So, many messages, damn.
I wont be able to reply to all of these.
And I see, me saying we should end the discussion, since its not really going anywhere, didnt really work.
I will try to put some of my thoughts here, however, dont expect me to reply to all. (I apologize for that in advance)
I will try to translate this better, for once. I am translating this by how I understood it, so if its wrong, feel free to correct me.
@Book273 is trying to say that financially there are 3 types of people. Rich, middle-class and poor. The rich have worked at some point in tie to earn money. (Be it ethical or not). Middle-class people have to work constantly and work to earn money. And poor people have to work even harder. So, the government trying to help just the poor people (Poor including people who cant or refuse to work), is kinda unfair. Either everyone should be equally helped, or like Book273 said, no one should be helped at all.
I kinda agree with it. The meaning of equality is kind of subjective. So, giving a poor person chance to earn money is a way for equality to someone, while to someone else, helping just poor people is inequality.
Now, I would like to reply to some of @Nickolasgaspar's messages, because I liked their perspective.
Feelings are the result we get when we try to reason and understand our emotions. — Nickolasgaspar
Ok. Understandable. I have nothing against this at all.
So in my opinion, the opening statement should ask whether feelings are unnecessary and the obvious answer is of course they are. — Nickolasgaspar
No, the opening statement should be are 'emotions' necessary. You just explained what feelings are. Feelings are results or answer or conclusion. Emotions are the source. I was asking if that source is necessary.
That would be like trying to ignore our attempt to understand our emotions thus remove "meaning" from our thoughts and behavior. — Nickolasgaspar
I agree with half of this statement.
Yes, it is like trying to ignoring the attempt to understand emotions.
And I am all for that. I dont want to know about emotions, and I dont see how they will help, since we are talking about a world without emotions..... A world without 'emotions', wont have 'emotions'. So, there is nothing to understand about them. Since, they dont exist. Do you understand?
Now for the part which I disagree with,
Acoording to you doing so removes 'meaning' from our thoughts and behaviour.
First of all, this assumes that you know the meaning to thoughts and behaviour and life and basically everything. So, either you think you are God, or you didnt give a second to think about what you typed.
Secondly, 'meaning' of thoughts and behaviour, as well as of life, is subjective. If for you, removing emotions removes meaning, then for me, not working towards removing emotions removes meaning. So, that statement doesnt hold up.
Thirdly, even if we take your subjective meaning of 'meaning', i totally disagree that removing emotions will remove meaning, as you are assuming that emotions are the only part of human thought. Reasoning, personality, deduction, etc. are all as equal part of human thought as emotions. If anything they are a bigger part, as they existed longer and in more quantity than emotions.
So, no, removing emotions wont remove 'meaning'.
Now, some extra things,
@Joshs, you know that you agree with Mr. Nick, but your ego isnt allowing you to accept. You think that somehow, your answer has to be better than Nick's answer. If you here to just disagree with anything and everything you can see, I would suggest looking elsewhere.
You were literally the one who said to stop replying to this discussion, yet here you are rpelying to my message expecting me to answer.
As I said, if I get an email, I am likely to check it, and ending up coming here. For 2 months, I didnt receive any, and I genuinely thought no one was interested anymore.
But today, I received mails regarding to you replying to my messages, and I ended up coming here.
So, at the very least, please follow your own principles.
Necessary to whom and what does that person or those people have as values?
When were they necessary and to whom and for what purpose and according to what values? — Bylaw
There's literally liike atleast 20 messages explaining all of this, and I honestly tired of saying the same thing over and over again. I will reply to it one last time here.
*According to me, emotions are unnecessary to everyone, and people without emotions, have the same values as humans with emotions had, which werent related to their emotions.(Saying humans without emotions have no value, is like saying, orange juice without sugar doesnt have value and should be free of cost). If anything they have more value, as they wont do unethical stuff. Emotions were necessary for survival as they helped in rapid progress of humanity in a short amount of time. (They dont do anymore as we dont face existence threatening issues as much anymore).