Thanks for reminding me that any step further in this thread I'd be shown
the troll card by Orn. I shall move over to the "Equal Rights for Aliens out
in Deep Space" thread now, I assume.

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 5:40 PM, paradox <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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 -

Reply via email to