User Tag List

First 67891018 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 205

  1. #71
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    No, I'm not the one with the problem. You see, you believe in the system and I do not. You run under the assumption that because you believe that our current system works that it is the "right" system, or it is the system which should be in place. I certainly can have an opinion as to whom I think as useful, just as you have your own smug opinion that working class people without health insurance apparently aren't "useful" enough to society to merit medical care. To me that is a much greater error in attempting to determine someone's basic worth as a human being, their sheer right to exist and be healthy. I never once claimed that Paris Hilton should die, be denied health care or food or shelter or education, or otherwise be exposed to danger or violence. I said that our society is sick for rewarding her financially for being what she is. That is my opinion. Opinions cannot be proven. I'm not sure exactly what you were trying to prove with your defense of her monetary gain, other than you believe that she "deserves" to be given large amounts of money for doing next to nothing. There are many people who are much more productive in our economy who do not earn what Paris Hilton makes. No, her net worth is not proportionate to her so-called "productivity."
    But she doesn't do next to nothing. She does more than you probably have ever done in your life, and she's been successful. Begrudging someone's honestly-earned success is envy, pure and simple. And economic recompense is based on how much money you generate for the economy, which is totally fair. Put it this way: my sister is smarter than Paris Hilton, arguably more attractive than Paris Hilton, is very hardworking and productive as a legal secretary, and she is a good wife and mother. Does she deserve to have more money than Paris Hilton? Absolutely not. Here is a newsflash: the government isn't there to decide what is useful and what is not for society.


    So I don't have "a problem." I have a different way of seeing the world than you do. For example, by observing this thread you seem to believe that Chinese CEOs are going to take over. You also appear to have a deeply arrogant belief in your own store of knowledge, even to the point of not admitting that you might be ignorant in some areas in which I am proficient.
    I am a little arrogant, but I am not defensive. Your attitude about Paris Hilton is silly and unhealthy, really.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #72
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    But she doesn't do next to nothing. She does more than you probably have ever done in your life,
    This is patently false. There is absolutely no grounds for you saying this what-so-ever. It's so completely ridiculous that I almost feel sorry for you.

    and she's been successful. Begrudging someone's honestly-earned success is envy, pure and simple.
    Huh, that's strange, since I don't begrudge David Lynch, Oprah Winfrey, Hillary Clinton, Beyonce, my college professors, and thousands - if not millions - of people who actually had honestly earned success.


    And economic recompense is based on how much money you generate for the economy, which is totally fair. Put it this way: my sister is smarter than Paris Hilton, arguably more attractive than Paris Hilton, is very hardworking and productive as a legal secretary, and she is a good wife and mother. Does she deserve to have more money than Paris Hilton? Absolutely not. Here is a newsflash: the government isn't there to decide what is useful and what is not for society.
    You and I are always going to disagree. Newsflash: nothing you say expressing your extremist libertarian opinions is convincing to me in the slightest.




    I am a little arrogant, but I am not defensive. Your attitude about Paris Hilton is silly and unhealthy, really.
    No, you're a lot arrogant. Your arrogance is both silly and unhealthy.

  3. #73
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    This is patently false. There is absolutely no grounds for you saying this what-so-ever. It's so completely ridiculous that I almost feel sorry for you.
    I'd gladly listen to your album, watch your multiple films and television shows, read your books, look at your modeling pics, and maybe even contribute to your charity.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #74
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I'd gladly listen to your album, watch your multiple films and television shows, read your books, look at your modeling pics, and maybe even contribute to your charity.
    Paris Hilton got canned for not showing up to scheduled appearances, she's notorious for being flaky, irresponsible, and generally a lazy party girl. I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to comprehend that many people get through life on nepotism, not talent or hard work, and Paris Hilton is one of them. I used her as an example. I surely do not think she is the only one.

    The things that you have listed are not the only measures of success or how much a person has accomplished in life. I think that's part of your problem - what you call "success" is merely fame at any price, including fame without substance. You're really caught up in the American television-fueled illusion. The fact that you think that merely because someone has been cast in a B movie or got someone else to write a biography they dictated that they are more "productive" than people who work their ass off every day being teachers, mothers, fathers, policemen, engineers, or architects really does kind of make me feel sorry for you. It's kind of pathetic and sad.

  5. #75
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    Paris Hilton got canned for not showing up to scheduled appearances, she's notorious for being flaky, irresponsible, and generally a lazy party girl. I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to comprehend that many people get through life on nepotism, not talent or hard work, and Paris Hilton is one of them. I used her as an example. I surely do not think she is the only one.
    I am a sports fan, there are tons of lazy-ass athletes out there. But someone with billions of dollars decided to pay them millions or tens of millions of dollars because they will get more than that back in the utility these athletes provide. That is only unfair if you believe life is so inherently flawed because of unequal distribution of talents that the entire world is impracticable. If you really believe that, I don't why you would even work at all.


    The things that you have listed are not the only measures of success or how much a person has accomplished in life. I think that's part of your problem - what you call "success" is merely fame at any price, including fame without substance. You're really caught up in the American television-fueled illusion. The fact that you think that merely because someone has been cast in a B movie or got someone else to write a biography they dictated that they are more "productive" than people who work their ass off every day being teachers, mothers, fathers, policemen, engineers, or architects really does kind of make me feel sorry for you. It's kind of pathetic and sad.
    No, it isn't. It's only economic value. "Hardworking" does not equate to "productive." There are plenty of lazy-ass rich people who do nothing but invest their inherited wealth in stocks who end up producing great returns to the economy and, therefore, to society. You seem to be incapable of divorcing economic contribution from some idea of nobility in work. They aren't the same things. I am sure almost every teacher in America works harder than Paris Hilton. That doesn't mean they deserve the same remuneration. Success is defined individually. Some people make it based on fame. Some base it on money. Some base it on being respected and having a loving family. For most people, it's a combination of factors. This is what you are not getting. Paris Hilton is RICH. I didn't say that makes her better than other people, or even a good person. She does deserve to be wealthy based on the things she has done, though. That is inarguable, unless you don't believe that some people should make more money than others.

    And I hate most shit on television, so you're wrong once again. Fame is nice if you want it, but this is about economic utility. I am going into the entertainment industry, so I am harbor no illusions about mass media, believe me.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #76
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post

    I am sure almost every teacher in America works harder than Paris Hilton. That doesn't mean they deserve the same remuneration.
    I don't get your logic here. I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by "deserve." It appears that you base the concept of "deserving" upon the whims of the current market, which strikes me as being irrational. It's as though you see the capitalist market as a God dishing out merit according to His unknowable will. Very bizarre.


    She does deserve to be wealthy based on the things she has done, though. That is inarguable, unless you don't believe that some people should make more money than others.
    This is actually the most arguable point in this post. I'm not sure how exactly you are defining "deserving." It seems like a very opinionated statement, which is endlessly arguable.


    I do believe that some people should make more money than others. However, I think that Paris Hilton is not one of them, nor the athletes you mentioned above, and many others. I also don't believe that the difference in pay scale should be so extreme, either. It's fine if some people make more and others less, but it should be rationally based upon what that person provides for society, and not insanely out of proportion to what others are making.

  7. #77
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    I don't get your logic here. I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by "deserve." It appears that you base the concept of "deserving" upon the whims of the current market, which strikes me as being irrational. It's as though you see the capitalist market as a God dishing out merit according to His unknowable will. Very bizarre.
    What's irrational about it? Irrational would be trying to dole out income based on an ill-defined concept of "deserving." The "whims" you are talking about are actually based on information derived from the interplay of supply and demand. There is no "God" involved. It's the fact that we have scarce resources (including job skills) but unlimited wants. I shouldn't have to explain this process to you.


    This is actually the most arguable point in this post. I'm not sure how exactly you are defining "deserving." It seems like a very opinionated statement, which is endlessly arguable.
    No, it's not. This money comes from doing something economically valuable. In one basketball season, lazy-ass Derrick Coleman made 150 times what the average public school teacher would make in a year. It's based on the facts that A) there are less than 500 people good enough to play NBA basketball in the world; and B) it's a billion-dollar business. There are literally millions of people who are qualified to be public school teachers in the United States. It's a less economically valuable line of work. That has nothing to do with teachers' "value" as human beings. Ever heard of "all men are created equal?" It's true when it comes to equality before the law. It's not "all men should have equal recompense" and thank Xenu for that. The world would fall apart if you tried to pay people according to someone notion of intrinsic value.


    I do believe that some people should make more money than others. However, I think that Paris Hilton is not one of them, nor the athletes you mentioned above, and many others. I also don't believe that the difference in pay scale should be so extreme, either. It's fine if some people make more and others less, but it should be rationally based upon what that person provides for society, and not insanely out of proportion to what others are making.
    So you think that the government, based on the whims of what the public (and special interests groups and lawyers and other people who actually write legislation), should decide what people make? And it should be upon what a given person "provides for society." That is INSANE. That is the second worst idea I've ever heard argued on these boards, after the guy who supported forcible eugenics programs. Money is based on someone's economic utility. That is absolutely how it should be. You want private sector companies and individuals to be subjected to government regulation of income? And you think that it would be POSITIVE for society? That's a nightmare. It's actually horrifying.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #78
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    So you think that the government, based on the whims of what the public (and special interests groups and lawyers and other people who actually write legislation), should decide what people make? And it should be upon what a given person "provides for society." That is INSANE. That is the second worst idea I've ever heard argued on these boards, after the guy who supported forcible eugenics programs. Money is based on someone's economic utility. That is absolutely how it should be. You want private sector companies and individuals to be subjected to government regulation of income? And you think that it would be POSITIVE for society? That's a nightmare. It's actually horrifying.
    Actually, I think it's called "socialism," not insanity. A lot of people think it's a good idea. Especially in this economy.

  9. #79
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Actually, I think it's called "socialism," not insanity. A lot of people think it's a good idea. Especially in this economy.
    The #1 reason why the Soviet Union's economy was 1/3rd the size of the United States' (while being bigger, more populated, and having more natural resources) was that their command system couldn't set prices that made any sense. No one with a functioning brain and a rudimentary understanding of economics would suggest that the government should set income levels.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  10. #80
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post




    The world would fall apart if you tried to pay people according to someone notion of intrinsic value.
    You ....do....realize....that there was a world long before our relatively new capitalist system came into play, right?




    So you think that the government, based on the whims of what the public (and special interests groups and lawyers and other people who actually write legislation), should decide what people make? And it should be upon what a given person "provides for society." That is INSANE.
    Um, the public and special interest groups and lawyers and other people who actually write legislation largely make up what is called "society." It's insane for the members of society to decide for themselves who should get what? Come again? People did this for absolutely EONS before modern capitalist notions were invented.

Similar Threads

  1. Why are NT's so rare as the main characters?
    By great_bay in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-16-2017, 01:51 AM
  2. [sx] Why are sx-doms so common in typology communities?
    By Octavarium in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 03-11-2015, 10:08 PM
  3. So, Why Are You Up So Early/Late?
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 03:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO