LWDT VI: Kropotkin's Bread Dead Redemption.

[Northern Davincia]

And here we see the capitalist in his natural comfort zone: exploiting others.

Hardly. It's a mutually beneficial exchange. They get free stuff that helps their material condition, and I get a nice throne.

[Pasong Tirad]

And here we see the capitalist in his natural comfort zone: exploiting others.

Hardly. It's a mutually beneficial exchange. They get free stuff that helps their material condition, and I get a nice throne.

Your literal first reaction was "Hmm, how can I profit out of this situation?"

[Northern Davincia]

Hardly. It's a mutually beneficial exchange. They get free stuff that helps their material condition, and I get a nice throne.

Your literal first reaction was "Hmm, how can I profit out of this situation?"

Said cultists don't have much to offer in terms of monetary profit. I'd be doing it for the sheer entertainment value.

We should instead offer the cargo cults their desired goods, in exchange for worship. Everybody wins.

Not going to lie. Now I want to drop anime figurines and show cosplay to native tribes to see if we can get an anime religion.

That sounds too amusing to pass up.

[Pasong Tirad]

Your literal first reaction was "Hmm, how can I profit out of this situation?"

Said cultists don't have much to offer in terms of monetary profit. I'd be doing it for the sheer entertainment value.

That... sounds even worse? You're not really giving off a positive image here.

[Northern Davincia]

Said cultists don't have much to offer in terms of monetary profit. I'd be doing it for the sheer entertainment value.

That... sounds even worse? You're not really giving off a positive image here.

If the cultists were cannibals or turn violent when I fail to deliver their sacred goods, I'd rightfully get my comeuppance, at least.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

If that is the case, then perhaps the terminology used to refer to it should be changed.

The terminology is fine. I don't know where you live, but the confusion, in the Anglophone world, is mostly in the U.S. (and possibly Canada) where the term science has a rigid definition. The original German word for science, Wissenschaft, has a much broader definition. It includes what the British call the human sciences.

[Grenartia]

If that is the case, then perhaps the terminology used to refer to it should be changed.

The terminology is fine. I don't know where you live, but the confusion, in the Anglophone world, is mostly in the U.S. (and possibly Canada) where the term science has a rigid definition. The original German word for science, Wissenschaft, has a much broader definition. It includes what the British call the human sciences.

I live in America, and I've heard them called the "social sciences". However, I still think the term needs to be changed. "Social studies" seems more apt.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

I live in America, and I've heard them called the "social sciences". However, I still think the term needs to be changed. "Social studies" seems more apt.

The social sciences do not include the humanities. The human sciences do.

[Great Minarchistan]

Hardly. It's a mutually beneficial exchange. They get free stuff that helps their material condition, and I get a nice throne.

Your literal first reaction was "Hmm, how can I profit out of this situation?"

And how is this a bad thing?

[Pasong Tirad]

Your literal first reaction was "Hmm, how can I profit out of this situation?"

And how is this a bad thing?

Aside from literally viewing other people in terms of how much value you can extract from them and not as human beings?

[Great Minarchistan]

And how is this a bad thing?

Aside from literally viewing other people in terms of how much value you can extract from them and not as human beings?

Including it, how is this a bad thing

[Pasong Tirad]

Aside from literally viewing other people in terms of how much value you can extract from them and not as human beings?

Including it, how is this a bad thing

That. That is a bad thing. I don't know how many more times I can say it.

[Great Minarchistan]

Including it, how is this a bad thing

That. That is a bad thing. I don't know how many more times I can say it.

Why is it a bad thing

[Northern Davincia]

And how is this a bad thing?

Aside from literally viewing other people in terms of how much value you can extract from them and not as human beings?

That's generally how society operates.

[Pasong Tirad]

That. That is a bad thing. I don't know how many more times I can say it.

Why is it a bad thing

You see nothing wrong with viewing people as instruments for you to enrich yourself?

Aside from literally viewing other people in terms of how much value you can extract from them and not as human beings?

That's generally how society operates.

Again, very Christian of you.

[Great Minarchistan]

Why is it a bad thing

You see nothing wrong with viewing people as instruments for you to enrich yourself?

That's generally how society operates.

Again, very Christian of you.

I am asking you, not the inverse. Why is it bad?

[Northern Davincia]

Why is it a bad thing

You see nothing wrong with viewing people as instruments for you to enrich yourself?

That's generally how society operates.

Again, very Christian of you.

I'm pointing out a basic fact. From Sumer to the modern age, society cares little for individuals. It cares about the collective. Only in modern times do we conflate the two with regards to value.

[Pasong Tirad]

You see nothing wrong with viewing people as instruments for you to enrich yourself?


Again, very Christian of you.

I am asking you, not the inverse. Why is it bad?

That was my answer. How is it a good thing to view people not as people but as objects with which you can enrich yourself? It's right there in the text. But of course it should be expected that a libertarian wouldn't understand the concept of "maybe we shouldn't profit off of this situation at the expense of others."

You see nothing wrong with viewing people as instruments for you to enrich yourself?


Again, very Christian of you.

I'm pointing out a basic fact. From Sumer to the modern age, society cares little for individuals. It cares about the collective. Only in modern times do we conflate the two with regards to value.

And again, very Christian of you to subscribe to this notion of humanity = how much value I can take from them.

[Great Minarchistan]

I am asking you, not the inverse. Why is it bad?

That was my answer. How is it a good thing to view people not as people but as objects with which you can enrich yourself? It's right there in the text. But of course it should be expected that a libertarian wouldn't understand the concept of "maybe we shouldn't profit off of this situation at the expense of others."

I'm pointing out a basic fact. From Sumer to the modern age, society cares little for individuals. It cares about the collective. Only in modern times do we conflate the two with regards to value.

And again, very Christian of you to subscribe to this notion of humanity = how much value I can take from them.

I'm asking for an answer, not tautology. If all you can think of is that it's bad for the sake of it being bad, then you may as well say that you have no idea as to why it is bad.

[Northern Davincia]

I am asking you, not the inverse. Why is it bad?

That was my answer. How is it a good thing to view people not as people but as objects with which you can enrich yourself? It's right there in the text. But of course it should be expected that a libertarian wouldn't understand the concept of "maybe we shouldn't profit off of this situation at the expense of others."

I'm pointing out a basic fact. From Sumer to the modern age, society cares little for individuals. It cares about the collective. Only in modern times do we conflate the two with regards to value.

And again, very Christian of you to subscribe to this notion of humanity = how much value I can take from them.

I subscribe to the notion that the only things worth extracting from my fellow man are equal in worth to what I offer them. I have no innate desire to be unfair or unkind to my neighbor.

[Pasong Tirad]

That was my answer. How is it a good thing to view people not as people but as objects with which you can enrich yourself? It's right there in the text. But of course it should be expected that a libertarian wouldn't understand the concept of "maybe we shouldn't profit off of this situation at the expense of others."

I'm asking for an answer, not tautology. If all you can think of is that it's bad for the sake of it being bad, then you may as well say that you have no idea as to why it is bad.

Yeah cause you're entitled to an answer to the question of "Why is it wrong to exploit other people for monetary gain?" Libertarianism is such a meme, I swear. If you can't understand the very basic idea of humans =/= sources of wealth, then maybe you shouldn't come into the LWDT trying to get a rise out of another person by trying to trip them up into saying something you can actually argue against.

[Ostroeuropa]

If you had to trigger the libs, how would you do it? I'm bored of these right wing wind ups that don't really manage the job. /r/the_donald is no longer funny, and it was only ironically funny in the first place.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

If you had to trigger the libs, how would you do it? I'm bored of these right wing wind ups that don't really manage the job. /r/the_donald is no longer funny, and it was only ironically funny in the first place.

Just saying that borders matter, really.

[Four Truths]

If you had to trigger the libs, how would you do it? I'm bored of these right wing wind ups that don't really manage the job. /r/the_donald is no longer funny, and it was only ironically funny in the first place.

Ad hominem.

[Grenartia]

You see nothing wrong with viewing people as instruments for you to enrich yourself?


Again, very Christian of you.

I am asking you, not the inverse. Why is it bad?

Would you want to be exploited in such a manner?