|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 03/20/2002 : 18:36:21 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
That said, I find TD to be one of the least intentionally offensive posters here. I dare say his criticisms are directed at your behavior, rather than your character.[/quote]
I did call someone a nutjob here once, but I feel bad about it.  I appreciate your testimony immensely.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 21:04:35 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
Why do you think you deserve so much and someone else doesn't? Because they don't work?
Why should you make the head of a corporation that cheats and pollutes wealthy and not the guy that at least has the decency to sit at home and drink?
[/quote]
Where did I say I deserve so much? I deserve what I earn as does everyone else. One can only do so much about slackers.
Roads that were built before my time, well, I think we are talking about two different things, or even if not, I can't worry about that. I can only do what I need to for myself for what I need now.
Anyone who cheats goes to jail and repays her debt.
The women who drinks at home is doing nothing wrong but when she's on the street causing problmes that's when the authorities are called in.
*
Earth is the insane asylum for the universe.
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 03:58:35 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
I had come to the same conclusion. I suspect we come form *very* different ends of the political spectrum and are unlikely to agree on the problems, let alone the solutions to what we are discussing.[/quote]
NI, do you really want to agree? Or are you looking for someone to say "You are right!"
BTW, nice post Donnie B!
"You are right!"
bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
(dictionary.com)
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 04:37:33 [Permalink]
|
We are all in this together and what you get is decided more by other people and what they did than it is decided by you.
We're talking about $2 a day, but the numbers are really immaterial. Are people working 18 hours a day in locked buildings and not getting what they need to live a healthy life? Yes. Which do they need worse, charity or a change in the system? How about the children that sort through hospital waste to find needles to recycle? Do they need charity or a change in the system?
Like I said, I think slave owners thought very highly of their slaves. They thought they were being charitable on many occasions I'm sure. Did the slaves need charity or a change in the system?
[quote]
Where did I say I deserve so much?
[/quote]
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 04:45:54 [Permalink]
|
Actually, if we're taking a vote, I'd say that TD was impugning NI's motives, which would be an attack on the person, not the material. Sign of a weak argument. That is if we're taking a vote.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 05:14:09 [Permalink]
|
"Actually, if we're taking a vote, I'd say that TD was impugning NI's motives, which would be an attack on the person, not the material. Sign of a weak argument. That is if we're taking a vote."
Thanks for *your* testimony, Gorgo, I appreciate that. I think I got frustrated as we seemed not to be communicating at all, and I think I made several points that TokyDreamer simply did not address, viz:
1) A comparison of charitable donations to GDP in the US, and whether despite problems with comparison, this could be argued to be a very small percentage.
2) Whether the $2 a day that 2.8 billion people have is enough to afford decent health-care and education.
3) The relevance of a distinction between "needs" (the *absolute* basics) and "wants" (life improving "luxuries") when discussing wealth-distribution.
I think these are very relevant points to TD's arguments, but he just seemed to gripe that he didn't like the statistics, or their interpretation, without supplying any of his own to back up his arguments.
Still, my debating style clearly needs to be slightly more robust for Skeptic Friends! I am growing a thicker skin as we speak...
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 06:04:10 [Permalink]
|
You're welcome, NI. I don't know why you think we haven't communicated. I've said that I agreed with you and understood what you were saying.
But, to be fair, you also said that TD was not "bothered" by poverty, in a way that that seemed to me to say that being bothered was superior to not being bothered, thus impugning TD's motives.
Being bothered is a decision that people make which doesn't really change anything.
[quote]
Thanks for *your* testimony, Gorgo, I appreciate that. I think I got frustrated as we seemed not to be communicating at all, and I think I made several points that TokyDreamer simply did not address, viz:
[/quote]
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 07:02:18 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
1) A comparison of charitable donations to GDP in the US, and whether despite problems with comparison, this could be argued to be a very small percentage.[/quote]
I gave some charitable figures for the year 2000 (I assume in cash donations), and the estimated GDP (which is goods and services). I flat out said that I have no ideas how to compare the two. Yes, it's probably a small percentage. My contention with you is that you claim that no one cares to give. Now you are saying they give, but it's not enough. You are jumping around too much to continue a conversation using this limited medium.
The size of donations compared to the GDP has no relevance to why this was brought up in the first place. My point was that there are many people who give a very large sum of money to charity, thus disproving your assertion that not one single rich person cares about the poor.
[quote]2) Whether the $2 a day that 2.8 billion people have is enough to afford decent health-care and education.[/quote]
What's the going rate for health care and education in these countries? But most likely it isn't. And that is indeed a shame. If you want to debate what to do about it, start a new thread, as there are so many factors that contribute to the "why" they only make $2 a day, and it most certainly isn't all the fault of the wealthy.
[quote]3) The relevance of a distinction between "needs" (the *absolute* basics) and "wants" (life improving "luxuries") when discussing wealth-distribution.[/quote]
Simply that I don't believe wealth distribution is justified when all you want to do is provide luxuries for people who can't afford them. If you want to talk about wealth redistribution to people who can't provide for "needs", I bet we'll find common ground.
[quote]I think these are very relevant points to TD's arguments[/quote]
My only argument was that it is unreasonable to claim that every single person of wealth is a selfish uncaring bastard. You make this claim independently of even having to know the person. Have I misunderstood?
I could be insulted that you think [i]I[/i] don't care, along with the wealthy (of which I assure you I am not one), about the poor and needy. But I think that would be a waste of time.
I give you the last word.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 07:10:16 [Permalink]
|
[quote][quote]
"Notty, if you have problems with the things that might motivate business owners to provide jobs, you're going to be an angry little gremlin for a long time." (Phdreamer)[/quote]
Indeed I am likely to be an angry "little gremlin". I have no problem with that, as no-one in this discourse has given me any valid reason not to be.[/quote]
Well, if you have convinced yourself that individual humans can be altruistic by nature, no one in this discourse will be able to provide your valid reason.
[quote][quote]"You're also going to have to come up with an economic system that even [i]allows[/i] altruistic behavior. What do you think would happen to a capitalistic framework that is primarily motivated by the "goodness of [business owners'] hearts"? (PhDreamer)"[/quote]
No problem: production for need first (and want second), not for profit.[/quote]
You are confusing your goals with your system. And didn't you take TD to task for his bifurcation of needs and wants? Wasn't it you who was arguing that it's difficult to draw the line?
[quote][quote]"I dare say his criticisms are directed at your behavior, rather than your character."[/quote]
Well, I object just as much to that as anything else. Having described me first as a bigot (and then retracted that), he gave me the option of being either dense or dishonest. I am neither. [/quote]
Everyone is dense and/or dishonest some of the time. He wasn't indicting your character. How could he? He doesn't even know you. I don't necessarily agree with what he wrote but I can see a fundamental difference between, "This statement indicates that you are currently being dense or dishonest" and "You are a dense or dishonest person by nature." Honestly, you should try to get used to having your behavior impugned from time to time. Makes things go smoother.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968.
Edited by - NottyImp on 03/20/2002 16:47:34
[/quote]
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 07:20:59 [Permalink]
|
I am always dense, and rarely dishonest, but rarely purposely dense and if I am, it's none of your business and irrelevant to the argument.
If TD doesn't know him, then he can't know his motives, therefore impugning his motives is an attack on his person and irrelevant to the argument.
[quote]
Everyone is dense and/or dishonest some of the time. He wasn't indicting your character. How could he? He doesn't even know you. I don't necessarily agree with what he wrote but I can see a fundamental difference between, "This statement indicates that you are currently being dense or dishonest" and "You are a dense or dishonest person by nature." Honestly, you should try to get used to having your behavior impugned from time to time. Makes things go smoother.
[/quote]
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 07:21:42 [Permalink]
|
"You're welcome, NI. I don't know why you think we haven't communicated. I've said that I agreed with you and understood what you were saying." (Gorgo)
Apologies I didn't make myself clear - I thought that *TokyoDreamer* and I were not communicating, not you and I, Gorgo, which was frustrating.
"Yes, it's probably a small percentage. My contention with you is that you claim that no one cares to give. Now you are saying they give, but it's not enough. You are jumping around too much to continue a conversation using this limited medium." (TokyoDreamer)
OK, I made a generalisation. I think it is a small percentage, and I do think that it is not enough and never can be enough. My point is that we cannot and should not rely on charity to address these problems, which I think is fairly made. As Gorgo says, maybe we need to change the system.
"My point was that there are many people who give a very large sum of money to charity, thus disproving your assertion that not one single rich person cares about the poor."
Granted. My point is that even these people support a system that in my view creates that poverty, and are thus culpable in spite of their individual philanthropic efforts.
"What's the going rate for health care and education in these countries? But most likely it isn't. And that is indeed a shame. If you want to debate what to do about it, start a new thread, as there are so many factors that contribute to the "why" they only make $2 a day, and it most certainly isn't all the fault of the wealthy."
Blimey, we agree! Well, in part. I actually think that the system of world capitalism is the determinant in this.
"Simply that I don't believe wealth distribution is justified when all you want to do is provide luxuries for people who can't afford them. If you want to talk about wealth redistribution to people who can't provide for "needs", I bet we'll find common ground."
And my point is that decent health and education would appear from your definition of "needs" to be "luxuries", something that I strongly disagree with. I also have a beef with this whole "needs"/"wants" thing as well, but I think we're fairly clear on that one.
One thing I will say, however, despite its ups and downs, it has been an excellent discussion.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 08:00:28 [Permalink]
|
"Well, if you have convinced yourself that individual humans can be altruistic by nature, no one in this discourse will be able to provide your valid reason." (PhDreamer)
I'm not sure about this one, and it's something I need to read more about. It's a subject that has always bothered me, I have to admit. I do think people are capable of many types of social behaviour, not just naked self-interest. Even under an agressively competitive socio-economic system, co-operation is wide-spread and necessary. Might it be maximised under some other societal arrangements that *promote* co-operation in the same way as this system *promotes* self-interest and competition? It's a question worth asking at least. And in the end, perhaps "enlightened self-interest" might do the trick after all, anyway.
"You are confusing your goals with your system. And didn't you take TD to task for his bifurcation of needs and wants? Wasn't it you who was arguing that it's difficult to draw the line?"
No, to me the two are inseperable. Means and ends matter. As to needs/wants, TokyoDreamer has a very *clear* definition. I question its relevance to what might be characterised as a "moral" discussion of wealth distribution. He *seems* to be saying that he's happy if "needs" are met for all people, and that anything beyond these are unaffordable luxuries. I believe that peoples' right to demand "wants" to enrich their lives should carry just as much weight as their demand for "needs". As I said before, decent health-care and education do not appear in TD's list of "needs", and that worries me.
"Honestly, you should try to get used to having your behavior impugned from time to time. Makes things go smoother."
OK, impugn away, I will try not to get offended!
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 08:24:35 [Permalink]
|
I have to agree. The means create the ends. People may not be altruistic "by nature" but cooperation is the only thing that keeps society going. It's irrelevant whether they are altruistic out of self-interest of altruistic by "nature."
Are people going to work harder if they know the whole is going to benefit or are they going to work harder knowing that they're going to get very little and someone else is going to get a lot. This is the same state capitalism in the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. The only difference is the U.S. is more democratic (therefore more socialist) than the U.S.S.R. The US has to at least have the appearance of being democratic.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 09:07:00 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Gorgo:
The only difference is the U.S. is more democratic (therefore more socialist) than the U.S.S.R. [/quote]
I don't follow this. Can you elaborate, please?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2002 : 09:17:26 [Permalink]
|
Socialism simply means that the means of production are owned and run by the people. That is the most democratic possible organization.
People in the U.S. do have more say over the "means of production" than they did in the U.S.S.R. although they do not technically own and run the means of production.
It's been said that there are no famines in democratic countries. That's the biggest reason.
I'm not saying that the U.S. is as democratic as it is portrayed as being, but it is more democratic than the U.S.S.R. from what I've seen. There are other problems with the U.S.S.R. as well. It was the enemy of the Western world (read wealthy western world) even before it started so that has a little to do with it.
[quote]
I don't follow this. Can you elaborate, please?
[/quote]
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 03/21/2002 09:29:44 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
