"real" people

[Son of Samurai]

^Um, dude, did you miss the part where it was fully explained, multiple times, that any one of us could be a stepping stone for someone else? It's never been assumed here that anyone is at the top of the food chain. And exactly what lesson am I derailing, and where am I being dishonest? You don't make any sense.

I was talking to her not you. And it doesn't make sense because you don't want it too.

 

[punkybutt]

of course, i don't know that my own purpose isn't to open someone else's eyes.

maybe the reason why i've been going to school for 14 years, and working, and doing all that stupid everyday shit is so that i'll live long enough to die in some accident that would teach someone else a semi-valuable lesson. that would sure suck for me, but hey, i wouldn't know any better. it's just something to think about. and who said anything about handicapped people? that has nothing to do with anything.

and wow. i absolutely hate it when people bring hitler or the holocaust into discussions. it's like, "hey, i have no better argument, so here's my trump card - 6 million people were killed by a crazy dictator. what can you say to that?" my people were fucking oppressed, too. by the crazy fucking japs.

 

[elemenohpee]

So in the whole time you've been living you have done absolutely nothing worthwhile? The only thing that will have any inmpact on society will be that you die in a car crash? I find that hard to believe.

 

[rat tat tat tat]

I've noticed that "real" people don't last too long. People who uphold their values and don't compensate generally get taken down by the law or by some simular force after a little while. In my stint with going to rehab I was completely real, I was in the middle of an AA meeting and someone asked me "Do you really want to be clean?" and with all eyes on me I say "No." The other guys would talk about how their drug of choice has screwed them up and they hate it and then talk about scoring some as soon as the counselors turned their backs. Not to mention the fact that everytime I've been real, and not submitted during an incident with the police I usually end up getting punched or in handcuffs.

Maybe that's not the kind of real you were thinking of.

 

[kittyinthedark]

sourlemone - i'm just presenting options, not necessarily discussing my own feelings on the subject. At the end of the day, I'm a firm believer that there is no purpose to life whatsoever except just to be. Maybe it's because i'm too much of a scientist at heart instead of a lover, but I just can't fathom that I'm here for any reason except to try to make the journey better for as many people as I can - and at the end of the day, all our journeys still mean nothing.

 

[spiritual guide]

you fo real...

rat tat , you hit the nail dude... people dont like to hear or sometimes even tell the truth for fear of being left on the outer. fuck em. pm me man, i wanna hear of your brushes with the law. every time ive played it completey within the rules ive got a negative result. i guess im just not into playing "the game of life", its straight down the line or nothin for me.

 

[alasdairm]

^Um, dude, did you miss the part where it was fully explained, multiple times, that any one of us could be a stepping stone for someone else?

but your argument, if i have understood correctly, is that the stepping-stone function is this person's only purpose. are you suggesting that you might be one of these people?

again, the idea seems ill-conceived and poorly thought out and this post just adds to my confusion.

alasdair

 

[Free Radical]

I've noticed that "real" people don't last too long. People who uphold their values and don't compensate generally get taken down by the law or by some simular force after a little while. In my stint with going to rehab I was completely real, I was in the middle of an AA meeting and someone asked me "Do you really want to be clean?" and with all eyes on me I say "No." The other guys would talk about how their drug of choice has screwed them up and they hate it and then talk about scoring some as soon as the counselors turned their backs. Not to mention the fact that everytime I've been real, and not submitted during an incident with the police I usually end up getting punched or in handcuffs.

Maybe that's not the kind of real you were thinking of.

Well.....

You do have to be pragmatic about upholding your values.

 

[punkybutt]

rat tat - it's not exactly what i'm talking about, but you're definitely on to something. if you have any crazy stories, i'd love to hear them.

 

[protovack]

Oh come on people....let's stop pretending that judgement doesn't exist.

Example: An ignorant father who neglects his own children.

Note: I am defining "useful" as being able to successfully transmit genetic and cultural information to your child in order to raise a well-functioning adult, continuing the species and enriching the collective human experience (can there be any other definition?)

There are two possibilities for the progeny of the fucked up father:

Either-
A.) The child grows up to be a useless individual too.
or
B.) The child grows up and uses their experience to correct themselves and do better (My dad didn't give a shit about me, so I'm going to give a shit about my kid).

So in both cases, the natural order of reproduction mandates that a child become a person that is similar to their parents. Yet other factors such as cognition, learning, and new relationships can interupt the cycle and produce new people that can behave in different ways than their parents.

Take scenario B for example: A bad person (the father) has value only insofar as he provides a negative counter-example for his child to follow. If no corrections to the neglectful behavior are made, then no "value" has been added to the human collective (specifically, this particular genetic line).

The people here who are repulsed by the original argument are missing the point.

Alasdair says...

but your argument, if i have understood correctly, is that the stepping-stone function is this person's only purpose

What is missing from this analysis? Basically, that value lies within specific relationships (namely, familial ones). So while the father who neglects his child may be a great husband, or a good friend....he is still valueless because that value only lasts as long as he is alive. His CHILD matters more than his coworkers, friends, and spouses...when talking about value in the context of humanity in general.

And there ARE people out there that are like this. There are real fathers out there who actually neglect/beat/screwup their kids and never discover what the right thing to do is.

So in sum, the bad father is valuable only in that he has created the opportunity (by fucking up) for his child to be better. I don't like using the word "purpose" because it has a tinge of "destiny" in it.

There is no master creator placing humans on earth with contrived behavioral sets. No god said, "let there be humans, some idiots and some good because they see how idiotic the idiots are and choose not to be that way."

What we observe is just the natural order of things. Some people on earth are valueless. The only way that the negative effects of their actions are cancelled out is through a dynamic process of choice and learning in their children (by interacting with the world WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY making value judgements about its human inhabitants!)

Some will now ask, "So if the error correction depends on the particular choices and experiences of the child as he matures....then it doesn't matter if the father was an asshole. People will find their own way, and so now we can't judge the father."

Well think about this: The child's choice is only partially "free" and definately not made in a vacuum. The impetus to make the choice (or correction) comes from a *judgement* about the qualitative worth of the father. In order to see the light, the child must possess the ability to look at his father and say, "That's not right."

 

[alasdairm]

Some people on earth are valueless.

just because you can't (or won't) see value in somebody doesn't mean they're valueless.

alasdair

 

[the hooligans]

people who are worthless...

bent cops
bent majistrates
pedophiles
boys club subscribers
bikers
meth junkies who sledge for bikers
politicians
people who are afraid of speaking out against minorities for fear of having the race card pulled on them
people who can be bought and sold
those who dance to the tune that keeps their feet in the boat

 

[protovack]

just because you can't (or won't) see value in somebody doesn't mean they're valueless.

alasdair

So taking my example of the father who neglects his own child....what is the "value" that I am "refusing" to see?

 

[protovack]

people who are afraid of speaking out against minorities for fear of having the race card pulled on them

What the hell?

 

[elemenohpee]

Protovack, the problem with that view is that its too reductionistic. That father's actions are not limited to rasing his child. His actions, and the resulting effects that cascade outwards are also changing the world. Some for better, some for worse, but to say that a person has no value is not seeing the bigger picture. There is no way that a person who lives and breathes on this earth for 70 some years has but one purpose, this can't possibly be true.

 

[Morrison's Lament]

Exactly, the narrowness of the "example" begs the question. People are never that simply defined.

Just because you are a worthless father doesn't mean you have never and can never contribute anything to the world in your whole life.

A lot of the greatest thinkers and artists in history were complete an utter bastards to everyone, including their children. It doesn't excuse being a prick - but to focus on only one aspect of someone's existance (i.e., he done his kid wrong, as if that defines a whole lifetime of actions) is extremely limiting if the idea is to enable any kind of analytical insight into the human condition.

--- G.

 

[alasdairm]

So taking my example of the father who neglects his own child....what is the "value" that I am "refusing" to see?

who knows - this guy is a figment of your imagination. if, while neglecting his kids, he also invented a cure for cancer he has loads of value!

i agree with ML - it's begging the question.

i'm not so naive or arrogant to assume that "no value i can see" and "no value" are synonymous.

alasdair

 

[Morrison's Lament]

I'd just like to say that it's a pleasure to finally meet the other guy on the internet that knows what "begging the question" actually means

--- G.

 

[protovack]

this guy is a figment of your imagination. if, while neglecting his kids, he also invented a cure for cancer he has loads of value!

OK. All the parents on earth should stop feeding their children and instead start working on curing cancer, right?

Of course not, that would be just one more "narrow" example.

The reason I use a specific case of valuelessness is that you can't work out mathematically the percentage value of an individual.

Say a guy neglects his kids but also cures cancer. Does he have 50% value?

The problem here is that very few people actually starve their kids or beat them to death....AND very few people cure cancer.

The only reason I claim that a neglectful parent is valueless is that reproduction seems to be the only inherent reason we exist (or at least the only reason outside of the supernatural).

If someone is unwilling or unable to perform this task...they have the LEAST value.

And since they have the least value, they have no value.

0 is less than 1.

 

[alasdairm]

OK. All the parents on earth should stop feeding their children and instead start working on curing cancer, right?

how on earth do you get here from there?

i'm not expressing myself very clearly so let me distill it. just because you can't (or won't) see value in somebody, doesn't automatically mean they have no value. they may have value to somebody else. the nature and extent of that value defined by the third party.

And since they have the least value, they have no value.

0 is less than 1.

your logic is so flawed.

here's a list of value: 8, 3, 5, 7, 9, 6, 7, 3, 9

the 2nd and 8th digit in this series have the least value. and since they have the least value they have no value? er, no. they have the value 3.

least <> no

alasdair