It was her grandad's car - probably not hers to sell away but hers to use. Even if it could be sold - it was in poor condition so probably doesn't amount to much as an asset to sell.
If she moves to other parts of the country - the car might turn out to be a great asset to possess and not have sold earlier for peanuts.
Hedonism itself, like I said earlier, does not talk about any God. The very fact that you had to prefix "Christian" to make it something different, a subcategory if you will, of hedonism, shows that Hedonism itself does not believe in the Christian God. If you look at the definition, in any reputed source, you will not find God in the definition of hedonism.
Can hedonism be combined with various sorts of theism? Sure. That does not mean hedonism itself has any theistic suggestions.
Like I say oranges do not have lactose, and you keep saying - what if we pour milk on it?
Again, remember the question I was addressing? It was not about a religion - it was about a philosophy : Can you name a single element of "atheist philosophy"... . Hedonism is one, so not irrelevant.
It doesn't mention god - so applicable to atheists and in itself is an atheistic philosophy. You can combine it with some forms of theism - that wouldn't make hedonism a theistic philosophy. It doesn't mention ethics - so it is in itself free of ethics.
One of the (only?) things it advocates is pleasure (or different words more or less synonymous with pleasure). Without explicitly prohibiting murder - hedonism itself, and without combining with any other philosophy, it surely supports murder in cases where murder leads to immediate/medium term/long term pleasure. It doesn't matter if there is any one following the philosophy to the letter - philosophy of hedonism does exist and in practical scenarios supports murder if practised in its pure form - which answers the question I was addressing.
There are ethical varieties also of hedonism - but they need to be called ethical hedonism because hedonism itself doesn't have an ethics as you have yourself found in many sources of definitions.
Read the question I was addressing : "Can you name a single element of "atheist philosophy" (whatever that is) that supports anybody's murder?
One of the "atheist philosophies" is hedonism - in that it doesn't define any theology. A single element of that is that it does not care about murder, and ethics in general. In that sense it supports anybody's murder.
Can you name a single element of "atheist philosophy" (whatever that is) that supports anybody's murder?
Hedonism is generally a philosophy thriving in relatively atheistic belief systems, and it can be said to support anybody's murder for benefit to oneself.
According to Wikipedia - "Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, ethics, and social organisation that relate humanity to an order of existence"
That doesn't seem to make the beliefs that don't hold up particularly well from a scientific perspective, religion.
Dictionary also doesn't seem to agree with you : http://dictionary.reference.co.... Some definitions can be stretched to kinda-sorta mean what you want it to mean, especially if the "belief" is practiced in communes. But you don't seem to be pointing out especially the beliefs that are practiced in communes, so dictionary also seems to be disagreeing with you.
Why don't you accept that those people are simply wrong. All wrong things need not be religion.
See this? This is in the category of "wages are real". I thought you just see artifacts - but you also have the impressive talent of NOT seeing reality.
This discussion would probably be more productive if you spent less time playing pointless games with semantics.
I am planning to say something at the level of a 7th grader to take the discussion forward, but I haven't yet felt confident that you would understand.
Why do you say wages are real - instead of acknowledging that the stuff bought using the wages is real, and wages is just a fiction?
"Real wages" == inflation adjusted.
You quoted my statement about wages being real, and then replied with a statement about real wages. Makes me wary of stating to you anything that a 3rd grader wouldn't understand.
"Real wages" as term for inflation adjusted wages is the common usage.
Yes
"Real wages" in whatever definition you are using is not.
Which is why I never mentioned "Real wages" except to quote you. I am explicitly pointing out the huge difference between the concepts of wages being real vs real wages.
Really, I now more suspect your brain artifacts than screen artifacts.
Can't buy "real stuff" without wages (or some other income).
Yes, which is why I also clarified the absolute quantity of wages doesn't matter - just relative to what one needs to buy/save.
"Real wages" == inflation adjusted.
You seem to have a huge problem with simple words. The concepts of wages being real, vs the "real wages" as in trend over time, are completely different. I am trying and failing to see any intellectual spark in the discussion since you stumble on such simple combinations of words.
I don't understand. Then why did you say they depend on wages? Why do you say wages are real - instead of acknowledging that the stuff bought using the wages is real, and wages is just a fiction?
Since the absolute quantity of wages doesn't matter at all, only matters in relation to the price of their required goods, services and savings requirements - wages is a great candidate to acknowledge the fictitiousness of.
Yeah yeah, I know people who used it., they knew it was a trap but a pleasant one at the moment.
Why don't the analogies make sense? In the alleged standard oil model- why shouldn't a company be able to offer customers cheaper oil on company's own expense? Why do people begrudge customers cheaper oil?
Facebook is quite similar to drugs, people do get hooked.
Still, I do find it interesting that you are making emotional arguments rather than confront the logic of my argument - inspire real confidence that you have thought this through.
My point was that wages have not improved in thirty-odd years.
Can you explain why that is relevant? If my wages were suddenly to drop by a factor of 200, but prices of goods and services I use were to drop by a factor of 500, I would be very happy. Most people would be, don't you think, even if a little shocked initially at this change ?
Whether something equivalent to this happened, or will happen - depends on the location and time period and can only be discussed once you drop the obsession with "wages" and start talking about something real.
Do you also see nothing wrong with the alleged "Standard Oil tactics" - the big player lowers prices in an area, long enough to drive smaller players out of business and then raise prices to recoup the "investment" ? This model lets "people make their own choices". The only similarity with free basics is that both these models are big on letting people make their own choices at present, and long term choices are limited.
For other examples of choices, think about first dose of addictive drugs being served free to non-adults, or Microsoft bribing Government officials everywhere to make online Government-Citizen interactions only through Windows.
Facebook itself couldn't have risen if something like this was present and served only MySpace pages. No competitor can rise in such an environment, not only of Facebook, but of any entrenched internet service that has some money. In internet services, there are enough natural barriers of entry even before we create more with services like Free Basics.
Anyway, in India, this is what swung the debate against "free basics".
There is no iPhone mentioned. Does your computer screen suffer from artifacts?
It's a figure of speech. You appear to be a subscriber as well. So long as you get a new iPhone, or a bigger TV, or a faster computer every year then you're happy.
When figures of speech do the job of screen artifacts, they can be deemed to be non-applicable.
Again, new iPhone, bigger TV or faster computer was not mentioned so I don't see why you don't address real text that one can read on a screen without artifacts rather than rewriting my post to suit yourself before replying to it.
So now two people have to work full time in jobs, farming their children out to care, rather than one of them being only able to work, say, three days a week and the other stay at home raising the family, and you think that's progress ?
"one of them being only able to work, say, three days a week and the other stay at home raising the family" hasn't been true for the huge majority of majority in, about, forever. In around 1900, the "stay at home" didn't involve much of giving attention to kids rather than cleaning, preserving food, getting water, managing home etc.
I do wonder what you guys think will happen when you achieve your dream and..
Again, I don't see why you insist on dreaming up my dreams for me. I am perfectly capable of dreaming my dreams for myself , thanks.
The only arguments I hear is spyware (but you all run smart TV's and use Android phones and Chrome) , reliability (Windows is more reliable on the desktop for about 10 years now), GUI (Windows 10 is fine and it is fear of change and familiarity). It is the same start menu but the icons now are more animated. OMG END OF THE WORLD. So take the tiles off and bam you got XP style start menu again.
1. Spyware : Why would people cribbing about spyware in Windows use smart TVs? Android phones run cyanogenmod with Xprivacy nicely - and Google's shit can be culled once and for-all, and important security updates on cyanogenmod don't reinstall Google's shit unless you block 153 Google hostnames / IP addresses. Firefox still beats Chrome in privacy enhancement and tree-style-tabs add-ons - and on Linux the performance problems of Firefox are nearly non-existent.
2. Reliability : Does it yet shut down unmounting all file-systems reliably in 3 seconds, without different applications calling attention to themselves when you are trying to shut down your computer. Does it have reliable update mechanism for most of the applications one is likely to use - and doesn't depend on the application having write permission on its own executable? Because that is a horrible security escalation risk. Hell - is the alt-tab behaviour reliable yet where windows are ordered in last used order - or Microsoft reorders your windows according to its own whims every few minutes?
Do I sense the reliability of snapshotting filesystems on Windows yet? Or the reliability of simple file copy backups without other programs that opened the files prevent simple applications from copying the files at all?
3. GUI : Does Windows give you choice of changing GUI every day vs. stable GUI since 1995 (FVWM) according to your tastes? In spite of getting security updates, which are really security updates rather than "telemetry" ? Does it give you the right to fear and avoid change vs welcome change in your daily work flow without annoying pop-ups to update your work-flow to suit Microsoft?
A completely unemployed person in the United states has to rely on charity in order to eat. 1000 years ago, an unemployed person could still find wilderness and hunt their own food
A person hunting their own food is not unemployed. 1000 years ago, unemployed person would be that who would refuse or fail to hunt / grow for himself, and unable/unwilling to join himself to any tribe/society that gave him food for his services. Services might even include just existing.
Except now the home includes clean running water, central heating, electricity and an internet connection. The food is flown in from across the globe. The children are significantly more likely to reach adulthood, let alone the mother's chance of being around to raise them.
So you're in the "faster iPhone each year" school of living standards.
There is no iPhone mentioned. Does your computer screen suffer from artifacts?
Because my measure of increasing living standards is surplus. Surplus goods, surplus money (ie: increased spending power) and, most importantly, surplus time.
Most of those in the US who would today choose to live in an almost middle class 1900 style life - 1. no electricity or at least no modern equipment except light bulb and air fan to use that electricity, 2. no running water, 3. no internet, 4. much reduced healthcare and no ( easy ) availability vaccination, 5. only food that is grown within 20 miles of your home 6. No TV (or at best OTA programming) 7. No car, rare road to drive it on if you have one, and hence negligible fuel expenses 8. No cleaning devices - so either hugely dirtier home/surroundings, extreme hard work in getting similar cleanliness - or a mixture of the two. 9. No mobile phone (or possibly any phone)
- have surplus with their current income.
We grunts still have to work that same 40 hours each week to live. In fact for a growing percentage of families *two* people now need to work 40 hours to support a family. We don't see most of the benefits of the massive production surplus the world has because it's all flowing upwards and captured by a smaller and smaller group of people.
Even in 1900, 2 people did have to work full time. But typically the ladies worked full time at home - it is hard work to manage a home without home comforts that spread later in 20th century.
Slashdot Mirror
It was her grandad's car - probably not hers to sell away but hers to use. Even if it could be sold - it was in poor condition so probably doesn't amount to much as an asset to sell.
If she moves to other parts of the country - the car might turn out to be a great asset to possess and not have sold earlier for peanuts.
Hedonism itself, like I said earlier, does not talk about any God. The very fact that you had to prefix "Christian" to make it something different, a subcategory if you will, of hedonism, shows that Hedonism itself does not believe in the Christian God. If you look at the definition, in any reputed source, you will not find God in the definition of hedonism.
Can hedonism be combined with various sorts of theism? Sure. That does not mean hedonism itself has any theistic suggestions.
Like I say oranges do not have lactose, and you keep saying - what if we pour milk on it?
Again, remember the question I was addressing? It was not about a religion - it was about a philosophy : Can you name a single element of "atheist philosophy" ... . Hedonism is one, so not irrelevant.
It doesn't mention god - so applicable to atheists and in itself is an atheistic philosophy. You can combine it with some forms of theism - that wouldn't make hedonism a theistic philosophy. It doesn't mention ethics - so it is in itself free of ethics.
One of the (only?) things it advocates is pleasure (or different words more or less synonymous with pleasure). Without explicitly prohibiting murder - hedonism itself, and without combining with any other philosophy, it surely supports murder in cases where murder leads to immediate/medium term/long term pleasure. It doesn't matter if there is any one following the philosophy to the letter - philosophy of hedonism does exist and in practical scenarios supports murder if practised in its pure form - which answers the question I was addressing.
There are ethical varieties also of hedonism - but they need to be called ethical hedonism because hedonism itself doesn't have an ethics as you have yourself found in many sources of definitions.
See how rarely any of them mention ethics? Or god?
OK, if you are ready to redefine hedonism for this purpose, go ahead I'll cheer you.
Read the question I was addressing : "Can you name a single element of "atheist philosophy" (whatever that is) that supports anybody's murder?
One of the "atheist philosophies" is hedonism - in that it doesn't define any theology. A single element of that is that it does not care about murder, and ethics in general. In that sense it supports anybody's murder.
Did I say hedonism is atheism? Or that hedonism must support murder? Do you understand the difference between can and must?
Can you name a single element of "atheist philosophy" (whatever that is) that supports anybody's murder?
Hedonism is generally a philosophy thriving in relatively atheistic belief systems, and it can be said to support anybody's murder for benefit to oneself.
According to Wikipedia - "Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, ethics, and social organisation that relate humanity to an order of existence"
That doesn't seem to make the beliefs that don't hold up particularly well from a scientific perspective, religion.
Dictionary also doesn't seem to agree with you : http://dictionary.reference.co.... Some definitions can be stretched to kinda-sorta mean what you want it to mean, especially if the "belief" is practiced in communes. But you don't seem to be pointing out especially the beliefs that are practiced in communes, so dictionary also seems to be disagreeing with you.
Why don't you accept that those people are simply wrong. All wrong things need not be religion.
I didn't say wages are real, you said that I said "wages are real":
"Wages are what most people rely on to live. They're pretty "real" for them." [slashdot.org]
So you were wrong when you said that you didn't say wages are real. Do you make such elementary mistakes playing with your niece too?
I didn't say wages are real, you said that I said "wages are real":
"Wages are what most people rely on to live. They're pretty "real" for them."
See this? This is in the category of "wages are real". I thought you just see artifacts - but you also have the impressive talent of NOT seeing reality.
This discussion would probably be more productive if you spent less time playing pointless games with semantics.
I am planning to say something at the level of a 7th grader to take the discussion forward, but I haven't yet felt confident that you would understand.
You didn't.
Why do you say wages are real - instead of acknowledging that the stuff bought using the wages is real, and wages is just a fiction?
"Real wages" == inflation adjusted.
You quoted my statement about wages being real, and then replied with a statement about real wages. Makes me wary of stating to you anything that a 3rd grader wouldn't understand.
"Real wages" as term for inflation adjusted wages is the common usage.
Yes
"Real wages" in whatever definition you are using is not.
Which is why I never mentioned "Real wages" except to quote you. I am explicitly pointing out the huge difference between the concepts of wages being real vs real wages.
Really, I now more suspect your brain artifacts than screen artifacts.
Can't buy "real stuff" without wages (or some other income).
Yes, which is why I also clarified the absolute quantity of wages doesn't matter - just relative to what one needs to buy/save.
"Real wages" == inflation adjusted.
You seem to have a huge problem with simple words. The concepts of wages being real, vs the "real wages" as in trend over time, are completely different. I am trying and failing to see any intellectual spark in the discussion since you stumble on such simple combinations of words.
"Yes".
I don't understand. Then why did you say they depend on wages? Why do you say wages are real - instead of acknowledging that the stuff bought using the wages is real, and wages is just a fiction?
Since the absolute quantity of wages doesn't matter at all, only matters in relation to the price of their required goods, services and savings requirements - wages is a great candidate to acknowledge the fictitiousness of.
Yeah yeah, I know people who used it., they knew it was a trap but a pleasant one at the moment.
Why don't the analogies make sense? In the alleged standard oil model- why shouldn't a company be able to offer customers cheaper oil on company's own expense? Why do people begrudge customers cheaper oil?
Facebook is quite similar to drugs, people do get hooked.
Still, I do find it interesting that you are making emotional arguments rather than confront the logic of my argument - inspire real confidence that you have thought this through.
MS won, you say, but you don't have an answer to most if my points? FYI I am not a teenage girl, so what do I care what that class of users wants?
Linux never changed its GUI, you're just too ignorant to talk about it.
Wages are what most people rely on to live.
Nope, "most people" rely on stuff bought spending the wages.
My point was that wages have not improved in thirty-odd years.
Can you explain why that is relevant? If my wages were suddenly to drop by a factor of 200, but prices of goods and services I use were to drop by a factor of 500, I would be very happy. Most people would be, don't you think, even if a little shocked initially at this change ?
Whether something equivalent to this happened, or will happen - depends on the location and time period and can only be discussed once you drop the obsession with "wages" and start talking about something real.
Do you also see nothing wrong with the alleged "Standard Oil tactics" - the big player lowers prices in an area, long enough to drive smaller players out of business and then raise prices to recoup the "investment" ? This model lets "people make their own choices". The only similarity with free basics is that both these models are big on letting people make their own choices at present, and long term choices are limited.
For other examples of choices, think about first dose of addictive drugs being served free to non-adults, or Microsoft bribing Government officials everywhere to make online Government-Citizen interactions only through Windows.
Facebook itself couldn't have risen if something like this was present and served only MySpace pages. No competitor can rise in such an environment, not only of Facebook, but of any entrenched internet service that has some money. In internet services, there are enough natural barriers of entry even before we create more with services like Free Basics.
Anyway, in India, this is what swung the debate against "free basics".
There is no iPhone mentioned. Does your computer screen suffer from artifacts?
It's a figure of speech.
You appear to be a subscriber as well. So long as you get a new iPhone, or a bigger TV, or a faster computer every year then you're happy.
When figures of speech do the job of screen artifacts, they can be deemed to be non-applicable.
Again, new iPhone, bigger TV or faster computer was not mentioned so I don't see why you don't address real text that one can read on a screen without artifacts rather than rewriting my post to suit yourself before replying to it.
So now two people have to work full time in jobs, farming their children out to care, rather than one of them being only able to work, say, three days a week and the other stay at home raising the family, and you think that's progress ?
"one of them being only able to work, say, three days a week and the other stay at home raising the family" hasn't been true for the huge majority of majority in, about, forever. In around 1900, the "stay at home" didn't involve much of giving attention to kids rather than cleaning, preserving food, getting water, managing home etc.
I do wonder what you guys think will happen when you achieve your dream and ..
Again, I don't see why you insist on dreaming up my dreams for me. I am perfectly capable of dreaming my dreams for myself , thanks.
The only arguments I hear is spyware (but you all run smart TV's and use Android phones and Chrome) , reliability (Windows is more reliable on the desktop for about 10 years now), GUI (Windows 10 is fine and it is fear of change and familiarity). It is the same start menu but the icons now are more animated. OMG END OF THE WORLD. So take the tiles off and bam you got XP style start menu again.
1. Spyware : Why would people cribbing about spyware in Windows use smart TVs? Android phones run cyanogenmod with Xprivacy nicely - and Google's shit can be culled once and for-all, and important security updates on cyanogenmod don't reinstall Google's shit unless you block 153 Google hostnames / IP addresses. Firefox still beats Chrome in privacy enhancement and tree-style-tabs add-ons - and on Linux the performance problems of Firefox are nearly non-existent.
2. Reliability : Does it yet shut down unmounting all file-systems reliably in 3 seconds, without different applications calling attention to themselves when you are trying to shut down your computer. Does it have reliable update mechanism for most of the applications one is likely to use - and doesn't depend on the application having write permission on its own executable? Because that is a horrible security escalation risk. Hell - is the alt-tab behaviour reliable yet where windows are ordered in last used order - or Microsoft reorders your windows according to its own whims every few minutes?
Do I sense the reliability of snapshotting filesystems on Windows yet? Or the reliability of simple file copy backups without other programs that opened the files prevent simple applications from copying the files at all?
3. GUI : Does Windows give you choice of changing GUI every day vs. stable GUI since 1995 (FVWM) according to your tastes? In spite of getting security updates, which are really security updates rather than "telemetry" ? Does it give you the right to fear and avoid change vs welcome change in your daily work flow without annoying pop-ups to update your work-flow to suit Microsoft?
And that is bad because?
A completely unemployed person in the United states has to rely on charity in order to eat. 1000 years ago, an unemployed person could still find wilderness and hunt their own food
A person hunting their own food is not unemployed. 1000 years ago, unemployed person would be that who would refuse or fail to hunt / grow for himself, and unable/unwilling to join himself to any tribe/society that gave him food for his services. Services might even include just existing.
Except now the home includes clean running water, central heating, electricity and an internet connection. The food is flown in from across the globe. The children are significantly more likely to reach adulthood, let alone the mother's chance of being around to raise them.
So you're in the "faster iPhone each year" school of living standards.
There is no iPhone mentioned. Does your computer screen suffer from artifacts?
Because my measure of increasing living standards is surplus. Surplus goods, surplus money (ie: increased spending power) and, most importantly, surplus time.
Most of those in the US who would today choose to live in an almost middle class 1900 style life -
1. no electricity or at least no modern equipment except light bulb and air fan to use that electricity,
2. no running water,
3. no internet,
4. much reduced healthcare and no ( easy ) availability vaccination,
5. only food that is grown within 20 miles of your home
6. No TV (or at best OTA programming)
7. No car, rare road to drive it on if you have one, and hence negligible fuel expenses
8. No cleaning devices - so either hugely dirtier home/surroundings, extreme hard work in getting similar cleanliness - or a mixture of the two.
9. No mobile phone (or possibly any phone)
- have surplus with their current income.
We grunts still have to work that same 40 hours each week to live. In fact for a growing percentage of families *two* people now need to work 40 hours to support a family. We don't see most of the benefits of the massive production surplus the world has because it's all flowing upwards and captured by a smaller and smaller group of people.
Even in 1900, 2 people did have to work full time. But typically the ladies worked full time at home - it is hard work to manage a home without home comforts that spread later in 20th century.