351–360 of 477 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you've missed the point of the letter entirely. It's not about people who are obsessed with their work, it's about people who have no choice in the matter.
No, it's about a system, capitalism, that gives most no choice in the matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sigh. Sorry to be rude, but I'm not sure if you properly read my post - it really wasn't a "diatribe[s] about a shadowy conspiracy of a 1% elite spanning centuries". I wasn't referring to you when I indicated that some conclude that the system is "as good as uncorrupted and can't be improved", nor was I suggesting that you subscribe to "the idea that any kind of social improvement inevitably leads to some kind of tot…
Sigh. Sorry to be rude, but I'm not sure if you properly read my post - it really wasn't a "diatribe[s] about a shadowy conspiracy of a 1% elite spanning centuries". That referred to the post which started this thread. In both cases I was speaking about the opinions I encounter in this debate more generally. Ok, I'm not sure there's much point in debating general opinion; it makes it very confusing if you attempt to…
Anyway, it seems to me that we largely agree on the appropriate means to desirable ends - nothing too dramatic.
Thanks for the discussion!
This cycle did not stop until I was making a bit more money and finally got serious about saving and investing. When this happened my other priorities shifted dramatically. I was no longer obsessed about getting the newest / best thing or what have you. I paid off my debts and vowed to from then on always live well beneath my means, which I have.
Since that time I’ve never felt trapped. I’m disciplined about long term saving and having at least six months of normal living expenses in the bank. I’ve quit jobs that I simply did not like and later found other jobs that I did. I only regret that I did not do this sooner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not. A partner's monogamy is a gift, not an entitlement.
Perhaps to you. To others, monogamy in a romantic relationship is a requirement and a reasonable expectation. Couples should figure out where they stand on that, before they resort to kicking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's not. A partner's monogamy is a gift, not an entitlement.
Whether or not monogamy is a gift or an entitlement depends entirely on your culture / value system. I think that abusing someone's trust is, well, abusive.
She seemed to be straight up honest about that fact she didn't want a monogamous relationship, where is the abuse of trust in that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a) Bukowski's fiance probably hurt Bukowski (by stating that she cheats on him) more than he did by kicking her. Why would that be relevant whatsoever to why someone kicks their partner? You said you don't agree with abuse as a preface and then immediately put physical abuse on the level with having your feelings hurt by something someone said. I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or know…
> Why would that be relevant whatsoever to why someone kicks their partner? You said you don't agree with abuse as a preface and then immediately put physical abuse on the level with having your feelings hurt by something someone said. 1. I stated that I don't agree with abuse (physical or emotional). 2. I stated that in this case I thought the emotional abuse Bukowski's fiance inflicted on Bukowski was worse than th…
How exactly is being honest about not wanting and not committing to a monogamous relationship on an equal playing field as getting hit? Moreover, even if you considered that verbally and/or emotionally abusive, that in no way justifies hitting someone.
> I don't know if Bukowski went on to be a serial abuser or not, but that's not relevant to what happened in the video, which is the subject of this discussion.
If Bukowski was a serial abuser, it is most certainly 100% relevant to the video in question. Domestic abuse isn't about a single incident, its about a continuum of behavior and events.
> You say: "I don't know if you yourself has been in an abuse relationship or know anyone that has been" - the answer is yes. I don't know if you've ever been cheated on by someone you're in love with.
I have, but hitting someone and being cheated on are not even remotely on the same playing field. In fact, it is a common tactic for abusers to accuse or blame partners for the abuse by insinuating or referring to actual past instances of cheating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Working until 80 might sound reasonable to a software developer, but if you have a job like a construction worker or a firefighter, you may not be physically capable of doing your job at 80, even part time. So you'd have to switch careers to work into your 80s, which not everyone would be successful at pulling off.
I agree that's an open question. Whether a large proportion of people could work in some job up to age 80 (possibly after changing jobs) is definitely an important part of whether it would produce a plausible system. It doesn't have to be the same job, or to be gap-free, though. If you have a strong retraining/welfare system to cover the gaps, as Denmark has, it's not as big a deal if someone needs to take a year or…
It would be an interesting question given most of the aged people change their job. Then those categories of jobs would probably be overrun by aged people seeking those jobs, and hence poor wages and rampant unemployment.
1. Many people are horrified by the thought of not being a simple worker bee. They say they want change, but they don't. They want the security of someone else taking care of them. The reason wealth exists is because there are people that cannot live this way, and thus, make their own way. You cannot fault hard working business owners because their employees put themselves in a place to require said employment in order to sustain a life they consider normal.
2. There will always be wealth. If the US gave up capitalism in favor of socialism, the money would be placed in the hands of the whole, and in this case, the government. At that point, the government has the money and the power. We're screwed.
3. Life is suffering. There is no perfection on this realm. Solve this problem and another will follow. This is a symptom of life in samsara. Bukowski recognized this, which is why he talked of a simple life without possessions. If you truly want to break free of 'the man,' you'll have to life a life defined by something other than money, objects, and achievements. For most of us, this is nearly impossible. Middle ground is an illusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Define justice. At least a setup where right to live is actual right to live and does not degrade to right to not get killed.
Positive rights vs. negative rights. I reject the notion of "positive rights" on the grounds that forcing other people to do things for you at gunpoint (actual or implied) is morally wrong. I support your right to not get killed; I do not support your "right" to threaten the life of another to compel him to improve your situation.
Does that mean that you also don't support kicking renters to the curb during winter months if they don't pay?