Humans Are Livestock

There’s a difference between informed consent and desired informed consent…

Do you want me to punch you in the face or kick you in the shin?

I would argue that people either want debt because they think they can get away with it, or maybe they’re just lonely… Aside from that, I don’t think debt is a desired informed consent issue.

I don’t think who you are or what you personally do pertains to the debate at hand.

People don’t generally do things just because they can. The fact that people can often “get away with” carrying debt, i.e. carry debt to their benefit, is only part of the equation. They can get away with it, and it actually benefits them.

Well… You said it was hard to prove, and I stated that of I can figure it out, I’m sure people are doing it! That was my whole point… Perhaps over the top though …

That doesn’t mean that they “want debt”. That merely means that they want something else enough to tolerate debt.

Debt has never benefited me. It’s a burden of a perceived failure, no matter how it arises.

This is a semantic distinction. The “something else” they want is the cash, which is just the obverse of the debt.

In any case, people freely choose to take on debt because they expect it to benefit them and they are frequently right. To my mind, it is fair to say that they wanted that, and even more clearly that they wanted it more than the other available options. If you prefer to use some circumscribed, technical, obtuse or otherwise idiosyncratic definition of ‘to want’, by all means.

Damn you guys, I’m trying to leave…

I made a really weird post in this thread …

BUT!! The point is that people would rather be given something without debt… James is correct …

Informed consent can be…

Here’s your choice … I punch you in the shoulder or kick you in the nuts!

James is articulating this aspect of want and consent!

The issue at hand is that getting away with debt is being given something… But it was being given something with debt, people prefer to be given something without debt.

You’re being a little pedantic here. People say things like, “I want a job that pays well”. That’s a totally normal, meaningful use of the word ‘want’ and we all understand what is meant. It does not change anything that the speaker may greatly prefer to be paid well without having a job.

Similarly, people can want to take out a loan to buy a house. Sure, they’d love to just be given a house, but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to take out the loan, to take on the debt.

But the word ‘want’ is not the point. The point is that debt can be and frequently is part of a desirable outcome that people choose for themselves without coercion.

There’s a big difference between debt and overhead for one…

A person would much rather buy a house than take a loan for two…

And sometimes debt is not voluntarily assumed, sometimes liens are transferred inter generationally, as when predecessors die with extremely heavily mortgaged expensive property, with bleak outlook of payout in four or five generations or more, as in the cases of downward mobility. The overhead of course decreases dramatically, but there remains the caviat of the transfer of deed to never sell. All the families’ sum income is needed for this effort. The family is constrained to get along under horrendous circumstances, yet, there is no elements of whether this is feasible or not, since the mortgages are based on absolute ownership and control. The serfs and the Lords of the Middle Ages knew what this meant, in real terms.
The ruined aristocrats of modern times with titles but no money are also privy to this form of slavery to land and title.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=190193

I wouldn’t say humans are livestock, but more analogous to bees, insects, or worker drones.

Or even bacteria and viruses.

Honeybees are very successful and efficient. In one point - offspring / reproduction ( :exclamation: ) - they are even more efficient than humans.

We are virus, we are better than virus; we are plague and contagion, we are what cures it. We are symbiotic with all life around us and feast off of it as it feasts off of us. Energy vampires to actual feasting of flesh and blood, muscle and sinew. Welcome to the great circle of life.

Not sure how I missed your earlier comment, Jerkey, my apologies.

In US law, this generally isn’t possible. Most debt dies with the debtor, after the estate is exhausted. There are apparently rare cases where children have been found responsible for their parents medical bills, but that’s the exception. Even a clause in a will that says the heir can never sell a property will only tend to disinherit that person (and my recollection of property law is fading, but I believe many such clauses don’t even do that). So if a property is a net cost, the estate can sell it and wash their hands.

I’m not sure how it works in other countries, so it may be that in places where there are hereditary titles and estates, debt can also get passed down. I agree that’s a bad system, but I have to think it’s the extreme outlier.

Other countries could have broader inheritability of debt generally, and that too is a bad system and may be more common. But given that the US is among the most debt-friendly jurisdictions, with among the most indebted citizens, I think as a proportion of debt this is a small concern. I am open to correction though, if you know otherwise.

The only defense i could give to this sppearent naivete on my part,Carleas, is, that i am of dual national background.

That said, or admitted, the oversight to relevance to topic may be mitigated by raising the literal bar of interpreting the nature of debt away from the material to the metaphoric sense. In that manner of speaking, it is not as though a completely new form of language has to be invented, but what is sought after would ideally be more metaphoric, more rich in its potential ways of interpretation. This desirable way of communicating sees the old Continental and British ways of dealing with debt.

This is what early immigrants to the United States sought to escape. The ramifications de facto, debt, show a different story. Reparations to Native American and Black American people show a political capital owed to them within the language of a class form of depreciation of value. This form of debt is still outstanding, garnering interest, in spite of arguments contrary.

In this sense, at least for those improperly repaired, the debt can incite a nominal pre inflated value.

And that is not to say that the ground of such a defense purportedly rests on a purely elevating sense within its own formal rhetoric.
U
And to be totally honest, I did not appreciate this difference, until You pointed this out. However the connection in my mind
, at least, between the de facto and the dejure forms of interpretation, did not rise to the level identifying with earlier components of this argument.

And finally I do admit my obvious attempt to draw away a possible closed debate away from the realms of the insubstantive into the opinionated metaphoric analysis. The facts of the debate have been well settled, the winner declared. However facts do not always correspond to the interpretations given them, and in this sense, these can clear the air, or, obfuscate them.

In this debate, without going into particulars, there is an attempt for closurr, closure in the sense of making irrelevant the continuation of trying to create grey areas between the questions of, whether or not, humans are livestock.

This grey area would create a sense of irresolution, where. Such may not be needed, since there is always some leakage of information which I’m wrong hands, can develop further information, ultimately resulting in adjacent areas of misinformation.

This is why, at times the original source is needed to validate whatever spin happens to gain the upper hand in any newly formed conviction.

Therefore to my mind, the question of debt, although outmoded and substantially outmoded, retains its formal elements, and seeks validation with or by formal authority.

The material content will eschew no difference between class consciousness in one hand and literally substantive ideas by which such consciousness is figured.

So stripping away a less formal argument of contestable substantive ideas, may not imitate them, merely put them on hold. They are still there, but rendered ineffective.

That there always remains a leakage , of that I have no doubt, and the supposed doubt always arises, when the similarities overweight the exact originals.

Therefore, rather then supposing the two forms of debating being similar or distinct, could very well show an analogy between a proto argument of a split idea of convincing Trumpians of their weakness or ineptitude of developing a public persona of a misinformed bunch, more reactive than autonomous, more steeple livestock than human.