Posts by Larry Diaz24

Greetings!
I am reaching out to ask if some kind, benevolent soul might be willing to issue a permanent ban on my account, effectively ensuring that I can no longer participate 😁 in any discussions whatsoever!

Furthermore, if it happens to be feasible to delete my profile entirely... 😁

But really, thank you all in advance! 🙂

ironmarlin1 said:For my part, I find it quite easy to conclude that it would be better to give money to someone who needs to buy schoolbooks for their children rather than using it to buy myself a pair of shoes. If you spent days working tirelessly to earn the money for those shoes, I don't see how that should shift my assessment that the funds would be better utilized helping someone else meet a more pressing need. Consequently, one could argue it would be immoral to withhold assistance from someone in dire need just because you've decided to prioritize your own desire for a new pair of footwear.

Now, let us consider a scenario where you possess and believe in certain virtues because you think they will pay off—either through material satisfaction (meaning, you won't steal or act dishonestly, but rather work honestly to earn money) or in a non-material sense (the smiles, the approval, the admiration, and the gratitude of others because you help them instead of spending money on yourself). It doesn't necessarily mean that the distinction between these two types of "rewards" is mutually exclusive. One can accompany the other, acting as either the primary goal or a secondary consequence. Thus, if viewed through that lens, those virtues could hold instrumental value for you, even without possessing intrinsic value.

And now, if they possess exclusively intrinsic value—if you honor a virtue solely for its own sake because you believe it holds inherent worth—then you would likely have to be some sort of Socrates in today's world. And in my estimation, that would mean you wouldn't function in society at all.

Again, even the distinction between instrumental and intrinsic value isn't strictly exclusive.

I find it incredibly difficult to speak in generalities. A person truly decides only when they are confronted with the situation itself. Any decision made *a priori* carries the danger that those decisions and principles will be betrayed, causing the person proclaiming them to lose all credibility.
Take one situation: I take my hard-earned money and head straight to the store to spend it on myself; not necessarily all of it, mind you. However, the narrative shifts entirely if, on my way to the store, I encounter a homeless woman with her child and decide to give her some money, say $6.75.
Must I, when I wish to indulge myself, step back while contemplating the misery of the world surrounding me and ask myself what I deserve to be rewarded with, while someone else does not? Or can I act morally—even if I allow myself a reward—without such an action losing its essence? That is to say, without it becoming what I have termed "hypocritical honesty," and without losing its authenticity and credibility? 🤷

ironmarlin1 said:There’s actually a rather compelling case to be made against this whole notion of "local" honesty. You see, when a person acts, they generally operate under the assumption that they possess a sound judgment regarding what ought to be done; otherwise, why bother acting at all? There are certain philosophical debates swirling around this concept that might seem a bit pedantic, but they aren't entirely irrelevant to the point I'm making. Take Velleman, for instance, who explores this here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/8336949/The-Guise-of-the-Good. If an individual thinks and acts sub specie boni, then the only logical reason for them to refuse someone else's money would be if they were genuinely stumped as to how to utilize it. Yet, we know that people who return lost cash to its owner don't do so simply because they're facing a sudden crisis of financial planning. Therefore, one could argue that returning the money is actually immoral, insofar as the agent isn't acting in accordance with their best possible judgment.

I welcome your rebuttals.😁

Well, I always have an idea of what I would do if I suddenly had cash in my hands...😁 I'll always have some sort of plan, maybe thinking about a specific piece of clothing I could finally afford or something along those lines... perhaps it isn't the most perfect illustration... but the real question is, what constitutes a "best judgment"? Is it something that can be determined by an outside observer, or is it something exclusively held by the agent acting within that specific situation?🤷

But, it isn't quite the same thing when you're holding money you know you haven't "earned," compared to money you know you earned through your own grit, your sweat, your long hours of hard work... It’s a similar dilemma to when someone gives you a gift, say for a birthday or some other occasion; it's certainly welcome, but you find yourself wondering, "By what merit did I earn this?" though, I suppose that is a bit of a tangent since we started out just talking about money...

Anyway, this concept you call "local" honesty... hmm, it triggers just as many moral quandaries as any other kind of honesty... I'm not entirely sure what the deciding factor is...🤔...but...

I honestly find myself wondering if anyone can actually survive in a world obsessed with these rigid binaries—you know, the whole "you’re either a saint or a scoundrel" mentality. It feels impossible. If you represent one extreme or the other, you're doomed. In reality, life isn't black and white; it's a spectrum. We exist in the gray areas. Personally, I would choose to be an honest person, but with a sense of pragmatism—let's call it being an honest person who knows when to protect their own interests. Now, some might argue, "Is that even possible? Isn't a truly honest person someone who always acts to their own detriment?" Well, I beg to differ... I could offer a couple of scenarios from my own life, if they serve as useful illustrations...
Imagine this: a person walking ahead of you drops a $17 bill. You spot it immediately, but they have no clue. You pick it up and chase them down to hand it back, even though you could have easily pocketed it. No one saw you, not even the person who lost it. One could argue you've harmed yourself because you missed out on that spontaneous trip for coffee and pastries fueled by those sudden $17, but you returned the money anyway. You do it because you realize it might be the last bit of cash they have, and more importantly, it just doesn't feel right to take something that clearly belongs to someone else. (Of course, a different debate entirely would arise if you found a bill on a random street corner where the owner is unknown, or perhaps a bag stuffed with cash and no way to identify the owner)
Here is another example. A friend calls you; they’ve just been released from a psychiatric facility after treatment, and you are currently buried in textbooks preparing for a massive final exam at your university. They need to talk, they need to be heard, and they trust you to listen because you’re a reliable friend. But you? You desperately need to pass this exam, and you find yourself questioning why you should have to sacrifice your own needs for someone else's crisis. You might tell yourself—quite harshly—that this person brought this on themselves through years of addiction, and why should you be forced to carry the weight of their mistakes or shoulder their cross when you aren't responsible for them? Life can be incredibly cruel to me too, yet I don't ask others to bear my burdens. In that specific scenario, an egoistic choice would be to decline the call and stay home to study.

Looking back at these examples, it's clear I'm not quite that "measured honest person" I described. Perhaps I am more of a hypocritical honest person—someone who maintains a reputation for integrity when there's a risk of being caught, but tilts toward self-interest in other moments. Though, I must admit, I would probably return a bag full of cash if I found it—isn't that a strange contradiction?😕

Ultimately, regarding the question of whether one path is better than the other... I simply don't know. The circumstances and the various situations we face throughout our lives are what truly shape us. I don't have a definitive answer for you.🤷

Honestly, I find those folks on the right absolutely hilarious! At least they give me a good laugh whenever I stumble upon their posts!🤣

The absolute peak of it all is when they try to discredit anyone they disagree with by slapping on some trendy little label—calling someone a nostalgic relic, a communist sympathizer, or some other chic little insult to make them sound outdated.😍

And of course, they just love nothing more than tearing down the usual suspects: Victoria Nuland, Gerald Ford, or even Joe Biden... It’s always the same list of names blamed for why America isn't quite the version of America they have in their heads.🙄

Well, my first thought was "ALTERA PARS"—an association dedicated to promoting civic culture and grassroots entrepreneurship. Looking at the sheer variety of interests your organization encompasses, I noticed most of them seem tied up in various government-run initiatives. So, by positioning yourselves as an alternative, you’re essentially representing civil strength and a unique vision of how society ought to function and interact. That’s why you’re called Altera Pars, or "the other side"... ANYWAY, I HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE!😉

"Realer forum users," you say, 😕

But really, what is there to even intelligently comment on here? It’s just a carnival of idiots! Honestly, if only all those political bottom-feeders—led by Žužul, of course—would just pack their bags and get out of this country. They can go find themselves some daughters-in-law or sons-in-law out in the United States or wherever else for all I care, as long as they vanish! 😠

I am sick to death of the sheer stupidity and having to sit through such nonsense! And the absolute peak of it was that moron Miomirko when he was over at Stanković's place, trying to explain the "context" of a little segment—as if!—within that one sentence (you know, the Harmon one regarding "supposedly guaranteeing human rights")! Just look at how much nonsense he's spewed; it explains perfectly why he managed to pull off a career in American politics—you don't need a brain for that, just a loud mouth and the ability to bulldoze through, while the mindless masses just sit there listening!

graniteowl88, honey, I’m starting to think you just can't get me out of your head! Seriously, it’s happening on every single live thread—even when I haven't even posted, you find a way to drag my name into your commentary! What is everyone going to think? That I joined this forum just to lecture a bunch of wannabe "politicians" on a message board? 🤷😕
Look, I just have a genuine passion for politics, plain and simple.☕
Honestly, you could probably use a bucket of ice water right about now just to cool off a little bit, don't you think?🙄

graniteowl88 said:

Who is happy that Mojmir had a son with an American?

I didn't realize he had such a beautiful daughter. That "son" actually seems like a good match for Larry Diaz24 at first glance. Maybe he is a decent guy after all.🤷

You think so? Well, damn, the man's already married! I guess I'll just have to go digging around and see if there's a brother or something similar out there!🙄

Jesus, that newborn is just... I honestly don't even have the words. And then you see people complaining about us North American guys... Well, look, beauty isn't everything, I suppose.😂