Gonna kill kill kill kill Kill the poor tonight

[Willem]

Originally posted by Azazel
Yo, Willem, look at my location line. It says I am a fricking commie. Do you think that I would call someone else a commie if I wanted to insult him?

Yeah well, I seem to have a chip on my shoulder today. I've been feeling somewhat angry at life recently and I find myself jumping down people's throats a bit to readily. I apologize, I've been going through a rough time lately.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Azazel
Willem, I think Ozzy has a point, since noone forced the homeless person to do this. OTOH, the situations are different, since these people are indeed in dire straits.

Certainly he has a point, but just because it's possible to take advantage of someone doesn't make it right to do so.

[Az]

He believes it does. That's the entire arguement.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Willem
The intent of those videos wasn't to glorify some sport or provide some harmless entertainment, but to humiliate the participants. The purpose was to get a laugh out of someone else's misfortune, something I find despicable. People who can engage in that kind of baiting are scum of the earth IMO, especially when they're trying to profit by it.

The point of Fear Factor is to humiliate the people on the show, the purse is bigger because the humiliation is bigger. People watch these crappy reality TV shows not because they are thrilled by the competition, but because they want to see how low humans can sink and the sick things they do for money.

The sickos in these situations is not the bums or TV contestants who take money for humiliating acts, nor the ones who pay money for humilating acts, but the people who watch these humilating acts.

The people who watch car racing not for the race, but because of the possibility of a crash, the people who watch bumfights, or reality TV to see humiliation, the people who glorify violence and depravity in such a way are the ones we should be concerned about.

To get to the root of the question I agree with you that there is something twisted about wanting to watch another human being, be he homeless or otherwise, each donkeycrap. But the person willing to do that isn't being taken advantage of, he is making an exchange that he feels is appropriate.

[Willem]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

The point of Fear Factor is to humiliate the people on the show, the purse is bigger because the humiliation is bigger. People watch these crappy reality TV shows not because they are thrilled by the competition, but because they want to see how low humans can sink and the sick things they do for money.

The people on shows like Fear Factor aren't homeless and destitute, they're generally middle class people who seem to enjoy the idea of making fools of themselves. They don't really need the money, that's just a bonus. It's a different situation than bribing someone who may have not eaten that day, or don't know where their next meal is coming from. That's just exploitation.

The sickos in these situations is not the bums or TV contestants who take money for humiliating acts, nor the ones who pay money for humilating acts, but the people who watch these humilating acts.

On that I'd agree with you. It doesn't say much about our present culture that these types of shows are so popular.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Willem
The people on shows like Fear Factor aren't homeless and destitute, they're generally middle class people who seem to enjoy the idea of making fools of themselves. They don't really need the money, that's just a bonus. It's a different situation than bribing someone who may have not eaten that day, or don't know where their next meal is coming from. That's just exploitation.

So if I'm a twisted soul who wants to give money away to people in exchange for something humiliating it is better for me to give it to someone who is middle-class and doesn't need the money than someone who is starving and really needs the money?

Would you rather the homeless person starve?

I really don't see your logic here.

[Spiffor]

I think Willem's logic is "help, don't humiliate".

[Willem]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I think Willem's logic is "help, don't humiliate".

Exactly. Like I said you don't kick a person when they're down and out, you try to get them back on their feet again.

[OzzyKP]

I think it is quite condescending to tell someone what jobs they should or should not do when they are the ones struggling to get meals. You may have the luxury of turning down money or work you feel is beneath you, but others aren't in that position, and I don't feel it is immoral at all for them to accept or for others to offer them work, however humiliating, if it'll help them survive.

Yes, of course it is better to help than humiliate, but does the later become a vicious, preditory evildoer because he is offering money to someone who has none for terms both are eager to accept?

[Skanky Burns]

Yes.

[Shi Huangdi]

It would help the economic situation of the homeless if someone were to hire them as priests of Satan. That doesn't mean it's a good thing for people to be doing or that it's not evidence of moral sickness. I can understand the homeless people doing this for money, but I think someone who enjoys this type of stuff is sick.

[Willem]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I think it is quite condescending to tell someone what jobs they should or should not do when they are the ones struggling to get meals. You may have the luxury of turning down money or work you feel is beneath you, but others aren't in that position, and I don't feel it is immoral at all for them to accept or for others to offer them work, however humiliating, if it'll help them survive.

Yes, of course it is better to help than humiliate, but does the later become a vicious, preditory evildoer because he is offering money to someone who has none for terms both are eager to accept?

Well as a matter of fact, I'll be joining the ranks of the homeless myself soon. No job, no money, no home as of June 1st. So my position is not condescending at all.

And yes, that person would become a vicious, predatory evildoer IMO. I'd put him on the same level as the Catholic priests that took advantage of those choir boys, in Boston IIRC.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
Willem, I think Ozzy has a point, since noone forced the homeless person to do this. OTOH, the situations are different, since these people are indeed in dire straits.

Yes, nobody forces the homeless to do these things, but there is an implicit threat in there. The threat of inability to fend for oneself, very likely to end up in death. It's the same sort of libertarian questions like, "Who forces these third world kids to work in sweatshops?"

Their logic is inherently flawed, so I can't take their position seriously.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yes, nobody forces the homeless to do these things, but there is an implicit threat in there. The threat of inability to fend for oneself, very likely to end up in death. It's the same sort of libertarian questions like, "Who forces these third world kids to work in sweatshops?"

Their logic is inherently flawed, so I can't take their position seriously.

If there is an inability to fend for oneself, then what on earth is wrong with giving them an opportunity to make money and save themselves from death?

By denying the validity of these people's choices you invalidate them as human beings. You may disagree with their choices, but you must respect them. They are not hopeless pawns of manipulating evildoers, they are individuals in a tough situation who had to make a tough decision.

If I had a choice between eating bugs and dying I would do it. If I had a choice between fighting with someone or dying, i would do it.

Even if these individuals weren't to the point of starving, they had their reasons for deciding to do this. I believe they made an appropriate, logical choice based on their own criteria, and it is inappropriate for us to think of them as lacking the ability to make decisions for themselves. They are human beings too, and they deserve our respect.

Invalidating their mind and decision making ability is nearly as bad as the individuals seeking to invalidate their morals and sense of decency that you rail against.

[Ramo]

[Willem]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


If there is an inability to fend for oneself, then what on earth is wrong with giving them an opportunity to make money and save themselves from death?

By denying the validity of these people's choices you invalidate them as human beings. You may disagree with their choices, but you must respect them. They are not hopeless pawns of manipulating evildoers, they are individuals in a tough situation who had to make a tough decision.

If I had a choice between eating bugs and dying I would do it. If I had a choice between fighting with someone or dying, i would do it.

Even if these individuals weren't to the point of starving, they had their reasons for deciding to do this. I believe they made an appropriate, logical choice based on their own criteria, and it is inappropriate for us to think of them as lacking the ability to make decisions for themselves. They are human beings too, and they deserve our respect.

Invalidating their mind and decision making ability is nearly as bad as the individuals seeking to invalidate their morals and sense of decency that you rail against.

You obviously don't know who these people are at all. At one point in their lives they had dignity, they had people who cared for them and wished them well. But somewhere along the way they lost themselves, they lost their pride. They got sucked into this black hole that they didn't know how to get out of. By having some bozo coming along and trying to make them act like idiots, these people are getting their noses rubbed into the **** of the mistakes they've made in their lives.

And yes I know these people. I've lived on the street, I've made friends with winos, I've gotten to know them as people, not some abstraction. And they don't need some preppie ******* coming down and reminding them that they screwed up their lives. They do a very good job of that all on their own.

[Az]

Erm, I would just like to point out that I believe that self-sufficiency is an important quality, and I don't believe that the government should "take care" of everyone, like they were a child ( Unless, that is, they ARE a child ). And remember I am a communist.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
If there is an inability to fend for oneself, then what on earth is wrong with giving them an opportunity to make money and save themselves from death?

By denying the validity of these people's choices you invalidate them as human beings. You may disagree with their choices, but you must respect them. They are not hopeless pawns of manipulating evildoers, they are individuals in a tough situation who had to make a tough decision.

I love this. Now you are saying that the threat of death is not a form of coecion. They weren't forced to do anything. So is there any real difference between a person pointing a gun to your head and starvation?

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Invalidating their mind and decision making ability is nearly as bad as the individuals seeking to invalidate their morals and sense of decency that you rail against.

So, was there any coercion or not? Stop going at a tangent and answer the real question.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
Erm, I would just like to point out that I believe that self-sufficiency is an important quality, and I don't believe that the government should "take care" of everyone, like they were a child ( Unless, that is, they ARE a child ). And remember I am a communist.

I agree with you that self-sufficiency is important, but the fact is, not everybody who is capable of doing a particular job gets one. Take che for example. He's a website designer, but could he get a website designing job when he looks for one? There are many factors contributing to a person becoming unemployed, and there's only a small fraction that he can control.

There's another thing. Not everything people do can translate into $$$ in a capitalistic society. Lets say you are very good at writing classical music. Can you make a living on that? No, You probably have to be content to be a street sweeper while trying to make it big.

[Az]

That is true. But I don't think that che, for example, should get an unemployment cheque, if he's physically capable of doing another job. Now I don't think that che is immoral, or lazy, he's just seizing an opportunity that the government gave gim, ala "free beer". Why should a person get money for doing nothing when he CAN do something. This, of course, demands proper worker regulations, no cheap slave labour from abroad etc. but essentially is true. Even today, che can go and work. But he doesn't.

[Spiffor]

Che works. e has got his work about 2 months ago, and it will end in less than one month IIRC.

[Az]

[OzzyKP]

Of course there is no coercion. He has choices. They may suck, there may not be many, but there are choices. And there are also the choices that led up to that point.

And if we want to take this out of the abstraction and into the real world, there are always places to go for help. There are homeless shelters, there are churches, there are charities, there are even government programs to help people get out of the holes they've become stuck in. There are many alternatives to sleeping in an alley and begging for change. They are not coerced in any way to remain there.

One of my best friends was homeless, but he didn't sleep in the alley and beg. He had ups and downs, but he made choices and lived with the consequences of those choices.

An individual presented with the option to do something humiliating for 10 bucks has many other choices he can make. I agree with you though, that in a situation where there truly are no choices a libertarian has a huge dilemma, and i'm leaning left in those situations personally, but in the situation we are discussing here there are choices, and the individual has free will and options. There is no coercion.