U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Callace]

Fine. If you want to live in a world where emotions take priority over success and efficiency, then I suppose you're entitled to that opinion. You'll have to forgive me for disagreeing.

I don't. And I advocate most of the same values that you do. You just refuse to read what I type.

I never said that I don't support efficiency or scientific method -I idealize them actually. I said that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

That graph you linked isn't evidence for anything. It's a tool for measurement. You haven't measured anything with it. It's like you're arguing with a blank calculator and accusing me of being unscientific.

[Stanton Biston]

Fine. If you want to live in a world where emotions take priority over success and efficiency, then I suppose you're entitled to that opinion. You'll have to forgive me for disagreeing.

---------- Post added 2012-06-11 at 04:48 AM ----------



You're confusing fiscal conservatives with social conservatives. Don't. It's insulting. I'm pro-choice and pro-genetic modification.

Don't assume that you know what I stand for, because you're blatantly wrong.

If you get to put liberals in quotes, I get to put conservatives in quotes.

Also, if you were a quarter as dedicated to success and efficiency- A 19th- as you claim to be, you wouldn't be arguing on the internet.

It is about the most useless thing ever.

[Grizzly Willy]

Fine. If you want to live in a world where emotions take priority over success and efficiency, then I suppose you're entitled to that opinion. You'll have to forgive me for disagreeing.

---------- Post added 2012-06-11 at 04:48 AM ----------



You're confusing fiscal conservatives with social conservatives. Don't. It's insulting. I'm pro-choice and pro-genetic modification.

Don't assume that you know what I stand for, because you're blatantly wrong.

I believe Stanton is describing what happens when you start treating people like commodities.

[Kalyyn]

If you get to put liberals in quotes, I get to put conservatives in quotes.

Also, if you were a quarter as dedicated to success and efficiency- A 19th- as you claim to be, you wouldn't be arguing on the internet.

It is about the most useless thing ever.

"Liberals" was referring to fiscal liberals. You were commenting on social policy in an economic argument. It's apples to oranges.

And I hardly think how I use my free time has any bearing on this argument. Do you disagree?

[Callace]

Hey, if "conservatives" want to argue that labor is a commodity, I'd like for them to stop arguing against abortion.

I'd also like them to support a eugenics program to alleviate unusable commodities. I mean, if we throw away oranges that won't sell, we should throw away people that won't work, right?

I like that route. People without work are just rounded up after 4 weeks of unemployment and sent on a boat to 'a magic island of happiness' (the incinerator). And to curb population growth, we fix population growth at .2% per year and every other year we just send the lowest earning section of the population in proportion to live births (less deaths) off to 'a magic island of happiness' (the incinerator) and in the event that deaths exceed births, everyone gets to live that year! Yay!

The best part of my plan is that it incentivizes death! No more useless old relatives! If they don't die, your children might!

While we're at it, we can swap our genome for RNA viruses for the maximum efficiency in natural selection. Darwinism is might!

---------- Post added 2012-06-11 at 04:57 AM ----------

"Liberals" was referring to fiscal liberals. You were commenting on social policy in an economic argument. It's apples to oranges.

And I hardly think how I use my free time has any bearing on this argument. Do you disagree?

Considering you just linked a graph with no data plotted on it as factual evidence, I think Stanton can infer whatever the hell he wants.

[Stanton Biston]

"Liberals" was referring to fiscal liberals. You were commenting on social policy in an economic argument. It's apples to oranges.

Treating people's labor as a commodity is the essence of a "social" issue. No social issue is absent economic impact. And putting quotes around a word is not how you indicate the fiscal interpretation of said word. You say fiscal.

Putting a word in quotes has a variety of other colloquial uses, which are nominally context dependent. There was no context to your statement beyond an absurdly broad generalization.

And I hardly think how I use my free time has any bearing on this argument. Do you disagree?

Only if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise, you'll be written off as cognitively dissonant. Generally, people are expected to abide by the morality they expect others to follow.

Unless this is some sort of devil's advocate thing.

[Kalyyn]

\
Unless this is some sort of devil's advocate thing.

Listen closely, because you might find this interesting...
...
...
...
...
I always play devils advocate on these forums, no matter what the subject is, no matter what the consequences are.

But I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, that much I swear is true.

However, whether or not I actually believe what I'm saying should not matter. I shouldn't have to argue the same position all the time. That would be boring and stupid.

[Stanton Biston]

Listen closely, because you might find this interesting...
...
...
...
...
I always play devils advocate on these forums, no matter what the subject is, no matter what the consequences are.

But I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate, that much I swear is true.

However, whether or not I actually believe what I'm saying should not matter. I shouldn't have to argue the same position all the time. That would be boring and stupid.

I have no idea how I caught that.

Anyways- That style of argumentation isn't really suited for this board. Your argument is a strict utilitarian argument and the counter is an existential value analysis of non-empiric activities.

But it does remind me that I need to brush up on utilitarian counters.

Hrm. Biological imperative as it ties into an intrinsic sense of survival evidenced by the impact of feelings of injustice on a labor force. That would be an interesting counter.

[Kalyyn]

I have no idea how I caught that.

Anyways- That style of argumentation isn't really suited for this board. Your argument is a strict utilitarian argument and the counter is an existential value analysis of non-empiric activities.

But it does remind me that I need to brush up on utilitarian counters.

Hrm. Biological imperative as it ties into an intrinsic sense of survival evidenced by the impact of feelings of injustice on a labor force. That would be an interesting counter.

So, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that our basic survival instincts are responsible for the feeling that employers are screwing us over? I can certainly see that being true. It's definitely all there. What I don't understand is how you would tie that into an argument against a utilitarian. Maybe you could give a hypothetical example of how that conversation would go down?

[Deleted]

It pisses me off that he doesn't understand that graph is fucking meaningless until he plugs in real-life numbers on it.
He doesn't get that abstract principle =/= facts from reality.
I like that he's being enthusiastic about being scientific. But he isn't doing anything with it.

He's right though. The minimum wage causes the exact effect that his simple graph would point out.

[Stanton Biston]

So, if I understand this correctly, you're saying that our basic survival instincts are responsible for the feeling that employers are screwing us over? I can certainly see that being true. It's definitely all there. What I don't understand is how you would tie that into an argument against a utilitarian. Maybe you could give a hypothetical example of how that conversation would go down?

No, no. Basically, I was thinking the argument would be that living creatures have biological imperatives to survive. From physiological to psychological mechanics, the need to live and survive is ingrained into us. The evolution of that biological imperative is the development of communities for group survival.

When labor is treated in a utilitarian fashion like a commodity, actions are taken for the good of the company or effort and not for individual benefit. If someone is underperforming, it's the nature of the company to terminate. However, terminations have a negative impact on morale and foster a sense of injustice.

That's relevant because a sense of 'injustice' in the workplace has been shown to have an incredibly negative impact on work performance. If you feel you are at the whim of a capricious boss, you feel that sense of 'injustice' and it compromises workplace efficiency. As we can not readily overcome these biological imperatives for individual and collective survival, a strict utilitarian workplace fails it's purpose as being the most effective. As the most effective workplace is one that treats the laborforce as a collective of people rather than as a collected commodity.

Something like that.

Also just came up with an idea of countering utilitarianism with nihilism and offering hedonism (once again through biological evidence) as a counter model.

[Deleted]

No, no. Basically, I was thinking the argument would be that living creatures have biological imperatives to survive. From physiological to psychological mechanics, the need to live and survive is ingrained into us. The evolution of that biological imperative is the development of communities for group survival.

When labor is treated in a utilitarian fashion like a commodity, actions are taken for the good of the company or effort and not for individual benefit. If someone is underperforming, it's the nature of the company to terminate. However, terminations have a negative impact on morale and foster a sense of injustice.

That's relevant because a sense of 'injustice' in the workplace has been shown to have an incredibly negative impact on work performance. If you feel you are at the whim of a capricious boss, you feel that sense of 'injustice' and it compromises workplace efficiency. As we can not readily overcome these biological imperatives for individual and collective survival, a strict utilitarian workplace fails it's purpose as being the most effective. As the most effective workplace is one that treats the laborforce as a collective of people rather than as a collected commodity.

Something like that.

Also just came up with an idea of countering utilitarianism with nihilism and offering hedonism (once again through biological evidence) as a counter model.

Wouldn't an utilitarian workplace that considered the worker's a commodity (i.e. their happiness not relevant for its own sake) take into account employee psychology to maximize shareholder value?

[Callace]

Wouldn't an utilitarian workplace that considered the worker's a commodity (i.e. their happiness not relevant for its own sake) take into account employee psychology to maximize shareholder value?

I don't think happiness is necessary to produce low-value tasks though.

[Deleted]

I don't think happiness is necessary to produce low-value tasks though.

I was referring to Stanton Biston's "feeling of injustice reduces work performance". I think it does play a role though, for example retail workers are probably going to treat customers worse if they feel like they themselves are being treated like shit.

[Callace]

I was referring to Stanton Biston's "feeling of injustice reduces work performance". I think it does play a role though, for example retail workers are probably going to treat customers worse if they feel like they themselves are being treated like shit.

That's true, I was just suggesting it won't be all-inclusive. Factory workers that have to meet a quota of very simple tasks will accomplish the same with a shitty emotional state.

[Kalyyn]

Wouldn't an utilitarian workplace that considered the worker's a commodity (i.e. their happiness not relevant for its own sake) take into account employee psychology to maximize shareholder value?

I was actually thinking exactly that, though I think you phrased it better that I would have.

[Stanton Biston]

Wouldn't an utilitarian workplace that considered the worker's a commodity (i.e. their happiness not relevant for its own sake) take into account employee psychology to maximize shareholder value?

Historically, the stick needed to be taken away.

[ishootblanks]

Not what he's saying. However, it is a fun concept - you don't seriously think employers are going to be gracious enough to pay their workers enough to actually live properly, do you? There's no incentive.

they will if they want the workers to stick around.. using your logic there is no reason any corporation would ever pay anyone more than minimum wage..

---------- Post added 2012-06-11 at 06:23 AM ----------

Hey, if "conservatives" want to argue that labor is a commodity, I'd like for them to stop arguing against abortion.

I'd also like them to support a eugenics program to alleviate unusable commodities. I mean, if we throw away oranges that won't sell, we should throw away people that won't work, right?

I like that route. People without work are just rounded up after 4 weeks of unemployment and sent on a boat to 'a magic island of happiness' (the incinerator). And to curb population growth, we fix population growth at .2% per year and every other year we just send the lowest earning section of the population in proportion to live births (less deaths) off to 'a magic island of happiness' (the incinerator) and in the event that deaths exceed births, everyone gets to live that year! Yay!

The best part of my plan is that it incentivizes death! No more useless old relatives! If they don't die, your children might!

Hitler had pretty much the same plan.. that worked out really well for him too...

[Stanton Biston]

I was actually thinking exactly that, though I think you phrased it better that I would have.

I actually thought about that while I was writing it, but I felt addressing the issue comes down to a cost-benefit analysis of productivity and happiness.

[Kasierith]

Also just came up with an idea of countering utilitarianism with nihilism and offering hedonism (once again through biological evidence) as a counter model.

What exactly is the counter that nihilism has for utilitarianism? Given that nihilism is based on the lack of all moral doctrine or purpose, and utilitarianism is focused on the basic drive behind human interactions, one would think that utilitarianism and nihilism go hand in hand. Take western morality for example, which establishes that murder is wrong. According to morality, killing others is the wrong thing to do. According to nihilism, there is nothing inherently wrong with murdering people because the belief that it is immoral is subjective. According to utilitarianism, the fact that its moral or not does not matter, because the essential basis for it is essentially a primitive form of MAD... you don't want people killing you, so you and everyone else who is interested in not being killed agree not to kill each other in order to maximize happiness by establishing a safe frame of mind. Though on the other hand.. that could very well what you're referring to as hedonism being the counter model, and I do apologize if I'm in err or have essentially repeated your point.

I was referring to Stanton Biston's "feeling of injustice reduces work performance". I think it does play a role though, for example retail workers are probably going to treat customers worse if they feel like they themselves are being treated like shit.

It matters on the level of utilitarianism... its a broad term covering varying levels depending on where exactly you want to maximize happiness (ie. personally, company happiness, employee happiness, happiness in society). A clever utilitarian can pretty much break down any process into basic utilitarianism by pointing out exactly where the happiness is being maximized and pain is being minimized; for example, Kant focuses on maximizing happiness in all humanity, while hedonism is focused purely on the individual.