Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Jan 2000 23:59:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2487 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > > Ah, we have communities over here, Richard, whether you believe it or
> > > not.
> >
> > I find it easy to believe, however I would need convincing that anything
> > other than a minority are part of one.
>
> That is the funniest statement I have ever heard. What are you trying to
> say here, Richard? No non-minority people are part of the community.
> Please. Talk about misinformed.
That's not what I'm saying at all, my statement above could easily have read "I
believe that most people aren't part of such a community".
> What is it, 16 weeks, mandatory leave from a job? Paid? If I left any of
> my two jobs for 16 weeks, my absence would severely hurt the company,
> whether I get paid or not.
I believe that they get to spend their leave as they wish - some weeks before,
some after.. go to work for a bit and then take off a few more weeks etc.
> Lego has nothing to do with taxes or unemployment, Richard. I was merely
> pointing out all the freebies associated with European governments end
> up with high taxes and high unemployment.
From personal experience I'd have to disagree with that statement, but I would
have to do some research before backing it up.
> > Either way, if the average quality of life is good then regardless of tax
> > rates I'd rather pay my share of tax. IMPP even up to 100% tax, if ever such
> > a scheme was workable, which it hasn't quite been yet!
>
> Thank God for that. I would not want to live in that kind of society,
> but you are free to do so if you wish.
But you don't know what sort of society it would be - no-one does as no-one
knows how to make such a society function. There are many people that would
tell us that the less money that they have, the more freedom they experience.
> Government, in my definition, does not give out good quality of life. Freedom
> does that.
Government, in my experience, does not give out a good quality of life, but
that isn't to say that freedom would, or that some sort of governing system
couldn't.
> Biases are everywhere, so it is left to the reader to find them out,
> whether they are true or not. Most often, reading their original works
> helps.
You have a point, and I'm almost intrigued enough now to do the same..
> You seem to be implying that European socialistic tendencies are the
> best, where I don't they are the case.
I don't think I have said or implied that, but if you can show me where I have
then I'll gladly back down from that indefendable viewpoint!
> Well, I certainly don't pay attention to advertising, I go out and find
> what I want, and do research on the product. You are lumping everyone
> into the same bowl, which is not the case in real life.
I don't believe billions+ would be spent on advertising if it had no effect,
and those customers who educate themselves throughly with the products on offer
beforehand are in the minority.
I wasn't lumping everyone into the same bowl, but if the majority chooses
something, or buys from a company then you'll have to live with those
consequences. If everyone had perfect information, great - but few, you
included, will actually research.
> > In that case it would be the marketing suits inspecting your tonsils. That
> > isn't to say that the masses are stupid, but who has stopped buying from
> > Nestle? Most people don't even know the reasons for doing so - for the free
> > market to work efficiently and beneficially it requires perfect information,
> > which unfortunately isn't encouraged without self-interest in a free-market.
>
> I can imagine you can give a whole tirade on Nestle, or other companies.
I couldn't actually, as it would be hypocritical (yum yum!).
But to answer the point that you were trying to make - I am a vegetarian, but I
don't make judgements upon other people, or try to convince them of the evils
of their ways. Why not? Because I could be wrong, or more importantly I could
be right, but still I don't self-righteously proclaim myself ruler of the moral
kingdom.
Please don't assume portions of my personality, based from characters from your
own experience!
> > > Well, being there and hearing it everyday certainly makes me more aware
> > > of what happened there than you, sir.
> >
> > Undoubtably, but statements like: "I have never seen such a collection of
> > Marxists, Communists, Atheists, and Liberals in my life", made me seriously
> > wonder what other stereotypes you held close.
>
> Well, discussing points of view with all of these professors in
> question, based on what they have said, and told me they are, it isn't
> hard to define people in terms of their thoughts, actions, and sayings.
And a trap which we should *all* strive not to fall into (IMO).
> Most people say the Republican party is for the rich. How so, when I am
> considered poor / lower middle class?
Because stereotypes are easy, but in many cases useless?
> > There is a wisdom in knowing how little you know, and how much you have left
> > to learn.
>
> Well, Richard, I am not the smartest person in the world, or the wisest,
Neither am I..
> but I know what I know from what I read, from what I observe, and how I
> behave, and what I believe in. If your indication is that I need to know
> more,
No, the "Wisdom comes from knowing how little you know" statement is some
ancient wisdom that I threw in because you seemed to be asking what was there
to be learned?
But it was also meant as a reflection upon us all and I am sorry that you took
it personally :(
> simply because you think you are the world expert on everything
> (Your tone indicates this, BTW), you are wrong sir,
I suspect that my tone has got me into trouble before as well. To confirm
everyones suspicions - I am not even almost world expert on everything, nor
would I have any desire to become one.
> and I would rather
> be ignorant in your eyes than to believe in something I know doesn't
> work, or has bad consequences.
That is a noble sentiment, but I do not believe you to be ignorant, and I'm not
asking you to change your beliefs. I have been trying to supply an alternate
viewpoint and you and everyone else are free to draw their own conclusions.
I have differences of opinions with a lot of people, but that does not require
me to believe that they are deluded, wrong or ignorant.
> You seem to be very ignorant in terms of America (I.E. Guns, commercials,
> etc.)
Granted, not living in America doesn't help, but I'd be happy if you showed
where I was being ignorant so that I could become less so.
Guns - ?
Commercials - being ignorant of these seems entirely to be to my benefit, but I
presume that isn't what you meant.
> I do not know a great deal about
> European cultures, idioms, etc. But what I have learned and read makes
> me assume there are problems. Nothing is perfect, but I prefer here to
> there.
Have you ever lived in Europe? I have equal reservations to living in the US (
o/" Oh Canada, oh... o/" ), so I presume our prejudices could be similar to
those that we are born with that choose our religion and favourite toothpaste.
> > But that is in general, and not at all related to the question of my
> > mentality, which is something you know little or nothing about.
>
> Well, the same to you, sir. You know little about me, but you claim to
> think I am stupid, naive, or both.
For the record, I haven't thought that, or even claimed it. If you can find the
message that says that then I'll gladly delete it and send you any LEGO set of
my choice :)
This has become too personal for my liking!
> > > Freedom of Speech is a lot different if you pay for it yourself.
> >
> > I strongly disagree! Strongly totally and utterly.
>
> What a surprise.
Okay - I'll qualify - shouldn't Freedom of Speech hold whoever is paying for
it? Otherwise it isn't a true Liberty.
> I don't think art should be censored. I don't think the government
> should pay for any art. Is this that complicated? Is this not what I
> posted two weeks ago? Is it that hard to understand?
No - and thanks for the clarification. What I find hard to understand is why
the fact that the government does pay for art makes you sacrifice your other
belief.
Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | stuff (was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
| (...) Yeah, actually, I thought the reason they do stuff like mandatory leaves and long vacations was to keep the unemployment rate low. I think we have to agree on higher taxes though (not like they're low here in the US). (...) For those of us who (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Using a country in the middle of ethnic cleansing as a comparison is hardly flattering. You can get shot in any country, but it's more likely to happen if you live in the US than say the UK. (...) I find it easy to believe, however I would (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
