Reply to Re: blah
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
The purpose of my question was to find out your definition of "want". Maybe I should've just said that.
If you want me to understand you, then yes. I tend to interpret things literally. It's also the way I often talk and write, so doing the intrepreting me liteally would help to understand me.
Take people who do work they don't like, for example. You could say that they don't want to work, or that they want to work for the money they get from it but they don't enjoy the actual work.
They could choose not to work, even if it's the only job available to them. After all even the choice of doing what's in your worst interest (which I'm sure you'd agree is just plain stupid) is still a choice.
Your double negative confuses me but I'll just ignore it as a clever plot to make me look like a fool and treat it as bad wording.
I see no double negative, nor do I think of it of bad wording, though I admit double negatives are bad wording, as they create too much confusion, which your comment is evidence of. As for making you look like a fool... I wasn't. I was trying to illustrate a hole in your comment. Holes are not the same as being a fool. We all do it every now and then since none of us are perfect. It may make us look like a fool at times, but looks can be decieving.
"If I was to supply the evidence when I have no desire to prove myself (if I did then I would supply it by all mean - in fact I did recently with my Qt discussion with Merlin) would be forfeiting my desires to those of others, doing their bidding and not my own. And for no personal gain. That is the very definition of slavery. and that is why "social responsibility" is slavery."
This is what got me confused with your definition in the first place, now that I think about it.
Bad wording. I should of said, "And/or for no personal gain" rather than "And for no personal gain". Considering that the confusion is understanding. My bad, sorry. there's a case of one of my argument's having a hole in it. Thanks for making me realise that.
"Doing something you don't want to do for no personal gain" is something I can agree being close to slavery, but not just "doing something you don't want to do".
The dictionary defenition I gave earlier disagrees. According to that it need only be doing the will of others when it goes against your own. At the very least it's servitude. Of course doing the will of others when it goes with your own is not slavery or servitude.
Anyway, people generally have to do things they don't feel like doing to avoid ending up as retards living on the streets.
No they don't have to. it's just in their best interests to do some things they don't want to. Do not get the two confused. they are quite different. Don't worry, though, it's not entirely your fault. It's something we're taught as kids. We're taught that "you have to do what's in your best interest". That's not true. We have every choice not to do it. There are no rules or laws saying otherwise in most cases, so their is no have to. The few exceptions are immoral laws. We can (and often do - even Objectivists like myself) act against our own best interests. No rules or laws stop that in most cases. The few exceptions are immoral laws.
Doing unpleasant things is worth it when the reward is more pleasant than the unpleasant thing is unpleasant.
I agree. But that doesn't mean we have to do them. Besides the way I felt the lesser pleasantness would of come from me providing the evidence at the time. So in other words, their was no rational reason for me to do it.
Though I can understand someone viewing an online forum as not worth of ever doing anything unpleasant for.
Really? You're not joking or being sarcastic? Because if your not I'm curious as to why that is.
If you want me to understand you, then yes. I tend to interpret things literally. It's also the way I often talk and write, so doing the intrepreting me liteally would help to understand me.
Take people who do work they don't like, for example. You could say that they don't want to work, or that they want to work for the money they get from it but they don't enjoy the actual work.
They could choose not to work, even if it's the only job available to them. After all even the choice of doing what's in your worst interest (which I'm sure you'd agree is just plain stupid) is still a choice.
Your double negative confuses me but I'll just ignore it as a clever plot to make me look like a fool and treat it as bad wording.
I see no double negative, nor do I think of it of bad wording, though I admit double negatives are bad wording, as they create too much confusion, which your comment is evidence of. As for making you look like a fool... I wasn't. I was trying to illustrate a hole in your comment. Holes are not the same as being a fool. We all do it every now and then since none of us are perfect. It may make us look like a fool at times, but looks can be decieving.
"If I was to supply the evidence when I have no desire to prove myself (if I did then I would supply it by all mean - in fact I did recently with my Qt discussion with Merlin) would be forfeiting my desires to those of others, doing their bidding and not my own. And for no personal gain. That is the very definition of slavery. and that is why "social responsibility" is slavery."
This is what got me confused with your definition in the first place, now that I think about it.
Bad wording. I should of said, "And/or for no personal gain" rather than "And for no personal gain". Considering that the confusion is understanding. My bad, sorry. there's a case of one of my argument's having a hole in it. Thanks for making me realise that.
"Doing something you don't want to do for no personal gain" is something I can agree being close to slavery, but not just "doing something you don't want to do".
The dictionary defenition I gave earlier disagrees. According to that it need only be doing the will of others when it goes against your own. At the very least it's servitude. Of course doing the will of others when it goes with your own is not slavery or servitude.
Anyway, people generally have to do things they don't feel like doing to avoid ending up as retards living on the streets.
No they don't have to. it's just in their best interests to do some things they don't want to. Do not get the two confused. they are quite different. Don't worry, though, it's not entirely your fault. It's something we're taught as kids. We're taught that "you have to do what's in your best interest". That's not true. We have every choice not to do it. There are no rules or laws saying otherwise in most cases, so their is no have to. The few exceptions are immoral laws. We can (and often do - even Objectivists like myself) act against our own best interests. No rules or laws stop that in most cases. The few exceptions are immoral laws.
Doing unpleasant things is worth it when the reward is more pleasant than the unpleasant thing is unpleasant.
I agree. But that doesn't mean we have to do them. Besides the way I felt the lesser pleasantness would of come from me providing the evidence at the time. So in other words, their was no rational reason for me to do it.
Though I can understand someone viewing an online forum as not worth of ever doing anything unpleasant for.
Really? You're not joking or being sarcastic? Because if your not I'm curious as to why that is.
