The Largest IPO in History

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
32,949
That was exactly my point.

A great idea, without the means of implementing it without the toxins.
My dad used to say that Socialism and/or Communism was a wonderful idea, except that it ignored two factors that made it an unworkable and horrible idea: Human greed and human pride.
 

Thread Starter

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
6,340
That does nothing to provide insight into the mechanism.
Sure it does: "greed" -- the desire to keep the product of one's labor, and "pride" -- self-esteem -- the belief that one deserves to keep it. Both are moral virtues in support of one's life.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
32,949
Sure it does: "greed" -- the desire to keep the product of one's labor, and "pride" -- self-esteem -- the belief that one deserves to keep it. Both are moral virtues in support of one's life.
The terms "greed" and "pride" are what provide the description and explanation. Just saying "life" is nearly as meaningless as saying , "because". It's a catchall that covers everything and specifies nothing. Why do you need a car? "Because." Why do you need a computer, "Life." Why do you want to major in modern dance? "Life." Why don't you exercise more? "Because."
 

Thread Starter

joeyd999

Joined Jun 6, 2011
6,340
The terms "greed" and "pride" are what provide the description and explanation. Just saying "life" is nearly as meaningless as saying , "because". It's a catchall that covers everything and specifies nothing. Why do you need a car? "Because." Why do you need a computer, "Life." Why do you want to major in modern dance? "Life." Why don't you exercise more? "Because."
I'm one who -- philosophically -- considers one's own life the primary value, and the actions one chooses to support it as primary virtues. (And, no, that doesn't mean stealing food from someone else to feed myself is a virtue.)

Life without action in its favor (either through choice or compulsion) is not life, but anti-life.

Socialism is anti-life.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
32,949
I'm one who -- philosophically -- considers one's own life the primary value, and the actions one chooses to support it as primary virtues. (And, no, that doesn't mean stealing food from someone else to feed myself is a virtue.)

Life without action in its favor (either through choice or compulsion) is not life, but anti-life.

Socialism is anti-life.
Again, saying that something is anti-life sheds zero insight into why, let alone establishing that it's actually true -- it is merely a platitude without meaning. It has exactly the same value as saying that watching television or eating sugar is anti-life. It has exactly as much value as someone saying that capitalism is anti-life -- namely none.

But I'm not going to go further down yet another one of your rabbit holes.
 

Futurist

Joined Apr 8, 2025
818
I'm one who -- philosophically -- considers one's own life the primary value, and the actions one chooses to support it as primary virtues. (And, no, that doesn't mean stealing food from someone else to feed myself is a virtue.)
That's known as "selfishness", a common attitude.
Life without action in its favor (either through choice or compulsion) is not life, but anti-life.

Socialism is anti-life.
What "action" did you perform to bring yourself into existence?

You did nothing to deserve what you have, your very existence, abilities, skills cannot be attributed to yourself, your very existence is unearned, a gift, socialism if you will. You've been given your existence, you did nothing to earn or deserve it, think about that.

Did you create yourself? can you take credit for your own physical and intellectual gifts?

It astonishes me how some congratulate themselves for accomplishments, which are just things they were actually given freely, unearned, that's philosophical.
 
Last edited:

ElectricSpidey

Joined Dec 2, 2017
3,340
What "action" did you perform to bring yourself into existence?
The answer to that can make for an interesting debate.

If you believe life begins at conception, you can make the case that you were gifted your life, and had nothing to do with it.

If you believe instead that conception extends life, then you can make the case that as an extension of your parents that you did in fact preform an action that brought you into existence.
 

Futurist

Joined Apr 8, 2025
818
The answer to that can make for an interesting debate.

If you believe life begins at conception, you can make the case that you were gifted your life, and had nothing to do with it.

If you believe instead that conception extends life, then you can make the case that as an extension of your parents that you did in fact preform an action that brought you into existence.
Yes, these are interesting ideas, philosophy is rich in such dilemmas. But in each case you cite, the being produced played no part in its own presence, someone/something else caused them to begin to exist. Technically none of us deserve credit for our accomplishments, because our very ability to accomplish was freely given to us.
 

ElectricSpidey

Joined Dec 2, 2017
3,340
Yes, these are interesting ideas, philosophy is rich in such dilemmas. But in each case you cite, the being produced played no part in its own presence, someone/something else caused them to begin to exist. Technically none of us deserve credit for our accomplishments, because our very ability to accomplish was freely given to us.
Yes, given to us by the great creator of life known as the universe.

My ability to accomplish was forged over many eons of evolution unfolding as the great struggle to survive.
 
Top