I sure hope you're not suggesting that women are "naturally" undeserving of reward for labour :)
On Jun 10, 11:01 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds logical. And explains why women's labour is against nature's will to > get payed for. ;) > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 3:39 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Or the Midas myth. If this is in regard to the subject of how one > > spends one's money. Is is earned the old fashioned way? Has your work/ > > management been ethical? Or did you make money in crime? If your money > > is clean and your ethics are decent I don't think anyone has any > > business telling another how to spend their money. Others may not > > approve- but that's their problem. > > > On Jun 9, 1:58 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In a voices-from-the-past case law system this should work, yes. > > > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 7:02 PM, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hadn't thought about that, but there's that too, gabbydot :) > > > > > I guess we'll all decide where our "reason" driven limits might lie; > > > > and the law (religious or secular) will hold us accountable; this > > > > ought to work, as long as we have a resonable "voice" in lawmaking. > > > > > On Jun 9, 11:48 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ah, Orn, a slight misunderstanding maybe, the joy that paradox speaks > > of > > > > > might simply be the reasonable result of not having to agree with > > anyone > > > > but > > > > > yourself. > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 11:21 AM, ornamentalmind > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > Actually there are some who just want to work. That aside, the > > issue > > > > > > then seems to be where one draws the line when it comes to "within > > > > > > reason". This to me appears to be a very difficult thing to come to > > > > > > agreement upon. > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 10:00 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I didn't mean that, o'mind; apologies if i gave the impression. > > > > > > > > You have to agree though, that one of the joys of making money is > > > > > > > deciding how to spend it; within reason, of course. > > > > > > > > On Jun 9, 1:31 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I see. Thanks paradox. > > > > > > > > > It just sounded like you were attributing the right to use > > money > > > > for > > > > > > > > any end one wishes to no matter how it affects others. Perhaps > > you > > > > > > > > didn't mean to say that. > > > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 1:26 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Oh goodness no, o'mind. Even if we could figure out what was > > > > "might" > > > > > > > > > and what was "right", we'd still have to figure out which was > > > > right > > > > > > > > > and which was might. In this context, money changes lives and > > > > ideas > > > > > > > > > move mountains. Which is right, and which is might? In any > > event, > > > > > > we'd > > > > > > > > > be measuring apples and pears. > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 6:30 pm, ornamentalmind < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So paradox, you embrace the idea that might makes right, > > yes? > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 9:56 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey, lets not knock the personal choices of the wealthy; > > they > > > > > > have as > > > > > > > > > > > much right to splash their dollars around as we have to > > > > splash > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > > > ideas around :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Or maybe we're living the trance right now :) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 12:45 am, ornamentalmind < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > As to education and parasites archytas, here in the > > > > colonies > > > > > > the art > > > > > > > > > > > > of plutocracy remains firmly in place. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Countless excellent examples are noted as side comments > > in > > > > the > > > > > > main > > > > > > > > > > > > stream media today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’ve mentioned the Koch Brothers before. > > > > > >http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer > > > > > > > > > > > > > Newer info on them for the 'right' can be found here: > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/08/koch-b. > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Their purchasing of Florida State’s department of > > economy > > > > along > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > > > > who will be hired to teach is but one example and is > > well > > > > > > known. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Overall, few if any of the reasons for said trance are > > > > > > accidental. I > > > > > > > > > > > > say this fully agreeing with archytas’ analysis… merely > > > > > > expanding on > > > > > > > > > > > > the ‘reasons’ involved. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 7, 3:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To change, we probably have to break a trance. I > > don't > > > > think > > > > > > humans > > > > > > > > > > > > > are competent to bring the change through planning. > > > > Stuff is > > > > > > > > > > > > > happening - our abilities to talk and access history > > are > > > > > > improving > > > > > > > > > > > > > through the Internet. But they may be about to bring > > > > ands > > > > > > end to all > > > > > > > > > > > > > this. We need to know how little effort is needed to > > > > provide > > > > > > basics > > > > > > > > > > > > > and prevent banditry and a lot about the current role > > of > > > > > > parasitic > > > > > > > > > > > > > money and be able to get people up to speed on this. > > I > > > > > > believe very > > > > > > > > > > > > > little 'work' really needs to be done and parasitic > > money > > > > > > could be > > > > > > > > > > > > > replaced. I'd have this dialogue first, but one has > > to > > > > > > wonder why we > > > > > > > > > > > > > haven't had it up to now. Instead, we have work > > ethic > > > > > > ideologies and > > > > > > > > > > > > > ejukation that avoids important questions altogether. > > I > > > > > > believe they > > > > > > > > > > > > > exploit a well known human frailty in preventing all > > > > this, > > > > > > one it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > dangerous to bring into the open. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 7, 8:25 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because of debt, obviously, but also because of the > > > > false > > > > > > role the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > financial instiutions/markets play with our > > economy. I > > > > > > can't think of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a nation or empire that lasted very long with an > > empty > > > > > > treasury. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps we are another example of Marx- alienation > > and > > > > > > fetishism. Lady > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Gaga, anyone? She's enormously popular but to me > > she > > > > looks > > > > > > like she > > > > > > > > > > > > > > belongs in a Diane Arbus photo exhibit. Anyway, > > that > > > > would > > > > > > be a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion of worth and value and America has been > > sort > > > > of > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dreamscape for the opportunistic- good or bad. I'm > > not > > > > sure > > > > > > I have > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expectations about politics anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 10:53 am, paradox <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think political philosophy (philosophy in > > general, > > > > > > actually) is good > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > food for the mind; enjoy... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do governments and budgets/business seem > > bankrupt > > > > to > > > > > > you? Are you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > benchmarking them against some expectation set > > you > > > > might > > > > > > hold? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 12:21 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am just starting a section on political > > > > philosophy in > > > > > > my reading so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not up to it...yet! I did learn I am not a > > > > > > Hedonist, a Cynic, or > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stoic and my Christian background is tattered > > or a > > > > > > lovely quilt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > depending on one's point of view. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The remark is cleverly put since government and > > > > > > budgets/business seem > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bankrupt to me. But what do I know? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 6:09 am, paradox < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A friend said to me the other day "The sole > > > > > > difference between > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Politics and Business is one of Currency"; > > > > initially, > > > > > > i thought that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this might be a simplification too far, and > > > > unduly > > > > > > cynical perhaps > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (though i dont believe he meant it in a > > > > perjorative > > > > > > sense); yet, the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more i think about it, the more difficult it > > is > > > > for > > > > > > me to refute. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
