New Social Thread

[Chanakya]

I've noticed you criticised that guy's English quite a lot without bothering to use actual grammar in your own posts.

You're both losers anyway. I've wasted too much time looking through old posts now.

Ok.

 

[Onder]

So I had a glorious idea today.

Basically, it's a pub where low existences like homelesses and gypsies can drink alcohol for free. Wait, let me explain the logic. There is a number of those "people" who just beg for money to eventually get a beer anyway, instead of food. They also beg for cigs etc. This place would be slightly below street level and there would be, yes, alcohol for free. There would be tables and chairs, yes, everything, even a bar. The prize they pay for drinking for free is that above - there are rooms and cabins w/ a view, from where people laugh at them. There is also a possibility of throwing stuff at them or even spitting on them (but be aware of not becoming one of them. The prizes in the pub above are higher than usual to overcome lower class attending this show).

On some evenings there would be a further program of ridiculing those people. Even a moderator who walks around and asks them questions until they are ridiculed to a point of suicide, just to have sip of ugly beer for free (often w/ piss in it).

Alcohol gives homelesses courage, so often they would just have enough of it and they would riot inside like animals against the higher class. This would make the show even more enjoyable because they can never win. You, as a spectator, can throw them ciggaretes as a gift or even give them some food as a gratitude. Some homelesses love alcohol so much that they would drink themselves to death if you gave them enough, so that would be also a great fun. Some of them would just die there for your amusement.

It's all fair though, everybody can enter the arena whenever they want and leave it anytime aswell. Trust me, this would work.

 

[Cythraul]

you are a fucking genius

 

[Raina]

Somehow I don't really find that funny. We have some really serious problems with such minorities, that giving them any possibility to demonstrate their lack of education would be disastruous to any society.

Also, you should know that they make enough money out of begging as it is. They can make 1 500 euro a month, if not more, just from begging.

 

[Cythraul]

 

[Raina]

Ok.

 

[Cronopio]

So I had a glorious idea today.

Basically, it's a pub where low existences like homelesses and gypsies can drink alcohol for free. Wait, let me explain the logic. There is a number of those "people" who just beg for money to eventually get a beer anyway, instead of food. They also beg for cigs etc. This place would be slightly below street level and there would be, yes, alcohol for free. There would be tables and chairs, yes, everything, even a bar. The prize they pay for drinking for free is that above - there are rooms and cabins w/ a view, from where people laugh at them. There is also a possibility of throwing stuff at them or even spitting on them (but be aware of not becoming one of them. The prizes in the pub above are higher than usual to overcome lower class attending this show).

On some evenings there would be a further program of ridiculing those people. Even a moderator who walks around and asks them questions until they are ridiculed to a point of suicide, just to have sip of ugly beer for free (often w/ piss in it).

Alcohol gives homelesses courage, so often they would just have enough of it and they would riot inside like animals against the higher class. This would make the show even more enjoyable because they can never win. You, as a spectator, can throw them ciggaretes as a gift or even give them some food as a gratitude. Some homelesses love alcohol so much that they would drink themselves to death if you gave them enough, so that would be also a great fun. Some of them would just die there for your amusement.

It's all fair though, everybody can enter the arena whenever they want and leave it anytime aswell. Trust me, this would work.

Hey Onder, wanna know what I think of your idea? You sure? Really? Well, scroll on down.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

I'd fly to Prague just to see that Onder.

 

[damnromulans]

Speak English? Speak English?

Sometimes I'm tempted to put on some of my old fat clothes with food stains and just hang out on a street corner in a large EU city panhandlin'. I want money and I don't want to work for it. Fuck real jobs.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Pretty sure i'd rather have a job than beg for money. That may have more to do with my current job opportunities than my stance on begging though.

@Einherjar i'm going to get back to you soon on the economics stuff, just been busy lately.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Keep in mind as well that I'm speaking within the parameters of a capitalist system.

Objects/items/etc. are not inherently useful, because useful is an egomorphic, Human-oriented term. Say we have a hamburger sitting in front of us, on a bun, with lettuce, tomato, the whole deal. We understand that object on the basis that it is potential food/sustenance for us. It's useful to us because we need food.

This use-value is not a character trait of the object itself. It's a trait we, as humans in need of it, attribute to it. It alone (w/o humans) does not have the use-value of food.

Now, let's not get so anti-humanist. Say there are still people and the burger is in demand. People are hungry, they need food. A burger possesses no use-value for its owner who is willing to sell it; otherwise s/he would not sell it. It only possesses use-value for those who are willing to buy it. Therefore, an exchange must take place, and this exchange must take place before any use-value of the burger is realized. The buyer must put something up in exchange for the burger, something that is accepted as equal in value to the burger: money. Does money possess the use-value of a burger? No, not at all. Something that is utterly different from an item's use-value is being realized during this exchange, and Marx qualifies it as the exchange-value.

This exchange value functions as a symbol, and commodities must be dealt with as this value before they can be consumed as a use-value. When you buy a burger, you don't say: "That burger is the equivalent of my hunger's needs" (or, you might, but that won't get you anywhere). You have to say: "That burger is the equivalent of $1.99" (or whatever). You equate $1.99 with your hunger, but this is an arbitrary, merely symbolic equation. You have to recognize the product as an exchange-value before you can realize its use-value.

A good distinction to be aware of for sure, but recall that you said:

Oil has no intrinsic value despite the fact that it's necessary for our society to function.

...

Money, oil, and diamonds all function symbolically within a system of exchange.

Within the context of our original discussion, you appeared to be grouping oil with money in the set of commodities with no potential use-value (I don't know if "potential use-value" is a kosher term or not but I'm gonna roll with it), which I assume you did not mean to do but which would have been pretty clear to you if you had been thinking in terms of the informal language of the discussion rather than the formal language of Marx.

So, to restate my original claim in (hopefully accurate) formal language: oil has potential use-value, and money does not.

What Dodens was trying to argue was different in that his claim (if I interpret correctly, of which there is never a guarantee for someone of such intricate and unfathomable intelligence as Dodens) was "oil is not a basic necessity for survival", not "oil has no potential use-value that can be applied toward survival". In the modern world, of course, it would be pretty difficult for all of the people alive today to continue surviving without petroleum products.

 

[skeptik]

That is sort of what I was saying, although not entirely. The position was more that money and oil are essential for the maintenance of the societal structures that have been established over the evolution of human history, and this is irrefutable. What I was saying would be something closer to that money and oil did not have to fill this role; rather, we found that they could be useful and decided to use them, but we didn't have to. But just because we found a use for them does not mean that they have intrinsic, inherent worth within them, but rather relative to human action, like diamonds.

 

[Krow]

Awkward moment of the day:

Ex gf I'm "not supposed to talk to" but I do here and there, nothing bad, bought me a month of netflix.

 

[Einherjar86]

Within the context of our original discussion, you appeared to be grouping oil with money in the set of commodities with no potential use-value (I don't know if "potential use-value" is a kosher term or not but I'm gonna roll with it), which I assume you did not mean to do but which would have been pretty clear to you if you had been thinking in terms of the informal language of the discussion rather than the formal language of Marx.

Ah. Didn't realize it came off that way.

You're right that oil has use-value; but it's only recognized through its exchange-value. That's all I meant to suggest. We acknowledge oil's use-value in terms of how much we are willing to pay for it. That's how it functions in a symbolic system.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

That is sort of what I was saying, although not entirely. The position was more that money and oil are essential for the maintenance of the societal structures that have been established over the evolution of human history, and this is irrefutable. What I was saying would be something closer to that money and oil did not have to fill this role; rather, we found that they could be useful and decided to use them, but we didn't have to. But just because we found a use for them does not mean that they have intrinsic, inherent worth within them, but rather relative to human action, like diamonds.

Human value, unlike diamonds.


Yes, actually we did have to use them as far as human life and self preservation is concerned. The use of oil saves lives, oil helps us towards human progression and knowledge etc.... diamonds are...... aesthetics, no more,no less.

Prior to World War II platinum engagement rings were all the rage but the demand for platinum for the war ended that. The campaign launched be de Beers in 1947 featured the slogan "A diamond is forever" and the idea caught on with the help of jewelers who began to push diamond wedding rings. DeBeers (and their ad agency N.W. Ayer & Son) pounded it into the head of every American that: a) When getting engaged, the woman should receive a diamond engagement ring, and b) when purchasing a ring, it should be worth at least two months salary for the man.

The writings of Herodotus record the fact tahat "rock oil" (petroleum) was being used for various purposes including lamp lighting in the 5th centruy BC, and probably it was used before that too.

It's a clear case of Need vs. Want.

 

[skeptik]

You can use any example you want, but it doesn't change the fact that oil is not a necessary condition for human life. "Need" and "have to" at the very core essence of humanity, do not apply to "oil usage". No other species "uses" oil, or for that matter, money, or diamonds, to survive, so why would one assume that the human animal couldn't? Obviously (I assume) you do not assume that, so what you're probably hung up on is the conception of the civilization that we already have in place. Again, I was never speaking in the present tense, whether it's about money, diamonds, or oil. My point is simply that oil and money and diamonds are useful for our society, not necessary, and that the value of these things is not intrinsic, but extrinsic and relative to ourselves.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's a clear case of Need vs. Want.

Don't you think that both of these still imply "use" though? If people want something, it's useful for them.

 

[entanglement]

So I moved to a Macbook pro portable computer after about 17 years of staying away from Apple. Its a bitter sweet change.. I'm happy about things like the build quality, the perfomance, the clean and nice interface. But at the same time, I miss the control and customizability of a linux machine. I guess its a matter of getting used to. But so far, its not so bad.

 

[Onder]

So I moved to a Macbook pro portable computer after about 17 years of staying away from Apple. Its a bitter sweet change.. I'm happy about things like the build quality, the perfomance, the clean and nice interface. But at the same time, I miss the control and customizability of a linux machine. I guess its a matter of getting used to. But so far, its not so bad.

Same as you, I have a macbook pro since december. You'll get used to it very fast.

 

[entanglement]

Same as you, I have a macbook pro since december. You'll get used to it very fast.

Plus the chicks love it. Woo!