A Resounding Flush of Socialism

[John Koerner]

https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/1112199458822909/?pnref=story

[Justinr]

https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/1112199458822909/?pnref=story

This sort of BS has been cropping up elsewhere of late, is there some weirdo right wing nut job sect trying to mess with our heads or what?

[Rob C]

John, that will never fly in Britain. Even Capitalism has given in to the entitlement ethic.

That said, the best thing both sides share is the Health Service (when it functions) because it seems to me to be one of the fundamental things that goes towards sustaining a humane society. I can see no justification for denying every citizen with the right to it access to it. Not all people are created equal and not all are capable of paying for private medical care. I can't accept that a poor person should be left to die on the pavement simply because he is poor because he's not smart enough to hack the 21st century and make enough dough to pay for private insurance.

The rest of the 'rights' are open to debate - but not here! It would drive me nuts.

The link, by the way, is excellent. But it won't be popular in some quarters, of course.

Rob C

[John Koerner]

This sort of BS has been cropping up elsewhere of late, is there some weirdo right wing nut job sect trying to mess with our heads or what?

BS?

Here is a list of what you're "entitled" to when you're born:

[Justinr]

BS?

Here is a list of what you're "entitled" to when you're born:

Yes total and utter poppycock and if you really want to debate at the level of FB then I suggest you go there and spread your silliness amongst those who are less likely to think deeply about life.

[Rob C]

BS?

Here is a list of what you're "entitled" to when you're born:

Elvis said it best: Don't be cruel! Sensitive souls can't bear reality/truth: it's uncomfortable. It could disarrange inbred faith.

;-)

Rob C

[John Koerner]

John, that will never fly in Britain. Even Capitalism has given in to the entitlement ethic.

That said, the best thing both sides share is the Health Service (when it functions) because it seems to me to be one of the fundamental things that goes towards sustaining a humane society. I can see no justification for denying every citizen with the right to it access to it. Not all people are created equal and not all are capable of paying for private medical care. I can't accept that a poor person should be left to die on the pavement simply because he is poor because he's not smart enough to hack the 21st century and make enough dough to pay for private insurance.

The rest of the 'rights' are open to debate - but not here! It would drive me nuts.

Rob C

The best thing that can happen is for government to stop trying to defy nature.

In nature, what refuses (or can't) provide for itself dies, ridding the ecosystem of its presence and leaving only fit individuals to carry on.

In our "socialist" societies, the unfit are fed, cared-for, and kept alive ... spreading (and multiplying themselves) through artificial advantages ... only because the fit (those who actually work, pay taxes, etc.) are forced to KEEP the unfit alive, further multiplying their masses.

The entire premise of "survival of the fittest" is turned on its head, reversed, and thus socialism promulgates survival of the UNfittest.

It is a blight on this world, and contrary to every principle known to nature.

[Justinr]

Elvis said it best: Don't be cruel! Sensitive souls can't bear reality/truth: it's uncomfortable.

;-)

Rob C

Quite so Rob, have you yet been able to accept that Grays putting their prices up may have nothing to do with Brexit after all?

[Justinr]

The best thing that can happen is for government to stop trying to defy nature.

In nature, what refuses (or can't) provide for itself dies, ridding the ecosystem of its presence and leaving only fit individuals to carry on.

In our "socialist" societies, the unfit are fed, cared-for, and kept alive ... spreading (and multiplying themselves) through artificial advantages ... only because the fit (those who actually work, pay taxes, etc.) are forced to KEEP the unfit alive, further multiplying their masses.

The entire premise of "survival of the fittest" is turned on its head, reversed, and thus socialism promulgates survival of the UNfittest.

It is a blight on this world, and contrary to every principle known to nature.

It's called humanity, try it sometime.

[Rob C]

The best thing that can happen is for government to stop trying to defy nature.

In nature, what refuses (or can't) provide for itself dies, ridding the ecosystem of its presence and leaving only fit individuals to carry on.

In our "socialist" societies, the unfit are fed, cared-for, and kept alive ... spreading (and multiplying themselves) through artificial advantages ... only because the fit (those who actually work, pay taxes, etc.) are forced to KEEP the unfit alive, further multiplying their masses.

The entire premise of "survival of the fittest" is turned on its head, reversed, and thus socialism promulgates survival of the UNfittest.

It is a blight on this world, and contrary to every principle known to nature.

Coldly, that's absolutely true. But we are more than just animal because we have higher gifts, amongst them compassion. It's just one of the crosses we are forced to bear because of our brighter minds.

As I said, it all comes down to degree; there are basic things we can do to keep from savagery and also too many things that we do do to destroy incentive. It's not gonna be a perfect balance.

[Justinr]

Spot the difference between this -

The best thing that can happen is for government to stop trying to defy nature.

In nature, what refuses (or can't) provide for itself dies, ridding the ecosystem of its presence and leaving only fit individuals to carry on.

In our "socialist" societies, the unfit are fed, cared-for, and kept alive ... spreading (and multiplying themselves) through artificial advantages ... only because the fit (those who actually work, pay taxes, etc.) are forced to KEEP the unfit alive, further multiplying their masses.

The entire premise of "survival of the fittest" is turned on its head, reversed, and thus socialism promulgates survival of the UNfittest.

It is a blight on this world, and contrary to every principle known to nature.

And this -

Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are entrusted with the responsibility of extending the authority of physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen], are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death [Gnadentod] after a definitive diagnosis. — Adolf Hitler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4

I know, tricky isn't it.

[John Koerner]

It's called humanity, try it sometime.

Wrong, it's called insanity.

Understand the difference.

If I want to help my elderly mother, that is my prerogative as a human being with feelings toward my own kin.

However, when government MANDATES that a portion of my rightful earnings go to help "others" (who have nothing to do with me, or my interests), it is called UNFAIR BULLSHIT ... and an abomination of how life should work.

My money should be spent at my discretion, to help those of my choosing.

The entire concept of governmentally-forced assistance of the unfit/unwilling isn't "humanity" ... it is ROBBERY and self-perpetuating insanity.

Feeding 10,000 dying people in Africa ... does what? Lets them survive.

Survive to do what? Multiply and create more of the same, that's what.

Feeding welfare-receiving families does what? Lets them survive; encourages the lifestyle.

And to do what? Multiply and create more of the same, that's what.

That isn't "humanity"; it is bass-ackwards stupidity.

Those who can't survive, shouldn't. The first principle of nature.

[Justinr]

Wrong, it's called insanity.

Understand the difference.

If I want to help my elderly mother, that is my prerogative as a human being with feelings toward my own kin.

However, when government MANDATES that a portion of my rightful earnings go to help "others" (who have nothing to do with me, or my interests), it is called UNFAIR BULLSHIT ... and an abomination of how life should work.

My money should be spent at my discretion, to help those of my choosing.

The entire concept of governmentally-forced assistance of the unfit/unwilling isn't "humanity" ... it is ROBBERY and self-perpetuating insanity.

Feeding 10,000 dying people in Africa ... does what? Lets them survive.

Survive to do what? Multiply and create more of the same, that's what.

Feeding welfare-receiving families does what? Lets them survive; encourages the lifestyle.

And to do what? Multiply and create more of the same, that's what.

That isn't "humanity"; it is bass-ackwards stupidity.

Those who can't survive, shouldn't. The first principle of nature.

Just crawl back under the log and take your utterly toxic nostrums with you.

[John Koerner]

Coldly, that's absolutely true.

And, Rob, that is all of it right there: Nature is cold.

But we are more than just animal because we have higher gifts, amongst them compassion. It's just one of the crosses we are forced to bear because of our brighter minds.

Compassion is only a gift if it's useful.

Allowing unfit, lazy, good-for-nothing individuals to survive, reproduce, and create more DEAD WEIGHT to society isn't "bright" ... it's stupid.

Human over-population isn't "a" problem, it is THE underlying problem of all other problems.

Make no mistake about that.

As I said, it all comes down to degree; there are basic things we can do to keep from savagery and also too many things that we do do to destroy incentive. It's not gonna be a perfect balance.

The perfect balance is you can either swim, or you sink.

If you (or I) decide to help someone important to us, that is our prerogative as individuals.

However, to create a governmentally-enforced system which mandates (and thereby perpetuates) unfit individuals to reproduce and create "more of the same," all over the world, that is not "kindness" ... it is BLINDNESS ... to the absolute destruction of our planet caused by the "dead weight" of an ever-enlarging burden which is being created globally.

[John Koerner]

Just crawl back under the log and take your utterly toxic nostrums with you.

Thanks for the ad hominem.

The truth is, what is the greatest "utterly toxic" factor in our environment is human waste ... in the air, in the water, in our lands ... all caused by over-population ... itself brought to life by spineless, "sensitive" people like you, who can't stand (or embrace) the cold realities that Nature put in place for a reason.

No one likes seeing the weak die off, but it *is* the natural way of things and should be accepted philosophically.

Defying nature for the last couple centuries hasn't "helped" our world ... in point of fact, it has nearly ruined it.

[Justinr]

Thanks for the ad hominem.

The truth is, what is the greatest "utterly toxic" factor in our environment is human waste ... in the air, in the water, in our lands ... all caused by over-population ... itself brought to life by spineless, "sensitive" people like you, who can't stand (or embrace) the cold realities that Nature put in place for a reason.

No one likes seeing the weak die off, but it *is* the natural way of things and should be accepted philosophically.

Defying nature for the last couple centuries hasn't "helped" our world ... in point of fact, it has nearly ruined it.

Sorry mate, but I ain't going to give your vile views credence by debating them, go hunting for some other bunch of suckers.

[John Koerner]

Sorry mate, but I ain't going to give your vile views credence by debating them, go hunting for some other bunch of suckers.

Translation: you can't refute what I am saying.

I am not trolling, I am giving you pearls.

Can you name one benefit of GLOBALLY keeping people alive, who could not survive on their own, only to produce more of the same?

Repeated over time, eliminating or increasing the UNfit, which model do you think creates a better future of our world and environment?

Do you think the quality of our lands, oceans, and atmosphere has improved the last century ... or gone to hell?

Answer honestly ... or say nothing.

[Rob C]

I can understand your ideas and in theory some are perfectly sound.

But life isn't theory alone.

Providing unlimited 'benefits' to non-working families that grow and grow in order to get more and more is madness, but it carries votes, and there you have it. Reduce the 'benefits' and you lose votes.

No party wants to find itself out of office, reminding me of something I've said before: anyone seeking office should automatically be banned from holding it. How to get somebody worthy to do the job? It should be something that's offered much in the manner of the 'honours' system - when it is worth something, and not simply a gong for athletes, musicians, actors, artists and sundry non-productives like that. Only somebody who has actually achieved something remarkable in life should be entrusted with running a business as large as a country. And at the end of the day, that's what countries are: businesses. They incurr expenses and need income to pay for them. Making the equation balance is the challenge.

Rob

[James Clark]

Translation: you can't refute what I am saying.

I am not trolling, I am giving you pearls.

Can you name one benefit of GLOBALLY keeping people alive, who could not survive on their own, only to produce more of the same?

Repeated over time, eliminating or increasing the UNfit, which model do you think creates a better future of our world and environment?

Do you think the quality of our lands, oceans, and atmosphere has improved the last century ... or gone to hell?

Answer honestly ... or say nothing.

I'll dance with you. 

What are you advocating exactly?  Elimination of antibiotics?  Surgery? All medicine?  Or are you just advocating typical Randian nonsense that equates quality of life and value of the individual with their bottom line?   Because I agree with your idea that overpopulation is the biggest problem we face.  It's what I think your answers are proposing that I find unconscionable...

Edit - BTW, the linked FB video equating "socialism" to allowing parents to keep kids on their insurance plicy through age 26?   Come on...   (It also errs in stating that the goal of young people has "always" been to leave the family unit and become wholly independent.  That's actually a fairly recent phenomenon, compared to "always," at least....

[Justinr]

Translation: you can't refute what I am saying.

I am not trolling, I am giving you pearls.

Can you name one benefit of GLOBALLY keeping people alive, who could not survive on their own, only to produce more of the same?

Repeated over time, eliminating or increasing the UNfit, which model do you think creates a better future of our world and environment?

Do you think the quality of our lands, oceans, and atmosphere has improved the last century ... or gone to hell?

Answer honestly ... or say nothing.

Whatever..........