Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[shadenight123]

yes and no on the iran thingy, it's religion, so i don't touch it.
because i'd end up ranting (like i did, couple of pages ago) about how you can't know for sure who's right or wrong until you die.
then you will certainly know the answer.
so, as i said, religious matters, if wished to be discussed with me, you grab a ticket in the line, you wait until we are both deceased, then we have a look around.

and i find that having lots of money should mean you are somebody who knows how to use it.
or somebody who kept saving and saving for it.
i mean, my grandfather worked on a sea ship line (even before the costa crociere stuff)  when he entered the retirement age ,he got the "liquidazione" and spent it on buying a bigger house for his daughter (my mother) and taking a world tour with my grandmother.
they had given him something like 3 milions lire of the time, and it was enough.
they did something smart, for the future, and something which they enjoyed in the present.
that's how you spend money in my humble opinion.
half for you and half for the future.
but giving a kid, who's what? 9? 10? years old an ancient diamond tiara, and bracelet? are you kidding me? that's worst than spending money on nothingness, it's wrong parenting.
then you wonder why some kids turn out like paris hilton, rich as hell, but soon to be dead by something. like overdose. or drunken driving. or too much partying.
they can spend money, they should spend money, but not on stupid stuff.
heck, if they truly want to make gifts that stupid, to stimulate the economy, just make a cheque to the government and be done with it.
i should insert that.
"don't make stupid gifts, give cheques to the government, if you have somebody who will help you, it's because of him" * obviously only in a Shade government vowed to remove costs and insert logic, and reasoning, in every day chores. This comprise also the fact that being a single, illuminated dictatorship, you pay far less taxes.*

[Nadaka]

I "could" hypothetically support a flat tax. But only in a society with a sufficiently advanced social services that no one would ever have their basic needs unmet.

Remember, that hypothetically a flat tax could be 100%, so be careful what you wish for.

[G-Flex]

yes and no on the iran thingy, it's religion, so i don't touch it.
because i'd end up ranting (like i did, couple of pages ago) about how you can't know for sure who's right or wrong until you die.
then you will certainly know the answer.
so, as i said, religious matters, if wished to be discussed with me, you grab a ticket in the line, you wait until we are both deceased, then we have a look around.

So anybody can make any decision, no matter how hateful or harmful, no matter how it affects other people, and as long as they slap the "religion" sticker on it, you won't bother criticizing it? Why do you give a free pass on religion and not any other philosophy? It's not as if "religion" is any more inherently unprovable than anything else, for certain values of "prove".

but giving a kid, who's what? 9? 10? years old an ancient diamond tiara, and bracelet? are you kidding me? that's worst than spending money on nothingness, it's wrong parenting.

Then complain about all aspects of that, whether it's inheritance, other spoiled upbringing, or even the stark privilege that rich kids get throughout basically their entire lives. No reason to single out anyone.

[Nadaka]

The thing you have to remember is that Tom Cruise is a high level member in a for profit cult known to kill and enslave people, a cult that has the enough power to blackmail the IRS, a cult with the power to infiltrate the FBI and other government agencies and get away without harm. So him giving his kid a million dollar piece of jewelry isn't really something to worry about in comparison.

[Truean]

yes and no on the iran thingy, it's religion, so i don't touch it.
because i'd end up ranting (like i did, couple of pages ago) about how you can't know for sure who's right or wrong until you die.
then you will certainly know the answer.
so, as i said, religious matters, if wished to be discussed with me, you grab a ticket in the line, you wait until we are both deceased, then we have a look around.

The problem with extremely unreasonable extremists in religion is, that while we may not know "who's right" until we're dead, there are very real consequences, here, now, on earth....

I think the problem is forcing and lumping people into that group with a consequence as drastic as their lack of desire for it. I personally would be fine with that for me, but it doesn't justify the sweeping scope of the policy. <--- That's the point. Personally, my life would've been immeasurably better if I could've transitioned as a kid or better yet been born a girl. My personal result is not paramount concerning this policy though. Just because, in a completely weird twist, my group actually comes out slightly ahead in one society, doesn't mean those ends justify those means.

As for the rich and poor spending habits:

A.) The poor cannot afford savings so they will immediately spend all their money on necessities and perhaps some relatively small scale "luxuries." Fast spend, mostly on necessities.

B.) The rich can afford to save and take massive risks or hoard money depending upon their perception of the financial world at the time. They do so. Slow spend, on whatever they want.

[G-Flex]

while we may not know "who's right" until we're dead

I forgot to note that I have no idea where this idea even comes from. If there's no afterlife, we obviously won't know because there's no "we". If there is, there's no guarantee that it'll be any more comprehensible or straightforward than our current life is. Of course, the idea of an afterlife is so arbitrary that it's kind of a silly discussion anyway.

[Truean]

while we may not know "who's right" until we're dead

I forgot to note that I have no idea where this idea even comes from. If there's no afterlife, we obviously won't know because there's no "we". If there is, there's no guarantee that it'll be any more comprehensible or straightforward than our current life is. Of course, the idea of an afterlife is so arbitrary that it's kind of a silly discussion anyway.

Remember how in South Park only Mormons go to Heaven? It assumes A religion is right out of all of them and we don't know which one. The famous scene is everyone who just died starting out at the gates of hell and protesting that they were all good [insert religion here]. The hell guide replies, "I"m sorry but you've all chosen the wrong religion." Naturally, they demand to know which religion was right. "I'm sorry but the answer is 'Mormon' yes, Mormon." The damned crowd in unison laments, "Awwww."

[MonkeyHead]

To quote Homer (Simpson...)

"What if we choose the wrong religion? Then we are just making God madder and madder."

[kaijyuu]

Yeah that's why I don't buy any religion that claims you have to join or you'll be disadvantaged in the afterlife. Seems to me any actually just god or gods would be sympathetic to circumstance.

'Course there's always the possibility that said god or gods are total douchebags. In which case, it's a roll of the dice as the above two quotes demonstrate.

[Leafsnail]

A roll of a dice with infinity sides.  And you can only see a tiny, tiny fraction of the possible sides, and most of the sides would actually involve no dice being thrown at all.

[kaijyuu]

"Undefined" sides would probably be more accurate than infinite, but yeah, pretty much.

[shadenight123]

you see, the point with religion, is that it inflames peoples heart for no reason.
*insert fifteen lines rant about the best way to kill religious terrorists*
*insert fifteen lines on personal religious view*

i will do what i deem will be needed, when it will become my problem.
till them, even if we were to discuss it, or criticize it here, nothing would actually change.
so, it's an argument i'm not keen on talking about.

[Truean]

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/why-millionaire-wants-autoworkers-pay-cut-160603932.html

Mr. Ford made a product his employees could afford by PAYING THEM enough that they could afford it. The ripple effects were enormous and helped every sector of the economy.

The answer is not and can not be, "Pay everyone working a job less." We don't just want jobs, we want jobs that actually pay something.... This is not hard. Then again, we have millionaire politicians and wonder why they won't tax millionaires....

We don't need these millionaire parasites, the elected ones or the unelected ones. They can't survive without us. Perhaps it's nearly time they learn that lesson. A mass consumer boycott would be lovely and nearly in season.

[MonkeyHead]

Which is why those of us working in the public sector in the UK go on strike with puzzled lookes on our faces as our leaders shaft us while leaving the bankers alone...

[shadenight123]

i believe the cause is that politicians think themselves the lords or the kings of the country.
point is, they should be the slaves.
but since they can pay their underlings to vote them, and have that solid base made of "if i ain't voted you ain't getting a job" stuff, it's difficult to topple them off.