This is a continuation of the thread located here:
On Usury, the Importance of Definitions to Reasoned Thought and Discourse, Etc.
My words will be in regular font.
Since I have no means to post on Shawn's page, I'll post my final remarks here and be done.
Folks like this are rarely if ever
done. And I titled this response with the word usury deliberately -readers are asked to notice how little it comes up in the bolded parts below -and not by accident I might add.
how does one credibly say that the overall quality of life has not improved?
If we agree that living longer, that indeed modern medicine has improved the health of humans, that our nutrition is better, that abundance of things in and information, and all these are completely positives. However, I do beg to differ. Living longer just means more years on the planet, it doesn't tell us anything of the quality and nature of any given person's life.
How does one objectively measure quality of life apart from certain empirical measure such as the ones above?
A person could live 5, 10, 15 years and still have had as good, or better a quality of life than someone that has lived 125 years.
Theoretically I suppose this is true.
So what if the average person lives at present better than a king? Why do they still feel like a peasant, or would rather dream of being a king in the Medieval times if out current period of time is so wonderful?
Because people tend to be nostalgic by nature. They often think things were better in the past and usually it is because the past can at times be romanticized by them -whether they lived in the period they are nostalgic for or not.{1} But this is hardly something new to folks of the present age -indeed if you look throughout history, you will always find folks who think this way. Even the children of Israel were nostalgic for certain things they had when they were slaves in Egypt! They were in that state not thinking of the many things that were worse about their lot when they were slaves, only the stuff they did not have when they were a free people wandering in the desert. I could note other examples but that one should suffice to make the point in brief.
How is it that people who couldn't read could still enjoy life, yet people who can don't?
Now we are getting into questions that go far afield of the last thread. I of course answered this sort of question rather succinctly in the thread above.
All this access to stuff doesn't necessarily equate to happiness, the quantity of it doesn't equate to happiness. Having all possibilities doesn't merit bringing happiness, it can burden with too many choices, many of which are not even worthwhile to consider, not to mention garbled in so much grey that even if they are possible, it doesn't mean they are probably or worthwhile to pursue. So, it's not the quantity of things and years in life that bring happiness, it's the quality of them and if they are things both worthy and of good to pursue. Otherwise, one falls into affluenza and the deception of the world that materialistic quantity is happiness, when it is not and can imprison people more than liberate them when things are wrongly pursued and gained for wrong cause and without consideration of what is beyond the material good.
See my previous comments.
However, I do not see folks like you who bewail these things trying to deprive yourself of some of that which makes you part of the spoiled element of society.
You don't even know me, nor my particular lot in life, so you are working off an assumption.
So says the guy who has made assumptions about usury all along and deliberately avoided dealing with the very point that I have pressed him on all along.{2} Again, this is not accidental folks. Watch how many assumptions he makes about me in this thread -I will mention them briefly in passing when (and not if) he does.
I'll leave out what making assumptions can do, which I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.
His pomposity aside for a moment, as I literally just said:
Watch how many assumptions he makes about me in this thread -I will mention them briefly in passing when (and not if) he does.
Furthermore, assumptions only make one an ass if they are untrue, not when they are true.
Because material goods themselves do not suffice to make folks happy. They never have and they never will.
Agreed, and thus is a reason why merely just having a quantity of material things does not equate to a better quality of life.
I never said that
merely just having a quantity of material things does not equate to a better quality of life did this of course. Goods are merely tools which are themselves morally neutral. It is
how folks use them that determines their moral value as well as their objective efficacy in contributing to a better quality of life. But to seemingly pretend as if they are of no objective value in enabling someone to better their standard of living qualitatively as well as quantitatively is to only be selective with information rather than fully disclosing of it.
In some respects, a peasant in the Medieval times might have a much better quality of life than a CEO that could own the world in today's time. Is it not said the meek shall inherit the earth?
In an apples to apples comparison, the average peasant in the medieval times did not have a better quality of life overall than the average person of today -not to mention ceo's or anyone else who is not exactly average. Again, apples to apples, the average person today has a quality of life overall that the rich did not have in past ages. There is a tremendous difference between those who were/are capable of being able to improve their lot in life and those who for various reasons are stuck in whatever station of life they happened to be born into.
Are you claiming that in the middle ages this sort of thing never happened -albeit in some different circumstances?
No, if anything, I'm claiming that, despite having more stuff, we are still under similar inequalities as we were in the Middle Ages. Imperialism has reformed itself to Corporate agendas.
One problem with your claim above is that there are a variety of ways for folks to better themselves today compared to in say the middle ages. If you were born a peasant, you were gonna stay a peasant unless perhaps you became a member of the clergy. Today though folks have a lot more opportunities for advancement of their station in life in the western world in general and in places like America in particular. And for all the bemoaning of
Corporate agendas, it is still easier for a person today to avoid the reach of corporations than it was in olden days to avoid the
Imperialism of kings and sovereigns.
My guess is you do not whine about big corporations when you avail yourself of those products and services which they make available and which makes your life either more comfortable or otherwise easier in some fashion.
You seem to have a habit of making many assumptions of me that are neither verified, nor valid for anything more than mere rhetorical mechanism.
Actually, I have over the years interacted with a lot of folks who whine like you are about this stuff and then I find out their moralizing does not match how they live their own lives. But hey, if you want to play the who is
making many assumptions game, two can play that one.
As it is, Corporations did have humble beginnings, being chartered for public works programs, but that was at least a century or more off from now.
This is quite a generalization in itself. One could indeed go so far as to call it an
assumption if they wanted to be technical about it.
What they have become, and their environmental and societal footprint have gone astray from those humble beginnings.
Again, this is quite a generalization in itself. One could indeed go so far as to call it an
assumption if they wanted to be technical about it because corporations come in a lot of shapes and sizes.
Companies incorporate any more to make a lot of money and to enjoy all the benefits of personhood while not even being a person.
Boy, we are really getting far afield of the original discussion now. Corporate personhood is another subject altogether but notice how we are so far into this response and no interaction with the fundamental criticism I had of this person all along. Again, this cannot be accidental but I digress.
Not to mention, under limited liability, it offers them a way enjoy that personhood without the moral obligations of a living breathing person.
So? Have you ever owned or run your own business? I have on a few occasions and let me tell you, without limited liability capabilities -in lieu of the litigious society we have become- it would be impossible to do so otherwise.
And through their imperirialist agendas, they work to enslave the population.
Oh brother talk about assumptions and generalizations!
Ironically, the Amendment that they used to claim personhood was meant with regards to emancipating the slaves.
Again, we are really getting far afield of the original discussion now. To note something I wrote at the beginning of this response:
I titled this response with the word usury deliberately -readers are asked to notice how little it comes up in the bolded parts below -and not by accident I might add.
Now then, I was not sure where this thread was gonna go as I am responding to it bit by bit as I go along here. But notice though that so far that
assumption has been vindicated? I wonder if anyone would care to bet that I will be able to say this at the end of this response as well but that is neither here nor there.
And yet, far more cases of companies wanting personhood for something that is not even a person utilized the Amendment than did the slaves, real people who were for so long denied being considered anything but property.
To quote myself from earlier in this thread:
Boy, we are really getting far afield of the original discussion now.
At this point, I could probably say that for the duration of this thread and it would be applicable at every step!
So yeah, I do have a moral objection to that. Just like people morally object to war, abortion, and all sorts of things that are in our society that is so much the greater than any other. I don't see you calling them 'whiners' for doing so. Would that be a double standard?
Not at all because the thread of interaction at the very beginning was on your failure to explain what you meant by usury and furthermore
your criticism of those who were not following what the Catholic Church teaches on the matter when you yourself had no idea what that teaching actually was! I sought to get you to define your terms a bit{3} but your response to that was to ignore that, prattle on about more non-sequiturial stuff, then sum up by calling me a snob for daring to expect people who piously pontificate on something to know what the hell they are talking about first.
I'm not going to make excuses, I just believe that corporations can, and should be held more accountable for their actions. If a corporation can be defined a person, then they should be held accountable as any other person in society.
To quote myself from earlier in this thread:
Boy, we are really getting far afield of the original discussion now.
I suppose by pointing out the various ways that this thread has gone astray from the original subject matter and my original criticisms of you on the usury subject{4} that constitutes snobbery in your world, right?
your generalizations are typical of someone who cares more for some sort of ideology than they do for actual facts and reality.
Another assumption?
And one that your response so far has only confirmed was correct so thank you for verifying yet another one of my earlier assumptions about you.
Of course I like the idea of improving the situation and the gap between the rich and the poor. But it's more than that, and you just don't get it.
Now who is making assumptions? You have no idea what I do or do not get so kindly stop making assumptions if you are going to whine about assumptions being made about you!
You're more about making assumptions and trying to fit me into a mold that will never hold me.
Now who is making assumptions? You have no idea what I am more about or not so kindly stop making assumptions if you are going to whine about assumptions being made about you!
Why do you find it important to make it a matter of personal?
See my previous comments.
You dodge the fact that corporations ought to be held accountable
Where have I ever said this? Answer:
nowhere. You have no idea what I am about so kindly stop making assumptions if you are going to whine about assumptions being made about you!
and, because of their place in the world, they do have an obligation to do so
See my previous comments.
just so you can make a lot of assumptions about me personally and attack my credibility.
You have imperiled your own credibility in this process by how you have conducted yourself.
I just find it silly and uncalled for.
So says the guy who (i) continues to make assumptions though he whines about others doing that and (ii) who has the entire time failed to interact with the
actual criticisms I made of his stuff from the very beginning. Let us recap now shall we, here is the sequence of events that started this thing off:
Why is the world in poverty? It's about greed and being in the throes of a debtor's society. Guess what? The Catholic Church a long time ago taught that usury was sinful and something a Christian ought not to be a part of. And yet, what the Church has warned against, that is what the world has chosen to do. So we reap the poverty that we've made by not listening to the Church.
Half of your entire gripe originally was about usury and how the world has become worse because it did not listen to the Catholic Church which taught that usury is a sin. You also started whining about poverty being about greed and the whole "debtors society" schtick which set off a red flag that you are one of those who has an ideological agenda -something I was to comment on later in the series.
Here is the gist of my initial response to you:
Why is the world in poverty? It's about greed
Yeah, the world was in so much less poverty in the middle ages aye? 🙄
...
Guess what? The Catholic Church a long time ago taught that usury was sinful and something a Christian ought not to be a part of.
Guess what? The Church defined what they mean by usury a long time ago and in my experience, most of those such as yourself who kvetch about "usury" and raise that shibboleth in the modern economic context have no idea what the Church actually said on the matter.
My fundamental criticism from the beginning was that in my experience, most of those such as yourself who kvetch about "usury" and raise that shibboleth in the modern economic context have no idea what the Church actually said on the matter. Guess what?
Nothing you have posted since my first response has done a thing to disprove me on that.
If anything, the manner in which you have sought to evade interacting with the Church's actual definition tells me that (i) you originally had no idea what it was and (ii) now that you do, it is not convenient for your ideological agenda to do so.
Here is more from the sequence of events to buttress my assertion above:
Yeah, the world was in so much less poverty in the middle ages aye?
Actually, it wasn't. There wasn't such thing as trillions of dollars, for one thing. Even a billion dollars was unthinkable just a few decades ago. However, because the Middle Ages did not hear the warning of the Church, here we are now with deficits in the trillions of dollars.
...
Guess what? The Church defined what they mean by usury a long time ago
The Church did, and people ignored it. Surprise, surprise.
In my experience, most of those such as yourself who kvetch about "usury" and raise that shibboleth in the modern economic context have no idea what the Church actually said on the matter.
Any questions? :)
The fundamental criticism I had of your comments from the very beginning was reiterated yet again in what I wrote to you in response above. Here is just the gist of it for the sake of not going overlong:
Guess what? The Church defined what they mean by usury a long time ago
The Church did, and people ignored it. Surprise, surprise.
There is no reference to the actual definition of usury which was defined by the Church in that article. And as the concept of usury was defined in and under different economic situations and assumptions, recourse to them is necessary to avoid misrepresenting the Church's actual view on these matters.
In my experience, most of those such as yourself who kvetch about "usury" and raise that shibboleth in the modern economic context have no idea what the Church actually said on the matter.
Any questions? :)
Yes, why did you post a link to an article that does not even include within it the actual definition of usury which the church made?
From there our responses can be followed in my first note here:
On Usury, the Importance of Definitions to Reasoned Thought and Discourse, Etc.
By the way, I chose the title I did for that note because there were two issues that were addressed in that note. The first was usury which you had reiterated over and over again in responses but did not bother to confront the actual definition of usury as defined by the Catholic Church centuries ago -the very teaching you were complaining that others were not following.
The reason for the second part of that title is that my interest is and always has been promoting reasoned thought and discourse on subjects in question. And knowing from experience how failing to set down certain expectations at the get-go with folks results in going far afield of initial starting points, that was therefore part of what I sought to do in that note. The readers of this note can (if they are interested in it) go over every link above and read every bit of what you and I said. It is not even debatable that you have been doing what I have said all along and in your latest response it was yet more of the same.
You seem to be claiming that inflation is caused by capitalism.
It is, to some extent.
If inflation was caused by capitalism than it would not have existed prior to capitalism, yet it did.
If this is your claim, then explain the significant problems of inflation in antiquity prior to the existence of capitalism.
The same matter of things that burden all matters of economy - greed. Since capitalism is under the assumption that greed is good, it is what makes Capitalism very much the avarice evil that it is.
Capitalism is not
under the assumption that greed is good. But hey, thank you for verifying yet another one of my previously enunciated assumptions about you as being spot on correct. To wit (note the part underlined):
Poverty is a problem still because serfdom is now created by the new imperial land barons of world banks and corporate greed.
No, poverty is a problem still because poverty will always be a problem. When Jesus chastised the guy who nit picked over the cost of the oil that the repentant woman anointed him with in John's Gospel, he said "the poor you will always have with you." That does not mean that we are unable to better things in general for the poor of course but your generalizations are typical of someone who cares more for some sort of ideology than they do for actual facts and reality. [Excerpt from the Facebook Note On Usury, the Importance of Definitions to Reasoned Thought and Discourse, Etc. (circa May 1, 2012)]
Your response subsequent to that note outlines and then confirms in spades my intuition that you have an agenda. So I must be fair and thank you for confirmation that yet another assumption I made about you was spot on accurate. And even the one assumption I made that was not completely correct you still fundamentally fit the parameters of not a few of those who espouse that outlook as well so even that one was at least half right.
It was not uncommon in past eras for kings and other rulers to debase their currency on a regular basis. When you couple that with the inabilities to prevent a lot of the calamities we now can prevent or lessen, inflation was a far more serious problem in antiquity than it has been in recent centuries as a rule.
You speak as if this does not still happen. Why do you think we had this 'recession'? You fail to see where US Corporations have been the despots and reason for inequities abroad.
You have no idea what I
fail to see or do not
fail to see so kindly stop making assumptions if you are going to whine about assumptions being made about you!
Money is a tricky thing, and the current magicians that hold magistrate over it are well versed in all the tactics they need to hold their power over people. It's a trick as old as time.
To quote myself from earlier in this thread:
Oh brother talk about assumptions and generalizations!
You fail to see that the modern forms of the tricks do survive in Capitalism especially.
Again, you have no idea what I
fail to see or do not
fail to see so kindly stop making assumptions if you are going to whine about assumptions being made about you!
Why? because it's the most dominant system of economy at the moment. They would (and did) easily transfer it over to Marxism and any other form of society and economy that they want to do business with. They just have to know how to work their way into the system, and then, viola, they run the system.
To quote myself from earlier in this thread:
Oh brother talk about assumptions and generalizations!
At any rate, there's no point going further. You have chosen to make it personal and about one upmanship. Have fun being a snobbish brat! ;)
So says someone who has done nothing but make assumption after assumption about me the entire time -as well as assumptions of what usury is without concerning themselves with what it actually is.
Physician, heal thyself!
Truthfully, nothing you wrote above is even worth responding to in light of your failure to deal squarely with the latter point at any time in your public pontifications. I only did so to point out that it was clear that your voluminous attempted response was (again in Shakeaspeare's words) "so much sound and fury signifying nothing" and because you vindicated in what you said virtually everything I have been saying all along including:
- You did not know what usury was but you were talking about it publicly so you could try and come off sounding intelligent about it.
- When called to the carpet on the term, you have continually while claiming that society has ignored the Church's teaching on usury dodged interacting with the actual Church definition yourself.
- Your knowledge of economics is facile as is your understanding of history.
- When any of this is pointed out to you you whine about it and insult folks rather than stopping to consider that maybe, just maybe you are talking about issues where your knowledge is thin.
And finally:
- You have as I suspected from the very beginning an agenda which you are not going to let inconvenient truths like facts get in the way of.
As far as the claim of making assumptions goes, it is evident above that you do not practice what you preach; ergo, remove the beam from your own eye before you bitch about the specks in the eyes of others. You should not expect to go onto threads and post voluminous tomes of bullshit and act like a know it all without some folks who tire of such "more superior than thou" pompous asshattery (like myself) potentially calling you out and (perhaps) taking you to task for it.
If you do not like that, well tough. I am interested in reason, logic, ethics, and what is true and could care less about making pompous "more moral than thou" sorts like you who bitch about what they know not happy. And finally, remember, it is advisable to know what you are talking about on a subject before you attempt to tell others about it. Otherwise you only look foolish.
Have a nice day! 🙂
Notes:
{1} Either way it is because those folks find certain factors of their present life less than satisfactory.
{2} Read: the Catholic Church's definition of usury.
{3} In part by pointing you to the
actual definition of the Church on the matter of usury.
{4} Criticisms which in light of all your responses to me remain intact stable and valid I might add.
