Should you pay for Thanksgiving dinner?

Good Morning....I just read through your recent posts and finally figured out the conversation I think your trying to have. It's really pretty interesting to have this conversation with someone from the Netherlands, which I believe is a socialist country. Here in America we are at a cross roads trying to reconcile and define our "Democracy" moving forward.

Some of us would like to see a more "socialist democracy" while others would like to see a more "capitalist democracy"...most agree our Government has been high-jacked by crooks ! America is going through a political revolution and in many ways I think the questions your trying to ask in this thread represent some "deep" questions we are trying to answer on a larger scale. "Where does our responsibility to others begin and end?"

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

If you are born without options we should take care of you.
If you are born with options you should take care of others.

While that is true, we should be under no obligation through government mandate, to do so.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
While that is true, we should be under no obligation through government mandate, to do so.

Exactly. Compulsory charity is not charity. I have no desire to live in such a totalitarian society.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

I have been really giving some thought to some things you said...for example that "all millionaires have stolen from others" and that what you gain from public service is "recognition from your peers"......and I gotta say even as a Bernie supporter, who believes our tax dollars should be spent more on the "common good"...those statements made me kinda cringe...

We grow up in America believing that anyone can become a millionaire through hard work, creativity and following your dreams...and I don't agree you need to be a thief to achieve wealth. Now this is not to say that a lot of people that become rich don't play fair, and for myself, that's where I draw the line... purposely taking from others through deceit and corruption. "Playing a fair Game" is valued by most Americans.

We are also taught in America that we should do good deeds humbly...not to impress our peers and we actually find it kinda insincere if someone wants recognition for doing good deeds. I do agree with the "Fury One"..much of human nature is dictated by some form of "selfishness" and I guess I would say that if more people derived personal happiness by making the World a better place we're all better off.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ForteanOrgIts selfishness. Always, its selfishness.

Aren't you confusing selfishness with ego?

Of course, the only being you can be sure exists - is you. Everything else, including your "body" and "environmetn" might well be a figment of your imagination. So, yes, in the end it all revolves around "you" - there is nothing else. It can't be helped. But the fact you are alone and are the only one that has to face the results of his "actions" - real or not - it is NOT selfishness, it's ego.

What you do with ego - that's what matters. Your example of the woman you love that does not love you back - it often happens. And it also happens that you - though it hurts you - will respect her and back off. That's actually quite decent and social - it requires that you put the other first.

So, do you think that you are confusing selfishness with ego?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Selfishness is a means, ego is the end. But yes, there is a lot of interchange in the notion.

But on a more intrinsic level....love is a neurochemical response. Plain and simple. If you don't elicit and nurse those neurochemical actions, love will not occur. So while ego may play a role in it, digging down a little deeper you find a mechanism from which ego is steered, if not partially derived.

What you are describing is not love. Love grows over time (excepting the massive oxytocin release subsequent to childbirth that initiates parental bonding), slowly through the repeated satisfaction of closing neural connections. The woman I love, this came about over 20 years. Had she been vile and nasty every step of the way, we would have never developed the bond that has put us together so firmly.

But you can extract that to a large degree, as well. The person who learns to be an employee by slinging Big Mac's...they are learning the same type of thing: reinforced behaviors derived from a reward feedback. If you service that customer, your reward is a paycheck. And if you do it with a smile, your reward can be not having a miserable time making that paycheck. This is how we all learn the merits of serving others, and what helps break that viscious cycle of ego stroking that teens seem to have.

You do for others because there is a reward. It could be money. It could be "feel good". Auggie, above, mentions how much he dislikes the notion of forced charity. The reason: it doesn't allow for the closing of the service/reward feedback loop. He enjoys helping others, and wants to feel the reward from knowing he did it. Taking the money removes that reward feedback.

a reply to: MountainLaurel

Yes, you are right, I hope to make at least some people think (or rethink) the importance (or lack thereof) of socialism. If you don't like the word "socialism" (as it is a political term and many Americans confuse it with dictatorialism like we saw in the former East Block) you might say "putting others first" or "caring for strangers". The example in the initial posting comes from an article in Linux Journal, which mostly is about Open Source software. Open Source software is free - as in beer, but also as in "code available and y'all can use it". Die hard capitalist do not understand how it is possible that nobody asks money for such software - after all, it's guesstimated to represent a 5 billion dollar value. What they fail to understand is that such high quality commodity software never would have existed without the urge of programmers to write code - for free, for others - just to get a "good feeling" and "recognition by their peers" in return. I believe that a society should be driven by the ideas like I pointed out before:

If you have no options others will take care of you.
If you have options, you should take care of others.
Give what you can, take just what you need.

BTW: my country is not really a socialist country - it has been a social-democratic country and currently can be seen as mixture of liberalism, socialism, fascism and a dash of capitalism. But it is true that I'm an pragmatical anarchist, hence a socialist.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Hmmm? I got the opposite impression about what the "Fury One" was saying.....what I heard him say...."is because my wife loves me..it brings me happiness...and therefore I love her back and am devoted to her"......

I think what he was saying is that our cooperation with others is somewhat conditional on what we personally get out of it.....not trying to put words in the "Fury One's" mouth...but that is what I heard.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Thanks for the reply. Your model is somewhat "Pavlovian" - as if we were automatrons that simply respond to random connections in our brain. I believe it's the other way around: we are driven by something else, our "ego", or perhaps we should name it our "soul", and the way our brain is wired results from the way our ego sets it up, not the other way around.

But let's simply follow your model for now: if a person feels good when he does something for somebody else - even if he does not get any other reward, so, in fact, that person is "fooling himself" into feeling good for no reason - is that, in your opinion, a disease, an abberation? Or is it the essence of kindness and love?

a reply to: MountainLaurel

So, what you thought bigfatfurrytexan said would actually be "proof" of my model - that putting others first ("because my wife loves me") is what matters. That his wife gets something out of it ("so I love my wife back") is a consequence - but not mandatory. She puts others first.

I'm Dutch and though I have quite adequate reading and writing skills, English is my 4th language (after the local language of my region, German and Dutch, in that order), so perhaps I did misunderstand BFFT.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

That is a complicated question.

Reputation is a big part of it. And lord knows, reputation is enough all by itself. I do good for others not because I have to, but because I am accustomed to managing a reputation in my real life (without a college degree, all I have is a reputation).

But there IS a tangible reward. Closing a neurochemical feedback loop IS the reward.

Helping someone may provide me some "feel good", which supports my ego by validating my actions and outlook. The result is I become more convinced that the way I do things is "right", and I increase my satisfaction with myself each time I repeat that behavior. The loop is closed.

Even just clicking "like" on Facebook. We do this (service others) in hope that they will do the same in return, which validates our viewpoints and closes the loop.

Sometimes we may hit Facebook just to post a terrible picture of some poor disfigured child, demanding that other stop to "like and share" (or they have no heart, LOL). So you like and share, validating them further.

A little blurb about social media and self image:

thesocialu101.com...

a reply to: ForteanOrg

So what?

I had a lot of compensation because I was raised? Well, guess what? I am currently raising someone, so that cancels out any need to compensate strangers there.

Basically this thread is a huge attempt to guilt trip people who do not live in the collective mindset. I don't happen to.

I feel it is my responsibility to take care of me and mine and then to help others as I can and choose to, but I do not view all of society as some greater good collective. Such a view is like the Christian concept of collective salvation where none can be saved unless ALL are saved. Such a view is folly because it is an inherently self-defeating concept. There will always be more who will take advantage of that mindset than there will be those who embrace it, so it will always be doomed to fail.

Even Marx and the Bible both have text to this effect - He who does not work shall not eat.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ForteanOrgEven Marx and the Bible both have text to this effect - He who does not work shall not eat.

That's a bit harsh towards people that can't work, isn't it? Do you expect your family to take care of you in such cases? What if you don't HAVE a family?

This thread is not about guilt - if it makes you feel guilty, I am sorry.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: ForteanOrgEven just clicking "like" on Facebook. We do this (service others) in hope that they will do the same in return, which validates our viewpoints and closes the loop.

So, if nobody ever "likes" you, you will not like anybody else either? I can't imagine that.

In my opinion people are BORN with either the notion of service to self, or service to others (pardon the somewhat new agerish terms). It's a bit like the old Gnostic notion that people are either born with the spark of God inside - or without. And that it can't be changed.

I've always found that a quite fatalistic world view.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

If that were true, then the tendency of teens towards sociopathy would not exist. Learning to service others is something you learn through years of practice (or, in other terms, through years of building and reinforcing neural connections that form a closure in the reward feedback loop).

The difference is our 2 worldviews is empiricism. You can measure and analyze the processes im discussing. You cannot, however, measure and analyze a soul.

While i am not saying that religion/soul/the aether has no role here....i am saying the incongruity in our 2 positions seems to make a discussion ultimately irreconcilable.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Doesnt make sense. At all. My family is like the millions of strangers who could not care less for me?

Also, usually people take turns making dinner. OR bring some dishes to share, some booze, dessert and so on.

Its retarded.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That's just a more "scientific" way of saying that you too find that one is born with that spark inside - or not. And never the twain shall meet.. I'm not so sure.

But there is some circumstantial evidence that you might be right and that discussing this is pointless, as we never can change the way our brains were wired during our mothers pregnancy.

If we COULD change the way we are and your idea of conditioning was correct, there would be a special set of brain connections that need to be created by experience before you learn to service others. I don't think so. I believe it is strongly associated with dualism - the believe in a higher force, what we, in the Judeo-Christian world would label "God".. We seem to be wired for God (or, to put it simpler: wired to service others). Research has been done to find the "God spot" in our brains - but it is not there. It is actually more like a tapestry of feelings and experiences. This network affects how our brains work at fundamental levels.

So, perhaps, indeed, you are incapable of changing your beliefs. I find that rather harsh, actually, hard to believe. But perhaps you are right.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: ForteanOrgIts retarded.

What makes family so special in your eyes? I have seen many families that rather cut each other throats than help each other. And the millions of strangers might well care for you - they do not know you personally, but in a more abstract way. Hence, in Europe, we had (and sometimes still have) social security.

BTW: did you know you have a fetish for the word 'retard'?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Love you mother in law or hate her, unless she runs a restaurant, she's cooking the wonderful dinner for her family out of love and respect for tradition.

You want to chip in and buy the turkey for her, that would be one thing, but to ask if she wants a handful of money? It's not an accurate comparison.

But look at it this way, a restaurant owner is going to sell that Thanksgiving dinner to paying customers out of concern for the well being and support of his or her family and employees.