osan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,866
Friends, RPFers, Freemen, lend me your walle...erm... eyes. I hereby establish and ordain the Official Ron Paul Forums Weakman Absurdities Thread.
<cue "Pomp And Circumstance>
The rank idiocies upon which the vast majority of human beings base their thinking officially rocketed past all redemption at 2:18 AM this morning, prompting me to post a thread about the "White" House. I can no longer, in any good conscience, allow these nadirs of human ingenuity and decency to pass without their due credit.
It is my hope that you will add to this database of the mind-bending stupidities by which so many navigate their daily existences and by which they press upon their fellows such calls to action and prohibition that make the lives of we, the few and the free, such worthwhile endeavors. It is in thanks and recognition that I dedicate this thread to the endless fount of imbecility provided us by the Meaner, whose character is the very definition of the Weakman; our beloved brother without whose voluminous and torrential contributions to human misery, the Freeman would fall into a state of lassitude and become as a Weakman himself.
Verily I say to thee that we, the Freemen of this world, owe debts of gratitude to the ninnies and nitwits who seemingly infest this world as fleas on dogs, for they have given us the basis and impetus to keep sharp within ourselves that which distinguishes us from the amoeba, a cause our knot-headed brethren have forgone for themselves.
Rise ye then, me brothers in the brains and industry of righteous freedom and make thy contribution, for it is the easiest thing. The fruits of our brothers most fecund number to dwarf the stars. Let them the credit for which they have to diligently labored. Let them be recognized as the apotheoses of human corruption in all its manifold facets, that they may feel the burning pride they so covet. We are nothing, if not generous and lovers of truth.
</cue : DECAY="SLOWFADE">
Without ado, my first contribution will address the notion of "giving back".
Where did this idea come from? It serves us well to recognize the relevant context. "Giving back" where come generosity of charity has been received is, of course, endlessly valid and a show of true appreciation and reciprocal generosity. It is a mark of directed and conscious decency in a man. In this context, "giving back" constitutes a great good.
But there is another context in which "giving back" is more forcefully encouraged, and in many cases demanded. To wit by example: A young boy takes a paper route, works his way through college, starts a business and through his dogged stick-to-it-iveness and applied good intelligence, meets with enormous success. He becomes a billionaire through the marketing and sale of products that not only his customers want, but that improve and edify their lives; what any decent, smart, and rational man would call a "win-win" relationship. His products are not a source of artificially impressed need, such as may be said of one such as heroin. There are no hidden costs or deceptions in what he has brought to market. He offered, the market accepted. The transactions are well within the capacity of even the relatively dull, there being an exchange of consideration for lawful goods within a context of mutual intent. The products pass in transaction under terms of pure contract.
And yet, how often we witness those who demand such a man "give back", usually to the "community". The tacit assumption underlying their insistence, of course, is that the billionaire carries some undefined guilt, the dimensions of which are manifold and the discussion of which could fill a voluptuous tome itself. A common facet of this guilt is that he somehow swindled his customers. Another is that without his customers, he would not enjoy his success (ref. "you didn't build that"). These are but two of the numerous fallacious and often tacitly implied assumptions upon which some people justify their demand that anyone meeting with even marginal success "give back".
Nothing was taken. The exchange was just that: exchange. Why, by this reasoning, are the customers not required to "give back" to the billionaire? Have they not also benefitted from the transaction?
These analytic considerations merely scratch the surface of the mental reality that drives this sort of behavior in some. This lopsided psychosis that insists that voluntary exchange is somehow of such a nature that one party assumes the "guilt" of success, the other the mantle of "victim", cannot be deconstructed trivially. The basis of it has tentacles that reach in all directions of the human psyche and comprises a substantial complex of factors, the totality of which is well represented by that which we often label as the "progressive".
The absurdity of this notion of the obligation to "give back" on the part of anyone showing the temerity to be successful cannot be easily overstated.
Another dimension of this stilted and deeply pathological mindset can be seen in the typical Hollywood "personality", where the spoiled and endlessly overpaid actor tearily goes on about how this act or that of theirs was their way of "giving back". What's the recently coined term... "virtue signaling"? But note how as they make noises of their fine human virtues, they give nothing of substance, while making further shrieking sounds about how you must "give back", or else you are not a good person and should probably be beaten of killed. ( 1/2 <sarc>
Anyhow, the point is made well enough. In this context, the innuendo-logged notion of "giving back" flies to the most stratospheric heights of absurdity.
Next.
<cue "Pomp And Circumstance>
The rank idiocies upon which the vast majority of human beings base their thinking officially rocketed past all redemption at 2:18 AM this morning, prompting me to post a thread about the "White" House. I can no longer, in any good conscience, allow these nadirs of human ingenuity and decency to pass without their due credit.
It is my hope that you will add to this database of the mind-bending stupidities by which so many navigate their daily existences and by which they press upon their fellows such calls to action and prohibition that make the lives of we, the few and the free, such worthwhile endeavors. It is in thanks and recognition that I dedicate this thread to the endless fount of imbecility provided us by the Meaner, whose character is the very definition of the Weakman; our beloved brother without whose voluminous and torrential contributions to human misery, the Freeman would fall into a state of lassitude and become as a Weakman himself.
Verily I say to thee that we, the Freemen of this world, owe debts of gratitude to the ninnies and nitwits who seemingly infest this world as fleas on dogs, for they have given us the basis and impetus to keep sharp within ourselves that which distinguishes us from the amoeba, a cause our knot-headed brethren have forgone for themselves.
Rise ye then, me brothers in the brains and industry of righteous freedom and make thy contribution, for it is the easiest thing. The fruits of our brothers most fecund number to dwarf the stars. Let them the credit for which they have to diligently labored. Let them be recognized as the apotheoses of human corruption in all its manifold facets, that they may feel the burning pride they so covet. We are nothing, if not generous and lovers of truth.
</cue : DECAY="SLOWFADE">
Without ado, my first contribution will address the notion of "giving back".
Where did this idea come from? It serves us well to recognize the relevant context. "Giving back" where come generosity of charity has been received is, of course, endlessly valid and a show of true appreciation and reciprocal generosity. It is a mark of directed and conscious decency in a man. In this context, "giving back" constitutes a great good.
But there is another context in which "giving back" is more forcefully encouraged, and in many cases demanded. To wit by example: A young boy takes a paper route, works his way through college, starts a business and through his dogged stick-to-it-iveness and applied good intelligence, meets with enormous success. He becomes a billionaire through the marketing and sale of products that not only his customers want, but that improve and edify their lives; what any decent, smart, and rational man would call a "win-win" relationship. His products are not a source of artificially impressed need, such as may be said of one such as heroin. There are no hidden costs or deceptions in what he has brought to market. He offered, the market accepted. The transactions are well within the capacity of even the relatively dull, there being an exchange of consideration for lawful goods within a context of mutual intent. The products pass in transaction under terms of pure contract.
And yet, how often we witness those who demand such a man "give back", usually to the "community". The tacit assumption underlying their insistence, of course, is that the billionaire carries some undefined guilt, the dimensions of which are manifold and the discussion of which could fill a voluptuous tome itself. A common facet of this guilt is that he somehow swindled his customers. Another is that without his customers, he would not enjoy his success (ref. "you didn't build that"). These are but two of the numerous fallacious and often tacitly implied assumptions upon which some people justify their demand that anyone meeting with even marginal success "give back".
Nothing was taken. The exchange was just that: exchange. Why, by this reasoning, are the customers not required to "give back" to the billionaire? Have they not also benefitted from the transaction?
These analytic considerations merely scratch the surface of the mental reality that drives this sort of behavior in some. This lopsided psychosis that insists that voluntary exchange is somehow of such a nature that one party assumes the "guilt" of success, the other the mantle of "victim", cannot be deconstructed trivially. The basis of it has tentacles that reach in all directions of the human psyche and comprises a substantial complex of factors, the totality of which is well represented by that which we often label as the "progressive".
The absurdity of this notion of the obligation to "give back" on the part of anyone showing the temerity to be successful cannot be easily overstated.
Another dimension of this stilted and deeply pathological mindset can be seen in the typical Hollywood "personality", where the spoiled and endlessly overpaid actor tearily goes on about how this act or that of theirs was their way of "giving back". What's the recently coined term... "virtue signaling"? But note how as they make noises of their fine human virtues, they give nothing of substance, while making further shrieking sounds about how you must "give back", or else you are not a good person and should probably be beaten of killed. ( 1/2 <sarc>
Anyhow, the point is made well enough. In this context, the innuendo-logged notion of "giving back" flies to the most stratospheric heights of absurdity.
Next.
Last edited:
