Thread: George Bernard Shaw

[quote name='Mr. Knight' date='23 January 2010 - 08:23 AM' timestamp='1264252984' post='103995']

Here are two famous quotes by a true piece of shit:





"You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?"



"If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, and since you won't, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself."





I have read very little about this terrible person, but will soon. He proposed a"humane" gas to exterminate people he felt didn't contribute to society.



I have a strange feeling he would still get support today on this subject.



This morning, I saw a documentary on this guy, while watching FOX News.......Glen Beck was trying to tie Obama to Shaw and other Socialists, a very pathetic act by a very pathetic person.

[/quote]





A review of Beck's documentary



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31882.html



Last night I caught a brief bit of Beck and O'Reilley talking about the "connnection" between liberals and GBS. I didn't even know who he was.



Jonah Goldberg:

But that doesn't mean he believes the historical arguments are meant to infer that the current Democratic regime could commit atrocities on the level of Hitler or Stalin. "If they're trying to make the case that Obama's going to lead to anything like the 65 million killed or the concentration camps, I'd be the first to condemn it," Goldberg said.

I'm not sure if he's implying Obama just won't hit those numbers when he starts exterminating people or that it's the other stuff Hitler and Stalin did that we have to watch out for. I guess creating any big, sweeping changes for the good of society is a signal that bad things will follow...?



I think the premise that we are on the edge of totalitarianism because Obama wants to do big things is based on the idea that if you take on ambitious projects, like Hitler did with the autobahn, for example, that the only way to do it would be how Hitler did it, with forced labor.



What I see is the idea that a great deal of people must suffer and be treated unfairly for the government to push the nation forward instead of capitalism doing it at a slower pace. Capitalism built the rairoads here, but that wasn't exactly pretty either.



I'm just so sick of these false choices. We pulled off the space program with out forced labor or violations of human rights. We can do big progressive things without suffering and death.



Yes, we can. Unless 50% of the country digs their heels in not because these things are bad but because they watched Glenn Beck's distorted documentary.

[quote name='Blueneck' date='23 January 2010 - 07:01 AM' timestamp='1264258901' post='104017']

... What I see is the idea that a great deal of people must suffer and be treated unfairly for the government to push the nation forward...

[/quote]



One of the problems is that different people have different ideas on which direction that the government should "push forward".



Another problem is that when the government "pushes forward" it is taking money from my family to finance the pushing.



In other news, GBS sounds like a real dickhead.

George Bernard Shaw's views were utilitiarianism to the letter.



Utilitarianism is altruism taken the ultimate level, folks. The logical conclusion of it. If you abandon that moral code is it not necessary that you find another?

[quote name='Disappointed not surprised' date='23 January 2010 - 10:15 AM' timestamp='1264259710' post='104024']

One of the problems is that different people have different ideas on which direction that the government should "push forward".



Another problem is that when the government "pushes forward" it is taking money from my family to finance the pushing.



In other news, GBS sounds like a real dickhead.

[/quote]



If you are talking about health care, what happened from the beginning was that the Republican opposition characterized it as "death panels" right off the bat. They took everything in the bill and distorted it to the least likely most extreme possibility and ran with it as a fact of what would happen if the whole thing wasn't killed.



And your family has always paid for big changes. Our highways, our damns and bridges, much of our electrical grid, satellites, lots of stuff was paid for by your tax money.



I think objection to making big changes, in the longrun, winds up being more costly. When the government first started using computers, the taxpayers financed it, but in the longrun, it paid for itself in efficiency.

[quote name='Dr.Knuckles' date='23 January 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1264270911' post='104080']NO! That's the lie. That's the false choise.[/quote]



No, it's not.



Utilitarianism demands that the individual not give consideration to their own desires when making decisions. The ONLY moral decision is that which is the best for the most people.



THAT'S as "altruistic" as you can get.



Let me ask you a question, Knuckles. Do you believe, or do you not, that personal sacrifices are to be made for the greater good? That the greater good is the most important of considerations? If so, what seperates you from a utilitarian?

The irrational fear that if you do one thing the radical extreme of that thing is soon to follow.

It's not a "radical extreme" it's a logical conclusion.

Every single thing we do, if taken to some radical extreme, would be bad.

That sounds like an oversimplification.

That's the innevitable, logical result of having a President named Hussein.

Do you actually believe that?

It's cause and effect.

That's not what I'm talking about.



I'm not saying: "If you adopt altruist policy you're going to become a utilitarian!" That isn't true, and hasn't been for thousands of years.



That's an oversimplification.



I'm saying: "The ONLY way altruistic morality has ANY REAL BASIS is by codifying it. State, in a logical and precise manner, what exactly personal sacrifices must be made for."



Otherwise, you're all just guessing. Making moral judgement based on WHIM rather than REASON. And that is the most destructive thing of all.

[quote name='Feslin' date='23 January 2010 - 08:59 PM' timestamp='1264298384' post='104368']





That's not what I'm talking about.



I'm not saying: "If you adopt altruist policy you're going to become a utilitarian!" That isn't true, and hasn't been for thousands of years.



That's an oversimplification.



I'm saying: "The ONLY way altruistic morality has ANY REAL BASIS is by codifying it. State, in a logical and precise manner, what exactly personal sacrifices must be made for."



Otherwise, you're all just guessing. Making moral judgement based on WHIM rather than REASON. And that is the most destructive thing of all.

[/quote]





And you are making policy judgements based on your own personal moral values. Trying to reform health care isn't a whim, ask anyone who's had their premiums double in the last 5 years or someone who's policy was cancelled when they got sick.



Now I suppose you will suggest the only way to fix this is to tear down the entire system and put some draconian "pay for it yourself, you fuckhead" extreme remedy in place (like they had back in 1776 by God, if your leg falls off that's your problem!)



Amazing how the purists always claim the moderates are extreme (or will be at some time in the future as this leads to that don't you know) while promoting ideological solutions that are so extreme as to be from the Dark Ages. If the weak and the poor can't cut the mustard, tough shit - let them beg for food in the streets.



Dude, you are George Bernard Shaw.

"If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, and since you won't, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself."

^^^^^100% Libertarian^^^^^^^^^