's fine. But don't pretend you're doing anyone any favors. You're too much of a narcissist for that. You constantly going on about 'challenging people to think' is damn near vomit inducing. You are good for quite a few laughs, that much I'll give you. But please drop this farce of a critical thinking exercise. You've insulted literally every single person in this thread over your little pretend scenario that specifically caters to you and yet you claim that it provides everything when in essence, it says nothing. You're harping on people's ability to interpret things as they choose and attack any view that doesn't fall into your extremely linear thinking.

And then, in the most beautiful irony I've ever witnessed, you accuse people of Group Think. When in fact you're forcing 1ball Think on everyone. Everything I've read from you reads, "Think like me, or get the fuck out." It cracks me up. It really does. I understand your need for attention. I understand that you come on the internet to pretend your thinking is beyond that of any random internet stranger that dare challenges you. So you continue on in the magical world of 1ball where only you hold the answers. Because while you've done a stupendous job of fooling yourself, I promise you that you're not fooling anyone else.

But seriously, if the pretend intellectual internet troll thing doesn't work out for you, consider a career in comedy. You are fucking hilarious.


Milik_Redman
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 6:55:57 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher
Moderator

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4,753
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
1ball wrote:


I've stopped discussing it with every person who has produced an apparently logically valid answer, even those who did so by jumping to conclusions, when they were reasonable conclusions. So I'm going to call this a lack of commitment to intellectual honesty on your part.


As if what you call me is at all relevent. This entire post was nothing but self indulgent hypocrosy. You have filled six pages of this thread with pseudo-intellectual narcissism and acuse me of a lack of honesty. Deflection at its finest.

Your qusetion was too open ended for a consice answer. What portion of my post eluded you?
1ball
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:13:38 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
Your qusetion was too open ended for a consice answer.


Maybe as concise as you can get will be concise enough.

Quote:
What portion of my post eluded you?


The answer to my two questions. I'll rephrase them.

Is it your position that he deprived himself of something he was entitled to?

What's your case for a flawed argument?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:35:16 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:
If you feel a need to post a thread just to somehow shoot down the opinions of anyone who offers, that's fine.


Well thanks, but since I don't shoot down opinions that are valid and relevant, your supposition is meaningless.

Quote:
But don't pretend you're doing anyone any favors.


I haven't pretended I'm doing anyone any favors.

Quote:
You constantly going on about 'challenging people to think'


I'm pretty sure I haven't done that.

Quote:
You've insulted literally every single person in this thread over your little pretend scenario that specifically caters to you and yet you claim that it provides everything when in essence, it says nothing.


It says enough that some who weren't focused on invalidating the scenario got there.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Milik_Redman
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 7:53:58 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher
Moderator

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4,753
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
1ball wrote:


The answer to my two questions. I'll rephrase them.

Is it your position that he deprived himself of something he was entitled to?

What's your case for a flawed argument?


Was he entitled to the gold? You made any other choice but yes impossible by the way you outlined the scenerio. Again flawed for no room for any other possibility was really given.

From my original post.

"No actual wealth to society is lost, the mad tycoons wealth is simply redistributed. Wealth itself is created by labor and ideas. Currency, precious metals, bonds etc, are nothing more than methods to represent this wealth. If that method, or gauge, is no longer available, then others will be found. From the point you were trying to make, oil would have been a much better choice.

And to your second question.

Oil, unlike precious metals derives its value from its actual usefulness as a substance that increases the effectiveness of labor. Remove that, and the value labor produces is then reduced. The ops argument is therefore inherently flawed. 
Guest
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:14:43 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,413
slipperywhenwet2012 wrote:
If you feel a need to post a thread just to somehow shoot down the opinions of anyone who offers, that's fine. But don't pretend you're doing anyone any favors. You're too much of a narcissist for that. You constantly going on about 'challenging people to think' is damn near vomit inducing. You are good for quite a few laughs, that much I'll give you. But please drop this farce of a critical thinking exercise. You've insulted literally every single person in this thread over your little pretend scenario that specifically caters to you and yet you claim that it provides everything when in essence, it says nothing. You're harping on people's ability to interpret things as they choose and attack any view that doesn't fall into your extremely linear thinking.

And then, in the most beautiful irony I've ever witnessed, you accuse people of Group Think. When in fact you're forcing 1ball Think on everyone. Everything I've read from you reads, "Think like me, or get the fuck out." It cracks me up. It really does. I understand your need for attention. I understand that you come on the internet to pretend your thinking is beyond that of any random internet stranger that dare challenges you. So you continue on in the magical world of 1ball where only you hold the answers. Because while you've done a stupendous job of fooling yourself, I promise you that you're not fooling anyone else.

But seriously, if the pretend intellectual internet troll thing doesn't work out for you, consider a career in comedy. You are fucking hilarious.


He's a legend in own his mind, baptizing himself in his own self-importance with every criticism he receives. Most would call this 'loneliness'.
I call him pathetic.

And I would differ with you SWW. He would be as much a monumental failure as a comedian as he is a leader in a Critical Thinking exercise. A sense of humor is fundamental to a successful comedian. I knew that's what you meant Pour Wine. 1 Ball would most likely dilute himself into believing he had a future as a comic since his fantasy of Critical Thinking has blown out of the forum. .

1ball
Posted: Thursday, August 22, 2013 11:04:44 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:


Was he entitled to the gold?


That's part of what your answer would state. Was he? And how would you decide that? Can you reasonably conclude that, by virtue of being the wealthiest person in the world, he lived in a society that recognized his title to his wealth? Can you then conclude that, by exchanging it for precious metals, he became entitled to the precious metals? Can you then conclude that, by dumping them in the deep, he deprived himself of something he was entitled to? And finally, is it your position that he did?

Quote:
You made any other choice but yes impossible by the way you outlined the scenerio. Again flawed for no room for any other possibility was really given.


agrippa seems to be disagreeing with you. If I understand him correctly, he believes that future generations would have title to that wealth, at least morally if not legally. Assuming I've characterized his position correctly, is he wrong?

Quote:
From my original post.

"No actual wealth to society is lost, the mad tycoons wealth is simply redistributed. Wealth itself is created by labor and ideas. Currency, precious metals, bonds etc, are nothing more than methods to represent this wealth. If that method, or gauge, is no longer available, then others will be found. From the point you were trying to make, oil would have been a much better choice.


Did he not, by dropping each ingot in the ocean, reduce his own buying/investing power by one ingot? and therefore the aggregate wealth of his society by one ingot? When someone tosses a coin into a wishing well, it can be recovered, but it might not be worth the cost. When someone burns paper money, the government can print a replacement or simply credit an account, but they may not. In both cases, there is some loss of material, but is there also some loss of buying power?

Quote:
And to your second question.

Oil, unlike precious metals derives its value from its actual usefulness as a substance that increases the effectiveness of labor. Remove that, and the value labor produces is then reduced. The ops argument is therefore inherently flawed. 


Firstly, before we even address whether something is flawed, I'm tying to understand what argument you think I've offered.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Milik_Redman
Posted: Friday, August 23, 2013 1:01:51 AM

Rank: Internet Philosopher
Moderator

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4,753
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:


Was he entitled to the gold?


That's part of what your answer would state. Was he? And how would you decide that? Can you reasonably conclude that, by virtue of being the wealthiest person in the world, he lived in a society that recognized his title to his wealth? Can you then conclude that, by exchanging it for precious metals, he became entitled to the precious metals? Can you then conclude that, by dumping them in the deep, he deprived himself of something he was entitled to? And finally, is it your position that he did?

Quote:
You made any other choice but yes impossible by the way you outlined the scenerio. Again flawed for no room for any other possibility was really given.

This is the answer. You seem reluctant to admit it. It's your mythical scenario, you tell me if Agrippa is wrong

agrippa seems to be disagreeing with you. If I understand him correctly, he believes that future generations would have title to that wealth, at least morally if not legally. Assuming I've characterized his position correctly, is he wrong?

In this, I'd say yes. Morality is a choice, not a duty. Trying to make it so is tyranny

Quote:
From my original post.

"No actual wealth to society is lost, the mad tycoons wealth is simply redistributed. Wealth itself is created by labor and ideas. Currency, precious metals, bonds etc, are nothing more than methods to represent this wealth. If that method, or gauge, is no longer available, then others will be found. From the point you were trying to make, oil would have been a much better choice.


Did he not, by dropping each ingot in the ocean, reduce his own buying/investing power by one ingot? and therefore the aggregate wealth of his society by one ingot? When someone tosses a coin into a wishing well, it can be recovered, but it might not be worth the cost. When someone burns paper money, the government can print a replacement or simply credit an account, but they may not. In both cases, there is some loss of material, but is there also some loss of buying power?

I stated in my original post that he did. Sadly you didn't seem to read it that closely. My point was that the aggregate wealth of society WAS NOT. The reduced supply would cause the remaining gold to become more valued, thereby offsetting the supposed loss

Quote:
And to your second question.

Oil, unlike precious metals derives its value from its actual usefulness as a substance that increases the effectiveness of labor. Remove that, and the value labor produces is then reduced. The ops argument is therefore inherently flawed.


Firstly, before we even address whether something is flawed, I'm tying to understand what argument you think I've offered.

Simple really. By using a material with limited practical use, and even those easily replaced by other metals, you've chosen a material with a value that is only assigned by other factors. It has little intrinsic value in and of itself. Oil, on the other hand has value as a fuel that exponentially increases the wealth creating efficiency of human labor. Losing the gold means little to nothing. Losing the fuel slows production and the creation of goods, hence wealth. That misunderstanding of the difference between wealth and that which is only used to measure it and trade it is why your scenario is flawed.
Agrippa
Posted: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:25:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/29/2013
Posts: 50
Location: United Kingdom
Milik_The_Red wrote:


This is the answer. You seem reluctant to admit it. It's your mythical scenario, you tell me if Agrippa is wrong

agrippa seems to be disagreeing with you. If I understand him correctly, he believes that future generations would have title to that wealth, at least morally if not legally. Assuming I've characterized his position correctly, is he wrong?

In this, I'd say yes. Morality is a choice, not a duty. Trying to make it so is tyranny
.[/b]


This is well-thought through and has constrained me to consider the scenario afresh. Having done so I find myself in basically the same position as before however I feel I need to qualify further as best I can.

I do believe we all collectively (and those yet to be born) have title (in a loose, non-legal sense) to those materials or, more exactly, the good they might engender. I would absolutely shy away from saying there is legal title to the actual wealth that they may bring.

This is an important and a not too subtle distinction.

If the individual who owned these materials kept them for himself then he would, naturally, be entitled to whatever financial rewards may be available when they are disposed of. If they are inherited by others again the heirs would be similarly entitled.

My contention is by acting in a 'dog in the manger' manner and removing these resources from all practical recovery, the individual has stepped outside acceptable behaviour - you may construe my opinion of that action as immoral.

However as to foisting my own personal idea of morality on the world is a completely different matter. Nowhere in my posts am I suggesting that at all. I could not and would not trust any one individual person's ethical position as rule of law any more than I would expect my own to be adopted universally.

Because I opine that the action is immoral, it does not follow I believe the moral position (as I see it) could or should be enforced.
Milik_Redman
Posted: Friday, August 23, 2013 2:13:40 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher
Moderator

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4,753
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
Agrippa wrote:


This is well-thought through and has constrained me to consider the scenario afresh. Having done so I find myself in basically the same position as before however I feel I need to qualify further as best I can.

I do believe we all collectively (and those yet to be born) have title (in a loose, non-legal sense) to those materials or, more exactly, the good they might engender. I would absolutely shy away from saying there is legal title to the actual wealth that they may bring.

This is an important and a not too subtle distinction.

If the individual who owned these materials kept them for himself then he would, naturally, be entitled to whatever financial rewards may be available when they are disposed of. If they are inherited by others again the heirs would be similarly entitled.

My contention is by acting in a 'dog in the manger' manner and removing these resources from all practical recovery, the individual has stepped outside acceptable behaviour - you may construe my opinion of that action as immoral.

However as to foisting my own personal idea of morality on the world is a completely different matter. Nowhere in my posts am I suggesting that at all. I could not and would not trust any one individual person's ethical position as rule of law any more than I would expect my own to be adopted universally.

Because I opine that the action is immoral, it does not follow I believe the moral position (as I see it) could or should be enforced.


I would agree with you that his action is wrong minded and irresponsible to the point of madness. My disagreement with you isn't truly based on your argument, rather it is based on the fact that the op never allowed for a clear distinction between legality and social responsibility. By doing so, he has set up a no win, no correct answer condition in his scenario. This is another reason it was flawed from the start. Under these conditions, no one answer will ever be judged to be correct by everyone.
Agrippa
Posted: Friday, August 23, 2013 2:59:53 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/29/2013
Posts: 50
Location: United Kingdom
Milik_The_Red wrote:


I would agree with you that his action is wrong minded and irresponsible to the point of madness. My disagreement with you isn't truly based on your argument, rather it is based on the fact that the op never allowed for a clear distinction between legality and social responsibility. By doing so, he has set up a no win, no correct answer condition in his scenario. This is another reason it was flawed from the start. Under these conditions, no one answer will ever be judged to be correct by everyone.


And now we are in total agreement - truth be told this is what I originally overlooked.

It would be disingenuous of me to say overlooked deliberately as I didn't really consider the question from any legal standpoint at all.

Rather I took the question at 'face value' and therefore my answer reflects my personality/character and not necessarily what was intended. Of course I would maintain that this would not necessarily nullify my point of view (irrespective of how the question is phrased) although it would probably have reduced it to a side issue.

I believe with a little extra thought, and approaching the question with a different perspective, I am sure I could make a reasonable case for a different conclusion. But, I'm sure to the relief of many readers, I will stick with my original argument.

In the interest of fairness, it may be such questions are deliberately phrased in such a way so as to invite a number of interpretations and thereby provoke a wide range of responses. After all just because I have made a reasonable (in my humble opinion) case for one answer that doesn't preclude the opposite conclusion to be made at least as reasonably.
Wilful
Posted: Friday, August 23, 2013 8:58:47 PM

Rank: Devil's Advocate
Moderator

Joined: 6/15/2013
Posts: 1,234
Location: Digging a hole on the beach, Australia
Hmmm...okay then...

Returning to what I believe is the spirit of the original post: does the destruction of wealth deny others access to something to which they are entitled?

Yes.

Obviously destroying a resource creates an opportunity cost, denying the use of that resource on something else more valuable. If the rich cunt had provided food, clean water, shelter, medicine and/or education to those without at one end of the spectrum, or given it to other rich cunts for rich cunt things at the other end, the resources would still be in use. Instead, destroying them denies everybody on that scale, wherever the money might have gone.

As to what the wealth should be used on, as opposed to destroyed, that's an entirely different debate, laden with value judgements.

As far as entitlement, I'll tip my hand as a bit of a socialist. There are finite resources, and we are all part of a single community. The sooner we arrive at that realisation, the better off 99% of us will be. In the meantime, we'll just have to let the 1% convince us otherwise.

Imagine a team of Navy SEALs in the thick of it somewhere. If one of them runs out of ammunition or water, or is injured, do the others share their resources to keep the team at its strongest, or do they leave him hanging? Now imagine if we applied that principle to the entire world.

As for the minutia of what is true wealth and the relative value of gold, who gives a shit?

Please check out my latest story, Kibeho
Guest
Posted: Friday, August 23, 2013 9:44:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 659,413
If the person worked hard to amass their wealth, I don't think anyone else should be able to tell them what they can and cannot do with what they have amassed. They were not there helping that person with their work, so why should they be able to tell them what to do.
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:33:18 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Milik_The_Red wrote:
Milik_The_Red wrote:You made any other choice but yes impossible by the way you outlined the scenerio. Again flawed for no room for any other possibility was really given.

This is the answer. You seem reluctant to admit it. It's your mythical scenario,


One of the things I'm trying to understand is why it would be a flaw to have only one reasonable choice. You seem so determined to find flaws, that you're trying to impose a requirement that critical thought exercises don't require. If those who don't use critical thought arrive at an answer and it isn't rational, haven't they still failed to use critical thinking? Why would there be a requirement for multiple rational answers?

But "himself" is not the only reasonable answer derivable by critical thinking. It may not even be reasonable. By dropping his wealth into the ocean, he deprived himself of something he was entitled to, but the question is "has he deprived anyone of anything they are entitled to?". He got something for his expense in the same way that somebody gets something for dropping wealth on a football game or a concert. Once you've watched a movie, or a game, or a performance of some sort, have you deprived yourself of something you have an entitlement to? He got an experience. He consumed. He decided the value and paid the price for the experience. But has he deprived himself of something he is entitled to?

Quote:
you tell me if Agrippa is wrong


I'm waiting for him to convince me that he's right. He hasn't produced a convincing case for a right to the wealth of current generations to satisfy his desire to be generous with OPM to future generations.

Quote:
No actual wealth to society is lost, the mad tycoons wealth is simply redistributed. Wealth itself is created by labor and ideas. Currency, precious metals, bonds etc, are nothing more than methods to represent this wealth. If that method, or gauge, is no longer available, then others will be found. From the point you were trying to make, oil would have been a much better choice.


And

Quote:
Oil, unlike precious metals derives its value from its actual usefulness as a substance that increases the effectiveness of labor. Remove that, and the value labor produces is then reduced. The ops argument is therefore inherently flawed.


And

Quote:
By using a material with limited practical use, and even those easily replaced by other metals, you've chosen a material with a value that is only assigned by other factors. It has little intrinsic value in and of itself. Oil, on the other hand has value as a fuel that exponentially increases the wealth creating efficiency of human labor. Losing the gold means little to nothing. Losing the fuel slows production and the creation of goods, hence wealth. That misunderstanding of the difference between wealth and that which is only used to measure it and trade it is why your scenario is flawed.


You seem to be assuming that the market does not determine what wealth is. Value was added to the metals by mining them. Had their value as collectibles not been sufficient, they would not have been mined for that. More value was added by refining them, making them readily transportable and storable and useful as feedstocks. The value added by those upgrades was lost when the metals became prohibitively expensive to recover. More value could have been added by using them in jewelry, catalysts, plating, electronics, etc. Aren't all of those practical uses? If he had brought the metals back, would they not still have been worth a fortune?

Their value as feedstock materials for the products they would have been used for remains. They are enablers of productivity, as is any other consumable, raw or partially processed material that can be upgraded into a consumer product. You believe the metals would be easily replaceable by something else, but their useful properties are part of what determines their value. I've got silver solder in my garage and gold crowns in my mouth and I'm pretty sure there's some platinum around here somewhere. The fuel value of oil can be replaced by ethanol and biodiesel from crops a renewable source that impact the food market. Fuel is probably used in more industries, but much of it is in the form of coal or natural gas or hydroelectric or even nuclear.

And finally, if we assume that his society is his nation, a global adjustment doesn't necessarily produce parity for his society. Metal producing societies, will get more for their products. Metal consuming societies will pay more for the feedstocks for their industries.

But you're so desperate for an excuse to invalidate the scenario that you're ignoring something. The "effects" I've specified don't make the scenario flawed or not flawed. I didn't specify their relative values because they only give those who do the critical or not-so-critical thinking something to ponder. So again, your analysis that the scenario is flawed is flawed.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.