Originally posted by KazetNagorraAre you going to force housewifes to do extra work now?
I don't think this is easily established, but I commented earlier:
"Well, people don't need to work 100 hours per week. But they at least have to have some good intentions, there must be good balance between hedonism and morality."
Housewifes don't just stay all day watching TV, you know?
They have to clean the house, do the cooking, etc.
I used to think like you when I was younger, but I was wrong, and I found out that it must be very hard to be a housewife, after all housewifes are the ones responsible for a strong family unit.
Originally posted by generalissimoThis is the basis for his despicable philosophy.
Are you going to force housewifes to do extra work now?
Housewifes don't just stay all day watching TV, you know?
They have to clean the house, do the cooking, etc.
I used to think like you when I was younger, but I was wrong, and I found out that it must be very hard to be a housewife, after all housewifes are the ones responsible for a strong family unit.
Society owns you.
KN is part of society.
KN owns you.
...or that portion which blah blah blah.
Originally posted by WajomaYep. By virtue of joining the group of individuals KN calls society, KN has gained a right he did not have before - the right to your labor.
This is the basis for his despicable philosophy.
Society owns you.
KN is part of society.
KN owns you.
...or that portion which blah blah blah.
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoAre you being deliberately stupid, or am I simply not clear enough?
Are you going to force housewifes to do extra work now?
Housewifes don't just stay all day watching TV, you know?
They have to clean the house, do the cooking, etc.
I used to think like you when I was younger, but I was wrong, and I found out that it must be very hard to be a housewife, after all housewifes are the ones responsible for a strong family unit.
I will repeat it once again: (the fifth time, maybe?)
I do NOT want to force housewives (without children or with grown-up children) to work! I think they are MORALLY OBLIGED to do so, and return something to the people from which they are taking, EVEN IF her husband (or someone else) is providing the equivalent work for it.
Is it clear now?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraShe is not morally obliged to society.
Are you being deliberately stupid, or am I simply not clear enough?
I will repeat it once again: (the fifth time, maybe?)
I do [b]NOT want to force housewives (without children or with grown-up children) to work! I think they are MORALLY OBLIGED to do so, and return something to the people from which they are taking, EVEN IF her husband (or someone else) is providing the equivalent work for it.
Is it clear now?[/b]
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI understand what you said, moron.
Are you being deliberately stupid, or am I simply not clear enough?
I will repeat it once again: (the fifth time, maybe?)
I do [b]NOT want to force housewives (without children or with grown-up children) to work! I think they are MORALLY OBLIGED to do so, and return something to the people from which they are taking, EVEN IF her husband (or someone else) is providing the equivalent work for it.
Is it clear now?[/b]
You're wrong, nobody is morally obliged to do anything they don't want to do.
GET OVER IT.
2 edits
Originally posted by generalissimoC'mon generalissimo, I wasn't comparing housewives and paedophiles, I was showing why your argument was flawed with a reductio ad absurdum.
no, paedofiles should be in jail, or better, in a grave.
edit- c'mon kazet! you can't compare housewifes to peadofiles, housewifes are not mentally ill, nor criminals.
But I can give another example. Suppose you see a baby drowning in a pool, would you not feel morally obliged to rescue the baby? If so, would you think it's fine if someone else would not feel morally obliged to do so?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYeah, but the thing is, housewifes are not in that position.
C'mon generalissimo, I wasn't comparing housewives and paedophiles, I was showing why your argument was flawed with a reductio ad absurdum.
But I can give another example. Suppose you see a baby drowning in a pool, would you not feel morally obliged to rescue the baby? If so, would you think it's fine if someone else would not feel morally obliged to do so?
Your example can't be compared to housewifes not doing extra work.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBecause, for the fifth time, society did not provide them, individuals within society did.
Why do you believe so?
Are you a disciple of the popular lefty fallacy that there is only one cake and we're all scrambling for our piece?
btw, it's not a belief, it's an "I know."
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI got news for you, my wife is a stay at home mom, and she works
Probably, but I never said housewives should be forced to work. I just said it was the right thing to do, because they are taking things from others and it makes perfect sense to me to give something in return if you are able.
very hard.
Kelly
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe house wife raises her kids, the house wife makes sure the home
I have read Bastiats essay. What in this case is being 'destroyed' is the production factors assigned for the production of the goods and services consumed by the housewife. If everyone was out of work like the housewife, the economy would collapse. Hence, the housewife is not contributing to the economy by spending.
is a home, the house wife adds a great value to society. You attack
something very important, because you do not see the worth.
Kelly