Why I believe DK was a mistake

[Mallenroh-11647]

@Scr0tieMcB-1291

hat is meritocracy, according to you?

A fallacy. A second cousin to Harvey the Rabbit.
Most of the real effort in this World goes unrewarded.

[Schyla-1490]

@Scr0tieMcB-1291

What is barbaric is veganism. Okay, so apparently it’s a requirement that one consume organic matter to live, meaning one needs to kill organisms. What is more just: to kill that which has never hurt another living thing in its life, or to kill a killer? Obviously eating plants (with the exception of Venus flytraps and the like) is unethical.

Hey, I’m on the side of plants are just as much of a life form as animals. We all evolved independently to arrive at this very moment in time. I’ve also seen some pretty convincing science showing that plants experience pain. So it would seem consuming another organism is bad all around no matter which one you’re consuming. It’s a part of life, but I am totally on board with minimizing pain.

While I might value the life of a dog more than I value the life of a plant, it would not come as a shock to me that some time in the future they are viewed equally and that life=life in all equality and that my view on the dog is barbaric. I’m ok with that, based on the knowledge currently at my disposal.

Until then, if they can make a plant that tastes like meat and has no downside, I’m all for it. I’ll gladly stop eating meat and eat the alternative. But I’ve yet to find a plant steak and I’m not entirely convinced that killing a cow suffers more than a plant being cut. The plant wants to live just as much as the cow does. Unfortunately, life does not allow me the luxury of not consuming either.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@Mallenroh-11647

Most of the real effort in this World goes unrewarded.

That’s shifting the goalposts. Your claim was NOT that meritocracy is mostly not practiced; your claim was that meritocracy is never practiced. Your claim is false if there is a single place in the entire world where merit is consistently rewarded.

[Mallenroh-11647]

Well, when you find this utopia let me know. I’m applying for citizenship.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

Meritocracy is not a utopia though.

To use the Marxist form of definition, meritocracy can be described as “from each according to their ability, to each according to their ability.” I don’t know where you got the insane idea that homeless shelter workers deserve vast riches under meritocracy, because they don’t have the ability to create vast riches. I imagine that they can create soup. They can have lots of soup.

A pure meritocracy is instead the natural state of things; it is the hermit alone completely disconnected from society. Or any society that can, through some magic, exist utterly without the unearned redistribution of wealth by any means, to include unfair trade, although I doubt any society can be purely meritocratic in any attempt at economy — the best they can hope is to approach such purity, never actually getting there. But nevertheless, meritocracy is the natural state of things, and the natural state of things, while existent in some places, is very far from ideal.

[Mallenroh-11647]

The natural state of things in this Nation is that people who were born wealthy can remain wealthy (and even increase that wealth.) without doing anything at all.
That is a far cry from meritocracy.

[SparkyElf-2852]

@Schyla-1490

A lot of people also don’t understand the “privilege” part because they automatically assume it means a certain ethnicity (see below) when it really pertains a lot more to other groups.

Or perhaps because the theory of some ‘privilege’ and such is yet another Russell’s teapot?

Gimme empiric proof and falsifiability, as per Popper’s criterion, at the very least, otherwise all your (generally speaking, i.e. meaning not you in particular, but anyone) ‘enlightened’ ideas are just… abstract theories, a matter of belief, if you will.

@Schyla-1490

I’m sure you’re thinking of a certain group

Truly? And which one, I wonder?

@Schyla-1490

but I wasn’t thinking of that one

Perhaps, because I was referring to that famous Orwell’s quote:

ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

@Scr0tieMcB-1291

I do understand what the naturalistic fallacy is: just because a thing is natural doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily good.

Dunno what you’re talking about regarding that fallacy, but what you speak of is a particular case of Hume’s law, as far as I can see.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@SparkyElf-2852

what you speak of is a particular case of Hume’s law

Correct. Hume’s Guillotine is “that which is is not necessarily what ought.” The naturalistic fallacy is “that which is naturally is that which ought.” Off with its head.

[Mallenroh-11647]

To seek the good in others is human nature right?
I vaguely remember that from back in my day as a student.
But an altruist would get treated like garbage in this Nation.
Jesus Christ would be excoriated as a “woke hippie” these days.

[Schyla-1490]

@SparkyElf-2852

Or perhaps because the theory of some ‘privilege’ and such is yet another Russell’s teapot?

I’m not entirely sure what you mean. Privilege isn’t an object, it’s an idea. You can prove a privilege exists if one side of a group has a benefit over another side and it’s not equal. There’s tons of examples in our society now. So unless you’re defining privilege differently, I don’t know what you’re talking about. If you want an example of a privilege that exists today, I can give you one and you can attempt to show how it’s not a privilege.

@SparkyElf-2852

Truly? And which one, I wonder?

I’m assuming, of course. But if my assumption is correct, you know which one I’m talking about. If not, then disregard.

[Chapuzo-2462]

@Scr0tieMcB-1291

“from each according to their ability, to each according to their ability.”

I think you mistyped, the right saying goes "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". And it should be pointed out that: a) This slogan doesn’t really come from Marx, but was rather a common phrase in the socialist movement; and b) This idea doesn’t actually refer to merit, but to each’s inherent talents and abilities. The concept implies that each member of society would provide whatever they know what to do best or whatever they like doing the most, and the product of their labor would be distributed on a needs basis.

I am not really making any arguments, just wanted to point that out.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@Chapuzo-2462

I think you mistyped, the right saying goes "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

deep sigh

I deliberately modified the phrase to describe meritocracy instead of communism.

[Mallenroh-11647]

And you are spot on.
Unfortunately that will never be allowed because someone always gets greedy or power drunk.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

@Mallenroh-11647

Unfortunately that will never be allowed because someone always gets greedy or power drunk.

I agree. Communism is impossible.

[Chapuzo-2462]

Ah, I see. I misunderstood what you meant then. My bad

[Mallenroh-11647]

Capitalism doesn’t work anymore either.
We have never been closer to a fully Fascist oligarchy.
Some would say We are already there.

[SparkyElf-2852]

@Scr0tieMcB-1291

The naturalistic fallacy is “that which is naturally is that which ought.”

Alright, something new to learn, then.

@Schyla-1490

I’m not entirely sure what you mean.

Sorry, you might wanna read it up, then.

Something like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

@Schyla-1490

Privilege isn’t an object

Neither is Russel’s teapot, it’s a metaphor.

@Schyla-1490

You can prove a privilege exists if one side of a group has a benefit over another side and it’s not equal.

Beautiful theory, perhaps, but still need the falsifiability check, otherwise… Well, don’t wanna repeat myself, sorry.

@Schyla-1490

There’s tons of examples in our society now.

Define ‘our’ society, please, by the way.

Besides, examples won’t cut it either. People can provide many examples of their tyromancy in action and such, it still doesn’t make it scientific… for example.

@Schyla-1490

I’m assuming, of course. But if my assumption is correct, you know which one I’m talking about. If not, then disregard.

I fancy myself as neither a clairvoyant nor a telepath, especially a forum one , but if you wanna drop the irrelevant subject, fine, no problem.

[Scr0tieMcB-1291]

Mall, there is no consistent worldwide system. I guess one might argue that we’re on our way towards one, but there is no entity currently that is capable of enforcing political orthodoxy over every square mile of the globe.

The truth is more like a heat map, where some areas are colder and other areas are hotter. And other areas are a third thing, or a fourth. As I alluded to earlier, there are still places in the wilderness where you can build your own little cabin and live separate from society, and most likely no one would ever even find you to know that you exist. You could probably get away with not paying taxes in such a situation.

You sound like someone who hasn’t moved very often and thinks that the rest of the world is just a carbon copy of whatever they already know. You know the devil you know. Maybe familiarize yourself with the devil you don’t.

[Killuminati-11956]

@SparkyElf-2852

tyromancy

Thank you very much for teaching me a new word! Very interesting.

[Schyla-1490]

@SparkyElf-2852

Neither is Russel’s teapot, it’s a metaphor.

I’m thoroughly aware of Russell’s Teapot and Falsifiability. I’m completely unaware of how this relates to the idea of privilege. I can both demonstrate privilege and falsify it. I don’t understand how you find it hard to show privilege exists when it’s practically every where.