Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:55:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2420 times
|
| |
|
|
Richard,
Richard Franks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > Richard Franks wrote:
>
> > > > > 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,
>
> It would just be something new, something unthought of, not contradictory.
Well, I think money (Which is a form of trading) has been around since
the beginning of mankind. If man has nothing to trade with, which is
100% tax, I don't think it would work. I would that would happen, but we
will see.
> > > 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.
>
> 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 the same as saying that all people with little money feel freedom.
Well, in some aspects. I know of some rich people who really do have
freedom, and poor people as well. It is a matter of opinion. I think the
government decides how much freedom we have, whether it be political or
financial.
> > > 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.
>
> Agreed.
Alrighty...
> > I think the more government gets involved with every part of society, and
> > your life, you lose freedom.
>
> I know exactly where you are coming from, but I think it hinges on your
> definition of government. A governing system such as the out outlined
> in <http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=3626> gives at least as much
> freedom as anything else I've heard of.
Something in which I think would be more to my idea of government, but
one where I don't know if mankind could ever handle. It is a good idea,
however.
> > > You have a point, and I'm almost intrigued enough now to do the same..
> >
> > Read some of the Founders papers, they are intriguing.
>
> I will do.
>
> > > > 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!
Hmm... some examples you gave, but it seems definitions of yourself is
hard to come by. What do you think? What role should government play in
peoples lives? Should government control corporations? etc.
> > Based on your posts, it seems that you favor socialism, or something
> > similar to that? Do you, or not?
>
> If you can find those posts then I'd be suprised, I think I've just got a few
> issues with vanilla Libertarianism - which isn't the same thing! At the moment
> I favour the Governmental System that I proposed in the link above.
Yes, but you know and I know I don't think that will ever happen. Do you
think socialism is good. You live in Britain, so Tony Blair is a Labor
party, which, from what I know of, is a socialistic party, unless I am
mistaken?
> > You also seem to have a chip on the shoulder about advertising, would you care
> > to elaborate?
>
> Other than it's a colossal, sorry COLOSSAL waste of finite resources, yes. It's
> like a tax on goods that I have no choice to pay.
Well, you do have a choice. Don't buy the product. I don't think linking
advertising to taxing is accurate.
> You will probably say that that's a necessary freedom for the company to
> charge what they want and spent their income as they choose, and I cannot
> complain about that. I'd just rather not have to pay advertising-tax that's
> all.
Again, I don't think it is tax. Do you suggest government step in and
make corporations not advertise anymore?
> > > 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?
>
> I was referring to your post - where you said you researched the products you
> bought before buying them.
For instance, I research games I might buy. Will I like it, what are the
reviews, etc. Same goes for appliances, etc. Lego sets even, I look at
the sets, the parts, etc. Do I like them? Can I use this? I think, I
could be wrong, are you suggesting you should research items like the
corporation, etc.?
> > Again, another chip on the shoulder about..... Nestle, in another post of
> > yours.
>
> No, I used it as an example of something *some* people were consumer concious
> about, when you said that you assumed that I'd tirade against them, I said that
> no I wouldn't as that would be hypocritical (yumyum).
You still seem to have bone to pick with Nestle. I can also nitpick GM,
since I own one of their products:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/my-suburban.jpg
My big one is with the UAW, but I think it is a very separate issue. I
still buy their product, and hope the company and the UAW can work
things out.
> Oh.. it's just below! (Not that this isn't just fluff)
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> Pardon? I went to lengths to explain that I wasn't judgemental, and that I
> wasn't going to shove my ideas down your throat.. and you try to shove two down
> mine?
No, I don't care if you are a vegetarian or not, that is your business,
and I respect that. There are people, on both sides of things, that do
judge others. There are many here in the US, Richard, that are doing
that, judging the people that don't agree with them. My aunt is a
vegetarian, and that is fine. I don't equate all vegetarians equally,
hence the "some in the vegetarian movement", which means not al of them,
the ones I have encountered and read about. I know not all of them are.
> > > 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...
>
> Assessing is one thing, and adding in spurious stereotypes is another.
> The Nestle thing, and the Vegetarian issue are two times at least that you've
> made up things about my character without justification.
You keep mentioning something about Nestle, but you don't say what it
is. I just did about GM. I don't equate you with the vegetarian example,
unless you do those kind of things. The Nestle thing must be for
advertising.
I guess I am frustrated with that you seem to be very ambiguous to where
you stand on things, such as the Nestle thing, and it is hard to
understand where you are coming from.
> > > > 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.
>
> THAT'S A STEREOTYPE RIGHT THERE.
MOst does not equal all. Stereotypes, in my definition, means that all X
people do this. That is not what I said.
> Sorry for shouting.
Well, I think you are misinterpreting the things I say, yelling never
helps. Swearing, as well, but that is for Jasper.
>
> > > > > 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! :)
>
> We agree on a great many things, and the things that we have differences of
> opinion on are just fluff.
>
> > 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.
>
> At which point did I presume to say that I had anything to teach you? I think
> that presumtion led to your initial misunderstanding?
I was referring to the college issue again, I don't know if that helps.
Are you in academia? I also am referring to all the US schooling I have
received, I have never studied abroad.
> I'm sure the fact that I'm British doesn't help either.
Well, we all can't be perfect! ;) I think cultural issues are big,
especially here at LUGNET, because we have a worldwide sampling. I think
most of the issues we discuss are more of the US side, I am afraid. I
don't know if some of the things here would work outside of the uS, and
I don't know if that is a good thing or bad things sometimes.
> Also living there makes it harder to understand in some respects too.
Hmm... this needs to be expanded, what do you mean? Well, this a
temperate zone. (Sorry, I have a hard time not quoting Monty Python when
I hear that phrase, even when I say it!)
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?]
|
| (...) IMO, shareholders and the purchacing power of a few knowledgable consumers isn't enough to control corperations. What are the evils that corperations *could* do, if they were allowed? * Education - biased or limited, creating clones to work in (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| Scott E. Sanburn wrote in message <387E3BDD.6A5F8473@c...eb.net>... (...) I doubt thats it, but funny if it was. Lets spend a collossal amount of finite public resources on the Anti Nestle, Advertising-Tax Campaign (ANATC) (1). (...) I agree, I (...) (25 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
