You may or may not understand this, but some of us actually find enjoyment in the act of improvement. And who said that everyone is supposed to hold this view?
Sure I do, and I even enjoy it myself. If I didn’t, why would I bother sharing all this? However, it seems like enjoyment isn’t enough for Der Trihs, and I’m wondering what more he could want. In the end, it’s how you feel about life that counts, no matter how you do it.
Besides, it seems (though I might be wrong) that he thinks it’s wrong of me to want nothing but enjoyment, so I’m curious of what moral demands he has for my life. I’m eager to do my duty if it’s reasonable!
Oh, and about everyone holding his view: I make it a point not to have principles that wouldn’t be good even if everyone shared them. So I can’t see why he should feel so strongly for doing something which wouldn’t help if everyone did it. Of course not everyone does, but I like to be particular about my principles. Or really, principle: that the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness. (I’m not an utilitarianist, however)
While Saint Bricker may expound on the law (which I’m sure keeps him well-fed), the reality is that the most of us lead ordinary lives. As I once explained in a previous thread: (#39). if my girlfriend could have tried to charge me with rape because she’d come home off the town with her cousin drunk, (however unlikely that would be, though it happened twice), the jurors would just laugh it off it in an hour or so. (And his clients would pay him as little as possible.)
Niether is enjoyment simply enough for me. And as for the bold statement above, that is simply your opinion about the purpose of life, you can’t force it on others any more thann Der Trihs or myself can force you to accept our view of life.
Also, I cannot speak for him, but as for myself, I have no moral demands on your life other than you respect my life.
Again, you are applying your personal view of happiness on someone else, and wondering why he doesn’t share your views. Perhaps he, like mysef, doesn’t hold as a principle that what I find “good” or “right” isn’t based on whether or not, hypothetically, everyone held the same view or took the same courses of action. In fact, my views are precisely the opposite: my basis of what is “good” and “right” for me is that everyone has different views on the subject and will act differently in how they pursue life.
We stratify ourselves by the choices we make. The leaders lead, the improvers improve, and the hedonists jump on the caboos for the ride.
It’s not my intention to force my view on anyone, I just didn’t think I needed an “I think…” before each sentence. I assumed that by repeating that I try to live my life independent of anyone else (and according to my philosophy of life, that’s the “only” right thing to do), you’d understand that in the end I don’t care how anyone else lives their life, don’t intend to judge anyone, and I’m just trying to discuss the matter at hand.
By the way, after all this I should perhaps stress that there is no conflict between me believing there is an ultimately right way to live life and not judging others, or trying to force them to live life my way. I’m still a determinist and believe life goes on as it must. It’s like throwing a dice, I want it to be a 6, but I don’t get angry with it for showing a 1.
However, I’ve still to hear an explanation why life’s about anything but enjoyment.
Under your principles, people should just suck up bad situations and make the best out of everything. Do you think the slaves should have just been content to pick cotton and sing in the fields. After all, life is about enjoyment, and as long as they work hard and don’t mouth off (and why would they, that would be impeding the happy flow of life) and let massa take their kids away when they’re grown, they have a pretty good life. After all, life is sweet if you let it be.
There are some of us who realize that freedom from oppression is more important than “happiness.” Because personally, I think a slave who was happy with his life (and not just sporadically happy, but totally content with everything, wouldn’t change a thing) would be living in a delusional state. Invasion of privacy isn’t as bad as slavery. But I think that anyone who would shrug it off and say “hoodle-hee-hoo, who gives a care?” is also being delusional. Most of us (well, depending on the amount of privilege you have) don’t think about the ways in which we’re oppressed all the time. But to refuse to acknowledge it at all, and to not dream of the ways in which it could be better, is to undermine the foundations of civilization itself. Under your principles, we would still be living in caves. After all, cavemen were happy campers.
I suppose yelimS wouldn’t mind then, if someone were to publish ALL personal and private info on the web. Home address, phone number, financial info, credit records, sexual preferences (with photos), any rule breaking (traffic citations, felonies, anything and everything), and all the same info about relatives and acquaintences too. After all, nothing should be private. It’s no big deal.
To me it would be. But, this thread is going no where.
Who cares about delusions? If it seems real to you, or if it’s what you experience, then that’s all there is to it. And undermining the foundations of society? What’s society supposed to acchieve? Everything you care about will wither away whatever you do, I don’t see why you should worry about it, too.
By that logic you should just overdose yourself on narcotics then, and die young but happy. Happiness alone is only good enough if you’re a cow; I have somewhat higher ambitions. Not to mention, you’re setting yourself up for long term disaster if you “solve” problems by pretending they don’t exist.
Friend Bricker, you have said things I have disagreed with on many occasions, but you have always done so in such a way that disagreeing with you was generally a perilous thing to do. This is the first time I’ve ever seen you do the rhetorical equivlaent of dropping trou and grabbing you ankles.
So, an opportunity like this cannot be passed up …
Welcome to the world of stupid laws!
Looking forward to your defense of ALL OF these as clearly anticipatible…
I got nothin’ but just wanted to say welcome back!
Works for me! 
And, as I’ve been asking for the last posts… w h a t a r e t h e s e a m b i t i o n s ?
How about not getting killed by doing dangerously stupid things and pretending they aren’t dangerous ? How about not being scammed out of all I own because I’m too busy singing “Don’t worry, be happy” ? How about not making an utter idiot of myself ?
You’re not making sense. Making an utter idiot of oneself isn’t conducive to happiness, so not doing so isn’t an ambition separate from pursuing happiness.
Those aren’t ends, they’re means.
Not getting killed: If that’s your objective in life, good luck.
Owning things: I’m sure that’s profoundly satisfying to you, and a good excuse for living, but please explain to me WHY it is.
Not making an utter idiot of yourself: If you were to be such an utter idiot, how would you know?
There’s one thing that stays with you all your life: your experience of it. Is making it a good one really such a bad idea? And remember, you’re welcome to explain WHY it is.
And PLEASE don’t think I don’t understand that ignoring problems won’t make me a fortune, or keep me young forever. But you don’t experience your fortune, or even your youth the same way you experience what they do to you. And if an obedient mind can do the same for you, why bother?
I’m not Bricker, nor do I play him on television, and I’m not even a lawyer. But that site is dumb. I clicked Alabama, being the alphabetically first state and ignored the laws without references. Let’s see:
“Bear wrestling matches are prohibited”. Well duh. Anyone surprised by this?
“Incestuous marriages are legal”. Unless I’m totally misreading the legalese, that’s not what the law says. It says that the children of incestuous marriages are not to be considered illegitimate.
“It is illegal to impersonate a person of the clergy”. Who’s surprised?
“It is illegal to maim oneself to escape duty”. Again, who’s surprised?
“Dominoes may not be played on Sunday”. This is not what the law says. While the law doesn’t seem to be a paragon of sensible lawmaking, it doesn’t even mention dominoes.
“Women are able to retain all property they owned prior to marriage in the case of divorce. However, this provision does not apply to men”. Again, that’s not what the law says. It says that the property of the wife that she held previous to the marriage is separate property. It doesn’t say anything about the husband’s property at all.
“It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle”. Seriously, how can anyone consider this a dumb law? If there is anyone who’s surprised by the existence of this law, I hope they run afoul of some other law they weren’t aware of and whose existence they couldn’t deduce (say, the law against armed robbery) so they’re put somewhere safe for them and others.
I can’t help noticing that all the really dumb-seeming laws on this site lack references. Gee, I wonder why?
Man, I was actually feeling good until I read this. What a bring-down! And people think I’M the one that’s depressing! I’m gonna go shoot myself in the head now…
Seriously, do you have any empathy at all for other people? Or are you a solipsist? Because if you’re a solipsist there’s no point in engaging further.
From your cite:
I’m happy to address individual claims, but I’m not going to debunk every silly law from a site that doesn’t even claim everything they say is a law is actually a law.