Medic Refused Rifle Training

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Spook, all the questions you have asked came up on a thread about the benefit system some eight or ten months ago (maybe a bit more). You already know my views on these matters and I know yours. It's rather tedious to go back over them again. Besides, you have clear capitalist views on such matters of which you have reasoned in your own mind, which is quite different from some other posters who have not done so. It therefore doesn't serve much purpose to debate on such matters.

[spook]

Spook, all the questions you have asked came up on a thread about the benefit system some eight or ten months ago (maybe a bit more). You already know my views on these matters and I know yours. It's rather tedious to go back over them again. Besides, you have clear capitalist views on such matters of which you have reasoned in your own mind, which is quite different from some other posters who have not done so. It therefore doesn't serve much purpose to debate on such matters.

 

The opinions that you have expressed in the past do not provide answers to these specific questions. Assumptions would have to be made on your stance based on comments that you have made and views expressed, but assumptions are frequently at least imprecise and often incorrect.

 

As for my own opinions, those are completely immaterial to you answering these questions, and since they are simple questions there is no debate involved.

 

Simply in five cases a clear straightforward complete answer to a series of clear straightforward complete question.

 

So let's try one more time and starting at the top.

 

What in YOUR opinion is society.

 

No weasel words, no one liners, a short description of what in your opinion society comprises of.

[Terse]

Perhaps, while we're waiting, Spook, you might consider your promised response to all the questions asked, some time ago, about the contradictions in the bible? I think you may have addressed one or two - but you obviously gave up on the rest (or invoked the customary Christian 'get out clause' of 'faith').

[spook]

Perhaps, while we're waiting, Spook, you might consider your promised response to all the questions asked, some time ago, about the contradictions in the bible? I think you may have addressed one or two - but you obviously gave up on the rest (or invoked the customary Christian 'get out clause' of 'faith').

 

 

Fine by me, set 'em up in priority order in groups of five as I've done for LDV.

 

Edited to add

 

I've had time to think further about what you've written and I'm slightly changing my reply.

 

My questions to LDV are to him as an individual in an attempt to establish his view on life and politics.

 

I'm not asking him to justify why socialism is better or worse than anything, I'm not asking him to explain why all property is or is not theft. Simply to answer five simple questions.

 

On that basis if you want me to deal with my views on my values then I'm more than happy to “go there” but if it's a matter of supposed biblical contradiction then my reply on that remains the same.

 

Segment what you are having problems with into groups of five, and we'll see how I can help you understand what you so plainly do not yet.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Spook, I stated here than in using the term (British) 'society', I was referring to the people of the country.

 

#2 Why should a person expect to have his living expenses paid for him because there is no job that he fancies doing, when those expenses he gets come from a number of people who are doing jobs they don't fancy doing?

The people who are doing jobs they don't fancy doing ought to try and look to remedy that situation by developing an economic and working system where there is greater possibility for enjoyment and personal satisfaction from work. Maybe that might come from having a personal benefit from work other than the need to survive. Some have extra benefits but most don't. If they are unwilling to change things and just wish to continue doing they don't wish to do then I'm afraid they it's tough shit when it comes to supporting those who do not wish fall into that system.

 

“society has no justification for compelling those who can't find a job by putting them into obligatory labour” why not?

I don't know why you felt the need to do the dancing about with words like 'force' and change it to compel or obligation.

People will be forced (though it may be physically) to work if they have no funds to pay for work. It's starve or work. And the latter would not be so bad if there was rewarding work out there, but we are arguing for the common situation where there is not.

[spook]

Spook, I stated here than in using the term (British) 'society', I was referring to the people of the country.

 

#2 Why should a person expect to have his living expenses paid for him because there is no job that he fancies doing, when those expenses he gets come from a number of people who are doing jobs they don't fancy doing?

The people who are doing jobs they don't fancy doing ought to try and look to remedy that situation by developing an economic and working system where there is greater possibility for enjoyment and personal satisfaction from work. Maybe that might come from having a personal benefit from work other than the need to survive. Some have extra benefits but most don't. If they are unwilling to change things and just wish to continue doing they don't wish to do then I'm afraid they it's tough shit when it comes to supporting those who do not wish fall into that system.

 

“society has no justification for compelling those who can't find a job by putting them into obligatory labour” why not?

I don't know why you felt the need to do the dancing about with words like 'force' and change it to compel or obligation.

People will be forced (though it may be physically) to work if they have no funds to pay for work. It's starve or work. And the latter would not be so bad if there was rewarding work out there, but we are arguing for the common situation where there is not.

 

Firstly thanks for replying. I'll stand by my part and not enter into a debate.

 

#1 – noted, but I disagree.

 

#2 – an interesting perspective, but I disagree with its achieveability within society and society still remaining intact.

 

On the choice of words, I disagree.

 

But thanks anyway, it helps build a picture of you in terms of how you think, about your values, and your ideals and ambitions and even hopes and so better understand the basis of your opinion on so much.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Curious, my definition of society in this context was loose and was synonymous with the public. What does the word mean to you? Do you prefer to exclusively use the word in a more specific sense?

 

Just noticed in your post above your comment on socialism, I am not a socialist. Not in the modern sense anyway.

[MilitantDogOwner]

 

Waffle, waffle, waffle.

 

 

So, according to you, its society that should change, not the parasitic leeches who "choose" not to work?

[spook]

Curious, my definition of society in this context was loose and was synonymous with the public. What does the word mean to you? Do you prefer to exclusively use the word in a more specific sense?

 

Just noticed in your post above your comment on socialism, I am not a socialist. Not in the modern sense anyway.

 

Society is that thing which exists as a result of a number of people co-existing in a mutually supporting group sharing common laws, values, ambitions, and usually territory.

 

In it's most stable form the laws that apply across all members of society are decided upon by majority decision, and most Western societies elect representatives from within to decide on which laws and rules should apply, and change them from time to time just as laws become changed as the society evolves further towards civilisation.

 

The essence of modern society is civilisation, a thing that I see as representing an evolution from basic society into society becoming a thing that not only provides a matrix in which people co-exist, but in which people become stake holders and so establish mutual respect for each other and their individual needs, just so long as those individual needs are not detrimental to society.

 

Detrimental needs such as those expressed by the “I only want to work in a job that I want to do, give me the money to live on while I wait for one to come along” parasites.

 

As I see it being a member of a civilised society means that everyone is a servant and at the same time a master to each other for the benefit of all.

 

Such as working in whatever way is possible in order to support oneself to the extent that one is able, and not just working in whatever way is desirable or attractive and holding out a hand if such was not possible.

 

I'm not saying that lot is a perfect definition of society or of civilisation, but it might do as a straw man.

It is good that individuals have ambition, good that they want to do what they want to do, but it is wrong when they will not do what there is to do in the absence of what they want to do.

 

Similarly it is wrong to raise the expectations of kids in terms of career choices when those choices do not align with opportunity. That serves no one, least of all the kids.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

Waffle, waffle, waffle.

 

 

So, according to you, its society that should change, not the parasitic leeches who "choose" not to work?

Absolutely. The 'parasitic leeches' are not the problem, they're the symptom.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Society is that thing which exists as a result of a number of people co-existing in a mutually supporting group sharing common laws, values, ambitions, and usually territory.

And that I can agree upon.

 

In it's most stable form the laws that apply across all members of society are decided upon by majority decision

I don't know how you can claim this is the most stable form, but it would be the favoured in my opinion, it just doesn't exist at present because...

most Western societies elect representatives from within to decide on which laws and rules should apply...

Of course, these rules and laws are not decided democratically, but by a minority elite that have their role ratified by the public.

and change them from time to time just as laws become changed as the society evolves further towards civilisation.

I would rather ignore the whole topic to ask what your thoughts are about this idea of evolution. Do you think society is evolving to be more and more civilised out of a 'natural' process, for example?

 

The essence of modern society is civilisation, a thing that I see as representing an evolution from basic society into society becoming a thing that not only provides a matrix in which people co-exist, but in which people become stake holders and so establish mutual respect for each other and their individual needs, just so long as those individual needs are not detrimental to society.

Stake holders? In what sense?

 

Detrimental needs such as those expressed by the “I only want to work in a job that I want to do, give me the money to live on while I wait for one to come along” parasites.

A detrimental need? It's a fundamental need for those who productive life is their work should be able to undertake work that has value for them and which they can enjoy. And in respect of the latter, that simply an issue of the individuals own happiness, which should not be ignored or downplayed. Should a worker toil for decades in work that makes them unhappy with the consolation that they are helping support (financially) their employer? I don't think so. Fundamentally, we are selfish individuals. Our most important needs are own happiness and finding purpose for ourselves. And there is no good reason for ignore that nor place the value of other needs above ours without gaining benefit ourselves.

 

As I see it being a member of a civilised society means that everyone is a servant and at the same time a master to each other for the benefit of all.

That's not the case in practice due to the power relationships that exist in society. For instance, the worker has very, very little power vis-a-vis the employer. The employee is not master himself, not even his own work.

 

Such as working in whatever way is possible in order to support oneself to the extent that one is able, and not just working in whatever way is desirable or attractive and holding out a hand if such was not possible.

It's rather bizarre you hold this idea of mutual support when looking at the way work functions today. Do you believe that work in today's work forms the most important social relationship that one can make or is it simply the case that in not doing so you are destroying

 

 

Similarly it is wrong to raise the expectations of kids in terms of career choices when those choices do not align with opportunity. That serves no one, least of all the kids.

It would wrong to instill the idea in kids mind that in today's working world one can be happy in work and can find meaning and purpose in work, as that is very often not the case, all you need do is look at the effects of the recession on graduate students.

But it is another matter to ask about what society could be. What a society could be where the mutual supporting relationships are overwhleming the result of the powerful shaping how society runs.

[MilitantDogOwner]

 

Waffle, waffle, waffle.

 

 

So, according to you, its society that should change, not the parasitic leeches who "choose" not to work?

Absolutely. The 'parasitic leeches' are not the problem, they're the symptom.

 

Well, you just can't argue with that kind of misguided stupidity.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You can't! Haha.

[MilitantDogOwner]

You can't! Haha.

 

I was refering to yours.

[pauld]

You 2 have been at it for ages today, so who won ?, who pissed the highest, cant be arsed reading it.