(Close Window)
Topic: The lottery of birth
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 3, 2015 02:10PM)
[quote]Warren Buffett, probably the world’s most successful investor, has said that anything good that happened to him could be traced back to the fact that he was born in the right country, the United States, at the right time (1930). [/quote]

Of course we like to think that we deserve our success because we are awesome. And of course some of that is true. But how much of our success is due to being born fortunately? With food, nutrition, political freedom, education, support in our families and/or communities?

Yeah, I know. Nobody handed you anything; you had to earn it yourself. Yeah.

But what about the conditions that make our "earning it ourselves" possible?

What makes me worthy of my luxurious life, while someone of equal ability and work ethic born in, say, sub-Saharan Africa doesn't have such a lovely life? What makes me so awesome?

Of course, these are age-old questions.

[url=http://www.economist.com/news/21566430-where-be-born-2013-lottery-life]The Economist[/url] published an interesting article about this. Where do the lottery winners live? They come to the conclusion that when it comes to life opportunities, "boring is best".

For those who love such things, yes, the article posts a list. I recommend you ignore it. And think about how incredibly lucky you are.

And maybe use some time today to think about whether your luck comes all tied up with some responsibility too.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Feb 3, 2015 02:11PM)
Unless I get another life to compare with, I could not really answer that to any certain extent. ;)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 3, 2015 02:31PM)
I think the better question is what is proposed as a solution? And how are those solutions going to be imposed upon others? Oh and what if others do not want to have this solutions imposed upon them?

See I have a simple solution for the phony hand wringing. Buffett can give away all his money except enough to eat and keep a rid over his head. One room. That should equalise quite a few people I should imagine. Then and only then can he even think about telling anyone else about fair. Same for anyone. Just give away all you have and get rid of your guilt. That way we can learn from your example.

Till then it is just chin wagging. Nothing more.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 3, 2015 02:34PM)
Solution to what? What is the problem that requires solving, Danny?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 3, 2015 03:26PM)
Not playing John.

Do you think the inequality is something that needs to be addressed?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 3, 2015 03:28PM)
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Not playing John.

[/quote]

Thank you.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 3, 2015 03:33PM)
Buffet would fit right in here at NVMS with that fine example of overstating a valid point the point of ridiculousness.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 3, 2015 03:37PM)
"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life."

- Cecil Rhodes
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Feb 3, 2015 04:26PM)
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

What makes me worthy of my luxurious life, while someone of equal ability and work ethic born in, say, sub-Saharan Africa doesn't have such a lovely life? What makes me so awesome?

And maybe use some time today to think about whether your luck comes all tied up with some responsibility too. [/quote]

So the question comes down to whether those born in their given situations/circumstances, owe those born into lesser circumstances, and are in turn owed something by those born into better circumstances than they were.
No.

Do we owe humanity, the global society, something since we take part of it? I
MO, yes by initiating no violence, taking nothing that doesn't belong to us, and producing more than we consume.

What are your answers to the questions you posed Magnus?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Feb 3, 2015 04:29PM)
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Just give away all you have and get rid of your guilt.

[/quote]

Why should anyone feel guilty about having what they honestly earned?

Why do they, if that is the case?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 3, 2015 04:32PM)
[quote]
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee. [/quote]

- John Donne
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 3, 2015 04:37PM)
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

What makes me worthy of my luxurious life, while someone of equal ability and work ethic born in, say, sub-Saharan Africa doesn't have such a lovely life? What makes me so awesome?

And maybe use some time today to think about whether your luck comes all tied up with some responsibility too. [/quote]

So the question comes down to whether those born in their given situations/circumstances, owe those born into lesser circumstances, and are in turn owed something by those born into better circumstances than they were.
No.

Do we owe humanity, the global society, something since we take part of it? I
MO, yes by initiating no violence, taking nothing that doesn't belong to us, and producing more than we consume.

What are your answers to the questions you posed Magnus? [/quote]

I'm not worthy; I'm lucky.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Feb 3, 2015 05:17PM)
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee. [/quote]

- John Donne [/quote]

Very nice.

So by using that analogy when a murderer or child molester dies, humanity is the lesser for their death?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 3, 2015 05:32PM)
Yeah, it's a good poem, but I gotta say I don't feel particularly diminished by, say, Ted Bundy's (to call back another thread) death.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 3, 2015 05:37PM)
Very nice illusion: There are no forests, there are only individual trees. Forests are merely an abstraction.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Feb 3, 2015 05:39PM)
NYCtwister-

If you don't understand the poem there are some excellent on-line study guides.

Besides, why are you now changing the subject? We were talking about our obligations, if any, to those born in less fortunate circumstances than our own, not child molesters or murderers.

And that's why the poem is relevant.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 3, 2015 05:48PM)
None. You are born with NO obligations.

If you CHOOSE to do things to benefit humanity then good. But you are not "obligated" to.

You had no choice in your birth, so you can not be obligated by it to do for others.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 3, 2015 05:57PM)
Many Americans are lucky to have got across the border.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 3, 2015 06:58PM)
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...
Of course we like to think that we deserve our success because we are awesome. And of course some of that is true. But how much of our success is due to being born fortunately? With food, nutrition, political freedom, education, support in our families and/or communities?
... [/quote]

I would guess that if polled, close to 100%, (higher than 95% I'm certain), of US conservatives would say that they were supremely fortunate to be born within the US. An equally high percentage would go on to say that they believe the US to be the greatest country that has ever existed which is why they are so grateful for having been born here. I know, how terribly jingoistic of them!

Now, in the same poll, I'm not really sure how many on the left would be happy about their birth circumstances. Probably also a large percentage. Although, while happy at being born here, I suspect a large percentage of them would answer the near opposite to the second question.

As to whether we owe someone something for our good luck. Well, the answer to that may also be found in polls and practices. While studies have shown that conservatives are much more generous at donations to charity, the left also believes that they are quite generous. Of course, to the left, generous means, "how much can I take from my neighbor to give to those less fortunate than me."
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Feb 3, 2015 07:13PM)
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
NYCtwister-

If you don't understand the poem there are some excellent on-line study guides.

Besides, why are you now changing the subject? We were talking about our obligations, if any, to those born in less fortunate circumstances than our own, not child molesters or murderers.

And that's why the poem is relevant. [/quote]


Mastermindreader,

I understand the poem perfectly, thank you. In addition I prefer to use my own mind to evaluate things,
so no thank you, I don't need any online guides. You of course are free to read as many as you feel the need to.

I did not change any subject. I merely pointed out how a quaint, feel good poem, which makes an analogy equating humanity, as a whole, to a land mass is wrong to make such an analogy.
Back in Brooklyn we called them logical fallacies, but what did we know? I was raised by, and continue to be, a very literal person.

"Any man's death diminishes me, Because I am involved in mankind" is what the poet said and he is wrong. In more ways that the example I pointed out, but I choose not to digress.

As far as what anyone owes the "less fortunate" I gave my opinion above in no uncertain terms.

So, Mastermindreader, do you think we're obligated to those born into less fortunate circumstances than yourself? If so, what is the nature of that obligation and why do you bear it?

If you do think you have such an obligation, do you think those born into more fortunate circumstances than you owe you a similar debt?

I had to ask you directly, since you chose to post a poem instead of stating your opinion directly.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Feb 3, 2015 07:26PM)
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

What makes me worthy of my luxurious life, while someone of equal ability and work ethic born in, say, sub-Saharan Africa doesn't have such a lovely life? What makes me so awesome?

And maybe use some time today to think about whether your luck comes all tied up with some responsibility too. [/quote]

So the question comes down to whether those born in their given situations/circumstances, owe those born into lesser circumstances, and are in turn owed something by those born into better circumstances than they were.
No.

Do we owe humanity, the global society, something since we take part of it? I
MO, yes by initiating no violence, taking nothing that doesn't belong to us, and producing more than we consume.

What are your answers to the questions you posed Magnus? [/quote]

I'm not worthy; I'm lucky. [/quote]

Magnus, (may I call you John?)

Do you feel that your good fortune comes with any inherent responsibility, and if so what is the nature of that responsibility?

Also do you feel that those more fortunate than you bear a similar responsibility?

I'm sincerely curious because this subject, and all it encompasses, is important to me.

Dan
Message: Posted by: AllAboutMagic (Feb 3, 2015 09:45PM)
Magnus.....have you seen the three part documentary or read the book, "Guns, Germs, @ Steel?" I heard about it from a thread on here and watched it on Netflix. It tries to answer some of those age old questions. It was an eye opener.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 3, 2015 10:59PM)
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, rockwall wrote:
While studies have shown that conservatives are much more generous at donations to charity, the left also believes that they are quite generous. Of course, to the left, generous means, "how much can I take from my neighbor to give to those less fortunate than me." [/quote]
Wrong. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/21/study-conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Feb 3, 2015 11:01PM)
I think the TIME you were born is more important.
Message: Posted by: AllAboutMagic (Feb 3, 2015 11:05PM)
Are you really using a blog that compares donations to a religious charity with states that voted for Bush as your basis?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 3, 2015 11:13PM)
Anything that agrees with ones own point of view.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 3, 2015 11:53PM)
@NYCTwister: yes I do think that my good fortune comes with some burden of responsibility. I can't be specific and I can't quantify, but if we are to take our moral relationships with others seriously, yes we do have responsibilities.

@Allaboutmagic: Yes, I've read the book, but I haven't seen the documentary. I don't follow the connection you're making here. What do you have in mind.


Oh, and please call me John.
Message: Posted by: AllAboutMagic (Feb 4, 2015 12:08AM)
I was trying to connect it to this question that you posed.... What makes me worthy of my luxurious life, while someone of equal ability and work ethic born in, say, sub-Saharan Africa doesn't have such a lovely life? What makes me so awesome?

I guess it was a stretch, but the book does try to explain why your life is better than the sub-Saharan African, or at least has more opportunities.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 4, 2015 12:12AM)
If one feels a personal responsibility that is fine. Act upon it however makes you feel the best.

If you try to force others to act upon your feeling of being to advantaged we have a problem.

John do you purpose anything be done about this?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Feb 4, 2015 01:46AM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I think the TIME you were born is more important. [/quote]

Why?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Feb 4, 2015 03:44AM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
@NYCTwister: yes I do think that my good fortune comes with some burden of responsibility. I can't be specific and I can't quantify, but if we are to take our moral relationships with others seriously, yes we do have responsibilities.

Oh, and please call me John. [/quote]

John,

So to follow that way of thinking further, in an effort to specify with the intention of finding and implementing a fair solution to this real problem, a first step would be to define what such a moral responsibility is.
I agree that there is some sort of moral responsibility that should be expected of any individual who chooses to be a part of society, up to and including society on a global level.

I think that since this is a collective problem, and as Tommy pointed out all forests are in essence a collection of individual trees, the first thing to agree on is what constitutes proper moral behavior on the level of the individual.
Until we agree on that, and hold each individual to such a standard by way of objective law, any attempt at a solution, or fair "equalization" cannot work.

Until we specify, the concept of a moral responsibility to each other, whether because of the circumstances of birth or any other reason, remains an abstraction.

However, the inequalities that do exist is not an abstract problem. It's very real and needs to be solved because it's a threat to us all, and is growing as fast as the global population.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 4, 2015 03:46AM)
Some are unlucky enough to be born on February 29th.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 4, 2015 07:37AM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, AllAboutMagic wrote:
Are you really using a blog that compares donations to a religious charity with states that voted for Bush as your basis? [/quote]

"Do conservatives give more away? According to a new study by two MIT political scientists, not really.

Michele Margolis and Michael Sances note that Brooks' conclusion [i.e. conservatives give more] comes from a dataset that doesn't really ask how conservative people are politically so much as how conservative they are socially. Using a dataset which uses more traditional questions to test political beliefs - the General Social Survey - they found no statistically significant relationship between peoples' political beliefs, or their partisan affiliation, and their charitable giving level. And this held at the state level too. There was no significant relationship between a state's level of giving and the vote share that Bush received in that state in 2004."
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 4, 2015 07:52AM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, AllAboutMagic wrote:
I was trying to connect it to this question that you posed.... What makes me worthy of my luxurious life, while someone of equal ability and work ethic born in, say, sub-Saharan Africa doesn't have such a lovely life? What makes me so awesome?

I guess it was a stretch, but the book does try to explain why your life is better than the sub-Saharan African, or at least has more opportunities. [/quote]

Oh I see. Yes, Diamond argues that much of the historical development and wealth of the world is deeply influenced by geography. This addresses the cause, but leaves us wondering over the moral implications.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 4, 2015 07:56AM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
@NYCTwister: yes I do think that my good fortune comes with some burden of responsibility. I can't be specific and I can't quantify, but if we are to take our moral relationships with others seriously, yes we do have responsibilities.

Oh, and please call me John. [/quote]

John,

So to follow that way of thinking further, in an effort to specify with the intention of finding and implementing a fair solution to this real problem, a first step would be to define what such a moral responsibility is.
I agree that there is some sort of moral responsibility that should be expected of any individual who chooses to be a part of society, up to and including society on a global level.

I think that since this is a collective problem, and as Tommy pointed out all forests are in essence a collection of individual trees, the first thing to agree on is what constitutes proper moral behavior on the level of the individual.
Until we agree on that, and hold each individual to such a standard by way of objective law, any attempt at a solution, or fair "equalization" cannot work.

Until we specify, the concept of a moral responsibility to each other, whether because of the circumstances of birth or any other reason, remains an abstraction.

However, the inequalities that do exist is not an abstract problem. It's very real and needs to be solved because it's a threat to us all, and is growing as fast as the global population. [/quote]

I think we can begin by thinking about social justice, and trying to get at least a provisional idea of what that entails. Domestically, this has led to things like labour standards, environmental policies, health-care requirements, and so on. Internationally, it has mostly led to charity and military intervention.

The current political climate has called all these things into question. Personally, I think its important to keep the fundamental issues before us, in plain sight, lest we adopt a "screw you, I'm already in the lifeboat" attitude.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 4, 2015 09:53AM)
Well John do you prefer a screw you get out of the lifeboat because too many who look like you are already in attitude?

See the problem with implementation of such collectivist ideas (And make no mistake put any new hula skirt on them you want that is exactly what they are.) is that to make things equal the proposal is inevitably to take from those who you perceive to have more than they need.

I think living examples are always best. You ask these questions but do you have more than others? Why not start there? You have compete control over this. Why worry about others and society when ones own self can not do the things they feel society is responsible for?

Not you specifically. Sorry if it reads that way. Seriously.

But I think people should clean up on heir own back yard before but elling others how to clean theirs. Morals are tricky as they are subjective and personal. No more than any religion should be able to force their morality on others should we do it in this case.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 4, 2015 10:23AM)
[quote]Well John do you prefer a screw you get out of the lifeboat because too many who look like you are already in attitude? [/quote]

Imagine a large lifeboat with a hundred seats. A hundred people get on the boat. Imagine, further, each seat represents 1% of the nation's wealth and each person represents 1% of the nation's population.

Then, if the 1% rich own 40% of the wealth--as they do in this country-- that means, by analogy, 1 person gets to take up 40 of those seats. The other 99 people have to scramble for a piece of the other 60 remaining seats.

So Bill Gates will not drown even if he gives up 35 of his seats.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 4, 2015 10:26AM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Well John do you prefer a screw you get out of the lifeboat because too many who look like you are already in attitude? [/quote]

I dislike it because it is ethically odious.

[quote]See the problem with implementation of such collectivist ideas (And make no mistake put any new hula skirt on them you want that is exactly what they are.) is that to make things equal the proposal is inevitably to take from those who you perceive to have more than they need. [/quote]

What collectivist ideas?

[quote]I think living examples are always best. You ask these questions but do you have more than others? Why not start there? You have compete control over this. Why worry about others and society when ones own self can not do the things they feel society is responsible for? [/quote]

I have kept most of my personal actions private, which is my right and my desire. I think that the questions are appropriately discussed publicly. If, as democratic societies, we do not discuss matters of justice, we have failed to live up to our democratic ideals.

[quote]Not you specifically. Sorry if it reads that way. Seriously.

But I think people should clean up on heir own back yard before but elling others how to clean theirs. Morals are tricky as they are subjective and personal. No more than any religion should be able to force their morality on others should we do it in this case. [/quote]

I agree to an extent. But we are always engaged in public and private moral discussion. Every time we talk politics, economics, intervention, diplomacy and what have you, we are engaged in discussions of public morality and social justice.

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 4, 2015 10:27AM)
Is that designed as an illustration, or as an argument that Bill Gates should give up 35 or more of his seats, since he doesn't need them?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 4, 2015 10:52AM)
1) Illustration, as it helps to have an easily imagined visual when thinking about these things. We can use ten chairs and ten people too. One rich person (much less of course) takes up 4 chairs while the other 9 have to scramble for a piece of the remaining 6 chairs.

2) Danny was distraught that some rich people might get screwed out of the lifeboat. My Bill Gates remark was to reassure him that Bill would land on his feet. He'd still have plenty of room in that lifeboat, even if wealth were substantially re-distributed.

3) Practical how of it? Start with taxing capital gains at the same level as income tax, get rid of the Social Security rich person entitlement discount, enact a stock transfer tax. And for Lord's sake, stop boo-hooing that then you'll only be able to afford ten mansions instead of twenty.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 4, 2015 10:58AM)
What gives you the right to redistribute any wealth morally? Where does that right come from? One has more so you decide how much is enough and redistribute based on that?

Funny how this never had worked isn't it?

The problem isn't the rich. The problem is your leviathan government. But then again those are so often one in the same.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 4, 2015 11:14AM)
[quote]
Funny how this never had worked isn't it? [/quote]
AFAIK, every modern country taxes its people.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 4, 2015 11:28AM)
Gates built most of the lifeboats himself.
Message: Posted by: silvercup (Feb 4, 2015 11:37AM)
The problem is money.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 4, 2015 11:39AM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]
Funny how this never had worked isn't it? [/quote]
AFAIK, every modern country taxes its people. [/quote]

Who said they didn't?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 4, 2015 11:47AM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
What gives you the right to redistribute any wealth morally? Where does that right come from? One has more so you decide how much is enough and redistribute based on that?

Funny how this never had worked isn't it?

The problem isn't the rich. The problem is your leviathan government. But then again those are so often one in the same. [/quote]

What gives governments the right to decide what kind of economy their country will have? Decisions have to be made.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 4, 2015 11:55AM)
Do you equate the formation of the United States with the right to take private property from one to give to another?
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Feb 4, 2015 12:08PM)
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, tommy wrote:
Very nice illusion: There are no forests, there are only individual trees. Forests are merely an abstraction. [/quote]

On the surface they are. If you look below the ground you will see millions of roots that are intertwined and interconnected and provide the life force that allows the trees to grow. It is hard to distinguish one tree from another below the surface. Hardly an abstraction.

Much to Bob's point.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 4, 2015 12:08PM)
Well, the power of eminent domain, at least, is in the Constitution.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Feb 4, 2015 12:10PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
1) Illustration, as it helps to have an easily imagined visual when thinking about these things. We can use ten chairs and ten people too. One rich person (much less of course) takes up 4 chairs while the other 9 have to scramble for a piece of the remaining 6 chairs.

2) Danny was distraught that some rich people might get screwed out of the lifeboat. My Bill Gates remark was to reassure him that Bill would land on his feet. He'd still have plenty of room in that lifeboat, even if wealth were substantially re-distributed.

3) Practical how of it? Start with taxing capital gains at the same level as income tax, get rid of the Social Security rich person entitlement discount, enact a stock transfer tax. And for Lord's sake, stop boo-hooing that then you'll only be able to afford ten mansions instead of twenty. [/quote]


Doesn't all of this talk assume there is only one pie and it has to be divvied up. The economy, resources and wealth creation can be limitless.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Feb 4, 2015 12:15PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I think the TIME you were born is more important. [/quote]

Why? [/quote]

If you were born in the middle ages your opportunities were severely limited. There is an old saying that 'there is more opportunity today than ever before'. Progress of civilization almost always opens up more opportunity. Women today vs 1910's. Blacks today vs 1950's. The list goes on. The more available resources to improve yourself, more mobility, more individual progress.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 4, 2015 12:48PM)
The last time man was free was before civilization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6c70hPa8iU
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 4, 2015 02:25PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]Well John do you prefer a screw you get out of the lifeboat because too many who look like you are already in attitude? [/quote]

Imagine a large lifeboat with a hundred seats. A hundred people get on the boat. Imagine, further, each seat represents 1% of the nation's wealth and each person represents 1% of the nation's population.

Then, if the 1% rich own 40% of the wealth--as they do in this country-- that means, by analogy, 1 person gets to take up 40 of those seats. The other 99 people have to scramble for a piece of the other 60 remaining seats.

So Bill Gates will not drown even if he gives up 35 of his seats. [/quote]

That would be a great illustration IF like a single lifeboat with 100 seats there was a fixed amount of money available in the world. Since that's not true, it kinda sucks as an illustration.

Imagine instead an ulimited number of potential lifeboats that 'could' be built but 50% of the people aren't interested in helping build them, only in using them.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 4, 2015 02:26PM)
Ah, I see Hermit kinda beat me to it.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 4, 2015 04:45PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]Well John do you prefer a screw you get out of the lifeboat because too many who look like you are already in attitude? [/quote]

Imagine a large lifeboat with a hundred seats. A hundred people get on the boat. Imagine, further, each seat represents 1% of the nation's wealth and each person represents 1% of the nation's population.

Then, if the 1% rich own 40% of the wealth--as they do in this country-- that means, by analogy, 1 person gets to take up 40 of those seats. The other 99 people have to scramble for a piece of the other 60 remaining seats.

So Bill Gates will not drown even if he gives up 35 of his seats. [/quote]

That would be a great illustration IF like a single lifeboat with 100 seats there was a fixed amount of money available in the world. Since that's not true, it kinda sucks as an illustration.

Imagine instead an ulimited number of potential lifeboats that 'could' be built but 50% of the people aren't interested in helping build them, only in using them. [/quote]

Do "potential lifeboats" really help anyone? Some 750 million people lack access to a stable supply of clean drinking water. The fact that maybe if we continue to create wealth, then they might have clean water some day really help anyone?

Good thing we have waterbottles in our lifeboat.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 4, 2015 04:51PM)
Give your water bottle to others. Give YOUR seat to others. Don't tell me what I am obligated to do with mine.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 4, 2015 05:03PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Give your water bottle to others. Give YOUR seat to others. Don't tell me what I am obligated to do with mine. [/quote]

Don't tell the rest of the world what to do, Danny.

You might believe that greedily holding on to anything you've got your hands on to be the most ethical thing. Why should you impose your will on others?
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Feb 4, 2015 05:12PM)
Removing the obligation, what would you feel personally Danny?
I only ask, because I'd be the first one on. **** em.. Survival of the fittest, that's me!
The problem I have, is the guilt/sorrow I'd feel, at the people I left behind.
Self preservation is wonderful, if you can sleep at night.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Feb 4, 2015 05:17PM)
But all we have is now.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 4, 2015 06:28PM)
Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LZGuIGA_Mw
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 4, 2015 06:56PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]Well John do you prefer a screw you get out of the lifeboat because too many who look like you are already in attitude? [/quote]

Imagine a large lifeboat with a hundred seats. A hundred people get on the boat. Imagine, further, each seat represents 1% of the nation's wealth and each person represents 1% of the nation's population.

Then, if the 1% rich own 40% of the wealth--as they do in this country-- that means, by analogy, 1 person gets to take up 40 of those seats. The other 99 people have to scramble for a piece of the other 60 remaining seats.

So Bill Gates will not drown even if he gives up 35 of his seats. [/quote]

That would be a great illustration IF like a single lifeboat with 100 seats there was a fixed amount of money available in the world. Since that's not true, it kinda sucks as an illustration.

Imagine instead an ulimited number of potential lifeboats that 'could' be built but 50% of the people aren't interested in helping build them, only in using them. [/quote]

Do "potential lifeboats" really help anyone? Some 750 million people lack access to a stable supply of clean drinking water. The fact that maybe if we continue to create wealth, then they might have clean water some day really help anyone?

Good thing we have waterbottles in our lifeboat. [/quote]

Which is why we should be thankful for that one percenter Bill Gates who has probably done more than any other individual to help supply clean drinking water to those who need it. I've got nothing against helping those less fortunate than oneself. That's called charity. If I force YOU to help others less fortunate, that's not charity.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 4, 2015 07:03PM)
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, rockwall wrote:
... While studies have shown that conservatives are much more generous at donations to charity, ... [/quote]

[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, landmark wrote:
...
Wrong. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/21/study-conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-charitable-but-they-give-to-different-charities/ [/quote]

[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
...

Michele Margolis and Michael Sances note that Brooks' conclusion [i.e. conservatives give more] comes from a dataset that doesn't really ask how conservative people are politically so much as how conservative they are socially.
...[/quote]

Thank you for coming around landmark. While you initially claimed that I was 'Wrong' when I said, 'studies have shown that conservatives are much more generous at donations to charity', I see that you were able to find a reference to one of those studies. (Brooks).
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 4, 2015 07:26PM)
Ah, I see. So from now on when you say, "studies show..." what you really mean is "flawed studies show..." Thanks for the clarification.

It would certainly save time, however, if you included the modifier "flawed" (as in, Wrong) from the beginning.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 4, 2015 08:05PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
1) Illustration, as it helps to have an easily imagined visual when thinking about these things. We can use ten chairs and ten people too. One rich person (much less of course) takes up 4 chairs while the other 9 have to scramble for a piece of the remaining 6 chairs.

2) Danny was distraught that some rich people might get screwed out of the lifeboat. My Bill Gates remark was to reassure him that Bill would land on his feet. He'd still have plenty of room in that lifeboat, even if wealth were substantially re-distributed.

3) Practical how of it? Start with taxing capital gains at the same level as income tax, get rid of the Social Security rich person entitlement discount, enact a stock transfer tax. And for Lord's sake, stop boo-hooing that then you'll only be able to afford ten mansions instead of twenty. [/quote]


Doesn't all of this talk assume there is only one pie and it has to be divvied up. The economy, resources and wealth creation can be limitless. [/quote]
So no problem with the deficit, then.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Feb 4, 2015 08:20PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
1) Illustration, as it helps to have an easily imagined visual when thinking about these things. We can use ten chairs and ten people too. One rich person (much less of course) takes up 4 chairs while the other 9 have to scramble for a piece of the remaining 6 chairs.

2) Danny was distraught that some rich people might get screwed out of the lifeboat. My Bill Gates remark was to reassure him that Bill would land on his feet. He'd still have plenty of room in that lifeboat, even if wealth were substantially re-distributed.

3) Practical how of it? Start with taxing capital gains at the same level as income tax, get rid of the Social Security rich person entitlement discount, enact a stock transfer tax. And for Lord's sake, stop boo-hooing that then you'll only be able to afford ten mansions instead of twenty. [/quote]


Doesn't all of this talk assume there is only one pie and it has to be divvied up. The economy, resources and wealth creation can be limitless. [/quote]
So no problem with the deficit, then. [/quote]

Landmark's solutions have been proven to inhibit investment and job creation. I don't know what the SS rich person discount is. Everyone pays SS, everyone should get it regardless of how much money you make. It's forced retirement savings. The deficit has nothing to do with it. That is caused by government spending more money than it takes in. If government did like it's citizens and lived on what it has, we wouldn't have one. It's an artificial debt that is created by politicians paying off constituents for votes in most cases. And, the deficit is really only an issue when looked at as perentage of GDP. Our GDP is growing and the ability to finance is under control. The government can run deficits forever as long as wealth is growing in the private sector. That's what they do to manage it. Wealth creation is limitless, unfortunately the ability to tax it is too. We have no competition to government in the US. In Switzerland, taxes are by local canton/state. They can raise and lower to attract investment and they do. Local money is used locally. Same thing happens in US states, but the Federal government taxes again to run often redundant services.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Feb 4, 2015 08:22PM)
The main supplier of money to states is the Fed. Onerous Fed taxes are taken and some is returned to the states to do the things the Fed wants them to do. If we had higher state taxes and lower federal, we would have lower deficits.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 4, 2015 08:32PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]Well John do you prefer a screw you get out of the lifeboat because too many who look like you are already in attitude? [/quote]

Imagine a large lifeboat with a hundred seats. A hundred people get on the boat. Imagine, further, each seat represents 1% of the nation's wealth and each person represents 1% of the nation's population.

Then, if the 1% rich own 40% of the wealth--as they do in this country-- that means, by analogy, 1 person gets to take up 40 of those seats. The other 99 people have to scramble for a piece of the other 60 remaining seats.

So Bill Gates will not drown even if he gives up 35 of his seats. [/quote]

That would be a great illustration IF like a single lifeboat with 100 seats there was a fixed amount of money available in the world. Since that's not true, it kinda sucks as an illustration.

Imagine instead an ulimited number of potential lifeboats that 'could' be built but 50% of the people aren't interested in helping build them, only in using them. [/quote]

Do "potential lifeboats" really help anyone? Some 750 million people lack access to a stable supply of clean drinking water. The fact that maybe if we continue to create wealth, then they might have clean water some day really help anyone?

Good thing we have waterbottles in our lifeboat. [/quote]

In the United States, education (even in impoverished areas), might be considered a "potential lifeboat." If A and B grow up in the same low-income environment, and A studies hard, stays in school, and parlays his education into a decent job and elevates his economic circumstance to, let's say, the middle class, while B drops out of school, has kids he can't afford, turns to crime and as a result becomes less employable, the "potential lifeboat" didn't help B, (that's why it was only a potential lifeboat), but it could have. Yes, B had it tougher than most, but is it really accurate to say or suggest (as some no doubt would) that because of those circumstances, B never really had a chance?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 4, 2015 09:34PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
Ah, I see. So from now on when you say, "studies show..." what you really mean is "flawed studies show..." Thanks for the clarification.

It would certainly save time, however, if you included the modifier "flawed" (as in, Wrong) from the beginning. [/quote]

Well, if you wanted to discuss which studies were flawed, that would be a whole nuther discussion, now wouldn't it?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 4, 2015 09:35PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
1) Illustration, as it helps to have an easily imagined visual when thinking about these things. We can use ten chairs and ten people too. One rich person (much less of course) takes up 4 chairs while the other 9 have to scramble for a piece of the remaining 6 chairs.

2) Danny was distraught that some rich people might get screwed out of the lifeboat. My Bill Gates remark was to reassure him that Bill would land on his feet. He'd still have plenty of room in that lifeboat, even if wealth were substantially re-distributed.

3) Practical how of it? Start with taxing capital gains at the same level as income tax, get rid of the Social Security rich person entitlement discount, enact a stock transfer tax. And for Lord's sake, stop boo-hooing that then you'll only be able to afford ten mansions instead of twenty. [/quote]


Doesn't all of this talk assume there is only one pie and it has to be divvied up. The economy, resources and wealth creation can be limitless. [/quote]
So no problem with the deficit, then. [/quote]

Unfortunately, one thing the government doesn't create is wealth.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 4, 2015 09:40PM)
But the government raises money from the available wealth.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 4, 2015 09:46PM)
It confiscates money.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 4, 2015 09:47PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Give your water bottle to others. Give YOUR seat to others. Don't tell me what I am obligated to do with mine. [/quote]

Don't tell the rest of the world what to do, Danny.

You might believe that greedily holding on to anything you've got your hands on to be the most ethical thing. Why should you impose your will on others? [/quote]

All I am doing is keeping what I have EARNED and you call that greedy?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 4, 2015 09:57PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
Ah, I see. So from now on when you say, "studies show..." what you really mean is "flawed studies show..." Thanks for the clarification.

It would certainly save time, however, if you included the modifier "flawed" (as in, Wrong) from the beginning. [/quote]

Well, if you wanted to discuss which studies were flawed, that would be a whole nuther discussion, now wouldn't it? [/quote]
Quite right. So now we've established that when you refer to a study in an argument to back your case, you are actually making no judgment as to its truth value. That was a little difficult for me to get used to at first, but now I understand.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 4, 2015 10:00PM)
As we have also established that when you say Wrong!, you're talking about yourself, not the person you're commenting on.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 4, 2015 10:07PM)
Do to be clear I follow all the rules and do everything according to law and I am greedy because I keep my earnings?

So naturally John you must have no more than bare minimum to get by. Otherwise it seems hypocritical to call me greedy.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 4, 2015 11:55PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

In the United States, education (even in impoverished areas), might be considered a "potential lifeboat." If A and B grow up in the same low-income environment, and A studies hard, stays in school, and parlays his education into a decent job and elevates his economic circumstance to, let's say, the middle class, while B drops out of school, has kids he can't afford, turns to crime and as a result becomes less employable, the "potential lifeboat" didn't help B, (that's why it was only a potential lifeboat), but it could have. Yes, B had it tougher than most, but is it really accurate to say or suggest (as some no doubt would) that because of those circumstances, B never really had a chance? [/quote]

I absolutely agree with the first part of your response. Social programs such as education are very important to any sort of social justice/equality.
As you note, there still remains much that is unpredictable. The best we can do is to work to reduce the risks and increase the likelihood of a good life.

It's not simple. Not by any means.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Feb 5, 2015 02:57AM)
What I'm getting from this is despite differing opinions, everyone seems to agree that there are enough resources available, they just aren't being used properly.

Which leads to the question where is the money being wasted? I think the answer is obvious to all.

All solutions that might lead to a proper correcting of the imbalances that DO exist involve acts of creation, not destruction. Until the vast resources now being used for violence and war are used for peaceful and constructive purposes the cycle of destruction will never stop.

It may have been true that at one point if you lost the "birth lottery" your chances of rising above your situation were practically non-existent, and in some cases may still be still be that way today, but it certainly doesn't have to be that way.

So how do we go about changing the way resources are used from destructive purposes to constructive purposes?

Otherwise we may find that those seats on the lifeboats are all taken by the few very wealthy people holding extremely powerful weapons, to be used on the masses trying to get in those lifeboats. The result being that the lifeboats are sunk and no one is saved.

(I really hate analogies :( )
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 5, 2015 06:39AM)
[quote]
Which leads to the question where is the money being wasted? I think the answer is obvious to all. [/quote]
I would say, not obvious to all. It is much contested. Better to be specific here. One person's waste is another's treasure or necessity.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 5, 2015 06:44AM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, rockwall wrote:
As we have also established that when you say Wrong!, you're talking about yourself, not the person you're commenting on. [/quote]

Yes, I admitted I was wrong. I thought when you quoted a study to back up your statement, you considered it truthful, and you assumed that people who read it would take it as truthful. I was wrong. You have correctly disabused me of that notion. I stand corrected. In the future, I will understand that such statements are not to be taken as actual arguments, but mere comments about the existence of a study, truthful or not. Who knows, perhaps one day you will actually address the issue. Stranger things have happened.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 5, 2015 06:53AM)
The problem the peasants have is they are not climate experts and so they cannot understand anything.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 5, 2015 08:31AM)
[quote]On Feb 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, rockwall wrote:
As we have also established that when you say Wrong!, you're talking about yourself, not the person you're commenting on. [/quote]

Yes, I admitted I was wrong. I thought when you quoted a study to back up your statement, you considered it truthful, and you assumed that people who read it would take it as truthful. I was wrong. You have correctly disabused me of that notion. I stand corrected. In the future, I will understand that such statements are not to be taken as actual arguments, but mere comments about the existence of a study, truthful or not. Who knows, perhaps one day you will actually address the issue. Stranger things have happened. [/quote]

Ah landmark. You know, you're just making yourself look a bit stupid. Nowhere did I say that I didn't find the studies un-truthful. All I was doing was refuting YOUR statement that there were NO studies. If you had simply said, at the beginning, "Yes, there are studies that show conservatives are more generous than liberals but there are also studies that disagree", we wouldn't be having a problem. But what you said, was that my statement that there were studies that showed that was wrong. So, in the future, what you SHOULD do is take my statement about studies to be 1. that they exist and 2. that I agree with them. If you agree that they exist, don't say they don't. If you don't find them to be true, then say so.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 5, 2015 09:54AM)
But if you were born in a different country, on a different continent, into a different culture, would "you" still be "you"?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 5, 2015 09:58AM)
How about just a different family.

I do believe that a certain amount of "you" is genetic so some part of "you" would still be "you" but because of the influence of culture and environment, that part would probably be unrecognizable.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Feb 5, 2015 10:15AM)
[quote]On Feb 5, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
But if you were born in a different country, on a different continent, into a different culture, would "you" still be "you"? [/quote]

Nice metaphysical question. Would you still be "you" if you had not joined the magic café?

Can we make a (crude) thought experiment. Imagine someone genetically identical to me, but with the following environmental difference?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 5, 2015 11:00AM)
The way to get socialism, if that is what you want, is to start a major war. That is why the Rockefeller & Co came up with the idea of global warming as an enemy to fit the bill. They love major wars because government takes over pretty well everything, agriculture, farming and the distribution of food and goods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfejBpD_wm4
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 5, 2015 12:23PM)
They love wars because it makes them profit.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 5, 2015 12:26PM)
They,them, why talk in such absolutes?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 5, 2015 12:33PM)
Landmark means the socialists obviously. Not that he is one who knows.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Feb 5, 2015 12:35PM)
[quote]On Feb 5, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Feb 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, rockwall wrote:
As we have also established that when you say Wrong!, you're talking about yourself, not the person you're commenting on. [/quote]

Yes, I admitted I was wrong. I thought when you quoted a study to back up your statement, you considered it truthful, and you assumed that people who read it would take it as truthful. I was wrong. You have correctly disabused me of that notion. I stand corrected. In the future, I will understand that such statements are not to be taken as actual arguments, but mere comments about the existence of a study, truthful or not. Who knows, perhaps one day you will actually address the issue. Stranger things have happened. [/quote]

Ah landmark. You know, you're just making yourself look a bit stupid. Nowhere did I say that I didn't find the studies un-truthful. All I was doing was refuting YOUR statement that there were NO studies. If you had simply said, at the beginning, "Yes, there are studies that show conservatives are more generous than liberals but there are also studies that disagree", we wouldn't be having a problem. But what you said, was that my statement that there were studies that showed that was wrong. So, in the future, what you SHOULD do is take my statement about studies to be 1. that they exist and 2. that I agree with them. If you agree that they exist, don't say they don't. If you don't find them to be true, then say so. [/quote]
My first post contained a link that made it very clear why I said you were wrong. And you still have not addressed it. But if you want to go Bill Clinton on us, fine. It's kind of boring, though.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 5, 2015 12:38PM)
Certainly the elite socialists under the cloak of grants give more but they come with conditions of course. There are no free meals Kay.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Feb 5, 2015 02:14PM)
[quote]On Feb 4, 2015, silvercup wrote:
The problem is money.[/quote]
It isn't, actually.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 5, 2015 02:30PM)
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee. [/quote]

- John Donne [/quote]

Very nice.

So by using that analogy when a murderer or child molester dies, humanity is the lesser for their death? [/quote]

Yet, if they're so insignificant, NYC, why are you citing them as an example- don't you see you've just acknowledged your connection to them? The irony is you've used them to try to elevate the rest of humanity. Again, I see the same with those who try to mock EP while using him to proclaim themselves as so much less a joke than he was. We're all connected. I'd like to see humanity trying to heal. Pitching real people out the window when none is made of any better than another is nothing more than hypocrisy attempting to deceive. It's so blatant and routine that many are afraid even to question it or face it directly anymore. But I believe still people see it for what it is whether they dare speak to it or not. We have a choice. And I want to see truth and healing.

Now, I may in fact agree with you that we are not diminished by the death of another, but perhaps we have let opportunity pass. We continue learning, though. Peace.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 5, 2015 02:57PM)
EP?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 5, 2015 03:02PM)
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:

Do we owe humanity, the global society, something since we take part of it? I
MO, yes by initiating no violence[/quote]

Based on your following comments, it's clear you lack an understanding of just what "iniatiating no violence" means.

rockwall, you know me better than that, come on. Three guesses or do a search. :)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 5, 2015 03:25PM)
See, now I feel dumb. I'm sure it's something obvious that I should know. You say 'he' so it's obviously someone's initials but I can't connect it. Googleing on two letters isn't generally very productive. All I get is Edgar Allen Poe. Go ahead, tell me who it is and I'll skulk away embarrassed.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 5, 2015 03:31PM)
Search magicalaurie here at the café. I think that'll help. :) If not, I'll give the answer if someone else doesn't sing it's tune. ;)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 5, 2015 03:38PM)
(Search magiclaurie here at the Café) I did (I think that'll help) and it didn't .
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 5, 2015 03:42PM)
Hip Lip
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 5, 2015 03:43PM)
[quote]On Feb 5, 2015, rockwall wrote:
(Search magiclaurie here at the Café) I did (I think that'll help) and it didn't . [/quote]

You've misquoted me, indeed. It's magicalaurie. ;)

Http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/search_results_posts.php?search_id=8525218

[url=http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=576564&forum=27] page 1 Character Question[/url]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 5, 2015 03:54PM)
Evander Polyfield. Buy he initiated violence.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 5, 2015 04:06PM)
OK, got it. I don't feel totally stupid. I do remember now you saying you were a fan but I guess I haven't read enough of your posts to remember to what degree!

(I actually did the search correctly, just didn't type it in correctly in my comment to you.) If I search for keyword EP and username magicalaurie, I get nothing, just a link to this topic here. I can't click on the search link you provided because it says the search id belongs to another user. The link you provided has his name, but since I didn't know his name, I couldn't search for that.

Do people really try to mock EP? Why would anyone do that?
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 5, 2015 04:47PM)
No need to feel stupid. Thanks for investigating. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 5, 2015 05:18PM)
[quote]On Feb 5, 2015, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:

Do we owe humanity, the global society, something since we take part of it? I
MO, yes by initiating no violence[/quote]

Based on your following comments, it's clear you lack an understanding of just what "iniatiating no violence" means.

[/quote]

Or perhaps he disagrees with your interpretation of just what constitutes "violence."

But at least I figured out who EP is. :shrug:
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 5, 2015 05:22PM)
My interpretation?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Feb 5, 2015 05:26PM)
Correct.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Feb 5, 2015 08:21PM)
[quote]On Feb 5, 2015, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Feb 3, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee. [/quote]

- John Donne [/quote]

Very nice.

So by using that analogy when a murderer or child molester dies, humanity is the lesser for their death? [/quote]

Yet, if they're so insignificant, NYC, why are you citing them as an example- don't you see you've just acknowledged your connection to them? The irony is you've used them to try to elevate the rest of humanity. Again, I see the same with those who try to mock EP while using him to proclaim themselves as so much less a joke than he was. We're all connected. I'd like to see humanity trying to heal. Pitching real people out the window when none is made of any better than another is nothing more than hypocrisy attempting to deceive. It's so blatant and routine that many are afraid even to question it or face it directly anymore. But I believe still people see it for what it is whether they dare speak to it or not. We have a choice. And I want to see truth and healing.

Now, I may in fact agree with you that we are not diminished by the death of another, but perhaps we have let opportunity pass. We continue learning, though. Peace. [/quote]

Hey Laurie, how are you?

I'm not sure what you were getting at exactly but I think we're going to disagree. Let me know if I've misunderstood.
Everything that follows are, of course, only my opinions.


"Yet, if they're so insignificant, NYC, why are you citing them as an example- don't you see you've just acknowledged your connection to them? The irony is you've used them to try to elevate the rest of humanity."

I only cited them as examples to show that the analogy the poem posits as this wonderful truth, is wrong. I don't view the fact that we're both human as proof of any connection, so there is no irony when I say humanity is better when they are gone.
As a side note to everyone going forward, I dislike analogies as they usually confuse and lead to disagreement. Therefore I will no longer consider any comparisons between the sum total of human beings on earth,(humanity) to a land mass, a forest, an ocean, people on a hypothetical lifeboat, a bowl of Jello or anything else.
In short, analogies hurt my brain.


"I see the same with those who try to mock EP while using him to proclaim themselves as so much less a joke than he was."

I have no idea who or what EP is. Regardless, I never consider myself a joke, so I could never consider myself less of of one. I have a feeling others may disagree with me on that though :)


"We're all connected."

I disagree. Furthermore I don't think were are all of equal value. A brain surgeon is more valuable than a bum, taken at face value. You may disagree, as you most certainly have in the past, but to me this is a simple fact.


"I'd like to see humanity trying to heal."

So would I. In fact I'd like to see it do something to actually heal, by which I mean correct the mistakes we've made, and continue to make, which have led to all the inequalities which was originally the subject of this thread.


"Pitching real people out the window when none is made of any better than another is nothing more than hypocrisy attempting to deceive. It's so blatant and routine that many are afraid even to question it or face it directly anymore. But I believe still people see it for what it is whether they dare speak to it or not."

I wouldn't pitch any real person out any window unless they were a direct threat. Not even a murderer or child molester. I believe in non-violence but I am not a pacifist.
Since I've stated clearly that I think that humanity is made better when such scum are gone; I can't see how I'm being hypocritical or deceptive.
What anyone else sees, but is afraid to question, face, or dare speak of, is their own business.


"We have a choice"

Technically yes, but the majority are having the choices available to them steadily diminish, while the minority make more and more choices for them, very badly.


"I want to see truth and healing."

I think most good people want both of those things, but they never seem to define them. I ask you what is your truth that you'd like to see manifest and spread, and what exactly is the damage we are to heal from?


"I may in fact agree with you that we are not diminished by the death of another"

DO you in fact agree? From what you've written above, and before, it appears you don't. Again maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning.


"Perhaps we have let opportunity pass"

If by opportunity you mean the final chance to correct our course, then I disagree. We have certainly let many opportunities pass and we continue to do so every minute.


"We continue learning, though"

Agreed, but we don't seem to be learning the right things fast enough. The sad truth is that the inequalities continue, and they're growing ever faster, as does the violence and destruction.
Many species have come and gone, but we may have the dubious distinction of being the first to destroy ourselves.
If we do we'll have no one to blame but ourselves, since we certainly aren't lacking in ability or resources.

As always, and for all of us,
Peace.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 10, 2015 03:48PM)
“To judge a man by his weakest link or deed is like judging the power of the ocean by one wave.”

[img]http://magicalaurie.net/files/images/10991180_10153096194088792_6926913277003207834_n.jpg[/img]

https://www.facebook.com/elvis

I say nonjudgment, nonviolence, love heals. Life is a gift. I spend a lot of time in Nature. And in Nature I see an understanding of truth, of grace. When I say we are all connected, I mean we are all connected. Life is a gift. Love heals.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 10, 2015 04:26PM)
[img]http://magicalaurie.net/files/images/Charlie-Russell.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Feb 10, 2015 05:17PM)
To say “To judge a man by his weakest link or deed is like judging the power of the ocean by one wave.” makes no sense.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 10, 2015 05:53PM)
I think you understand what he was trying to say, tommy.

[img]http://magicalaurie.net/files/images/article-2188891-146DA31C000005DC-795_634x824.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Feb 10, 2015 08:21PM)
[quote]On Feb 10, 2015, magicalaurie wrote:
[img]http://magicalaurie.net/files/images/Charlie-Russell.jpg[/img] [/quote]

[img]https://allgeektomeblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/grizzly-man.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Feb 10, 2015 08:43PM)
[quote]On Feb 10, 2015, magicalaurie wrote:
“To judge a man by his weakest link or deed is like judging the power of the ocean by one wave.”

[img]http://magicalaurie.net/files/images/10991180_10153096194088792_6926913277003207834_n.jpg[/img]

https://www.facebook.com/elvis

I say nonjudgment, nonviolence, love heals. Life is a gift. I spend a lot of time in Nature. And in Nature I see an understanding of truth, of grace. When I say we are all connected, I mean we are all connected. Life is a gift. Love heals. [/quote]


I'm sure you also see a lot of violence in nature. A lot of animals kill each other to establish dominance. Male lions kill the cubs of vanquished foes when they take control of a pride.

At least we've gotten past the simple kill or be killed, so there's that.

We all judge, it's how we value things and people. Non-violence and the healing power of love is all very nice, but I was looking for something more concrete. My bad.

At least I found out who EP was. I have no idea how he figures into this, but I understand you now.

Thanks anyway.

Take care.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 10, 2015 10:52PM)
Grace.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (Feb 12, 2015 01:16PM)
The point is, NYC, we all need healing, and are allowed to have it. And, obviously, that includes those you call "scum". That's truth. And acknowledging that will allow healing for all. Love heals. It reconciles. Accepting grace is a humble thing to do. Suffering is optional. Perpetuation of violence is a choice. You're looking for something "concrete". Life flows. Love heals all. I'm thankful for that. Life is a gift. It goes way beyond $.

:beatingheart:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Feb 12, 2015 01:33PM)
So do you contend there is no need for prison? Just love the offender and all will be right with the world? I do not understand your position.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Feb 12, 2015 01:47PM)
We'll just have to disagree on this.

There are things you don't come back from, and scum do not deserve healing.
So we have a different truth.

Not all suffering is optional. The victims of molestation were given no choice. Life often stops flowing for them although they continue to exist.
Life stops flowing for murder victims also

No offense, but platitudes about love and grace are all well and good in the abstract, but we live in the real world.
People make concrete choices, and those choices define them. Some take the gift of life and throw it away. They become monsters and forfeit grace, love and forgiveness

There is a deeper level to this, but it's not necessary to go into it.

As always, I wish you

Peace