* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | Nobody has claimed anything to the contrary.
Then you are fantastically ignorant of the history of the argument that labor itself has value. I keep wondering if you are just ignorant or whether you are toying with people or just playing out your fantasies so you can ridicule people or accuse them of hypocrisy or find cause to insult them, but some people actually try to express what they think and have much less interest in telling other people what _they_ think. But I guess we just have different priorities.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> wrote in message <news:3226284579776773@naggum.net>... > * Brian Spilsbury > | My labour is a salable commodity, which is why we have this idea > | called 'employment'.
> Well, in my culture, if you just do whatever you like when you are > employed instead of doing specifically what you are told to do as part of > your employment contract, you cease to be employed shortly thereafter. I > have no idea how your culture works, but if your employers just pay > people to "work", I think you might have a problem.
If you just do whatever you like, then you haven't sold your labour to the employer to do with what they wish...
Selling your labour necessarily involves it being directed by that which you have sold it to, which is why contracts which restrict the ends to which your labour can be put are important.
* Brian Spilsbury | Selling your labour necessarily involves it being directed by that which | you have sold it to, which is why contracts which restrict the ends to | which your labour can be put are important.
Then it is not your labor that is salabale, it is your ability to follow orders. Thus your personal freedom and your time is for sale, and with them your labor, but labor alone is evidently not sufficent. But more than that, your ability to agree with the goals of your employer and work towards these same goals without necessarily taking orders all the time, i.e., loyalty, is what is _really_ valued. To call all this just "labor" seems to me a severe conflation of the personal qualities involved.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > * Erik Naggum > > Please start to think, Thomas. You do not argue in a vaccum.
> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG > | "vacuum"
> So this is what Thomas Bushnell has been reduced to.
Yep, since you cannot understand simple arguments. And you can't follow simple discussions. And when someone has the temerity disagree with you, you begin launching personal diatribes, and now it appears, slanders.
Your brain is so firmly clamped shut that you have classed the world into idiots and people who agree with you, and then you begin lambasting the "idiots" for "one-bit thinking". If you showed some simple charity, some attempt to understand others, some attempt to be helpful rather than antagonistic, you would get some respect.
As it is, you are rather like a three-year-old child who cannot bear to have his blanky taken away.
And so it isn't too surprising that your spelling matches.
And, as it happens, I've now spoken to some linguists about tonemes and Norwegian. Guess what---you're wrong there too. Big surprise, though I expect you'll just post another giant 1000 word paragraph filled with your urine, which you seem to like to spray everywhere you go.
Indeed, it's so much fun seeing you do it, knowing that I can simply lift my finger and cause you go into conniptions, that I think I shall continue to enjoy this little game.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | Yep, since you cannot understand simple arguments. And you can't | follow simple discussions. And when someone has the temerity disagree | with you, you begin launching personal diatribes, and now it appears, | slanders.
Such an open mind. Don't let the steel trap hit you on the way out.
Your need to talk about that fantasy monster that you have given my name should be the subject of someone professional's carreer.
| Indeed, it's so much fun seeing you do it, knowing that I can simply lift | my finger and cause you go into conniptions, that I think I shall | continue to enjoy this little game.
I am glad you finally show your true nature, Thomas Bushnell. I am seldom wrong about your kind, and it follows so naturally that you want to prove me right instead of figuring out how to focus on what most other people see as the purpose of this newsgroup. You are evil. Good luck feeling good about yourself at the food bank. I see why you need it.
When you demonstrate so clearly your need to use other people as toys for your own amusement, you have admitted to being a sociopath. I knew that from early on. I am glad I could manipulate you into admitting it. Few people do, because they usually figure out that it is self-destructive, but the real basket cases never see how they hurt themselves. Next time you need to use a person as a toy, try a dildo, instead. That way, no person needs to tell you to go fuck yourself.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
> > So this is what Thomas Bushnell has been reduced to.
> Yep, since you cannot understand simple arguments. And you can't > follow simple discussions. And when someone has the temerity disagree > with you, you begin launching personal diatribes, and now it appears, > slanders.
> Your brain is so firmly clamped shut that you have classed the world > into idiots and people who agree with you, and then you begin > lambasting the "idiots" for "one-bit thinking". If you showed some > simple charity, some attempt to understand others, some attempt to be > helpful rather than antagonistic, you would get some respect.
> As it is, you are rather like a three-year-old child who cannot bear > to have his blanky taken away.
Hehe, you're talking to a mirror right now and don't even realize it. This happens quite often here; comp.lang.lisp is really a strange place :-)
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > When you demonstrate so clearly your need to use other people as toys for > your own amusement, you have admitted to being a sociopath.
Well, if you say so...
> I knew that from early on. I am glad I could manipulate you into > admitting it.
So you've been treating him as a toy for your own amusement? Well, if you say so...
-- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) la...@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > I am glad you finally show your true nature, Thomas Bushnell. I am > seldom wrong about your kind, and it follows so naturally that you want > to prove me right instead of figuring out how to focus on what most other > people see as the purpose of this newsgroup. You are evil. Good luck > feeling good about yourself at the food bank. I see why you need it.
What fun! Now I'm the epitome of evil, just because I think your antics are alternatingly amusing and pathetic.
What is the reaction I'm supposed to have to you? Am I supposed to be angry? Repentant? Is my sin that I don't show you the proper obeisance?
Unfortunately for you, I have my own brain, which has detected you for the clown you are. And well, if you want to be a clown, why should I not indulge you, by providing you the tools necessary to go on making a fool of yourself?! That way it's good for everyone.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | Now I'm the epitome of evil, just because I think your antics are | alternatingly amusing and pathetic.
No, that is not the reason. You know this, which is why you have to pretend that it is something else.
| What is the reaction I'm supposed to have to you? Am I supposed to be | angry? Repentant? Is my sin that I don't show you the proper obeisance?
I have already told you that your lack of thinking skills is the reason, and you kepe proving my point.
| Unfortunately for you, I have my own brain, which has detected you for | the clown you are. And well, if you want to be a clown, why should I | not indulge you, by providing you the tools necessary to go on making | a fool of yourself?! That way it's good for everyone.
Have you finally figured out what you have been doing to yourself, since you now pretend to be in control when you so obviously are out of control?
Why do you keep ppsting? Oh, I remember, you are the guy who attacks Kent Pitman for hypocrisy because you think it is valuable to destroy the character of solid contributors to this forum while your contributions are mainly character assassinations? Do you think anyone fals to notice?
But if I do not have my own opinions, only reactions, why do you keep insulting me and posting so many lies about me? I am obviously only reacting to your evil and destructive behavior, right? Grow a brain!
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > I have already told you that your lack of thinking skills is the reason, > and you kepe proving my point.
If you think I am so deficient in thinking skills, mightn't you take a moment to inform the people who run my graduate program? I think they might be most interested in your perceptions. I mean, they are putting their reputations on the line by running the risk of officially certifying my thinking skills.
> Why do you keep ppsting? Oh, I remember, you are the guy who attacks > Kent Pitman for hypocrisy because you think it is valuable to destroy the > character of solid contributors to this forum while your contributions > are mainly character assassinations? Do you think anyone fals to notice?
Oh, I still wonder about the answer to my question. He's on hiatus, so I understand why he hasn't given one. But I really do wonder where the line is for him between good free software and bad free software.
> But if I do not have my own opinions, only reactions, why do you keep > insulting me and posting so many lies about me? I am obviously only > reacting to your evil and destructive behavior, right? Grow a brain!
Oh, but I'm not posting "so many lies". I'm just happily acting as the foil for your nastiness.
* Thomas Bushnell, BSG | If you think I am so deficient in thinking skills, mightn't you take a | moment to inform the people who run my graduate program?
Excellent! Completely irrelevant self-defense. I must have hit a nerve. Look, you unthinking brute, just because you can behave when you are fed your daily ration of bananas in a safe and friendly environment, does not mean that you are not a danger to people if you are exposed to stimuli you cannot handle, and for which _thinking_ is required. This would have been glaringly obvious to you if you _had_ any thinking skills, so by doing the stupid trick of defending yourself by pointing to what you do _not_ do here, namely answer to an authority that controls your future, you show us only that you are quite unable to realize what you do but only behave if other people can pose a threat to you, and _that_ is unlikely to change between contexts. Some people actually _only_ behave when they believe they can get hurt if they do not, and react with extreme hostility to anyone who tries to tell them to behave unless they _also_ offer a credible threat. I think you have demonstrated very clearly that you (1) only think when you get hurt if you do not, and (2) revert to an extremely primitive mode of action when you fail to think.
| Oh, but I'm not posting "so many lies". I'm just happily acting as the | foil for your nastiness.
And the purpose of this is what? Character assassination like you had to engage in with Kent Pitman, who as far as I can see, has never hurt _anyone_ here? Are you sure you are not completely insane who keep this going? I mean, I only react and have no opinions of my own, in your very own words, so this is all you fault, right? Why do you continue to post so much hatred and think that this forum is Thomas Bushnell's personal hate forum? I mean, you seemed to be opposed to this idea as long as you did not engage in it yourself. And yet you attack Kent Pitman for his supposed hypocrisy.
Let me know that you can control yourself before you try to control or even play with others: Cease and desist.
/// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > * Thomas Bushnell, BSG > | If you think I am so deficient in thinking skills, mightn't you take a > | moment to inform the people who run my graduate program?
> Excellent! Completely irrelevant self-defense.
It wasn't self-defense, it was a question. Or can't you tell the difference any more?
> Let me know that you can control yourself before you try to control or > even play with others: Cease and desist.
> ... What Heinlein did so well was write credible > stories that explored political views that differed in important ways > from today's prevailing views with credible what-if--scenarios based on > possible technological futures.
he wrote irresistably readable novels that can *also* be read as (say) endorsing McCarthyism (puppet masters), genocidal warfare (starship troopers), racist paranoia (farnham's freehold), behaviorism (double star), power fantasy (stranger ...) and so on (moon ...). Some people (eg. Aldiss) argue that his grasp of politics was frail. He did transform science fiction, and everyone seems to love his stuff. [an interesting dissection of some of his works is found in Disch's "The Dreams Our Stuff is Made Of" and is recommended reading.]
oz --- [1] Brian W. Aldiss, "Billion Year Spree: The History of Science Fiction", Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973. [2] Thomas M. Disch, "The Dreams Our Stuff is Made Of: How Science Fiction Conquered the World", The Free Press, 1998.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> wrote in message <news:3226308834027937@naggum.net>... > * Brian Spilsbury > | Selling your labour necessarily involves it being directed by that which > | you have sold it to, which is why contracts which restrict the ends to > | which your labour can be put are important.
> Then it is not your labor that is salabale, it is your ability to follow > orders. Thus your personal freedom and your time is for sale, and with > them your labor, but labor alone is evidently not sufficent. But more > than that, your ability to agree with the goals of your employer and work > towards these same goals without necessarily taking orders all the time, > i.e., loyalty, is what is _really_ valued. To call all this just "labor" > seems to me a severe conflation of the personal qualities involved.
I suggest that this has conflated "labour" with "the sale of labour to an employer".
I would agree that this a severe conflation, indeed.
It is your labour that is salable.
It is your exploitability that makes it purchasable. (Exploitability in a non-perjorative sense).
Try substituting a word like "brick" for labour, and I think it becomes clearer.
"Then it is not your brick which is salable, it is the ability for your brick to be used by the buyer. Thus your brick is for sale, and with them your lack of ability to not have had made that brick, but brick alone is evidently not sufficient. But more than that, your brick's ability to be used by your employer in practice is what is really valued. To call all this just "brick" seems to me a severe conflation of the qualities involved."
ozan s. yigit wrote: > he wrote irresistably readable novels that can *also* be read as (say) > endorsing McCarthyism (puppet masters), genocidal warfare (starship > troopers), racist paranoia (farnham's freehold), behaviorism (double > star), power fantasy (stranger ...) and so on (moon ...). Some people (eg. > Aldiss) argue that his grasp of politics was frail.
Other people argue that sometimes he was writing to illustrate the _problems_ of such things - in particular, Starship Troopers is pretty clearly "the humans are the bad guys", which some people, particularly the maker of the execrable cartoon series, seem to fail to pick up on, despite the brick-like subtlety - and the puppet masters is interesting because the hero is manipulated by his father's organisation just as utterly, but more subtly, as when he is under master control... right down to his father picking a suitable mate for him, and using the hero's affection her to force him to go back into the hostile zone - if anything, the "good guys" are painted as being better puppet masters by their use of psychology to control their agents.
David Golden <qnivq.tby...@bprnaserr.arg> wrote: > > he wrote irresistably readable novels that can *also* be read as (say) > > endorsing McCarthyism (puppet masters), genocidal warfare (starship > > troopers), racist paranoia (farnham's freehold), behaviorism (double > > star), power fantasy (stranger ...) and so on (moon ...). Some people (eg. > > Aldiss) argue that his grasp of politics was frail.
> Other people argue that sometimes he was writing to illustrate the > _problems_ of such things - [examples]
hm. heinlein's political and philosophical makeup is pretty well established by now; the excuse of illustration may have worked for earlier novels, but the later ones lost enough of the narrative quality to make it too obvious what he was really thinking. he was so well loved that some of the sharpest critics [eg. Knight] have excused themselves from commenting on his predilections as a result.
anyhow thanks for your rejoinder. i will be revisiting moon is a harsh mistress (two decades later) to see what i missed when i was young and innocent. [1996 tor edition labels it "his classic, hugo-award winning novel of libertarian revolution"] so may have more to say on this, but perhaps in a different forum.
