Skip to main content

View Diary: Everyone's A Hooker (23 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Really? I know of no one...no one...who has not... (6+ / 0-)

    Really?

    I know of no one...no one...who has not had to do something in their line of work that....conflicted...with their morals. No one.

    As soon as we accept payment from others for services rendered we become whores.

    •  Thank you ktboundary. (6+ / 0-)

      That is pretty much what I was trying to convey.

    •  Money is nothing but a tangible symbol of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes, beagleowned

      compensation deferred. Give and take are the essence of exchange, a capability of which perhaps only humans are cognizant. Other organisms engage in give and take, but have no cogmizance of the process. The bee, for example, does not know that in collecting pollen it is aiding the flower's reproduction.
      Some humans, it seems, are not capable of recognizing change or compensation. It's possible that the recognition of any process involving time depends on a sense of time, which is a sense that not all humans have. So, they don't get process. They don't get connections. They don't get behaviors whose completion is not immediate. All they get is that actions are prompted, like a switch turning on the light, and they see the prompt as an integral component of the act. So, they see the promise of compensation, or the expectation, as core. This explains the Cons' reliance on "incentives."  Their incentives are like magical incantations. The right word will prompt the desired behavior. Instead of "if you build it, they will come," they just "say the word."

      If one thinks of words as incentives, then it is impossible to lie. Because, words aren't being used to describe reality, but to influence someone's behavior. Incentives aim to influence behavior, but have nothing to do with compensation. A promise of reward is complete when the act it prompts is carried out. There is no need to deliver because it has served its purpose.
      That humans are self-directed and compromise their own preference when they act as someone else directs does not enter into the Cons' thinking. They don't perceive of an autonomous self. Prompt and response is all they see. Indeed, that's what they mean by "personal responsibility" -- that persons are entities that respond to prompts. There is no free will providing self direction. The only option for responsible persons is to respond to prompts, or not. "Not" is what the 'party of no' opts for.  It's an entirely consistent world view.
      I used to think they'd given up free will on purpose, but now I suspect some people just aren't aware of it. They respond to prompts automatically, without thinking, and develop habits that keep them ticking in accordance with their environment. Which works well, as long as the environment doesn't change.
      Change is a threat. "Not change we can believe in" is a statement of fact. They don't believe in change 'cause they can't see it. "Seeing is believing" = we only believe what we can see.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site