User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 204

  1. #101
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Reese isn't the point. Go back to my point.

    It appears that some who don't have, covet what the ones they disparage, have. That's the bottom line and all the posturing about societal good, has strong elements of self-interest and hypocrisy.
    Really, what about upper middle class and wealthy people who care about societal good? And what about people who are so needy they're living on survival level, or not even, how can you even compare that to something like arbitrary Hollywood standards of beauty?

    Some who "have" didn't work for it, either, so we can dispose of that argument.

    The fact that all you can see is self-interest and hypocrisy tells me a lot about you, that you can't see why people would care about other people, about community good, or even be rational enough to see how severe gaps between rich and poor hurt the society in general.

    Some people are never satisfied with what they have, and others are happy with very little. I should probably feel sorrier for the people who have such emotional and psychological poverty that they can't be happy no matter how much they have.

  2. #102
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Let's look at the 1500's as an extreme comparison. Would you say that the average person today, has far,far more material wealth than in the 1500's?
    I would be inclined to say yes. But that is a temporal difference. From then to now we have preserved a structure in which a minority of people at any given time. For the people that are the poorest, material wealth has increased the least since the 1500s. For the richest, it has improved the most. The matter of who is and isn't wealthy at a given time is something that does change, but not very chaotically. There tend to be long trends that occasionally shift with massive social overalls, that then return to pretty much the same structure as before.

    And at any rate, the main reason for the change is technology and population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Mutilation of those born more fortunate would level the dating playing field for the average to less fortunate, right?
    No, I think in this case people will always notice a difference between the way two people look and will never the less find one more attractive than another. It's totally subjective. Who has food is not. I further argue that the people who are super rich, not merely these low level millionaires, can give up an enormous amount of money without even being capable of appreciating a change in their lives. A beautiful person mutilated will have a very appreciable change.

    Even if I gave you this one (I don't) that would address only one problem with your comparison out of my list.

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Hmmm. Then what does the term "standard of living" mean, Magic, and why is the one in Switzerland higher than the one in Mali?
    Does it not occur to you that this rule could apply to everyone on the earth, rather than conveniently to one country's market?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #103
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    What makes you think I'm at that point?
    I dont know whether you are or are not hence why I bothered posting at all.

  4. #104
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    Really, what about upper middle class and wealthy people who care about societal good? And what about people who are so needy they're living on survival level, or not even, how can you even compare that to something like arbitrary Hollywood standards of beauty?

    Some who "have" didn't work for it, either, so we can dispose of that argument.

    The fact that all you can see is self-interest and hypocrisy tells me a lot about you, that you can't see why people would care about other people, about community good, or even be rational enough to see how severe gaps between rich and poor hurt the society in general.

    Some people are never satisfied with what they have, and others are happy with very little. I should probably feel sorrier for the people who have such emotional and psychological poverty that they can't be happy no matter how much they have.
    I'm going to give you the same challenge I gave to Lark. Put your money and life where your mouth is. Get rid of your luxuries like Internet connection or having more clothing than you need to survive, give it all to those less fortunate and make millions to give away. Do it or you're nothing but a hypocrite.

  5. #105
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Reese isn't the point. Go back to my point.

    It appears that some who don't have, covet what the ones they disparage, have. That's the bottom line and all the posturing about societal good, has strong elements of self-interest and hypocrisy.
    My goal is a utilitarian one. The standard of living at large will be worse the more unequal the distribution of wealth is. Stratification works to mitigate the realization of a society's potential prosperity. In theory, there is a curve, and a point where a society starts to have a harmful amount of equality. I have little reason to believe that any one country on earth, certainly the earth itself, has reached that point of equality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    I'm going to give you the same challenge I gave to Lark. Put your money and life where your mouth is. Get rid of your luxuries like Internet connection or having more clothing than you need to survive, give it all to those less fortunate and make millions to give away. Do it or you're nothing but a hypocrite.
    A fallacious argument par excellence. That really has nothing to do with whether or not what she's saying is accurate, does it? Further more you're trying to restrict her ability to speak on the subject, and holding it up to a standard that you know can't possibly translate into this discussion. What's she going to do, check back with you on this in 10 years?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #106
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    I apologized to Marm about that, and I have apologized to you.

    If you want me to explain where I was going with it I can, but I'd just as soon let it go if that's all right with you.
    Alright then, to be honest I was more than a little surprised at that and had hoped it was a bad joke, in terms of the discussion I thought it sounded a little dismissive, surely not a great place to begin any discussion?

  7. #107
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    I'm going to give you the same challenge I gave to Lark. Put your money and life where your mouth is. Get rid of your luxuries like Internet connection or having more clothing than you need to survive, give it all to those less fortunate and make millions to give away. Do it or you're nothing but a hypocrite.


    Internet connection isn't a luxury for me, I have to have it for work, and I don't see how living in abject poverty helps other people.

    No one said that millionaires should give away everything they have - who said that? Who said millionaires should have nothing?

    You're being very irrational - this argument is ludicrous and absurd. No one ever said that millionaires should have nothing, or that EVERYONE should have to live in poverty. There are countries that have pretty much proven, though, that with some constraints, people can overall have a higher standard of living. It doesn't mean those people live without books, education, Internet, or clothes. To the contrary, it means that poorer people get to share those things as well.

    As an aside, I live very simply and don't have much of anything to give away, and share what I do have when I can, including my food and my clothing. If I were wealthy, you'd never see me bitching about this preposterous bullshit.

  8. #108
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    I'm going to give you the same challenge I gave to Lark. Put your money and life where your mouth is. Get rid of your luxuries like Internet connection or having more clothing than you need to survive, give it all to those less fortunate and make millions to give away. Do it or you're nothing but a hypocrite.
    Jenaphor, you do realise that the conetnt of your post is really that you'd like people to cease posting anything vexatious to you otherwise they are hypocrites? So far as discussions go that's a new one to me.

  9. #109
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I would be inclined to say yes. But that is a temporal difference. From then to now we have preserved a structure in which a minority of people at any given time. For the people that are the poorest, material wealth has increased the least since the 1500s. For the richest, it has improved the most. The matter of who is and isn't wealthy at a given time is something that does change, but not very chaotically. There tend to be long trends that occasionally shift with massive social overalls, that then return to pretty much the same structure as before.

    And at any rate, the main reason for the change is technology and population.
    The average person currently, has more material wealth than many of the "aristocrats" in the 1500's. Suffice to say, as a comparison, the standard of living has greatly increased making most people "millionaires", if put back into a 1500's.

    No, I think in this case people will always notice a difference between the way two people look and will never the less find one more attractive than another. It's totally subjective. Who has food is not. I further argue that the people who are super rich, not merely these low level millionaires, can give up an enormous amount of money without even being capable of appreciating a change in their lives. A beautiful person mutilated will have a very appreciable change.

    Even if I gave you this one (I don't) that would address only one problem with your comparison out of my list.
    Most can agree on what is considered above-average attractive. So if you mutilated everyone within that 49% range, it would level the playing field for everyone below that cut-off point.

  10. #110
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    My goal is a utilitarian one. The standard of living at large will be worse the more unequal the distribution of wealth is. Stratification works to mitigate the realization of a society's potential prosperity. In theory, there is a curve, and a point where a society starts to have a harmful amount of equality. I have little reason to believe that any one country on earth, certainly the earth itself, has reached that point of equality.



    A fallacious argument par excellence. That really has nothing to do with whether or not what she's saying is accurate, does it? Further more you're trying to restrict her ability to speak on the subject, and holding it up to a standard that you know can't possibly translate into this discussion. What's she going to do, check back with you on this in 10 years?
    Now that's a good post.

Similar Threads

  1. Everyone in the US Knew There Might be a Housing Bubble
    By nomadic in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 12:00 AM
  2. Foreign students in the US
    By Moiety in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-12-2009, 09:57 PM
  3. Is ideology the bane of intellectual sophistication in the US?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-13-2009, 01:18 PM
  4. MBTIc votes in the US election
    By Economica in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 08:38 PM
  5. Christianity's Fall from Grace (in the US)
    By mippus in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-08-2008, 11:31 AM

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