[Julian]

just because people do not have biologically or cybernetically linked neurological systems does not mean that they cannot identify shared experience and mutual interest and organise collectively to advance those.

methodological individualism is in any case not sufficient as an argument against socialism. individuals can come to their own conclusions about the need for a degree of collective ownership and democratic governance through a variety of experiences.

[Aidand]

Well come on, that means people should be excused from communicating themselves.

People aren't mind readers

Well if was reading you correctly it seems to me you say thats a negative feature of socialism that leads us to be ostracised because they have to tell people about their inner feelings. I was pointing out thats par for the course anyway.

How did you come to this conclusion? You pursuing your utility preference might compete with me pursuing my utility preference, but neither of us has the right to tell the other not to compete. If we get to know each other, we could cooperate, but cooperation enforced by a threat of consumer habits isn't valuable. It relegates us to robots who supposedly don't have self-control, and without that, the fulfillment of our utility preferences becomes meaningless. Robots are not an ends unto themselves.

My reason clearly states that through the medium of commodoties people can avoid those caring situations or getting to know each other as you put it. That and the actual incidents of industries threatening other peoples freedoms are where I get my conclusion from.
Secondly I think that the right to compete is pretty morally dubious. Is that only competition through commodities or other forms like pickaxing skulls? Even if it was just the first case if caused great harm like starving and driving and keeping generations of people in poverty would that be moral. Would community poverty even be competition? That seems a bit like a 'though shit' conclusion as you put it.
I agree with your statements about co-operation such as in more deliberative forms of government. I don't really agree that acknowledging the 'threat' of consumer habits relegates us to robots. In fact a situation where we can accurately assess all of the affects of our consumption and production actually gives us more control and even develope more diverse reasons for making choices. Including this new humane element. Its a self aware consumer asserting environmental and physical affects rather than the want have consumer you highlight.

Empathy comes about from realizing mutual tastes, so I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion either. This includes necessities since various necessities and paths to acquiring necessities exist.

To be honest I think thats its pretty unusual to question my conclusions and assert that about empathy without any reasons or evidence. If your are going to hold me to those standards you should probably meet them yourself.
Anyway why would it just be shared tastes and not shared struggles, life experiences and share voice in directing society. The families and friends clearly have shared or mutual values and daily struggles. What would make a farmer more likely to relate to anothers feelings through their taste for spaghetti rather than their similar values, struggle and community struggle. It s pretty unusual to sweepingly exclude all these other forms of mutuality without without any reasons to get you there.
However we don't just have to directly share things we can share them through dialogue, understanding, and the fact the people share basic feelings. This links to the earlier point about co-operate versus pure commodity exchange of course.

[Daktoria]

just because people do not have biologically or cybernetically linked neurological systems does not mean that they cannot identify shared experience and mutual interest and organise collectively to advance those.

I agree, but mutual identification, interests, and organization are abstract subjective, not concrete objective, premises.

Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat and permanent revolution, on the other hand, demand objectification.

methodological individualism is in any case not sufficient as an argument against socialism. individuals can come to their own conclusions about the need for a degree of collective ownership and democratic governance through a variety of experiences.

Again, I agree, but the premise was that socialism is a rational strategy which demands methodological individualism since rationality takes place at the microscopic, not macroscopic, level. The idea of rationality emerging at the macroscopic level question begs the value of its foundations. Ergo, why (and how) bother caring about the standard of living of people? A macroscopic rationality emergence could degrade standard of living all it wants.

[Daktoria]

My reason clearly states that through the medium of commodoties people can avoid those caring situations or getting to know each other as you put it. That and the actual incidents of industries threatening other peoples freedoms are where I get my conclusion from.

This is wrong though because objects must be interpreted in order to have value, interpretation which can take place over a variety of paths.

You're assuming everyone will evaluate commodities the same way which isn't necessarily the case.

Secondly I think that the right to compete is pretty morally dubious. Is that only competition through commodities or other forms like pickaxing skulls? Even if it was just the first case if caused great harm like starving and driving and keeping generations of people in poverty would that be moral. Would community poverty even be competition? That seems a bit like a 'though shit' conclusion as you put it.

Competition does not include degrading the identity of other competitors. If you degrade another's self, then you beg the question of the value of your own self.

However, when another self-objectifies (as in the case of socialism where a socialist admits to being an object), that person has surrendered sense of self meaning that person has relegated interpretation of identity to others.

I agree with your statements about co-operation such as in more deliberative forms of government. I don't really agree that acknowledging the 'threat' of consumer habits relegates us to robots. In fact a situation where we can accurately assess all of the affects of our consumption and production actually gives us more control and even develope more diverse reasons for making choices. Including this new humane element. Its a self aware consumer asserting environmental and physical affects rather than the want have consumer you highlight.

Accurate assessment is fundamentally a subjective action though which (like with mediums of commodities as you put it) can take place along a variety of paths. Literally, nature does not assess itself. We cannot even read scientific knowledge about the universe from instantaneous observation. In order to become scientifically knowledgeable, we have to conduct experiments and then subjectively establish a burden of proof.

To be honest I think thats its pretty unusual to question my conclusions and assert that about empathy without any reasons or evidence. If your are going to hold me to those standards you should probably meet them yourself.

You can't really expect evidence for this. That'd be like asking someone, "Prove that you love me." You can't "prove" love. Tokens of appreciation can be exchanged, but it's impossible to demonstrate appreciation beyond all shadow of a doubt. Fundamentally, that's what love is about - taking a leap of faith on trust alone, and through mutually subjective, intuitive analysis, coming to the same conclusions about a relationship's structure.

Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that multiple people will subjectively and intuitively recognize a relationship the same way. Love can be hit or miss. Part of the experience is in choosing how to gamble (which is why socialism ruins relationships - it both forces people to gamble and to gamble certain ways).

Anyway why would it just be shared tastes and not shared struggles, life experiences and share voice in directing society.

Struggles are negative, not positive, memories. Short of vanity, they breed hatred, not love; even with vanity, that love is dependent upon hatred, or at least neglect, of third parties who become obligated to support it from the outside.

The families and friends clearly have shared or mutual values and daily struggles.

Families can also be dysfunctional, and friendship does not always sustain over time.

What would make a farmer more likely to relate to anothers feelings through their taste for spaghetti rather than their similar values, struggle and community struggle. It s pretty unusual to sweepingly exclude all these other forms of mutuality without without any reasons to get you there.

This is where the limits of love come in.

Unfortunately, people are not mind readers. For example, I could say the word "happiness" and the PARTICULAR interpretation that evokes from you is not necessarily the interpretation it evokes from me. Likewise, I could say the word "struggle" and the PARTICULAR interpretation that evokes from you is not necessarily the interpretation it evokes from me.

The only way we can mutually arrive at an understanding of values, therefore, is to consider ALL POSSIBLE PARTICULAR interpretations.

However, that isn't something which can take place under political economy because economics involve opportunity costs. Economics involve making ONE PARTICULAR interpretation for any dedication of resources (one brick can't be built into two walls).

Therefore, socialism is a false expression of love because it aims to achieve not only what's unlikely, but what's also impossible.

[Aidand]

I fail to see how interpretation at all preclude thats commodities are a way in which people can avoid caring relationships. If had have said all people can avoid maybe what you said could be true. However their is also evidence that this is actually the case as I have mentioned.

Competition does not include degrading the identity of other competitors. If you degrade another's self, then you beg the question of the value of your own self.

However, when another self-objectifies (as in the case of socialism where a socialist admits to being an object), that person has surrendered sense of self meaning that person has relegated interpretation of identity to others.

I don't think that self value sits so comfortably with competition since if one values themselves for what they have done they could clearly see others as inferior of valueless because they have no done the same. One could easily objectify others and not themselves especially if they do not have to co-operate of communicate with these people outside of commodity form.It is easy in that way to exclude shared meanings and objectify others.

Accurate assessment is fundamentally a subjective action though which (like with mediums of commodities as you put it) can take place along a variety of paths. Literally, nature does not assess itself. We cannot even read scientific knowledge about the universe from instantaneous observation. In order to become scientifically knowledgeable, we have to conduct experiments and then subjectively establish a burden of proof.

It doesn't really matter if its serenly accurate as long as it an improvement on the previous situation where peoples feelings are not tested by methods such as dialogue anyway.

You can't really expect evidence for this. That'd be like asking someone, "Prove that you love me." You can't "prove" love. Tokens of appreciation can be exchanged, but it's impossible to demonstrate appreciation beyond all shadow of a doubt. Fundamentally, that's what love is about - taking a leap of faith on trust alone, and through mutually subjective, intuitive analysis, coming to the same conclusions about a relationship's structure.

Any assertion you make that does not have reasons or evidence behind is just your opinion really.Thats fine if that is all it is. Its not as if you couldn't provide reasons for saying that empathy just involved shared tastes as I have presented reasons to doubt this. You can be as acrobatic as you like in avoiding it

Struggles are negative, not positive, memories. Short of vanity, they breed hatred, not love; even with vanity, that love is dependent upon hatred, or at least neglect, of third parties who become obligated to support it from the outside.

Struggles are negative memories but negative memories and not thinking something is nice are not necessarily bad feelings since they protect us from things. They can also be bound up with understanding from that sharing and trust. More to the point its ambiguous what you mean be struggle it seems that you are refering to things that it might be important if we hate. I struggle against a cold last week. Do I hate and neglect that cold. Maybe but I also might take better care of my health.

Families can also be dysfunctional, and friendship does not always sustain over time.

Yeah so what so can commodities we consumer be and consumer structures. Nothing I said implies that I think these or anything are perfect. Nor do I think that this necessarily is a problem for my argument.

Unfortunately, people are not mind readers. For example, I could say the word "happiness" and the PARTICULAR interpretation that evokes from you is not necessarily the interpretation it evokes from me. Likewise, I could say the word "struggle" and the PARTICULAR interpretation that evokes from you is not necessarily the interpretation it evokes from m

You seem to be proceding under the false assumption that I want to impose a particular kind of happiness on people. I don't believe I ever say anything like that. I talk about more deliberative forms of government to reign in more negative features. Interesting about struggle I think that your interpretation above influences what you think about it. I don't claim to have the definition and I don't think I imply that I want someone to impose such a definition just for people to come agreement through co-operation as we said earlier.

[Daktoria]

I fail to see how interpretation at all preclude thats commodities are a way in which people can avoid caring relationships. If had have said all people can avoid maybe what you said could be true. However their is also evidence that this is actually the case as I have mentioned.

No, there's no evidence that materialism yields relationships.

Yes, there are superficial gold diggers in the world, but they are superficial.

I don't think that self value sits so comfortably with competition since if one values themselves for what they have done they could clearly see others as inferior of valueless because they have no done the same. One could easily objectify others and not themselves especially if they do not have to co-operate of communicate with these people outside of commodity form.It is easy in that way to exclude shared meanings and objectify others.

If you objectify another self, then you're objectifying yourself. Ergo, the whole premise of subjective evaluation goes out the window.

You might not agree with someone else's tastes, but to be self-interested, your focus has to be on taste realization, not tastes themselves. It's "how" that's important, not "what". What is grounded in nature. To call yourself natural would be equal to calling yourself nothing at all.

It doesn't really matter if its serenly accurate as long as it an improvement on the previous situation where peoples feelings are not tested by methods such as dialogue anyway.

Improvement is subjective, feelings are objectifying. You can't completely test feelings through dialogue because different people speak differently when engaged by the same emotions. Likewise, different people bear different emotions when engaging with the same dialogue.

Basically, any ethical system predicated upon emotions is destined for disaster because emotions inevitably yield conflict since different people feel differently from the same experiences. Projecting will doom people to turmoil.

Any assertion you make that does not have reasons or evidence behind is just your opinion really.Thats fine if that is all it is. Its not as if you couldn't provide reasons for saying that empathy just involved shared tastes as I have presented reasons to doubt this. You can be as acrobatic as you like in avoiding it

No... that's not what I was arguing.

What I was arguing was "love" is not something that can be proven, yet socialism demands to treat it that way.

Love is a gamble. When you're forced to gamble, that's when problems arise.

Struggles are negative memories but negative memories and not thinking something is nice are not necessarily bad feelings since they protect us from things. They can also be bound up with understanding from that sharing and trust. More to the point its ambiguous what you mean be struggle it seems that you are refering to things that it might be important if we hate. I struggle against a cold last week. Do I hate and neglect that cold. Maybe but I also might take better care of my health.

Health and protection are irrelevant in themselves though. They're hygiene factors, but they don't actually create happiness. Without happiness, there is no motive to take initiative, only a motive to tolerate existence.

Yeah so what so can commodities we consumer be and consumer structures. Nothing I said implies that I think these or anything are perfect. Nor do I think that this necessarily is a problem for my argument.

When you engage in central planning as in socialism, you're obligated to be perfect because otherwise, you'll betray people who were loyal to your cause.

It's not your right to force people to take risks. The very identity of a person depends upon deciding which risks to take.

You seem to be proceding under the false assumption that I want to impose a particular kind of happiness on people. I don't believe I ever say anything like that. I talk about more deliberative forms of government to reign in more negative features. Interesting about struggle I think that your interpretation above influences what you think about it. I don't claim to have the definition and I don't think I imply that I want someone to impose such a definition just for people to come agreement through co-operation as we said earlier.

It's impossible to have socialism without imposing a particular kind of happiness upon people. Literally, your taxes and subsidies define which types of lifestyles and productivity are permissible versus which are not.

[Aidand]

Yes, there are superficial gold diggers in the world, but they are superficial.

There are more than superficial people in the world their are a superficial relationships. This is more complicated since people don't have to be superficial to have such relationships.In a world where large amounts of people are just connected through commodities they will exist a great deal. With more deliberative forms of governance that can be reduced as has been my argument all along. Rather than just superficial people.
The interpretation of these things for consumption is reduced without this co-operation and deliberation. Since we must use what we know, and value to interpret things. This touchs on another important argument. Since values will necessarily be influenced by the groups that surround and in reality actually are. Large groups will exist beside minorities that have less of a right to consume.

You might not agree with someone else's tastes, but to be self-interested, your focus has to be on taste realization, not tastes themselves. It's "how" that's important, not "what". What is grounded in nature. To call yourself natural would be equal to calling yourself nothing at all

If you look closely my argument did centre on how people satisfy their tastes on how one might see the methods(or the how) of another as inferior rather than their tastes as you put it. Just using competition and that right as it where could easily see people seeing themselves as better competitors as others as inferior even distruptive. That way they could easily see themselves as a different order of self. Its pretty common to see inferior castes created who are considered inferior because they cannot compete as well.

Improvement is subjective, feelings are objectifying. You can't completely test feelings through dialogue because different people speak differently when engaged by the same emotions. Likewise, different people bear different emotions when engaging with the same dialogue.

Basically, any ethical system predicated upon emotions is destined for disaster because emotions inevitably yield conflict since different people feel differently from the same experiences. Projecting will doom people to turmoil.

Again it doesn't matter if its serenly accurate or completely tests something nor do I think that different emotions or different reactions take away from this process. They just help it become more nuance. If people are cleared in the communication and people can definitely be clearer.
I think that even with this there can be general agreement of what is an improvement or disimprovement given that values are shared by people. In fact probably more shared through dialogue than they are now. People would generally agree today that famines and mass exterminations being more common were a disimprovement.
Moreover emotions already exist and people already project them. More dialogue would help decrease that as people explain themselves. Its not as if emotions and communications don't exist today so I don't think the fact people project is a good enough to say not to dialogue. It would be chaos without them alright as people who have brain damage that prevents them from feeling emotions don't know how to act ethically but it might be chaos if they ruled alone but I wouldn't argue for that just a bigger place prevent the kinds of consumer patterns I talk about above and reduce people projecting on others.

Health and protection are irrelevant in themselves though. They're hygiene factors, but they don't actually create happiness. Without happiness, there is no motive to take initiative, only a motive to tolerate existence.

I think you being unusually specific here since my wider point is that hatred is not necessarily packaged with struggle and negative emotions are useful. Even so I think its important to say being healthy certainly makes me happy and I wonder would we even be able to properly define negative without positive in general or experience them. I also think there is an entire generation of women who try and improve happiness through health 'intiative'..

No... that's not what I was arguing.

What I was arguing was "love" is not something that can be proven, yet socialism demands to treat it that way

Well I didn't see an argument at all in the original assertion which was "Empathy comes from realising mutual tastes'. It doesn't say anything about love nor is that any reasons give so its not really an argument. If you are saying the two are the same now then its puzzling to me since you seem to state that there is a factual link between that at tastes. If you can't give reason, and think its impossible, for your assertion, I don't think you should really make it.

It's impossible to have socialism without imposing a particular kind of happiness upon people. Literally, your taxes and subsidies define which types of lifestyles and productivity are permissible versus which are not.

There is a difference between imposing something and imposing limits. These are limits since they simply limit the quantity of things we can have not exactly what we can have. Those limits could arguably exist too, we would want people with lots of child porn because it would be an extremely abusive consumer chain. As discussed limits will be imposed anyway through consumerism and the right to compete. If it those alone those limits would be completely out many peoples control and the allowances could easily be harrowing.

[Daktoria]

There are more than superficial people in the world their are a superficial relationships. This is more complicated since people don't have to be superficial to have such relationships.In a world where large amounts of people are just connected through commodities they will exist a great deal. With more deliberative forms of governance that can be reduced as has been my argument all along. Rather than just superficial people.

Your whole argument is based on mediums of commodities though, so you just admitted you're going to create a world of superficial relationships.

The interpretation of these things for consumption is reduced without this co-operation and deliberation. Since we must use what we know, and value to interpret things. This touchs on another important argument. Since values will necessarily be influenced by the groups that surround and in reality actually are. Large groups will exist beside minorities that have less of a right to consume.

Living among superficial relationships makes it impossible to ascertain cooperation and deliberation take place.

If you look closely my argument did centre on how people satisfy their tastes on how one might see the methods(or the how) of another as inferior rather than their tastes as you put it. Just using competition and that right as it where could easily see people seeing themselves as better competitors as others as inferior even distruptive. That way they could easily see themselves as a different order of self. Its pretty common to see inferior castes created who are considered inferior because they cannot compete as well.

Your argument included communication as a method, but ensnaring people in inferior communication discriminates against talented people. In condemns them to being forced to communicate inferiorly when that could endanger their well being.

Again it doesn't matter if its serenly accurate or completely tests something nor do I think that different emotions or different reactions take away from this process. They just help it become more nuance. If people are cleared in the communication and people can definitely be clearer.
I think that even with this there can be general agreement of what is an improvement or disimprovement given that values are shared by people. In fact probably more shared through dialogue than they are now. People would generally agree today that famines and mass exterminations being more common were a disimprovement.

You're not understanding. Nuances themselves become impossible to integrate compatibly when people experience different emotions.

Moreover emotions already exist and people already project them. More dialogue would help decrease that as people explain themselves. Its not as if emotions and communications don't exist today so I don't think the fact people project is a good enough to say not to dialogue. It would be chaos without them alright as people who have brain damage that prevents them from feeling emotions don't know how to act ethically but it might be chaos if they ruled alone but I wouldn't argue for that just a bigger place prevent the kinds of consumer patterns I talk about above and reduce people projecting on others.

Yes, emotions and communication exist today, but you're assuming communication isn't torture for people who experience emotions differently.

If you're condemned to speaking in a language which does not accurately represent your values or schema, merely speaking with others will be torture.

This is why we have to employ negative rather than positive liberty. No, people should not be allowed to hide from communicating, but people should not be forced to communicate either. The value of personhood is in making choices.

I think you being unusually specific here since my wider point is that hatred is not necessarily packaged with struggle and negative emotions are useful. Even so I think its important to say being healthy certainly makes me happy and I wonder would we even be able to properly define negative without positive in general or experience them. I also think there is an entire generation of women who try and improve happiness through health 'intiative'..

How are you dissociating hatred from struggle. People do not enjoy what afflicts them (unless there's an ulterior motive at hand).

Pain =/= pleasure unless a person is sickheadedly masochistic or sadistic.

Well I didn't see an argument at all in the original assertion which was "Empathy comes from realising mutual tastes'. It doesn't say anything about love nor is that any reasons give so its not really an argument. If you are saying the two are the same now then its puzzling to me since you seem to state that there is a factual link between that at tastes. If you can't give reason, and think its impossible, for your assertion, I don't think you should really make it.

Subjective relationships can only take place as long as subjects are aware of each other. This involves communication through objects, and the only way people can communicate (empathy) is if they have not only preferences, but the same preferences towards certain aesthetics. Without preferences, it becomes impossible to represent approval. Without the same preferences, it becomes impossible to interpret approval.

It isn't the aesthetics themselves which are important, but the values behind aesthetics which are important.

There is a difference between imposing something and imposing limits. These are limits since they simply limit the quantity of things we can have not exactly what we can have. Those limits could arguably exist too, we would want people with lots of child porn because it would be an extremely abusive consumer chain. As discussed limits will be imposed anyway through consumerism and the right to compete. If it those alone those limits would be completely out many peoples control and the allowances could easily be harrowing.

Not only are the limits themselves something, but appropriate quantities are not guaranteed to converge.

This is the problem with communitarianism in general - you assume value convergence, but you don't justify it. Therefore, it can't be expected for others to likewise necessarily appreciate value convergence. Even dialectically speaking, that means synthesis is not guaranteed.

[Aidand]

Your whole argument is based on mediums of commodities though, so you just admitted you're going to create a world of superficial relationships.

Its not really clear what you mean here nor do you explain that conclusion which makes it harder to clarify.My whole argument has been to move beyond a world where commodities are used a large proportion of communication people to less superficial ways of communication.

Your argument included communication as a method, but ensnaring people in inferior communication discriminates against talented people. In condemns them to being forced to communicate inferiorly when that could endanger their well being.

Well its not really either-or as said 'just using competition' could be a destructive force and the communication could help mediate it.

You're not understanding. Nuances themselves become impossible to integrate compatibly when people experience different emotions.

That would be important if it weren't universally true of all systems.

Yes, emotions and communication exist today, but you're assuming communication isn't torture for people who experience emotions differently.

If you're condemned to speaking in a language which does not accurately represent your values or schema, merely speaking with others will be torture.

This is why we have to employ negative rather than positive liberty. No, people should not be allowed to hide from communicating, but people should not be forced to communicate either. The value of personhood is in making choices.

If communication exists today that possible problem could already exist and my point about projection is that without closer attention to deliberation languages would be further apart. That would mean more torture. What I was saying is that you have less control and influence communication.

How are you dissociating hatred from struggle. People do not enjoy what afflicts them (unless there's an ulterior motive at hand).

It seems that you are conflating hatred with things people don't enjoy and pain- or at least you reason support a conclusion that negative emotions are always there but not hatred. I think that its since its a definition of its own its self evident that this is false.The other point is that negative emotions have their usefulness.

Subjective relationships can only take place as long as subjects are aware of each other. This involves communication through objects, and the only way people can communicate (empathy) is if they have not only preferences, but the same preferences towards certain aesthetics. Without preferences, it becomes impossible to represent approval. Without the same preferences, it becomes impossible to interpret approval.

It isn't the aesthetics themselves which are important, but the values behind aesthetics which are important.

It might seem like nitpicking but its important to identify empathy properly for the argument. Communication and empathy are definitely not one in the same. Empathy has its own definition of understanding and knowing how someone feels.
I would not really accept that people can only communicate if they have the same aesthetic preferences(tastes?) and certainly that doesn't have to be case with empathy either since we can understanding something without having a preference for it and we can understand feelings just because we all have them. Understanding is really not the same as approval either. Approval is probably important as well and I would that there are things that people we agree should be approved and disapproved.

Not only are the limits themselves something, but appropriate quantities are not guaranteed to converge.

This is the problem with communitarianism in general - you assume value convergence, but you don't justify it. Therefore, it can't be expected for others to likewise necessarily appreciate value convergence. Even dialectically speaking, that means synthesis is not guaranteed.

Converge with the limit? If so I don't really expect for perfect convergence just reduction.

Secondly I assume that I am being called a communitarian which you say has a problem because they don't identify why values will converge. That could be true about communitarians but you really lack any proof but I understand that would be hard enough to prove. I certainly don't see how you could say thats true of my argument where I repeatedly engaged with that idea when talking about using deliberation and empathy as tools for helping overcome that and talk about how third parties like communities can influence our decusions and values. Moreover I think that most people could agree on certain things like being against mass torture and extermination of people because they are against the hugely negative consequences of that. Some might not value those extremely negative things I mentioned but that doesnt necessarily mean that this is noteworthy especially since if they are not restricted from doing this they are likely to damage more peoples freedoms than their own. This was also one of my justifications for deliberation and communication -to reduce the restrictions on people in their communities and consumption by putting restrictive pressure(emotional and through deliberation) on others.

[Daktoria]

Its not really clear what you mean here nor do you explain that conclusion which makes it harder to clarify.My whole argument has been to move beyond a world where commodities are used a large proportion of communication people to less superficial ways of communication.

Seriously, I don't like when people play stupid.

Originally, I said that superficial relationships came from superficial personalities.

Then, you responded saying superficial relationships can also be based on commodities.

By building a society upon mediums of commodities, you're limiting society to superficial relationships.

Well its not really either-or as said 'just using competition' could be a destructive force and the communication could help mediate it.

That would be important if it weren't universally true of all systems.

Converge with the limit? If so I don't really expect for perfect convergence just reduction.

You're forcing people to gamble on convergence. You're also forcing people to accept your benchmark(s) of reduction.

Flip two coins. Yes, it's possible they both end up heads or tails. It's also possible they end up mixed. Likewise, past performance doesn't guarantee future results.

If communication exists today that possible problem could already exist and my point about projection is that without closer attention to deliberation languages would be further apart. That would mean more torture. What I was saying is that you have less control and influence communication.

You're assuming socialism will make attention deliberate more closely.

It seems that you are conflating hatred with things people don't enjoy and pain- or at least you reason support a conclusion that negative emotions are always there but not hatred. I think that its since its a definition of its own its self evident that this is false.The other point is that negative emotions have their usefulness.

Yes, negative emotions and hatred are destructive. They degrade rather than refine identity.

The only way they can be useful are as learning experiences, but learning is an internal process. You can't force someone else to learn such as through redistribution because learning involves the assignment of abstract values to concrete experience. Force, though, is concrete.

It might seem like nitpicking but its important to identify empathy properly for the argument. Communication and empathy are definitely not one in the same. Empathy has its own definition of understanding and knowing how someone feels.
I would not really accept that people can only communicate if they have the same aesthetic preferences(tastes?) and certainly that doesn't have to be case with empathy either since we can understanding something without having a preference for it and we can understand feelings just because we all have them. Understanding is really not the same as approval either. Approval is probably important as well and I would that there are things that people we agree should be approved and disapproved.

Telepathy doesn't exist, so we need agreeable tastes to come to agreeable conclusions.

Yes, we can abstractly care about each other, but realizing compassion takes an objective intermediary.

Again though, flipping two coins does not necessarily mean they're going to land the same way. Forcing someone to flip jeopardizes identity because you're displacing someone's confidence regarding risk taking behavior.

Secondly I assume that I am being called a communitarian which you say has a problem because they don't identify why values will converge. That could be true about communitarians but you really lack any proof but I understand that would be hard enough to prove. I certainly don't see how you could say thats true of my argument where I repeatedly engaged with that idea when talking about using deliberation and empathy as tools for helping overcome that and talk about how third parties like communities can influence our decusions and values. Moreover I think that most people could agree on certain things like being against mass torture and extermination of people because they are against the hugely negative consequences of that. Some might not value those extremely negative things I mentioned but that doesnt necessarily mean that this is noteworthy especially since if they are not restricted from doing this they are likely to damage more peoples freedoms than their own. This was also one of my justifications for deliberation and communication -to reduce the restrictions on people in their communities and consumption by putting restrictive pressure(emotional and through deliberation) on others.

Do you know what the definition of community is?

Do you realize that a community cannot exist without individuals and that when you force individuals certain ways, the mere identification of relationships is no longer deductively sound because you can't confirm the entities relationships are premised upon?

Take a bucket of blue paint.

Take a bucket of yellow paint.

Drop some red paint in both buckets.

The outcome will not be purely green once mixed.

If you force someone to deal with imperfection, then you've invaded that person's mind because that person isn't allowed to interpret "green".

[Aidand]

Sorry for taken so long to reply. I will reply though as you are either calling me dishonest or stupid(if I genuinely didn't get it. I think that is pretty clear that when I am talking about commodified society I am talking about society in its current form as I view it and that that we should deepen relationships in the future. ON the second point I clearly want people converge through deliberation and not through my ideas.
As for emotions I think that admitting they are constructive suggests that they aren't after destructive. As for internal learning. Emotions necessarily refer to externel objects and give them value. As per our earlier discussion how we arrive at those values again refers to external objects such as community family etc. It happens in our mind but the discussion is necessarily 'wordly' and anchored in other people.
Thats the generally accepted definition of it and since we identify emotions through experiences and language its fair to assume that its not just about tastes. I don't think that telepathy is necessary but imagination and knowledge about others and again because we can all understand feelings.
I don't really know if individuals and entities are the same thing here. I think its pretty clear from earlier arguments about how deliberation was a useful way of stopping consumers from violating other peoples freedoms that I do envisage individuals in the community. I think that argument used ealier clarifies that I premise my system against violating such freedoms. Again I think about two posts ago I say that sometimes freedoms are not worth it(using the alarmist example if child porn consumption) and that those need to be restricted as they so violate other peoples. People constantly argue about interpretation of things, it happens to me everyday- my mind doesn't feel invaded. I think that this process is therapuetic it keeps me from thinking extreme things and sometimes stops me being resentful.
Anyway sorry it took my so long to reply and I hope you dont think that its unfair for me to do it. Ill try not to reply again as stubborn as I am.