Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 22:00:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2252 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard Franks wrote:
>
> 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".
Minority as in a small part. Sorry, I thought you were saying minority
as in African American, etc. My mistake.
> > 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.
Interesting, but I disagree with it, simply because the government
enforces it.
> > 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!
That would contradict the entire world system, and would be detrimental
to order, IMO. Utopia, as nice as it sounds, is not practical, and will
never be. Human nature will never allow, no matter how good intentioned
it might be.
> >
> > 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.
Really? I should ask my sister, since she has little money and she is a
slave to the welfare system.
>
> > 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.
I think government's role is to protect the freedom of its citizens. I
think the more government gets involved with every part of society, and
your life, you lose freedom.
>
> > 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..
Read some of the Founders papers, they are intriguing.
> > 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!
Based on your posts, it seems that you favor socialism, or something
similar to that? Do you, or not?
> > 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.
Yes, but I can't be responsible for the stupidity of the masses. I will
have to answer for my actions, etc. You also seem to have a chip on the
shoulder about advertising, would you care to elaborate?
> 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.
Research what? Again, another chip on the shoulder about..... Nestle, in
another post of yours.
> > > 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.
Hmm.... there are some in the vegetarian movement, I can't get guess the
number, that think eating animals is evil. They block places like
Mcdonalds, harass customers, etc. God set apart man from the rest of the
animal kingdom, and part of that is our ability to have creatures to
eat. I am not a vegetarian, but if you don't like it, that's your
business, leave me alone.
> Please don't assume portions of my personality, based from characters from your
> own experience!
Well, Richard, I assess what you say to be a part of you, unless you are
lying in your posts...
> > > > 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).
Well, definitions are definitions, words mean things, action mean
things, etc. Unless you are like Clinton, who can't get around what the
definition of "is" is.
> > 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?
Yes, but most in the left on this country don't tend to think so.
> > > 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..
Hey, we agree on something! :)
> > 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?
There are many things to be learned, and I should have the ability to
learn them, but not from some politically motivated people thinking I
should expand my horizons. That is one of the biggest faults in academia
today, IMO.
> But it was also meant as a reflection upon us all and I am sorry that you took
> it personally :(
Well, it seemed personal to me, but if it wasn't, OK.
>
> > 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.
My tone gets me into too trouble to much, as well. I just try to get by.
>
> > 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.
Hmm....
> 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.
Well, I do think some people think wrong, but it doesn't mean that they
are ignorant or stupid or whatever, just wrong. But that is another
discussion, which I don't think needs to be drudged up here.
>
> > 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.
The guns thing is one thing. A big one, where I feel most people that
don't live here, don't seem to understand.
> 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.
No, but I have numerous relatives in Germany (My mom was a native, until
she married my dad), so I do hear first hand accounts.
>
> > > 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 we understood each other. My below posts clarified this, I
think.
> > 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.
I think if government does pay for it, it can be censored, etc. It has
happened before. If we truly want freedom of Speech, I think we should
be clear: The government will take advantage of whatever power we give
to them: If artists truly want to do whatever they want, they should
realize that the government might crack down on them because they will
have to answer to taxpayers.
Scott S.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator/CAD Operator-Affiliated Engineers ->
http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) I've been avoiding this debate, since there seem to be a lot of personal stuff flying about, but The above is one of the principle things that I can't quite fathom about libertarian thinking. Why is it that "government will take advantage of (...) (24 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) It would just be something new, something unthought of, not contradictory. (...) I said that there are people who find less money makes them feel freer. Whether or not they are delusional is a different matter. Anyway - that isn't even almost (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
