Is there any invention stupider than the lawn mower? It creates highly unnecessary human labour. There is never a good reason to mow a lawn. Lawn mowers are just wasteful.

What other stupid inventions are there?
__
Stupid Invention #2: The Chesterfield. All the Chesterfield does is make people lazy and wreck their backs. It is more comfortable to sit on the floor with a pillow.

What's your problem with the lawn mower, Ixabert? Did it put some workers out of business? :p

Ixabert, I have a backyard, then an unmowed, "wild" park behind me. The park's grass is knee high, thin, and dotted with numerous weeds and shrubbery. It is completely unsuitable for laying on, sitting on, or even walking barefoot on, as compared to a soft, cut lawn.

Sometimes, people want to sit outside in the fresh air, enjoy the sunshine, listen to the birds, have a picnic. Children, especially, shouldn't be cooped up indoors all the time. When it's sunny, I like to sit outside for about an hour a day.

I sit because it's silly to read and eat lunch whilst walking in circles.

I recognize the fact that most labor in the world is not necessary in the eyes of everyone, but I don't see how this should be relevent in deciding how I spend my time and money, nor how I arrange my backyard.

Personally, I think it would create more unnecessary labor for me to buy a sheep and need to take care of it, clean it, pick up it's crap, put up with it's smell, daily, instead of mowing the lawn once in a while.


Ixy, are you angry right now because you're parents told you to get off your skinny butt and mow the lawn?

I sit because it's silly to read and eat lunch whilst walking in circles.
Read and eat lunch inside the house, otherwise insects could get into your food, or the wind could blow the pages of your book. I always do these things inside, Edana.
I recognize the fact that most labor in the world is not necessary in the eyes of everyone, but I don't see how this should be relevent in deciding how I spend my time and money, nor how I arrange my backyard.
Yes, I used to think that way too - like an atomised monad separated from the community, not Man Who is a Species-Being.
Personally, I think it would create more unnecessary labor for me to buy a sheep and need to take care of it, clean it, pick up it's crap, put up with it's smell, daily, instead of mowing the lawn once in a while.
True - do not do either, then.
Ixy, are you angry right now because you're parents told you to get off your skinny butt and mow the lawn?
No, I live in an apartment, and I think a man is hired to cut the grass around the apartment building, though there is not much grass anyway. And as you already know, I live not with my parents anymore, Edana. Stop trying to fit me into the stereotype of fat adult who still lives with parents. No, I am saying this because I realised that lawn mowing is wasteful by reading something in Walden Two by B.F. Skinner, and I just remembered that, and I am now re-thinking the stupidity of the lawn mower invention.

Read and eat lunch inside the house, otherwise insects could get into your food, or the wind could blow the pages of your book. I always do these things inside, Edana.

I read and eat lunch outside because I find it pleasurable. I don't need to justify why, because that would be just as pointless as you trying to convince me to give up something that I find pleasurable just because you don't like me wasting my own labor.

yes, I used to think that way too - like an atomised monad separated from the community, not Man Who is a Species-Being.

What you need is a job.

true - do not do either then.

I think I'll stick to mowing the lawn. I actually find it quite enjoyable.

No, I live in an apartment, and I think a man is hired to cut the grass round the apartment building, though there is not much grass anyway. No, I am saying this because I realised that lawn mowing is wasteful after reading Walden Two by B.F. Skinner.

What you need is a job.

What you need is a job.
A life wouldn't hurt either.

I read and eat lunch outside because I find it pleasurable.
You do not find reading inside your house pleasureable, and you do not find eating lunch inside your house pleasureable? Also, what makes you think that you could not read outside and eat lunch outside without mowed lawns? When I lived with my grandfather, there were no mowed lawns, and I sometimes ate outside, though not usually.
I don't need to justify why, because that would be just as pointless as you trying to convince me to give up something that I find pleasurable just because you don't like me wasting my own labor.
I am against wasting human labour on a larger scale. The problem with people like you, Edana, is that you have to personalise everything, make everything about you, turn the problem of large scale wastage of human labour into question relating to your private lives. You think like atomised monads separated from the community, not men who are Species-Beings.
What you need is a job.
I do have a job, and besides, I do not see how this is relevant. It bears just as much relevancy as your favourite type of cheese.

You do not find reading pleasurable inside your house, and you do not find eating lunch pleasurable inside your house?

I think both are pleasurable, but doing things outside is more pleasurable when it's nice out.

Also, what makes you think that you could not read outside and eat lunch outside without mowed lawns? When I lived with my grandfather, there were no mowed lawns, and I sometimes ate outside, though not usually.

I could, but I find it pleasurable to lay on the soft grass instead of on top of wood or concrete... or long, itchy, thin grass.

i am against wasting human labour on a larger scale. The problem with people like you, Edana, is that you have to personalise everything, make everything about you, turn the problem of large scale wastage of human labour into question relating to your private lives. You think like atomised monads separated from the community, not Men Who are Species-Beings.

Ixabert, it really doesn't effect you in the slightest if I choose to mow my lawn. It's personal because that's what it is - a personal decision that only effects me. Your problem is that you want to universalize your own personal values. Just because Ixabert doesn't find pleasure in sitting or playing on a mowed lawn and likes the look of a wild lawn more than a mowed one, then he thinks everyone is wasting their time mowing a lawn.

I do have a job, and besides, I do not see hwo this is relevant. it bears just as much relevancy as your favourite type of cheese.

Whoever employs you should increase your productivity.

Speaking of going outside, that's what I am going to do right now, since the CD I was burning is done. I must say that this is the goofiest conversation I've had on this forum. Your boss at the fish canneries should definitely increase your productivity - with a whip. Even considering that it may be quite pleasurable, would that be wasted labor? :p

Your problem is that you want to universalize your own personal values. Just because Ixabert doesn't find pleasure in sitting or playing on a mowed lawn and likes the look of a wild lawn more than a mowed one, then he thinks everyone is wasting their time mowing a lawn.
These are not my motivations, but my motivations are irrelevant, and again you resort to a diatribe of personalisms to reinforce your weak argument, once again bespeaking your egoism.
Whoever employs you should increase your productivity.
Why?

Ixabert, you reached rock bottom and started digging.... You get dumber by the minute....

Ixabert, you reached rock bottom and started digging.... You get dumber by the minute....
Who is getting dumber? What is rock bottom? Digging what? Why do you say this? Because I have torn Edana's arguments to shreds? Please answer all of these questions. Always try to explain yourself. Thank you.

SEE? That is the type of thinking I detest.It is this type of thinking - individualist, personalising thinking - and our material life which as a result of this thinking overemphases civil society - these oppose our species-being, our True Self. I am not an egoist. I do not care about things just because they interfere with my lifestyle. I am a communal being. I am a species-being, not an egoist, not a monad, not an atomised particularity separated from the community, separated from that which defines me. Society does not consist of isolated atoms. Society consists of interrelationships. Everything is interdependent. And every individual is defined by how he related to things external. Considered by himself in islation he is a nothing, has no reality.

You should have stuck to debating the pros and cons of lawn mowers. Instead, you have moved on to a fight you cannot win.

The very fact that a person has the capacity to choose to be independent, or that two people can disagree over whether mowed grass is better than unmowed grass, proves that your worldview is wrong. You have your own conception of what it is to be human, and you are insisting that everyone else should share it--a completely egoistic act on your part. You miss the threshold observation that the very fact that people hold different conceptions of being shows that there is no such thing as a human species-being.

Humans are not ants. If "species-being" was the True Self, we wouldn't even be having this argument.

The very fact that a person has the capacity to choose to be independent,
I question this 'fact'. I question the existence of autonomous man. You will have to prove this. Otherwise your whole argument collapses. Always try to justify your claims please. Thank you.
You have your own conception of what it is to be human,
What do you mean? I do not think I do. Please do not fail to answer this question.
and you are insisting that everyone else should share it--a completely egoistic act on your part.
this is ad hominem. my motivations are irrelevant. they have no bearing on the veracity of my argument.
You miss the threshold observation that the very fact that people hold different conceptions of being shows that there is no such thing as a human species-being.
No, it shows that some people have species-consciousnss and others do not.
Humans are not ants.
I agree with you on this.
If "species-being" was the True Self, we wouldn't even be having this argument.
Explain. Always try to explain what you say. Do not simply assert.

Simply put, if we were "species-beings" instead of human individuals, we would not even have the capacity to argue over individualism. The concept of individuality would never even occur to us.

My reference to "egoistic" was descriptive, not an insult.

there is never a good reason to mow a lawn.


err ...
Trying to play Rugby or Football on a field with grass 1 meter high isn't easy, you know ?

Ixabert, you're a very good example of an "egoist". You elevate your own personal preferances and try to convince everyone why your personal preferances are the "right" ones for the sole purpose of provoking a reaction.

Wanting to sit on the lawn over sitting indoors or on a mattress is a preferance. Wanting cut lawn over wild lawn is an aesthetic preferance. There is nothing that makes your preferance special in any way.

What is ironic about you calling me an "atomized egoist" and pretending to be into community is that the sole reason I mow the front yard is because everyone in my community has an aesthetic preferance for a neighborhood with neat yards. I respect this and mow the front yard, while you would spit on this community aesthetic preferance because you like wild lawns and think mowing is a "waste of labor".

I can end this right now. People mow their yards because it gives them a feeling of having accomplished something. The yard being mowed lets a person know that they are keeping up the value of their property while also gaining the respect of their neighbors at the same time. People like being outside doing some sort of physical activity too. Unmowed yards are terrible looking. Ixabert either seems to be lazy or a slob or just has a wierd taste for sloppy looking yards.

Ixabert, you're a very good example of an "egoist". You elevate your own personal preferances and try to convince everyone why your personal preferances are the "right" ones for the sole purpose of provoking a reaction.

Wanting to sit on the lawn over sitting indoors or on a mattress is a preferance. Wanting cut lawn over wild lawn is an aesthetic preferance. There is nothing that makes your preferance special in any way.

What is ironic about you calling me an "atomized egoist" and pretending to be into community is that the sole reason I mow the front yard is because everyone in my community has an aesthetic preferance for a neighborhood with neat yards. I respect this and mow the front yard, while you would spit on this community aesthetic preferance because you like wild lawns and think mowing is a "waste of labor".
the is bordering on ad hominem tu quoque. My motivations, hwatever they are, are absolutely irrelevant. I was not the subject of discussion. this is probably just another one of your attempts to derail the subject of discussion into another discussion of Ixabert. You have always been one to change the subject of discussion into one concerning the arguer, and not the arguments or at any rate the subject of discussion.
__
err ...
Trying to play Rugby or Football on a field with grass 1 meter high isn't easy, you know ?
I said on page one:
I can't think of any good reason to mow lawns in general, or at least the lawn in one's own back yard. Maybe it is necessary mow football fielfs, for example, if people are to play football.
Unmowed yards are terrible looking.
Can you substantiate this claim? Always try to demonstrate the correctness of every proposition you make. Thank you.
Ixabert either seems to be lazy or a slob
laziness is a circularly defined term.
or just has a wierd taste for sloppy looking yards.
cutting lawns is an old ruling-class custom originating in ruling-class habits of indulgence in luxury through expenditure of the profits acquired by means of robbing the workers of the wealth that is rightfully their, i.e., by extracting the surplus-value they create in the production of commodities.
__
Simply put, if we were "species-beings" instead of human individuals, we would not even have the capacity to argue over individualism. The concept of individuality would never even occur to us.
You are just stating your argument in different words. This is precisely what I question. That the concept of individuality would never occur to us if we were species-beings necessarily requires a long and detailed demonstration.

the is bordering on ad hominem tu quoque. My motivations, hwatever they are, are absolutely irrelevant. I was not the subject of discussion. this is probably just another one of your attempts to derail the subject of discussion into another discussion of Ixabert. You have always been one to change the subject of discussion into one concerning the arguer, and not the arguments or at any rate the subject of discussion.

I called you an egoist as a reaction to this post here:

The problem with people like you, Edana, is that you have to personalise everything, make everything about you, turn the problem of large scale wastage of human labour into question relating to your private lives. You think like atomised monads separated from the community, not Men Who are Species-Beings.

Then, I went on to demonstrate how you're merely elevating your own personal preferences for a wild lawn, while most communities mow their lawn because they have an aesthetic preference for groomed lawns. A preference for wild lawns is a sign of your own individuality over the group.

Hey Edana, what was on that CD you burned?

I called you an egoist as a reaction to this post here:
Silly, that is because we were discussing YOUR personal preference for a period of time. It was relevant. But then you bring up what you feel to be my egoism, which had nothing to do with your personal preference or the other sub-topics we were discussing. what you feel are my motivations has NOTHING to do with the subject.

ix what IS your job anyway? Let me guess, you work at a daycare center lol


I don't see the point of your arguement; if people are BUYING and USING lawn mowers, obviously they are not useless, how you can logically claim otherwise?

Unless you are redefining the word "useless" to a meaning invented by YOU, which would be egoistic...

Graveland.


Ixabert, can you think of any method to satisfy your ego besides coming up with absurd, useless ideas for the sake of argument? It's interesting when people come up with useful ideas for the sake of argument, but you come up with the most pointless things. It's obvious and has been pointed out time and time again that you're only elevating your own personal preferences. You like wild, unkept lawns? Tough luck, many communities do not.

Graveland.
???
This doesn't bear any relevancy, but I shall respond to it nonetheless:
Ixabert, can you think of any method to satisfy your ego besides coming up with absurd, useless ideas for the sake of argument?
This is a loaded question. You need to break this down into several questions. The first one would likely be: Are you thinking of methods to satisfy your ego by coming up with absurd, useless ideas for the sake of argument? To which I would respond: No, I am not. Now, explain to us, which ideas of mine are useless, how they are useless, and how I am using them just for the sake of argument. Your responst must attain all three of these requirements in order to be satisfactory. -- So do not evade. ;)

Oh, and "it's obvious" isn't an argument. Even if it requires a detailed demonstration, demonstrate you must, if you are to discuss anything with me, since I am a sceptic by disposition. ;)

By the way, this only relates to my motivations, which I repeat are irrelevant. ;)

Oh, and remember this:

"This is probably just another one of your attempts to derail the subject of discussion into another discussion of Ixabert. You have always been one to change the subject of discussion into one concerning the arguer, and not the arguments or at any rate the subject of discussion."

Yes, you have confirmed my theory.

Anyone can see that you are refusing to address the point that you are just elevating your own personal preferances in order to decide what is "useless" and "wasted", then, in an ironic twist, calling others "atomized" if they disagree with your personal preferances.

Anyone can do the same thing. Jane prefers paint and not wallpaper, therefore making wallpaper is "wasted labor". But Joe prefers wallpaper, not paint! Therefore, painting indoors is "wasted labor". Sally thinks growing apples is "wasted labor" because the labor could be used growing oranges instead, and Sally likes oranges and dislikes apples. John likes curtains and thinks blinds are tacky, therefore making blinds is a "waste of labor". Susan likes blinds... making curtains is "wasteful". Timo likes raw foods. Cooking vegetables is a "waste of labor". Laura doesn't like any meat at all. All labor involved in eating meat is a waste, since it could be used on grains, beans, and veggies instead.

If you disagree with any of these individuals, you're "atomized" and need to think as a "species-being" instead.

First of all, I said:
"This is a loaded question. You need to break this down into several questions. The first one would likely be: Are you thinking of methods to satisfy your ego by coming up with absurd, useless ideas for the sake of argument? To which I would respond: No, I am not. Now, explain to us, which ideas of mine are useless, how they are useless, and how I am using them just for the sake of argument. Your responst must attain all three of these requirements in order to be satisfactory. -- So do not evade." Okay?
Anyone can see that you are refusing to address the point that you are just elevating your own personal preferances in order to decide what is "useless" and "wasted", then, in an ironic twist, calling others "atomized" if they disagree with your personal preferances.
None of this is obvious to me. Always try to substantiate your assertions.
By the way, my personal preference is to have cut lawns; this is where your argument collapses. ;)

This thread is really gehy

Your argument is ridiculous because it's based on the idea that voluntary labor to bring about a desired result is "wasted". Labor is wasted when it doesn't result in anything desirable.

Hey Edana, whats wrong with your weird Avatar? Do you pick them all from RPGs?

Your argument is ridiculous because it's based on the idea that voluntary labor to bring about a desired result is "wasted".
Many things which are done voluntarily are wasteful or result in the wasteful production of unneeded things.
Labor is wasted when it doesn't result in anything desirable.
First of all, that is unsubstantiated. I could very well say the opposite (though I would not myself believe in it), and that would be of equal argumentative value, if I did not attempt to substantiate.

Do you mean 'desired' instead of 'desirable'? What is desirable is wholly subjective. Using the word 'desired' instead of 'desirable' would be more objective. For example, that people desire food is an objective fact, but that food is desirable is impossile to prove. Note: the word 'desirable' is not analogous to the word 'audible', for example. It does not mean 'able to be desired'; it refers to what is worth desiring, and is therefore wholly subjective.

Your semantic nit-picking is irrelevent to the discussion.

"Waste" is a matter of perception. If everyone percieved lawnmowing to be a waste of their time and labor, they wouldn't do it. Lawnmowing is done because they value the results of lawnmowing over a few minutes of leisure time and willingly make the trade-off.

Your semantic nit-picking is irrelevent to the discussion.
How is it irrelevant? A single word can change the entire meaning of a proposition. Saying that something is desired is very, very different from saying that it is desirable.
"Waste" is a matter of perception.
How? (Will you avoid answering this question, which absolutely must be answered if we are to know if your argument is sound or no, as you did all the other important questions I have asked so far?)
If everyone percieved lawnmowing to be a waste of their time and labor, they wouldn't do it. Lawnmowing is done because they value the results of lawnmowing over a few minutes of leisure time and willingly make the trade-off.
And I completely agree with on this, and there is no reason to believe that I would disagree with you.

I see no need to answer your disengenuous "how" and "why" questions when you can't even demonstrate the "how" and "why" of your original claim.

What is the basis for your claim that 10 minutes of my time a week every summer are "wasted" if I prefer the outcome of the labor (and may even find the labor itself to be pleasurable) over that small fraction of leisure time? Do you sit around and calculate how many calories you burn doing things and make sure that every calorie spent is absolutely necessary for a "species-being"?

I see no need to answer your disengenuous "how" and "why" questions when you can't even demonstrate the "how" and "why" of your original claim.
Stated in different words, you cannot substantiate your own claims, and the rest of your message is a very obvious attempt to evade answering those 'whys' and 'hows' which must be answered. I shall respond to the rest of your message when you substantiate the multitude of claims you have failed to substantiate in the course of this discussion.

Ixabert, you made the original claim in this thread. Back it up or shut up. If you can't explain how labor is wasted, the basis of this entire thread is hot air.

Your entire performance on this thread amounts to outright avoidance of points raised by wasting a lot of labor typing out psuedo-wounded speeches about ad hominem and asking disengenuous "how" and "why" questions while refusing to spell out any hows and whys of your original claim. Really, don't you think you could be using your labor doing something more useful than this?

Maybe not. You apparently percieve that your time and energy is best spent making silly arguments on the internet. Other people may disagree.

You never asked me to prove that human labour was wasted until after you made a multitude of unsubstantiated claims, and I asked you to substantiate those claims before you asked me to substantiate the claim I made in question. Therefore you are required to answer first; otherwise I doubt you will even attempt to substantiate them. That was a very impressive evasion, though.

Ixabert, you had two original claims on this thread - that mowing the lawn is wasted labor and that there is never a good reason to mow the lawn. Wisely, you've backed down on the second claim. If you can't explain how labor is wasted, then you were full of hot air.

If you made this thread because you wanted to make a point, then that point will be better made by you explaining your reasoning behind the "wasted labor" claim.

If you made this thread to argue, your argument can only be strengthened by explaining it. Unless, you made this thread to argue while lacking an explaination.

EDIT: I've already shown how "wasteful labor" is a matter of perception by showing how numerous people can have conflicting views to what labor is wasted or not based on their values, preferances, or worldviews. Your course of action to disprove this would be to try to come up with objective forumula for calculating whether labor is wasted or not that is independent of personal perceptions, worldviews, and values. Good Luck.

Oh, and I'm going to add that it would be a swell argument if you could come up with some objective model for calculating whether labor is necessary or wasted that has a practical and desired use for a society. Really, what's the use if Ixabert's Necessary Labor Calculation concludes that such and such labor is wasteful if no one gives a damn because they prefer lives full of what Ixabert deems to be unnecessary? As such a non-atomized person who values community and "species-being", what are you to do when the collective rejects your standards?

I work on a golf course where lawnmowers(or similar inventions) are a godsend.

Someone is mad because his mommy is making him cut the grass.

Why mow a lawn? Why even plant grass? Just have everything natural. Don't trim anything.

"Nature has one law, Chaos - Man dreams of Order"

Ixabert, your ideas are bunk. Marxism is refuted and we now live in a postmodern/postindustrial world. Get out of your house sometime and observe it. It might help to cleanse yourself of your typical obsolete idealism.