26 Aug 06
Originally posted by thesonofsaulI agree with you...good post...
The people you describe here are exactly what the rest of the world sees as American. And we should face it--this is what we are. We are selfish, ignorant, unappreciative, and vaguely blood-thirsty. You may have an notion about an ideal that Americans should aspire to, but at the same time you should admit that Americans, as a whole, are nowhere clos ...[text shortened]... uld stop hating us, though I don't know. Both of these possibilities seem rather far fetched.
26 Aug 06
Originally posted by Hank ReardenYes, it is wrong! If you don't have the decency to feed a homeless man who is obviously hungry, you are selfish. If you are climbing the ranks in the military as I am (or corporate America/Europe) and not reaching down and attempting to pull up your comrades (co-workers) to the next rung by sharing your knowledge, you are selfish. I don't need to expand with any further examples, so if you don't "get it", you are truly a selfish person, and I feel sorry for you because one day you may be all alone...selfishly alone
please define what you mean by selfish. I consider myself very selfish and do everything for my self and by my self and expect people to do like wise. So by you that is wrong?
26 Aug 06
Originally posted by chancremechanicYep!
Yes, it is wrong! If you don't have the decency to feed a homeless man who is obviously hungry, you are selfish. If you are climbing the ranks in the military as I am (or corporate America/Europe) and not reaching down and attempting to pull up your comrades (co-workers) to the next rung by sharing your knowledge, you are selfish. I don't need to ...[text shortened]... ish person, and I feel sorry for you because one day you may be all alone...selfishly alone
26 Aug 06
Originally posted by Hank ReardenThey'll never stop. The only plausible solution is to use a rocket to fire them into space, where they can hang out on the sun with all the poor people. 😉
Why won't they just stop being French?
(No offence intended to the French, or poor people, or poor French people).
B.
26 Aug 06
Originally posted by chancremechanicAgreed. However, in the cases of the military and especially the corporate world, the idea of helping others "climb the ladder" is often perceived as weakness, is it not? Not to mention a hinderence to one's own success. Although I have no personal experience in either of these industries, my belief is that the more selfish you are, the more likely you are to succeed.
Yes, it is wrong! If you don't have the decency to feed a homeless man who is obviously hungry, you are selfish. If you are climbing the ranks in the military as I am (or corporate America/Europe) and not reaching down and attempting to pull up your comrades (co-workers) to the next rung by sharing your knowledge, you are selfish. I don't need to ...[text shortened]... ish person, and I feel sorry for you because one day you may be all alone...selfishly alone
B.
26 Aug 06
Originally posted by chancremechanicWhy is it wrong? Why should I be forced to feed a homeless person. I give them anything it would be because it was what I wanted to do which would be selfish wouldn't it? I don't want to be presured into giving people charity by anyone. Really should I give a starving person half of my last scraps of food so we both die together? Now I would give them it all if I knew them or if it ment more for me to see them alive than my own.
Yes, it is wrong! If you don't have the decency to feed a homeless man who is obviously hungry, you are selfish. If you are climbing the ranks in the military as I am (or corporate America/Europe) and not reaching down and attempting to pull up your comrades (co-workers) to the next rung by sharing your knowledge, you are selfish. I don't need to ...[text shortened]... ish person, and I feel sorry for you because one day you may be all alone...selfishly alone
As far as the military I want ot say thanks for serving,
and for the corperal world things have a greater chance of improvment thriugh compitition, thru capitalism each man out ot find the easiest,fastest, cheapest, best way to get a product out. if everyone is forced to be the same then you don't get any new ideas because they never get invented such happens in Communist regiems.
I also found it rather fitting you used "Comrades" due too the heavy socialistic comments you have made here which is surprizing due to usualy quotes you normally make.
26 Aug 06
Originally posted by Hank ReardenThe problem with the corporate world is it centralises resources so that lots of people don't get opportunities. Is the easiest fastest and cheapest method the best if it puts 1000 farmers out of work, and the end product is worse and is damaging to the soil? In other words is it best if it's at the expense of the people and the environment? Things only improve for the rich, and the poor who used to have jobs now don't even have their jobs any more.
Why is it wrong? Why should I be forced to feed a homeless person. I give them anything it would be because it was what I wanted to do which would be selfish wouldn't it? I don't want to be presured into giving people charity by anyone. Really should I give a starving person half of my last scraps of food so we both die together? Now I would give them i ...[text shortened]... tic comments you have made here which is surprizing due to usualy quotes you normally make.
26 Aug 06
Originally posted by mrstabbyonce again.... What. Eval Kineval could not make the amount of neccisary leaps it would take to get you from one argument to the next.
The problem with the corporate world is it centralises resources so that lots of people don't get opportunities. Is the easiest fastest and cheapest method the best if it puts 1000 farmers out of work, and the end product is worse and is damaging to the soil? In other words is it best if it's at the expense of the people and the environment? Things only ...[text shortened]... ove for the rich, and the poor who used to have jobs now don't even have their jobs any more.
It centilizes the resources because they own the resources
Why should I be punished because people didn't get a bunch of oppertunities for a bunch of bad ideas that would hurt us alot more.
yes it is the best and cheapest to put 1000 farmers out of work because now the is only a select few who must have been alot better at their job of producing than the farmers because they managed to be the survival of the fittest.
How is it worse for the soil? it would be the same soil just different owners. instead of 1000 farmers working 1000 square acres of lands is now 2 farmes sill working the same 1000 square acres of farmland.
So the rich sould be punished for doing their job well?
26 Aug 06
Originally posted by Hank ReardenI like to use examples to make my points.
once again.... What. Eval Kineval could not make the amount of neccisary leaps it would take to get you from one argument to the next.
It centilizes the resources because they own the resources
Why should I be punished because people didn't get a bunch of oppertunities for a bunch of bad ideas that would hurt us alot more.
yes it is the best and che ...[text shortened]... same 1000 square acres of farmland.
So the rich sould be punished for doing their job well?
They own the resources because the government subsidises things to favour corporations. Why should your tax dollars go towards driving down the price of corn so that large corporations can increase their profits?
Again, survival of the fittest, what happens when the resources (fossil fuels) run out?
Artificial fertilisers damage the soil in the long run, and the corn is of poorer quality. Current agriculture is energetically very inefficient (so much oil for making fertilisers), and when you run out of fossil fuels, agriculture will collapse, big style.
Cancer is defined as unregulated growth, and is ultimately detrimental to the organism. The same is happening to agriculture in America.
The rich should be punished for pushing the poor out of the market so they can live lavish lifestyles (if they use their wealth philanthropically then that is more acceptable).
26 Aug 06
Originally posted by mrstabbyThe Government substizes the corperations becasue they do a lot better of a job then small groups due and its cheaper in the longrun to give the money to the ones doing a good job then piss it all away on a bunch of people that do an inferior job.
I like to use examples to make my points.
They own the resources because the government subsidises things to favour corporations. Why should your tax dollars go towards driving down the price of corn so that large corporations can increase their profits?
Again, survival of the fittest, what happens when the resources (fossil fuels) run out?
Artificial ...[text shortened]... ive lavish lifestyles (if they use their wealth philanthropically then that is more acceptable).
as far as fossil fuels may be if we didn't spend billion and maybe even trillions on keeping oil producers as top dog to save the jobs of the million that would be effected rather than pay those billions to scientists to come up with an allternative we would no longer need fossil fuels.
why should you have any right to tell the rich what to do with their own money? they earned it they should spend it.
I feel that I should add that I do not condone or support the rich who have gotten their fortune by ill means like looting, nor thru inheritence but rather thru their own merit.
27 Aug 06
Originally posted by Hank ReardenCorporations and "good job"? The bottom line with corporations is always money, not beauty or effectiveness. They'd rather sell you clothes that wear out than ones that last. What tastes better, McDonalds or locally produced organic food (which is also far, far better for your health)? It's not that it's financially cheaper in the long run, it's more profitable for them. Corporations don't care if they destroy the environment or our health, they only care about money. Do you think it's more important that beef can be produced at a lower price, (at the expense of, say, turning a large area of rainforest into desert), or paying a little bit more for beef that doesn't involve damage the ecosphere?
The Government substizes the corperations becasue they do a lot better of a job then small groups due and its cheaper in the longrun to give the money to the ones doing a good job then piss it all away on a bunch of people that do an inferior job.
as far as fossil fuels may be if we didn't spend billion and maybe even trillions on keeping oil producer ...[text shortened]... their fortune by ill means like looting, nor thru inheritence but rather thru their own merit.
Corporations are run with shareholders in mind (ie the rich), not the wellbeing of society as a whole.
There's more to life than money, and the sooner you realise that the better.