Should a rich person help the poor, just because they're rich? [Archive]

Clockw0rk

07-08-2009, 10:27 AM

Quotes from the Futurama thread - a discussion started up regarding the voice actors' salaries:

Don't get me wrong, some of them are very talented (although not all) but they're NEEDED because people are used to them, as evidenced from this thread. Prsonally I don't see why they need so much money. Unless they're going to donate a large percentage to charity, it seems greedy to me.

TBH what West and Co. are asking for is chump change in comparison to what Castellaneta and Co. make to voice the Simpsons (Castellaneta makes $400,000 an episode as of 2008)

Frankly I believe its deserved. These voice actors breath life into these characters in a way no one else can. This is why you wouldn't want someone else doing Zoidberg, or Bender, they are irreplaceable. Its their delivery that forges a bond with the viewer and makes the show popular.

And that popularity has lead to a multi-million (billion?) dollar franchise; DVD sales, comics, merchandise, etc.

So why shouldn't they want a bigger cut? Why should someone else reap the rewards of their talents?

Chump change? Give me a break. You justify their demands by citing an example where even more ludicrous amounts are being paid?

Tell that to a kid in a third world country working his ass off 12 hours a day or more for slave labour that these guys who put on a funny voice deserve the kind of money that could change the life of hundreds, even thousands of people.

I love Futurama. Zoidberg, Bender and perhaps Fry are "irreplacable". Maybe Zapp Brannigan also. Some of the others have just got lucky.

A lot of it is familiarity. People have grown accustomed to their voices, hence the "having them by the balls" bit. In an alternate reality where different but equally talented voice actors are being used and the show wished to swap to the current voice actors, no doubt people would complain.

As I have said, it is mass mediums at work. Take a small amount of money from a lot of people.

Why should someone else deserve get the money you ask? Maybe they shouldn't. That doesn't mean they "deserve" it, but it's a take what you can get society. More than half that money should be going to the less fortunate.

So how do you determine how much a person should be paid then? Or in your ideal utopia does everyone get paid the same?

The argument where you refuse to draw the line. In life, you need to draw the line. You can have a grey area, sure, but have the balls to draw the line. It's not exactly hard in this situation... 90k for a half hour episode of making funny voices for a cartoon, money that could be used to save people's lives, put a stop to misery...

Also, ordinarily I wouldn't stoop this low but since you used it to be a sarcastic dick... every utopia is "ideal". That's the definition of "utopia".

If people could experience life on the other side, without the neccessities of life like shelter, food, etc, suffering from hunger then maybe you could understand how ridiculous this all is. But obviously you can't.

Lazlow, I'm going to try to minimalize my response to your nonsense.

Why take offense from what I have written with sarcastic remarks? Because I would prefer resources to go to starving people than cartoon voices?

These guys are getting paid ridiculous sums for voicing cartoon characters. People are dying from lack of resources. It's such a simple equation.

Boo ****ing hoo. My cartoons voices have changed.

What a ****ing world we live in. Don't get me wrong, I love futurama, it's one of my favourite shows ever, and I understand why people want the same voices, I love those voices, but people taking offense at my suggestion resources should be more evenly distributed to help people whose life on this earth is misery every day with "witty sarcastic remarks"...

I understand the importance of "art" in our life. I love futurama, absolutely love it (not the movies though) and would most definitely label it "art". There's a quote, if I could be ****ed I'd look it up but it goes something like "art makes life worth living". I also understand people in comfort, most of western society, just want to enjoy the pleasures of life like brilliant cartoon shows without someone ranting about starving people in countries they'll never have to witness. But what I have said, no matter how annoying, that's the way it is.

The older I get, the more alienated from society I become.

If that was actually an option, that I could say "instead of making more Futurama give those millions of dollars to feed the poor" I'm sure even the hardcorest of fans would say to do that.

But this money is being allocated to make an animated sitcom and if it wasn't it would go to another show.

Also putting witty sarcastic remarks in quotes makes it sound like they weren't. :(
Blake, there is always an option. It's as simple as saying they want to donate the money and set an example to other people. Believe it or not, I'm not an idiot. I know my argument on some level doesn't make sense. From the maker's perspective, if Futurama did not pay those voice actors their money, the simple fact is the viewers' enjoyment would diminish, they would reap less revenue and therefore the money could not be donated to charity. I guess my point was, the voice actors should just donate half their money to charity.

Consider that situation.

Firstly, had they offered that scenario, I seriously doubt Futurama makers would refuse it as they would look like absolute assholes. And no one wants that, no matter how much they want the money.

Secondly, the voice actors would still get paid more money than they would know what to do with.

Thirdly, helping people.

I dunno, it just doesn't seem that complicated to me.

Edit: To anyone who has seen the movie classic "Chinatown" there's an argument about a rich guy who already has more money than he knows what to do with but still goes about trying to obtain more through illicit means. He is then confronted by Jack Nicholson who cannot understand why he would commit such heinuous acts when he can already obtain every material possession mankind's heart desires and asks "Can the wine taste any sweeter?" etc.

Thierry Henry's house was broken into. And 200k worth of leather coats were stolen. But who needs 200k woth of leather coats to begin with? Such frivolous expediture is not unusual for those who reap the benefits of mass mediums, the haves and the have nots. Thierry Henry, while a sports player, is providing entertainment through mass mediums, hence the clubs profitability via TV sponsorships and his own endorsements etc.

TL;DR: Should a rich person help the poor if they have the spare money to do so? Bear in mind, of course, that a large number of them do. What about the salaries for screen actors, voice actors etc? Should their salaries be cut and the money given to starving African kids, or do they deserve a ludicrous sum of money for making funny voices?

FX-GTZ

07-08-2009, 10:33 AM

I dont know, it would entirely depend on their (being you) attitude at the time, and their (you again) belief's. But if they were convinced to somehow put both their belief's aside and just help some poor person, they would know what a difference they are making to someone.. You cant just wave a hand around in the sky and sprinkle food and money all over the poor people like some Black and White 2 simulation, thats not the way you fix this kind of problem, because that kind of thing hasnt happened yet, i can only recall it happening from army troops delievering rations and aid to the very poor parts of the world. IF i had the money to give, which i dont, i would try and give as much as i could to someone, but im not going to be taken'd advantage of and let them have the whole lot, if it was a lotto win or something, of course i would want some of my own winnings to myself. Wouldnt you?

Stevorooni

07-08-2009, 10:57 AM

So what level of richness do you have to get to before a percentage of your money is allocated to the poor, and what is an acceptable percentage to give to the poor before the rich person becomes poor themselves?

Some of these stars give a lot of money to charity, a lot more than people on the average wage do. Hell it's probably a lot more than what the average wage IS.

The spirit of charity is to give what YOU think is appropriate, not what others expect of you.

Celebrities are probably paid too much. But their employers are the ones choosing to pay them that much. Using money made from selling things everyone else (except the poor people) is buying with money that could otherwise be given to charity.

So the whole world is at fault.

Pauly

07-08-2009, 11:03 AM

i like the excuse "i'm not rolling in money so i can't give it away". like stevo said, it's more about a percentage of what you have, as this is the same for all people. if you gave say, 10% of what you had, it would be just as valuable as the 10% a movie star had. and it's equally as hard to give away.

Surgeon.

07-08-2009, 11:06 AM

Hard question.

It's easy to say that the rich should give to the poor, how do you define rich? I guess I'm rich compared to someone starving in Africa, but I'm always reluctant to donate money.

I'd rather have luxuries like a big screen tv and a nice car, even though I know that my money could have gone to someone in need. Partially because I resent how obtrusive and demanding charities have become, but also because I just think I earned that money and deserve to buy what I want.

I assume that this is how many of the rich think, regardless of how excessive their salaries are. Actually I'm convinced that alot of wealthy people truly believe that they work harder than the poor and deserve their huge wealth.

Pauly

07-08-2009, 11:10 AM

I assume that this is how many of the rich think, regardless of how excessive their salaries are. Actually I'm convinced that alot of wealthy people truly believe that they work harder than the poor and deserve their huge wealth.
unfortunately this is a myth as human trafficking is still a major issue.

proofreeder

07-08-2009, 11:30 AM

Hello Clockw0rk, thanks for making this into a thread. This is an issue I have considered a great deal because I plan to be rich someday :D and intend to put my money where my mouth is.

Here's a few points to the discussion for what it's worth:

1. I understand something like this would be very difficult to enforce. I don't know if there could be a system in place to redestribute this wealth, and even if there could be, I'm not sure it would be ethical to do so. Although taxes do achieve this to some extent.

My criticism was more ethical.

The spirit of charity is to give what YOU think is appropriate, not what others expect of you.

I believe people should have the consideration to do this volutarily. The extremely rich should be able to use their excess to help the poor.

So what level of richness do you have to get to before a percentage of your money is allocated to the poor, and what is an acceptable percentage to give to the poor before the rich person becomes poor themselves?

Some of these stars give a lot of money to charity, a lot more than people on the average wage do. Hell it's probably a lot more than what the average wage IS.

It's tough to draw the line. For me personally, I'm talking about people that earn millions and millions from mass mediums.

Many stars give a lot of money to charity and I certainly hope (in some of their situations) it's a hell of a lot more than the average wage. When you are dealing with that kind of money, percentages are what make the difference.

For example, a wealthy actor earns 5 million in one year after tax, not including interest. Take out 50k for charity, it's a lot of money to us, but a drop in the ocean to what could, and IMO should, be donated. Now take out 50%, that's 2.5Million dollars to help as many of the destitute as possible. That will help a hell of a lot more people.

If rolemodels and influential figures stated 50% of their income was going to charity, hopefully it would help alter society's viewpoints on such things.

I'm not talking about making them poor. You can always argue for more. I'm saying there's an awful lot of cream that could be taken off the top. Still leave them with enough money than they could feasibly know what to do with.

Finally, this isn't going to fix all the world's problems. Nothing will! But if you're one of the millions of people a day who receives a few more desperately required resources, then it will make a difference to you. And millions of others. Money is a currency exchanged for goods and services. Essentially, resources.

Celebrities are probably paid too much. But their employers are the ones choosing to pay them that much. Using money made from selling things everyone else (except the poor people) is buying with money that could otherwise be given to charity.

So the whole world is at fault.

Shit, I wanna wrap this up, it's taking too long.

"Art makes life worth living". I've misquoted and forgotten who quoted it but w/e.

I am not criticising people using resources (money) they have earned to purchase "art" (entertainment) to give their lives enjoyment. We all want enjoyment in lives. I'm not talking about the average Joe becoming a martyr. The system the way it is, that's the way mass mediums work, small percentages accumulate a lot of the wealth because everyone wants the best.

My argument is, these people, the excessively rich and famous, should be voluntarily donating sizeable percentages of their fortune to help the destitute. This is the way society, and humanity, should function.

Anyway, thanks Clockw0rk. I probably won't check in on the thread for a bit, I get drawn in easy and spend a lot of time. See ya :)

Pauly

07-08-2009, 11:44 AM

Stevorooni

07-08-2009, 11:54 AM

Why are rich people supposedly responsible for the poor anyway? Did they make them poor? Well I suppose some rich company owner closing down one of his factories to save money and putting people out of work may be, but is Billy West responsible for the homeless?

Governments run countries, we all contribute our share via tax, then they spend it on uesless things nobody wants like internet filters. Imagine that money going to the poor, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

If I had squillions of dollars and someone told me that I have to give a percentage to chairty, I'd tell them to get ****ed and mind their own business as I make my own decisions on what to give. Personally I'd rather start up businesses that put people into work and give them useful training so that they can help themselves, rather than just throw cash around. Teach a man to fish etc

Lazlow

07-08-2009, 11:58 AM

Still at work, but a query on my mind;

Do you believe Tax Brackets are a good thing? Is it right to Tax the wealthy at a higher rate despite them using the same or even less public resources as a low income earner?

Stevorooni

07-08-2009, 12:09 PM

I think that apart from the tax free threshold, tax should be a uniform percentage of income for everyone.

Azzaman

07-08-2009, 12:22 PM

I think yes, the wealthy should be taxed higher as they can easily afford it. It's kind of a public service thing in my eyes. If they earn $400k and are taxed say 50%, they are still much better off then the poor sob who earns $50k and is taxed what 20% (to pull a figure out my backside). The trouble starts when these rich people realise they can off-shore their money and keep more of it for themselves and none for the "public".

I have a question also, if one were to be in public service and I mean real public service like the Army, Fire fighter, Copper, etc. Do you think they should still have to give a portion of their "wealth" to charity?

Pauly

07-08-2009, 12:27 PM

I have a question also, if one were to be in public service and I mean real public service like the Army, Fire fighter, Copper, etc. Do you think they should still have to give a portion of their "wealth" to charity?
i think if you look at the conditions the majority of the world is living in you wouldn't excuse anyone in our country from being able to give -something- whether they are in public service or not.

Azzaman

07-08-2009, 12:41 PM

Even if they're not earning much?

Pauly

07-08-2009, 12:59 PM

i'm not suggesting we enforce giving. that goes against the principle of the thing in the first place. but you need to look at it from the right perspective. our idea of not earning much in other parts of the world is considered a fortune.

Lazlow

07-08-2009, 01:26 PM

Lunch break! So I can get into this a little;

I understand something like this would be very difficult to enforce.

the excessively rich and famous, should be voluntarily donating sizeable percentages of their fortune

I'm going to quote something Stevo said, because you seem unable to grasp the rational behind a voluntary donation;

The spirit of charity is to give what YOU think is appropriate, not what others expect of you.

There is no arbitrary rule to donating money; you even imply it yourself;

It's tough to draw the line. For me personally, I'm talking about people that earn millions and millions from mass mediums.

Who's to decided who does and doesn't earn "too much" and what they should give. Its up to the individual to give what they feel they should. If they feel that figure is zero, then so be it. They earnt their cash fair and square, made their own sacrifices and worked their way up to where they are.

You can't tell someone to volunteer or donate, its a complete contradiction.

This is why I responded with the "witty sarcastic remarks". You spewed forth bleeding heart rant inthe midst of a completely unrelated topic. Fox make television programs, not manage public resources. As Blake said money not spent on Futurama voice actor salaries will be spent elsewhere on another program.

Not to mention that Futurama's popularity was built on the back of the voice actors' characterizations, popularity which in turn lead to more money for Fox. If you want to be righteous, why shouldn't that increased revenue be given to those who put the work in?

For example, a wealthy actor earns 5 million in one year after tax, not including interest. Take out 50k for charity, it's a lot of money to us, but a drop in the ocean to what could, and IMO should, be donated. Now take out 50%, that's 2.5Million dollars to help as many of the destitute as possible. That will help a hell of a lot more people.

That's some very basic economics there. Never mind the subject's own expenses and investments.

If I had squillions of dollars and someone told me that I have to give a percentage to chairty, I'd tell them to get ****ed and mind their own business as I make my own decisions on what to give. Personally I'd rather start up businesses that put people into work and give them useful training so that they can help themselves, rather than just throw cash around. Teach a man to fish etc

For emphasis. And its what many philanthropists do when they become disillunsioned with the beaurocracy and misdirection of funds with aid organisations.

I think yes, the wealthy should be taxed higher as they can easily afford it. It's kind of a public service thing in my eyes. If they earn $400k and are taxed say 50%, they are still much better off then the poor sob who earns $50k and is taxed what 20% (to pull a figure out my backside). The trouble starts when these rich people realise they can off-shore their money and keep more of it for themselves and none for the "public".

So you're essentially saying the rich should help the poor, simply for being rich?

Why should two people, who work equally just as hard as each other and use the same public resources, be taxed differently because their income differs? Hardly seems fair that one is told to prop up the other.

Dang, back to work >_<

Pauly

07-08-2009, 02:04 PM

Why should two people, who work equally just as hard as each other and use the same public resources, be taxed differently because their income differs? Hardly seems fair that one is told to prop up the other.
i agree with you however i think it is more a case of breaking down class barriers. in the long run i think the people on lower incomes become slightly better off, so the quality of living as a whole for the nation is improved.

Ad-Rock

07-08-2009, 02:08 PM

To answer the question in two words:

**** no.

Spudzilla

07-08-2009, 02:14 PM

If I ever get rich enough to have more money than I know what to do with, I'm not going to give it to some uneducated, parasitic, sychophantic gelatinous blob of the general public who doesn't deserve it.

Azzaman

07-08-2009, 02:25 PM

So you're essentially saying the rich should help the poor, simply for being rich?

Why should two people, who work equally just as hard as each other and use the same public resources, be taxed differently because their income differs? Hardly seems fair that one is told to prop up the other.

Dang, back to work >_<

My thoughts being that living in this country and using it's resources have allowed them to become rich. They should give something back, especially considering they earn so much that it wouldn't negetively impact them.

Taxation has to come from somewhere and I believe that more of it should come from those that can more easily afford it.

AranchineD

07-08-2009, 02:50 PM

If I had to work your whole life to earn a higher income and standard of living, but then had to give half of it away, I'd know I'd be pretty pissed off about all my hard work pretty much being for nothing.

Of course you can argue what constitutes hard work, and what type of work should be equal to what kind of pay, but I figure if you've studied for almost 15 years of your life, or did apprentice work or whatever do get into a high paying job what you do with your money should be up to you.

Now ethically speaking I'd like to think many people who do earn a lot would give to charities and such, but there shouldn't be a mandatory donation at all.

Lazlow

07-08-2009, 02:52 PM

My thoughts being that living in this country and using it's resources have allowed them to become rich.

But two people living in this country have the same resources available to them :/

Success essentially comes down to the individual effort; their own initiative, discipline, determination and ability.

UC1

07-08-2009, 03:06 PM

Most of the OP is TLDR, but yes entertainers are worth that much, due to the audience, brand recognition, and what many people are willing to pay. It may not be hard work, but it's valuable, since if the entertainers walk, the show goes down the drain. This has probably all been said before.

In these situations where they make a shit tonne of money for doing almost nothing, I think they should give a lot to charity. Or get taxed to ****. Either way.

proofreeder

07-08-2009, 03:16 PM

i disagree. why should it only be up to people who make more money to get on the social justice bandwagon? sorry to sound blunt, but if you truly cared you would be putting your money where your mouth is now. you can't ask that others give away 50% of their earnings while you sit and do nothing. the problem with the world is nobody wants to do the hard work. lets just offload the responsibility onto someone else. your 10% given means as much as tom cruise's.

While I am working on projects for the future, if I gave away 50% of my income I wouldn't be able to make mortgage repayments on the modest two bedroom apartment that I live in. It is over 50% of my income. I do what I can at the moment.

That is ignoring such things as food, bills, petrol etc etc.

Does your argument still hold?

This will sound hippocritical since I have done nothing but judged others, but people have different situations. Anyway, I couldn't resist checking back.

Azzaman

07-08-2009, 03:25 PM

But two people living in this country have the same resources available to them :/

Success essentially comes down to the individual effort; their own initiative, discipline, determination and ability.

In my experience it's usually a case of who you know, not what you know.

Stevorooni

07-08-2009, 03:25 PM

Azzaman

07-08-2009, 03:27 PM

Who gets to decide where that line is? Do we each get one house, one car and 3 meals a day with anything extra being labelled as greedy?

Technically the ATO does.

Surgeon.

07-08-2009, 03:30 PM

They earnt their cash fair and square, made their own sacrifices and worked their way up to where they are.

Success essentially comes down to the individual effort; their own initiative, discipline, determination and ability

Yes, the rich are all moral upstanding pillars of society. :p

Just because you've made your fortune legally, doesn't mean you've done it ethically. I'm sure there's lots of rich bastards who've made their money ripping people off in one way or another.

Not that I agree that the rich should be forced to give to the poor. That's pretty much what tax is. Perhaps the government should just manage it better.

Stevorooni

07-08-2009, 03:32 PM

Perhaps the government should just manage it better.

At least they're not like the mods who taxed our pep at 100% :(

Slippery

07-08-2009, 03:54 PM

At least they're not like the mods who taxed our pep at 100% :(

Can't complain, at least everyone was taxed equally according to their means.

Stevorooni

07-08-2009, 04:02 PM

Can't complain, at least everyone was taxed equally according to their means.

Really AranchineD should have been taxed the most, with FX-GTZ and Creedy being the main benefactors

sausage

07-08-2009, 04:29 PM

To answer the question in two words:

**** no.

+ 1. Well said.

God, listen to you guys; for one thing charities are little ego-centric, wasteful feifdoms in themselves - yes, all of them

So okay, if you earn x amount you have to give x amount to x for "charitable" purposes... jesus; way to create another parallel Kafkaesque level of bureaucracy in enforcement and distribution of x.

My god....

And what is a charitable purpose anyway? Who gets to decide this? How many years should Tax Law be bent, shaped, argued over and finally decided that a fair and equitable and easily understandable way of collection and distribution be agreed on?

And what about the accountability of the charities involved? New laws required for charity fraud? Blacklisted charities? What then?

And what about overseas-controlled charities that are locally-based but get guidance, support and financial assistance from the home country?

I'll tell you what; I'd be one unhappy puppy if I was a member of Red Cross NZ and we get invited to Sydney for a Australian conference and we fly over in economy and you guys turn up in Hummers with whores.

Spudzilla

07-08-2009, 05:33 PM

Face it, proofreeder. You're just wrong.

That_Gamer_Guy_64

07-08-2009, 06:05 PM

Vindik8or

07-08-2009, 06:06 PM

In my ideal Utopia everyone does get paid the same (kind've) and it's more than they could reasonably ever spend. But also it isn't the same as cash, either, you can't 'save' your portion of the society's productive capacity you just use it or not. The unspent energy can be rolled into wider scale projects, or just not used for efficiency.

incompatible with life

07-08-2009, 06:59 PM

Proofreader, your arguments in all this are all based on the assumption of moral responsibility of the rich to contribute back and help the poor. Would you care to explain why such morals apply? It is all good and well to get on the moral high horse but arguments become somewhat empty if there is nothing to back it up.

Personally I see merit in the proposition that the rich should give to the poor.
As already pointed out, if someone is rich they most likely didn't make it completely through their own efforts - whether fairly or through the exploitation of others. I argue that nobody becomes rich in isolation. They will always attain it through the participation of others. Essentialy this point stipulates that we only become wealthy because of society's wealth and progress. Afterall, determining someone is rich is not an objective decision but a relative one (ie. earning a million dollars a year means nothing if everyone else earns the same).

From this point I conceive that the notion that it is a moral responsibility for the rich to contribute back to society because they have benefitted from society and therefore they in return should benefit society. Essentially if not contributing back to society was to then become the paradigm, society would collapse without the collective co-operation with each other.

And given that the poor also encompasses the developing world, I would also rather conveniently argue that the developed world got where they were through the exploitation (direct and indirect) of the developing world and there is then a moral responsibility by the developed world to reciprocate (but then again see below point on my position on morals).

I would point out I generally don't like arguments based on morality. I find that when dissected down they tend to lead to positions very difficult to maintain, since they use subjective views as universal rules. For example, if person A gets rich because they exploited person B, person A then has a moral duty to balance the imbalance by then compensating or at least helping out person B. But then that's just looking at a very anthropocentric perspective. What about the animals that both A and B eat to survive? Or how about the plants? They don't count because they're not human?

In my ideal Utopia everyone does get paid the same (kind've) and it's more than they could reasonably ever spend. But also it isn't the same as cash, either, you can't 'save' your portion of the society's productive capacity you just use it or not. The unspent energy can be rolled into wider scale projects, or just not used for efficiency.
Re: the part I've put in bold - that would only work if everyone's desires were met, which I imagine would require a near infinite capacity to provide for that. Sadly we don't quite have such capacity and short of sheer magic I doubt we'd ever achieve it.

Re: the point I italicised - I would like to propose that society would not have progressed so far if it were not for the element of greed. In essence, if there was no personal gain from one's actions, there would be no motive to do more than just the bare minimum (I conceed that this argument ignores other motivations such as acclaim). This at best leads to a situation where progress is made much more slowly and at worst leads to stagnation. And given that humans do not have a hive mentality I'd be inclined to think that the latter would be more likely.

While I am working on projects for the future, if I gave away 50% of my income I wouldn't be able to make mortgage repayments on the modest two bedroom apartment that I live in. It is over 50% of my income. I do what I can at the moment.

That is ignoring such things as food, bills, petrol etc etc.

Does your argument still hold?

I assume yes. In essence if you're going to take the moral high horse then it shouldn't just be in conditions that just suit you.

Also, ordinarily I wouldn't stoop this low but since you used it to be a sarcastic dick... every utopia is "ideal". That's the definition of "utopia".
For the record I was really only baiting you to see if there was more to what was otherwise a shallow cliché :p

I'll tell you what; I'd be one unhappy puppy if I was a member of Red Cross NZ and we get invited to Sydney for a Australian conference and we fly over in economy and you guys turn up in Hummers with whores.
And getting hummers from said whores :p

Vindik8or

07-08-2009, 07:54 PM

Re: the part I've put in bold - that would only work if everyone's desires were met, which I imagine would require a near infinite capacity to provide for that. Sadly we don't quite have such capacity and short of sheer magic I doubt we'd ever achieve it.

Re: the point I italicised - I would like to propose that society would not have progressed so far if it were not for the element of greed. In essence, if there was no personal gain from one's actions, there would be no motive to do more than just the bare minimum (I conceed that this argument ignores other motivations such as acclaim). This at best leads to a situation where progress is made much more slowly and at worst leads to stagnation. And given that humans do not have a hive mentality I'd be inclined to think that the latter would be more likely.

Well, I'm glad you brought up such points! Now I can answer and give you some links.

To the first point, such a capacity is much closer than you think. Already much of the world is in a post-scarcity economy with many of the things that we consume, however the biggest example of this is definitely the digital economy. Of things that can be digitised, there is essentially infinite amounts of them, it is ridiculous that in a capitalist scarcity economy that something digital should be worth a monetary value. Developments in things like Z-Printers will mean that all people will need to get certain items is the raw-materials for the printers, a digital pattern for the item and energy. Furthermore the way that our current economy runs is through a concept of efficiency where you make the most number of items out of a given amount of resources. True efficiency, which post-scarcity economies are based upon, is where you aim to make only as much as there is demand for. Technocrats argue that there is the productive capacity to deliver that, and in fact it can be done with everyone working much fewer hours.

As for the motivation, you nixed that shit yourself. Human beings are really crap at being bone-idle and will make reasons to do something. In place of money, there is doubtless a multitude of other motivations that people will come up with and even (if you're so cynically inclined) be greedy about. That stuff about the hive mindedness is bad too, and very ethnocentric. You're from an individualist society, so I'll forgive it and just point out the error. There's tonnes of cultures and societies around the world (in fact, more by individual count and the number of people that are in those societies) that favour the benefit of the community/family over that of the individual. They are called collectivist societies. However, that's neither here nor there - a technocracy can support either without prejudice. It is an economic system, not a governmental system, not a culture, not a society.

Some good starting links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Accounting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement

incompatible with life

07-08-2009, 09:44 PM

To the first point, such a capacity is much closer than you think. Already much of the world is in a post-scarcity economy with many of the things that we consume
Come to think of it there is the argument that the world as a collective probably does produce enough for everyone to live comfortable lives. ie. the world's richest 5% own 60% of the world's wealth or some such statistic in that vein.

however the biggest example of this is definitely the digital economy. Of things that can be digitised, there is essentially infinite amounts of them, it is ridiculous that in a capitalist scarcity economy that something digital should be worth a monetary value.

Developments in things like Z-Printers will mean that all people will need to get certain items is the raw-materials for the printers, a digital pattern for the item and energy. Furthermore the way that our current economy runs is through a concept of efficiency where you make the most number of items out of a given amount of resources. True efficiency, which post-scarcity economies are based upon, is where you aim to make only as much as there is demand for. Technocrats argue that there is the productive capacity to deliver that, and in fact it can be done with everyone working much fewer hours.
Yes, but if you're the creator of said object physical or digital there's less incentive to try innovate and make something if you're not properly compensated for your efforts. I assume that's why patents were invented - to avoid people stealing your ideas and undercutting you by making it cheaper.

Certainly much of that metaphysical value gets overinflated with things like advertising and overpaid execs, but it does seem to come back to this concept that there is a certain demand for it ergo there is a price associated. If a digital object isn't worth nearly as much as it is sold for then people shouldn't buy it until the price is right.

Speaking of Z printers though (http://gizmodo.com/5331873/3d-printing-now-available-in-stainless-steel-adamantium-next/gallery/)

As for the motivation, you nixed that shit yourself. Human beings are really crap at being bone-idle and will make reasons to do something. In place of money, there is doubtless a multitude of other motivations that people will come up with and even (if you're so cynically inclined) be greedy about.
Although isn't being bone-idle the gold pot at the end of the rainbow that is post-scarcity?

Quoth the raven:
"In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming."

Again I make cynical assumptions but I imagine that if there was less labour required, people aren't going to be more productive but less. To illustrate my point, I call upon the civilisation in Wall E (overlooking all those plot holes in terms of how it could run). Or even worse, it just leads to fewer people owning more.

That stuff about the hive mindedness is bad too, and very ethnocentric. You're from an individualist society, so I'll forgive it and just point out the error. There's tonnes of cultures and societies around the world (in fact, more by individual count and the number of people that are in those societies) that favour the benefit of the community/family over that of the individual.
But how many of them weren't founded out of necesscity (ie. in developing societies where it's necessary for everyone to work together for sheer survival) and more impotantly, how many could be applied in a worldwide population and be sustainable? Without specific examples I wonder if part of the reason why said cultures have worked was due to smaler scale.

a technocracy can support either without prejudice. It is an economic system, not a governmental system, not a culture, not a society.
Going by Wikipedia's description of a technocracy being run by scientists and engineers, how are they necessarily any more capable of running society? For example, how would scientists manage global warming? Or the proposition of a neo-eugenics with genetic engineering? And to kick the dramatisation up a notch, how does a scientist value human life?

Some good starting links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_scarcity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Accounting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement
cheers for the links. Skimmed it so far but looks interesting. Certainly I'm interested in the concept of Energy Accounting given that physical (or even digital) currency has no inherent value. edit: Hmm, no wait, read a bit more of it and perhaps don't quite agree with it.

Big Kev

07-08-2009, 10:09 PM

Why are rich people supposedly responsible for the poor anyway? Did they make them poor?

Think about it.

Lazlow

07-08-2009, 10:28 PM

In my experience it's usually a case of who you know, not what you know.

Bullshit artists get found out one way or another. That or they end up having to do the hard yards to maintain their position.

Yes, the rich are all moral upstanding pillars of society.

Just because you've made your fortune legally, doesn't mean you've done it ethically. I'm sure there's lots of rich bastards who've made their money ripping people off in one way or another.

More cynicism. I'm sure there are plenty of unethical low-middle income earners as well (carpenters, mechanics, plumbners >_>).

Big Kev

07-08-2009, 10:31 PM

Laz, I recommend you go read a book called "corporate assassins".

Might change your opinion on the low/middle income earners.

Ali G

07-08-2009, 10:35 PM

But how many of them weren't founded out of necesscity (ie. in developing societies where it's necessary for everyone to work together for sheer survival) and more impotantly, how many could be applied in a worldwide population and be sustainable? Without specific examples I wonder if part of the reason why said cultures have worked was due to smaler scale.
I'm pretty sure Japan would be a big example of a developed country where the family/company/community is more important than the individual.

Vindik8or

07-08-2009, 10:44 PM

Come to think of it there is the argument that the world as a collective probably does produce enough for everyone to live comfortable lives. ie. the world's richest 5% own 60% of the world's wealth or some such statistic in that vein.
Goddamn quote wars. Here goes.

Yes, but if you're the creator of said object physical or digital there's less incentive to try innovate and make something if you're not properly compensated for your efforts. I assume that's why patents were invented - to avoid people stealing your ideas and undercutting you by making it cheaper.
Under the current economic system, yes, there would be less incentive, but shit - there's a massive ex-monetary distribution of digital anything and everything going on all the time, it hasn't collapsed the economy or stopped people from working in it. Despite what the entertainment industry would have you believe.

Certainly much of that metaphysical value gets overinflated with things like advertising and overpaid execs, but it does seem to come back to this concept that there is a certain demand for it ergo there is a price associated. If a digital object isn't worth nearly as much as it is sold for then people shouldn't buy it until the price is right.
Again, people don't. Who buys Adobe products unless it's a legal requirement (businesses trying to be legitimate)? And all the people making this stuff are struggling hard to figure out how to make money out of it when people won't pay for something that can be propogated infinitely by anyone with a copy. It is ridiculous to think that something with an infinite possible supply is worth anything (in the current system).

The adversarial slant to intellectual property and copyright and patent laws is a serious hinderance to development in my view. For a concept or technology to be developed by someone who isn't the original inventor (and it is rarely ever one single person these days), a great deal of time and effort needs to be sunk into skirting very sketchy legal boundaries and reverse-engineering. If there wasn't the issue of corporate and personal livelihoods to consider, development on just about everything could leap ahead much, much more quickly.

Although isn't being bone-idle the gold pot at the end of the rainbow that is post-scarcity?

Quoth the raven:
"In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able to make a living from programming."
No it isn't. Reducing menial labour and societal demands on an individual's time is, but take a look at the Golden Age of Greece and the Renaissance and Enlightenment. They were all the result of a ludicrously wealthy upper-class having too much free time and creating an explosion in the sciences and arts. In this case it wouldn't be on the backs of slavery, but the effect would be the same.

Again I make cynical assumptions but I imagine that if there was less labour required, people aren't going to be more productive but less. To illustrate my point, I call upon the civilisation in Wall E (overlooking all those plot holes in terms of how it could run). Or even worse, it just leads to fewer people owning more.
LOL can't be overlooked, it's idiotic. Less menial labour required doesn't mean less productivity - it will shift away from people wasting time on making excess goods or creating false demand to intellectual pursuits.

But how many of them weren't founded out of necesscity (ie. in developing societies where it's necessary for everyone to work together for sheer survival) and more impotantly, how many could be applied in a worldwide population and be sustainable? Without specific examples I wonder if part of the reason why said cultures have worked was due to smaler scale.
Most social forms develop out of necessity, but you've picked the wrong one in the case of collectivism. The necessity that caused this particular one is due to confined living and dense population. Collectivism exists even in first world nations such as Japan. Again, though, this is pretty much irrelevant - technocracy and post-scarcity are economic constructs, they will work with any cultural form.

Going by Wikipedia's description of a technocracy being run by scientists and engineers, how are they necessarily any more capable of running society? For example, how would scientists manage global warming? Or the proposition of a neo-eugenics with genetic engineering? And to kick the dramatisation up a notch, how does a scientist value human life?
Okay, here I deliberately avoided the kinda political alternative definition of technocracy in the links because it's not what I was referring to. I'm referring to the Technocracy Movement, Energy Accounting, and Post-Scarcity Economics, which are all apolitical economic systems. A society governed by scientists and engineers is not what I'm advocating here, just the economic system (though the rest of the social constructs will be influenced by it, it is indirect).

However, to answer your questions directly, are you like deliberately retarded here? How does a scientist relate to all those things? I dunno, depends on the individual, they're still a goddamn human! You'll find a similar proportion of scientists coming down on either side of, let's say, the abortion debate as you find in wider society. That said, it should be scientists managing global warming.

Furthermore a technocratic economy looks for the most efficient ways to use available resources which necessarilly implies complete sustainability and harm-minimisation upon the environment. Such an economy looks at the larger picture and relies heavily on forecasting, aiming for exactly the right amount at exactly the right time. Capitalism is entrenched in maximum profit in minimum time, and hoarding all gains, which is the most effective way to function in an economy of scarcity, but just plain destructive otherwise.

incompatible with life

07-08-2009, 10:50 PM

I'm pretty sure Japan would be a big example of a developed country where the family/company/community is more important than the individual.
Nope. Otherwise you certainly wouldn't have the phenomenom of hikikomori. Not to mention that at best, people work for the benefit of a particular group, not society as a whole.

Lazlow

07-08-2009, 10:55 PM

Laz, I recommend you go read a book called "corporate assassins".

Might change your opinion on the low/middle income earners.

I have no opinion on low/middle income earners. There are ethical and unethical operators at all levels.

That said searching google and book depository for that title yields no results.

Ali G

07-08-2009, 10:57 PM

Nope. Otherwise you certainly wouldn't have the phenomenom of hikikomori. Not to mention that at best, people work for the benefit of a particular group, not society as a whole.
And it's not possible that hikikomori is a result of such a society?

proofreeder

08-08-2009, 12:32 AM

It's not that difficult a concept. Some of you completely miss the point. I have explained certain things but still you miss the point.

I am not Christian but here is a story a preacher told me. I'm not sure if it is true but I would like to think it is.

If you place a frog in cold water, and gradually heat that water up degree by degree, the frog will not get out of the water, even to the point where it is boiled alive. Because the frog is unable to draw the line.

Now you can say, stupid frog. Get out when the water starts heating up 1 degree. But there is no need for the frog to get out then, perhaps the frog thought it was merely the sun coming out from behind the clouds. But when the frog's skin is boiling alive, get out the water.

200k's worth of leather jackets. People dying from lack of resources. Somewhere, people have to draw the line. It's just as ridiculous as not leaving a bath that keeps heating up until you're boiled alive.

What obligation do they have? I'm talking "morality" not "legality". You have 200k worth of leather jackets in your house. A friend of yours tells you they and their family are dying because they cannot afford enough grains of rice to sustain their family, and you know this to be truthful. Now technically you have no "obligation" to help them. Technically you can say, where do I draw the line? Until I'm starving to death also?

But do the right thing, sell a couple of the jackets and save the dude's life and his family's. Is it that hard to understand? Is that "morality" so difficult to comprehend? Draw the line.

Certain people seem to think all of this talk is just theory, philosopical debate. If you lived every day in poverty, starving, diseased, watching your family die at young ages, then you hear someone has 200k worth of leather jackets in their house, these basketball players who spend money on nothing because they don't know what else to do with it, then your opinion would change. But you can't empathise.

The argument that people "work harder" than the destitute and as such deserve the discrepency in wealth... do I even need to dignify that with an answer? I'm not talking about people dole bludging. They're fine, the system looks after them well enough, enough for neccessities. Technology means society has never had it so good. Or so easy. Now I've never been starving thank God or had to see my family or friends in pain because of lack of resources. But if I did, I sure as hell would work harder than anyone, anywhere to try and prevent this. And I assume people in third world countries would do the same. Little kids that have to carry water for miles, work 14 hour days, and people say movie stars, basketball players deserve the money because they work the hardest? They work incredibly hard (some of them), but there are people that work far, far harder.

I've wasted more than enough time on this. Thinking up analogies and examples to people who can't see the obvious, so that's enough posting in this thread for me. That's the last time I check it too, or I'll just get drawn back in.

One last point, I WILL put my money where my mouth is in the future, of that I am certain. You can believe me or not, it doesn't matter. I will be doing exactly what I have preached. People that criticise me because I am not in a position to do this at the moment, well, people have difficulty seeing what will be. People have difficulty seeing beyond what is directly in front of them.

The world's real ****ed up, and about to get even more ****ed up. A lot of this has to do with people's complete lack of concern for others. Some of you summed up the problem brilliantly... why should they?

Vindik8or

08-08-2009, 12:45 AM

What about the giving of charity encouraging the acceptance of charity? People come to rely upon it and are incapable of fending for themselves? Morality isn't some set of ordained golden rules - it is the act of asking "what is right?" and seeking an answer. You haven't asked any questions here that aren't rhetoric, and you're just trying to enforece your own set of hard-and-fast rules upon others.

PS. You lost me at "preacher".

incompatible with life

08-08-2009, 01:01 AM

Goddamn quote wars. Here goes.
Yay! Quote wars! Where the conversation gets further and further sidetracked and eventually everyone loses interest.

but okay, I'll try and keep it to a minimum, or at least try to restrict what we're arguing about and not nitpick so much.

post-scarcity
I think we have something of an impasse on the world we think that would occur in a post-scarcity environment. To eliminate the variables, how about I propose a discussion based on this scenario:

Due to technological advances, people do not have to work in order to live a comfortable life. Machines take care of all agriculture, construction, production, medicine, and law. For the sake of argument we will assume that this is an absolutely perfect system (so no Skynet or Hal) in which nobody at all has to work at all unless they choose to do so.

So before arguing any further would you agree to these terms (I assume that this is essentialy an ideal that post-scarcity points to).

The digital economy
The argument as I understand it stems from the premise that if something can be replicated infinitely with minimal cost, it should not cost anything to obtain it. But then it ignores the fact that this is all based in a capitalist society.

I find this premise is flawed in as much as you would not expect to pay for a product purely based on its cost price. Putting it simply, the price that is set is irrelevant, you either decide it's worth your money or you put that wallet away.

To frame it differently, would you simply accept it if you did your job and your employer refused to pay you becasue they don't recognise the value of the work you did?

Again, people don't. Who buys Adobe products unless it's a legal requirement (businesses trying to be legitimate)? And all the people making this stuff are struggling hard to figure out how to make money out of it when people won't pay for something that can be propogated infinitely by anyone with a copy. It is ridiculous to think that something with an infinite possible supply is worth anything (in the current system).

The real reason why people download adobe is because they can get away with it and there are virtualy no consequences. If it had the same rate and penalties of 'stealing' a physical object it wouldn't be common practice.

And in the example of photoshop it certainly isn't because there aren't any other alternatives.

The adversarial slant to intellectual property and copyright and patent laws is a serious hinderance to development in my view. For a concept or technology to be developed by someone who isn't the original inventor (and it is rarely ever one single person these days), a great deal of time and effort needs to be sunk into skirting very sketchy legal boundaries and reverse-engineering. If there wasn't the issue of corporate and personal livelihoods to consider, development on just about everything could leap ahead much, much more quickly.
Certainly on that basis I don't think intellectual property and copyright are ideal either. No one has an absolutely original idea unless they're raised in complete isolation from society with no human contact.

Nevertheless I still maintain that if there wasn't some way of protecting intellectual property, why would you go through the hard work involved in making something completely new when others will potentially undercut you?

And it's not possible that hikikomori is a result of such a society?
Okay, my particular counter argument wasn't a particularly valid one. Nevertheless my point still stands that Japan is not an example of the collectivism. They just apparently have strong family values (which I'd argue is just a broad generalisation).

If you place a frog in cold water, and gradually heat that water up degree by degree, the frog will not get out of the water, even to the point where it is boiled alive. Because the frog is unable to draw the line.
I know it's used to illustrate a point, but it's actualy :pthe opposite that is true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog). But I mean, think about it. If you were in a large pot that was slowly being boiled you'd also jump out when it got too hot. How are frogs any different?

What obligation do they have? I'm talking "morality" not "legality".
And as I alluded to earlier, morality is only as good as the reasoning behind it. You still haven't given a reasonable explanation as to why it's immoral for the rich to not give to the poor aside from appealing to emotion (woah, having a VCE English flashback).

Lazlow

08-08-2009, 02:11 AM

Some of you completely miss the point. I have explained certain things but still you miss the point.

FFS, I understand what you are saying, it is you who appears unable to grasp what we're saying.

200k's worth of leather jackets. People dying from lack of resources. Somewhere, people have to draw the line.

Exactly, its up to the individual to draw the line, and donate what they wish. Not for others to condemn them for enjoying the fruits of their labor. I spent a third of my salary on a car; does this make me morally bankrupt when I can always use public transport?

Do you solely purchase clothing from Vinnies or Lifeline, with little regard for appearance or social acceptance, because starving African kids wear little more than rags?

What obligation do they have? I'm talking "morality" not "legality". You have 200k worth of leather jackets in your house. A friend of yours tells you they and their family are dying because they cannot afford enough grains of rice to sustain their family, and you know this to be truthful. Now technically you have no "obligation" to help them. Technically you can say, where do I draw the line? Until I'm starving to death also?

But do the right thing, sell a couple of the jackets and save the dude's life and his family's. Is it that hard to understand? Is that "morality" so difficult to comprehend? Draw the line.

This is a bullshit hypothetical, the situation is totally different to what you've been harping on about. Proximate suffering matters more to us than anonymous, distant suffering. You will be a lot more inclined to help a friend than a stranger.

Certain people seem to think all of this talk is just theory, philosopical debate. If you lived every day in poverty, starving, diseased, watching your family die at young ages, then you hear someone has 200k worth of leather jackets in their house, these basketball players who spend money on nothing because they don't know what else to do with it, then your opinion would change. But you can't empathise.

I don't what you're getting at here; that the poor should begrudge the rich because they don't simply hand money over to them? Does this mean I should begrudge my friends because they earn $20-50k more than I do and drive nicer cars?

You are oversimplifying a complex problem.

Why do you lump the individual with all of the world's ills, and make it their responsibility to solve them? An individual who has made his own sacrifices (training, injury, short career, no private life, public scrutiny, constant travel and separation from loved ones) and put in the effort to strive for a good comfortable life.

Consider this; the NBA suddenly decrees that teams must hand over 50% of their cap to aid organizations. This leads to a decline in the quality of basketball, as there are less resources available to teams. Attendance drops so several stadium workers now lose their jobs.

Not to mention that many of the world's problems are due to poor management by governments. And this is a delicate political issue fraught with its own peril (see; Iraq).

The argument that people "work harder" than the destitute and as such deserve the discrepency in wealth... do I even need to dignify that with an answer? I'm not talking about people dole bludging. They're fine, the system looks after them well enough, enough for neccessities. Technology means society has never had it so good. Or so easy. Now I've never been starving thank God or had to see my family or friends in pain because of lack of resources. But if I did, I sure as hell would work harder than anyone, anywhere to try and prevent this. And I assume people in third world countries would do the same. Little kids that have to carry water for miles, work 14 hour days, and people say movie stars, basketball players deserve the money because they work the hardest? They work incredibly hard (some of them), but there are people that work far, far harder.

More simplification and assumption, and a little contraction. I'm not even going to bother.

Thinking up analogies and examples to people who can't see the obvious

Wrong, I can see what you are saying. Its just incredibly naive and simplified, Vin said it best;

You haven't asked any questions here that aren't rhetoric, and you're just trying to enforce your own set of hard-and-fast rules upon others.

IRS

08-08-2009, 01:50 PM

Havent read the whole thread.

But

I pay tax.

If I get richer, I have to pay more tax.

Donations are voluntary.

People are paid based on what they offer and what it is worth in a capitalist market. If you don't like it, start up a farm in Cuba.

Proofreader has a very immature bleeding heart take on the world.

Stevorooni

08-08-2009, 02:10 PM

Let's just pick one rich person to help the poor then the rest can be let off the hook

Sytadel

08-08-2009, 03:52 PM

I'm so glad I don't post in threads like this anymore.

incompatible with life

08-08-2009, 09:35 PM

Let's just pick one rich person to help the poor then the rest can be let off the hook
I interpret the question to be something more along the lines of if a person is rich, do they have a moral responsibility to help the poor.? ie. if someone had more food than they could eat let alone need and there were people nearby with no food and starving, should that person distribute their food?

To that end I proposed that nobody becomes rich on their efforts alone, it's only through society that they become rich. They have benefitted from society, therefore they should* contribute back (of course I suppose using this line of reasoning doesn't necessarily have stipulate helping the poor).
*ie. there is a moral responsibility to do so

Ali G

08-08-2009, 10:35 PM

I interpret the question to be something more along the lines of if a person is rich, do they have a moral responsibility to help the poor.? ie. if someone had more food than they could eat let alone need and there were people nearby with no food and starving, should that person distribute their food?

To that end I proposed that nobody becomes rich on their efforts alone, it's only through society that they become rich. They have benefitted from society, therefore they should* contribute back (of course I suppose using this line of reasoning doesn't necessarily have stipulate helping the poor).
*ie. there is a moral responsibility to do so
I'm going to do something outrageous here and propose that Stevo was actually joking.

incompatible with life

08-08-2009, 10:52 PM

Yes, and just using that opportunity to divert things back to the original conversation.

Ryan Hayward

09-08-2009, 12:09 AM

The funny thing about charity is that its mostly the poor that help the poor and the rich generally only help themselves. I guess you gotta be down on your luck to know what its like.

Spudzilla

09-08-2009, 12:15 AM

What's it like, Ryan?

Lazlow

09-08-2009, 12:15 AM

*baseless generalization*

Ryan Hayward

09-08-2009, 12:25 AM

*baseless generalization*

Not exactly, there has been research to prove its true. ;)
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=the+poor+are+more+charitable&btnG=Search&meta=

Lazlow

09-08-2009, 01:03 AM

Read the first article on portfolio.com;

Saying that the working poor sacrifice the biggest part of their income is not the same as saying that they give away the most money, of course. The S.C.C.B.S. indicates that the wealthiest 10 percent of households are responsible for at least a quarter of all money contributed to charity, including a fifth of what is funneled to religious organizations and about a third of what goes to secular causes. Philanthropy scholars consistently find that households with total income exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the U.S. population) account for about half of all charitable donations. Simply put, your local United Way would probably close down were it not for the rich people in your community.

You can argue about percentages until the cows come home, but its entirely pointless.

incompatible with life

09-08-2009, 11:30 AM

Not exactly, there has been research to prove its true. ;)
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=the+poor+are+more+charitable&btnG=Search&meta=
Yes, but I believe most of the research cited comes from surveys. Surveys can suggest trends but they prove nothing given that they are not based on objective results.

Pauly

09-08-2009, 10:48 PM

While I am working on projects for the future, if I gave away 50% of my income I wouldn't be able to make mortgage repayments on the modest two bedroom apartment that I live in. It is over 50% of my income. I do what I can at the moment.

That is ignoring such things as food, bills, petrol etc etc.

Does your argument still hold?
first of all i never proposed 50%, that was you. i suggested something closer to 10%, and for me even that is a hard thing to give away on a regular basis. does my argument still hold? yes.

like i'm sure someone else has said already, who is to say what is morally acceptable? why are you hoarding all your money for a modest two bedroom apartment when you could still help people and only have one bedroom? or you could rent.

the biggest problem is that you don't consider yourself to be rich at all. that's why you are not contributing yet, right? you aren't rich and need the money to create a better quality of living for yourself. and yet if you had been to any developing countries, and spent time amongst the people who literally have nothing, you would come back with a completely different outlook on this whole issue. everyone can make a difference, even now. hell, the kid who only has 100$ to their name and gives away 10$ is making a damn huge difference. and a noble one too.

This will sound hippocritical since I have done nothing but judged others, but people have different situations. Anyway, I couldn't resist checking back.
a percentage is still a percentage, no matter how much you own. whatever your situation, if you still give the same percentage, you are helping just as much.

It's not that difficult a concept. Some of you completely miss the point. I have explained certain things but still you miss the point.
most of us aren't against the notion of giving. we are questioning your logic in only asking insanely rich people to donate. should they? of course. and a lot of them do. but i just hate people making excuses why they themselves can't.

One last point, I WILL put my money where my mouth is in the future, of that I am certain. You can believe me or not, it doesn't matter. I will be doing exactly what I have preached. People that criticise me because I am not in a position to do this at the moment, well, people have difficulty seeing what will be. People have difficulty seeing beyond what is directly in front of them.
the problem is, so do you. what happens when you settle down, have babies, need to upgrade to that bigger 4 bedroom house. nothing changes. you are always going to need the money you are earning. this is, once again, why i believe constantly giving a smaller percentage of your wages is a better idea. it's enough to change hundreds of lives and still live more than comfortably.

proofreeder

10-08-2009, 12:19 AM

Okay, I am drunk at the moment, I said I wouldn't check back, but as I am drunk I couldn't resist.

Seriously, some of you are ****ing morons. No shit, ****ing morons. Sorry to sound egotistical, but I need to with such moronic responses to social responsiblity. I came in the top 1% of my grade, without even trying. Most of you (exceptions excluded of course Syt, Ron Howard etc) are ****ing morons. I would be smarter than you pissed.

Pauly, I never said I didn't contribute. I said I don't contribute 50%. There is a big ****ing difference. Can you not get it through your head that a person only needs so much to live? A percentage is not a percentage if the difference is living a comfortable life, in a modest 2 bedroom apartment and 200k worth of ****ing leather jackets. Can you not honestly comprehend the difference between a percentage and 200k worth of leather jackets? Is humanity that stupid or are they just unable to admit they're wrong? What if I have children. So ****ing what? You suggest I sell my 2 bedroom apartment, which I will need to support my children and purchase a suitably space to live, as opposed to 200k worth of leather jackets? How am I supposed to support my children. Jesus ****ing Christ, is humanity so moronic?

There is only so much a human ever needs.

Lazlow... ah w/e. Go **** yourself.

Anyway, thanks for the decent responses. At least, admidst the ****ing vermin there are still a few decent people in the world, thank God. And people with a ****ing brain.

And I am using my excess money to buy TIME to work on a movie script I am hoping the EXCESSIVE profits will be used to help the needy.

But seriously, most of this thread is people posting that just don't want to be wrong.

Anyway, unless I do coke or something, I hope to God I never have to listen to your pathetic, immature, illogical responses again. Syt, I know in another thread you were talking about society. Well this is what I mean by society. ****ing morons. The older I get, the stupider I understand society is. That's why the world is so ****ed up, why humanity cannot sustain itself. That's what I meant. I thought everyone could see the logical like I could, even pissed, but seriously...

Anyway, to everyone, good ****ing night.

Lazlow

10-08-2009, 12:20 AM

And with that post, goes any credibility you had.

Wait... you lost it with your last post when you put your fingers in your ears and said you were never coming back.

proofreeder

10-08-2009, 12:27 AM

And with that post, goes any credibility you had.

Wait... you lost it with your last post when you put your fingers in your ears and said you were never coming back.

Hey lazlow, maybe instead of posting things you know to be incorrect like "wait", maybe I dunno, edit the post? Shit, is that such a difficult concept to comprehend?

No "wait", you're full of shit and just play idiotic "forum games". Instead of all your oh so obvious bullshit, any chance you could just post honestly?

Edit: Jesus ****ing Christ, you can't even see how moronic you are can you Lazlow? Your immature insults are just posturing. There are far more imporatant issues in the world than your pathetic stature as a poster. Or mine for that matter. I can even see that pissed. Hey mate, instead of spending your whole life posting on forums, not that there's anything wrong with posting on forums, I dunno, maybe grow the **** up?

Lazlow

10-08-2009, 12:30 AM

Sorry, I just wanted to rub it in that you're pretty shit at debating a topic.

But seriously, most of this thread is people posting that just don't want to be wrong.

And you are failing to comprehend your own failings

Morality isn't some set of ordained golden rules - it is the act of asking "what is right?" and seeking an answer. You haven't asked any questions here that aren't rhetoric, and you're just trying to enforece your own set of hard-and-fast rules upon others.

proofreeder

10-08-2009, 01:01 AM

Sorry

More posturing Laz? Or "sorry" are you genuinely apologetic?

You can pick and choose all you want mate. This is pretty clear to anyone with the least amount of intelligence:

There is only so much a human ever needs

But you're only equipped to deal with "forum" arguments. As is Vindick8or, who, if you haven't noticed, feels it neccessary to add insults to every argument so he gets noticed.

And Laz, some of us with prospects actually value time. Hence the "fingers in the ears" to prevent responses to people like you who have nothing better to do. How many posts have you made? And how much time did that take you? Seriously mate, good ****ing night.

Silverwolf

10-08-2009, 01:19 AM

Proofreeder, what is your motivation for caring about the needy? Why do you care?
Serious question, I wish to know why you are so strongly opinionated.

Vindik8or

10-08-2009, 06:45 AM

But you're only equipped to deal with "forum" arguments. As is Vindick8or, who, if you haven't noticed, feels it neccessary to add insults to every argument so he gets noticed.

Excuse me? I am not the one who needs every third word of his post censored.

I pay tax.

If I get richer, I have to pay more tax.

People are paid based on what they offer and what it is worth in a capitalist market. If you don't like it, start up a farm in Cuba.

Rich people don't get rich by paying taxes.

Capitalist and communist markets are shit. They are both based on the idea that most things are in short supply. The case is that most things are not.

Lazlow

10-08-2009, 07:09 AM

Proofreader you have dodged a lot of questions we have put forward and instead got worked up because we don't instantly agree with you.

If you genuinely care for those less fortunate, then be the most charitable person on Earth you can possibly be, and not give a shit about how charitable other people are. You can't force you own beliefs with regards to charity and sacrifice onto others, there are no hard and fast rules here. Otherwise you are no better than fundamentalist Christians who force their dogma down other people's throats.

sausage

10-08-2009, 07:21 AM

i am drunk at the moment.

Some of you are ****ing morons.

No shit, ****ing morons.

Most of you are ****ing morons.

I would be smarter than you pissed.

There is a big ****ing difference.

...and 200k worth of ****ing leather jackets.

So ****ing what?

Jesus ****ing christ, is humanity so moronic?

Lazlow...go **** yourself.

At least, admidst the ****ing vermin....

And people with a ****ing brain.

I hope to god i never have to listen to your pathetic, immature, illogical responses again.

****ing morons.

That's why the world is so ****ed up...

Good ****ing night.

post of the year

Lex

10-08-2009, 09:00 AM

Capitalist and communist markets are shit. They are both based on the idea that most things are in short supply. The case is that most things are not.

hey guys, did you know vin watched zeitgeist addendum recently?

Pauly

10-08-2009, 01:12 PM

And with that post, goes any credibility you had.
qft.

aub has some competition for post of the year fosho.

edit:

And I am using my excess money to buy TIME to work on a movie script I am hoping the EXCESSIVE profits will be used to help the needy.
it's not called aquaticus, is it?

Clockw0rk

10-08-2009, 02:43 PM

So is that the end of this thread?
Damn, I was hoping for 3 pages :(

sausage

10-08-2009, 04:04 PM

proofreeder tore the arse out of it.

IRS

10-08-2009, 06:08 PM

Capitalist and communist markets are shit. They are both based on the idea that most things are in short supply. The case is that most things are not.

Let's go listen to Rage Against The Machine and fight da power!

Vindik8or

10-08-2009, 06:08 PM

hey guys, did you know vin watched zeitgeist addendum recently?

What's that? Film, doco, TV show?

Let's go listen to Rage Against The Machine and fight da power!

Nothing of the sort. Mostly I'm greedy after my own interests.

Xanafalgue

10-08-2009, 06:17 PM

incompatible with life

10-08-2009, 06:35 PM

Seriously, some of you are ****ing morons. No shit, ****ing morons. Sorry to sound egotistical, but I need to with such moronic responses to social responsiblity. I came in the top 1% of my grade, without even trying. Most of you (exceptions excluded of course Syt, Ron Howard etc) are ****ing morons. I would be smarter than you pissed.
show it to us by using rational arguments (as many others are saying). Or are you too above it all to resort to something such as that?

I assume that somewhere alongthe line you had to learn about rational arguments if you're supposedly in the top 1% of a certain grade.

So is that the end of this thread?
Damn, I was hoping for 3 pages
Well I have tried to revive discussion. A certain individual with a penchant for alcohol and calling people ****ing morons brought that to a halt. But please feel free to continue where the discussion left off.

Stevorooni

10-08-2009, 08:35 PM

(exceptions excluded of course Syt, Ron Howard etc)

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/4714/ronhoward.jpg ?

On a more serious note, you just have to accept that helping the needy isn't the top priority of everyone in the world no matter how much they earn.
Some people place more focus on their own lives, their own family or their leather coat fetish - they've earned their money and they spend it how they choose, only donating enough to ease their upper/middle class guilt.
Not everyone wants to save the world. Yeah it sucks but life sucks in general.

Tukenstein

10-08-2009, 08:37 PM

Not my life. I have plenty of leather jackets!

Ryan Hayward

10-08-2009, 08:51 PM

Do any of you guys look at the homeless sometimes and then have horrible thoughts that one day that may happen to you?
Its one of the reasons why I'm trying to cut out the drugs altogether and most of the booze. I don't ever want to be eating out of a garbage can. I'm really worried about the future as losing my job would mean not being able to pay the $360 rent I'm forking out now. With the economy the way that it is, I bet I'm not the only one shit scared a little.
My boss is retiring soon and passing the business onto me, but I don't know how I will go as I'm not very good with the PR at all.

Big Kev

11-08-2009, 05:37 AM

Mate, if you're paying 360 rent a week, maybe you should go buy a home instead, my home loan payments are just above that.

big_b

11-08-2009, 07:26 AM

This thread is made of lol.

Wanna know how much I give to Charity?

**** all, thats how much.

If a rich person wants to throw away his money then Im not going to stop him. Likewise im not going to condem him either. As its been said by many people before in this thread, how charitable you are or should be is up to the individual.

Ali G

11-08-2009, 09:35 AM

If a rich person wants to throw away his money then Im not going to stop him. Likewise im not going to condem him either. As its been said by many people before in this thread, how charitable you are or should be is up to the individual.
It's interesting to note that you consider money given to charity to be 'thrown away', though.

Lazlow

11-08-2009, 09:43 AM

Beacause in most philanthropic charities, there are administrative overheads. In some cases 30c out of every $1 donated doesn't actually go towards the cause.

And by paying taxes you are already paying towards goverment run assistance programs. For example, for 2009-2010 the Australian Goverment is investing $163.9 million into African assistance and aid programs.

Pauly

11-08-2009, 10:53 AM

i think as long as it is truly a non-profit organisation then it is fine. there are always costs running any company. i guess it comes down to who you can trust though.

Ali G

11-08-2009, 10:56 AM

Beacause in most philanthropic charities, there are administrative overheads. In some cases 30c out of every $1 donated doesn't actually go towards the cause.
Well, yeah, obviously. But it's not like the other 70c are also thrown away.

Ad-Rock

11-08-2009, 12:47 PM

I've lived my entire life below the "poverty line". It sucks but that's life. I don't think people should be forced to be charitable just because they can afford it. Its up to the individual to decide whether or not they wish to be philanthropic. We give to charities when we can afford to and we have relied on charities for meals in the past.

Pauly

11-08-2009, 12:59 PM

Ad-Rock

11-08-2009, 02:13 PM

i'm pretty sure if you can afford to be on the internet or buy games you are not living in poverty...

I should have said until this year when I got my PhD scholarship and moved out of home and in with my girlfriend.

The "poverty line" changes all the time, eg. for the March quarter this year:

Inclusive ofhousing costs, the poverty line is $736.00 per week for a family comprising two adults, one of whom is working, and two dependent children.

It is different for all sorts of living arrangement as you can see below

Source (http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/labour/inequality/poverty/Poverty%20lines%20Australia%20March%202009.pdf)

castr8or

11-08-2009, 02:18 PM

the western concept of poverty is a strange one.

I remember seeing those folks who lost their homes in the US living in tent cities, doing it hard with their big screen tv, mobile phones, laptops etc Don't get me wrong, its a shit situation compared to how things were, but people need to get some perspective...

Ad-Rock

11-08-2009, 02:22 PM

Pauly

11-08-2009, 03:07 PM

i'm pretty sure we're talking about world poverty here. to which the poverty line is about $1 a day.

Ad-Rock

12-08-2009, 08:14 AM

Don't argue with me, I didn't define it.

proofreeder

17-08-2009, 04:40 AM

Well, still haven't read the rest of the thead after my drunken post. I don't mind the way I post drunk actually, although perhaps it was a little rude to those who DID NOT deserve it. But yes, I still have "my fingers in my ears", or, with a less spindoctory way of putting it, don't wish to be drawn into any further arguments which would therefore waste time arguing with people whose opinion I do not value (not everyone).

Posters, and people in general, manipulate their choice of words to make the recipient feel worse (or, occasionally better). It's all so transparent. Putting my fingers in my ears obviously would be referring to a child who is therefore not intelligent or mature. You could have easily have said "chose not to read the post".

Putting one's fingers in one's ears is oftentimes a very practical idea when considered from a logical perspective. The purpose in doing so is preventing that particular sense, hearing, from receiving noises that would be a detriment to the said finger-putter-inner.

In my particular case, the detriment would be listening to arguments I would feel the need to respond to, and hence wasting time, something I consider a valuable commodity. This post, while "wasting time" I guess, I hope is less so because it explains viewpoints as opposed to arguing with people whose opinions I do not value (not all!). Closing your eyes if the sense will receive something detrimental to the being, for example, looking at the sun, is a logical act.

I guess the implication might also have been referring to emu's who put their head in the sand, or something similar. This is a different situation where emu's believe their sight is actually the CAUSE of their detriment, for example, if I don't see that emu hunter he cannot shoot me. This is unintelligent reasoning for limiting one's senses.

Everything is so obvious, but requires many words to completely articulate, hence my reluctance to partake in mindless arguments. Plus, people think I'm weird explaining things properly, which I can handle. I try to understand everything at its most basic level.

God only knows what was posted afterwards ha ha. Anyway, I am normally a polite poster, but when I hear such arguments when people in the world are undergoing so much suffering, I become very agitated. Plus, drunk.

Vindik8or, actually, you're probably pretty smart to be honest. But whereas IQ is one thing, understanding is another. You deliberately insult people for attention IMO, or persona, or individuality, or w/e the hell you want to call it, as I stated previously. Therefore, anyone with considerable logic cannot honour any opinion you may have on morality if you cannot even understand the simplest of morality: insulting others for self-gain, no matter the medium, be it forum, verbal, morse-freaking code, is in itself against the very ideals behind morality in the first place.

Forums are littered with posters like yourself. I've been on forums much worse. Forums are an example of the worst in humanity... Lord of the Flies. Without the consequences society has put into place, humanity becomes a different beast. Humanity (not all but a lot of it) therefore acts "morally" because of fear of the consequence enforced, as opposed to doing the right thing. Forums have little or no consequence for ones actions. Hence forums are littered with posters who use the medium to insult others for baseless reasons.

Morality is not about following the rules society sets, and therefore avoiding the consequences. It is about trying to improve the quality of other people's life, sometimes sacrificing yourself. It is also about not lessening the quality of the lives of others, through insults or any other means.

What obligation do they have? I'm talking "morality" not "legality". You have 200k worth of leather jackets in your house. A friend of yours tells you they and their family are dying because they cannot afford enough grains of rice to sustain their family, and you know this to be truthful. Now technically you have no "obligation" to help them. Technically you can say, where do I draw the line? Until I'm starving to death also?

But do the right thing, sell a couple of the jackets and save the dude's life and his family's. Is it that hard to understand? Is that "morality" so difficult to comprehend? Draw the line.

This is a bullshit hypothetical, the situation is totally different to what you've been harping on about. Proximate suffering matters more to us than anonymous, distant suffering. You will be a lot more inclined to help a friend than a stranger.

This was precisely my point, the reason why I felt it neccessary to incorporate hypotheticals and analogies to explain, to me, obvious points. On this Earth humanity has five senses. This is the limited amount of information humanity can receive and therefore digest. Virtually all information arrives via these five senses, admittedly through various forms, and in modern society, mass mediums.

My point, however, and the reason for the "bullshit hypothetical", is that our senses limit our true understanding of the functioning of the Earth. A starving and suffering person in a far off country, who our senses will never allow us to acknowledge, hurts every bit as much as our "friend" who our senses will allow us to empathise with. But the human, as a whole, is a very limited creature and can only recieve and make judgements on "proximate suffering". If humanity could find the empathy to treat people beyond their senses with perhaps the compassion they would treat a "proximate friend", the world would be a much different place. But this is beyond humanity's understanding en masse.

Hence, why I feel it neccessary to incorporate "hypotheticals", so people can view obvious things from a different perspective.

Moreso, people in rich countries generally come in contact with those that don't need money as much. The system in rich countries looks after those that require it.

People in destitute countries come in contact with people willing and able to help them far less often. This is partly the reason these people do not receive the help they so desperately require.

I said previously humanity is in trouble. Generally, humanity's understanding has severe limitations. These limitations are our perspective via our senses. We may be able to empathise with people our senses come into contact with regularly, such as friends and neighbours, but this is still an extremely limited perspective. A greater understanding is required, where we are able to see the larger picture, beyond that which our senses tell us. Then, perhaps, humanity will find the compassion to help those beyond our senses.

I'm writing a movie script as stated, exploring many of these issues, a script I plan to use in helping those that require it so badly. Talk is talk until it happens, but then when it happens, there's no need for talk. Everyone is fake and sucks your ****.

Normally I am a very polite poster. However, this is an issue I feel very strongly about, people suffering. Also, if people are going to insult me be it directly, passive aggressively, or transparent posting techniques that are incredibly cliched (why is cliched frowned upon in any other mediums, but forums it's considered cool?), then I will answer back.

I am sorry to sound egotistical, but to explain where I am coming from I felt the need to explain I came in the top one percent without trying (I only cared about sports in high school ha ha). My sister, who studied much harder than I, obtained scores of 4 x 20's and 1 x 19 in her matriculation and is currently studying as an orthapaedic surgeon. I dunno why she got that 19, what a disappointment, ha ha. But anyway, I view things differently and I'll speak my mind, and oftentimes people feel the need to insult me for this, which is how this argument originated being sarcastically referred to as a "bleeding heart" by Lazlow, and from there, things only escalated, my viewpoint being referred to as "bullshit" etc. I try to see the big picture. People that cannot see the big picture cannot understand my perspective.

Anyway, I can live with posters disliking me. I can live with insults I don't have to read. I can't live with forever wasting time arguing with people whose opinions I don't value in the first place. Thankfully I am coming to a point where insults intended to "make me feel bad" are so transparent to me, none of it really matters. Everything is becoming so obvious to me nowadays. I just wanted to explain my opinion (soberly) before reinserting my fingers in my ears. Sorry to people I was rude to who DID NOT deserve it, ha ha.

God that wastes time. I think I'll just go back to posting movies and football :P

Peace.

sausage

17-08-2009, 04:59 AM

Talk is talk until it happens, but then when it happens, there's no need for talk. Everyone is fake and sucks your ****.

Now this I agree with.

Vindik8or

17-08-2009, 06:52 AM

Vindik8or, actually, you're probably pretty smart to be honest. But whereas IQ is one thing, understanding is another. You deliberately insult people for attention IMO, or persona, or individuality, or w/e the hell you want to call it, as I stated previously. Therefore, anyone with considerable logic cannot honour any opinion you may have on morality if you cannot even understand the simplest of morality: insulting others for self-gain, no matter the medium, be it forum, verbal, morse-freaking code, is in itself against the very ideals behind morality in the first place.

Wow. WOW! You're really awesome at setting up strawman arguments and elaborate explanations for why you shouldn't respond to legitimate, rational arguments and criticisms. I am still waiting for the part where I deliberately insulted you (or anybody) - I'm interested to see how it stacks up to your filth-ridden, vitriolic, drunken diatribe in this thread. Or how it stacks up to your insult of sitting there and saying, based upon your own invented slights and circular logic that I couldn't possibly have any sense of morality because I'd dare disagree with your own.

BUT HEY! You're a bigger man than the argument in which you cannot peaceably or rationally participate in, so bugger off and carry on inventing reasons why you're so much smarter and more rational than anybody else, keep them to yourself, and drink yourself into a stupor. You're definitely better at that than anybody here.

jawsy

17-08-2009, 08:48 AM

I was thinking about buying a sweet leather jacket, but thought I should seek some advice first. Anyway, I did a forum search and ended up here. What the hell?

Second

17-08-2009, 09:08 AM

Jesus Christ. This troll thread is still going?

Clockw0rk

17-08-2009, 10:43 AM

Yup, pretty sure it's the longest actual discussion thread so far, even if the actual discussion stopped about halfway through...

Second

17-08-2009, 10:46 AM

It's not so much a discussion, but more of a moron flailing around like a retard and then everyone piping in to point out how retarded he is.

AranchineD

17-08-2009, 10:48 AM

But I don't think you're retarded at all Second!

(1)

Xanafalgue

17-08-2009, 10:54 AM

The only person talking this thread seriously is poor.

Clockw0rk

17-08-2009, 06:43 PM

16 more posts and I get another page!

incompatible with life

17-08-2009, 07:17 PM

Admittedly I'm curious as to which school proofreader goes to if he's apparently the top 1% of his class.

Stevorooni

17-08-2009, 07:29 PM

I'd be more interested to know what subjects he did. Top 1% without trying makes me think there's not much Maths and Physics in there

Cicada

17-08-2009, 07:30 PM

Well, apparently it's in such a poverty stricken area that classes are large enough for it to be worth ranking students by percentile. To be fair, it's to be expected that some of the finer points of classroom discussion would be lost as the beleaguered civics/economics/society teacher struggles to be heard above their 130 odd students.

No wonder he's pissed off, all these bourgeois forum posters with their expensive computers belittling his call for charity whilst his school spends it's remaining $250 of government funds on gaffer tape for the classroom windows.

Xanafalgue

17-08-2009, 08:37 PM

Admittedly I'm curious as to which school proofreader goes to if he's apparently the top 1% of his class.

Speshul school.

sausage

18-08-2009, 06:07 AM

HAHAHAHAHA oh shit another keyboard lost to "sprayed coffee syndrome".

IRS

18-08-2009, 07:47 PM

Well, still haven't read the rest of the thead after my drunken post. I don't mind the way I post drunk actually, although perhaps it was a little rude to those who DID NOT deserve it. But yes, I still have "my fingers in my ears", or, with a less spindoctory way of putting it, don't wish to be drawn into any further arguments which would therefore waste time arguing with people whose opinion I do not value (not everyone).

Posters, and people in general, manipulate their choice of words to make the recipient feel worse (or, occasionally better). It's all so transparent. Putting my fingers in my ears obviously would be referring to a child who is therefore not intelligent or mature. You could have easily have said "chose not to read the post".

Putting one's fingers in one's ears is oftentimes a very practical idea when considered from a logical perspective. The purpose in doing so is preventing that particular sense, hearing, from receiving noises that would be a detriment to the said finger-putter-inner.

In my particular case, the detriment would be listening to arguments I would feel the need to respond to, and hence wasting time, something I consider a valuable commodity. This post, while "wasting time" I guess, I hope is less so because it explains viewpoints as opposed to arguing with people whose opinions I do not value (not all!). Closing your eyes if the sense will receive something detrimental to the being, for example, looking at the sun, is a logical act.

I guess the implication might also have been referring to emu's who put their head in the sand, or something similar. This is a different situation where emu's believe their sight is actually the CAUSE of their detriment, for example, if I don't see that emu hunter he cannot shoot me. This is unintelligent reasoning for limiting one's senses.

Everything is so obvious, but requires many words to completely articulate, hence my reluctance to partake in mindless arguments. Plus, people think I'm weird explaining things properly, which I can handle. I try to understand everything at its most basic level.

God only knows what was posted afterwards ha ha. Anyway, I am normally a polite poster, but when I hear such arguments when people in the world are undergoing so much suffering, I become very agitated. Plus, drunk.

Vindik8or, actually, you're probably pretty smart to be honest. But whereas IQ is one thing, understanding is another. You deliberately insult people for attention IMO, or persona, or individuality, or w/e the hell you want to call it, as I stated previously. Therefore, anyone with considerable logic cannot honour any opinion you may have on morality if you cannot even understand the simplest of morality: insulting others for self-gain, no matter the medium, be it forum, verbal, morse-freaking code, is in itself against the very ideals behind morality in the first place.

Forums are littered with posters like yourself. I've been on forums much worse. Forums are an example of the worst in humanity... Lord of the Flies. Without the consequences society has put into place, humanity becomes a different beast. Humanity (not all but a lot of it) therefore acts "morally" because of fear of the consequence enforced, as opposed to doing the right thing. Forums have little or no consequence for ones actions. Hence forums are littered with posters who use the medium to insult others for baseless reasons.

Morality is not about following the rules society sets, and therefore avoiding the consequences. It is about trying to improve the quality of other people's life, sometimes sacrificing yourself. It is also about not lessening the quality of the lives of others, through insults or any other means.

This was precisely my point, the reason why I felt it neccessary to incorporate hypotheticals and analogies to explain, to me, obvious points. On this Earth humanity has five senses. This is the limited amount of information humanity can receive and therefore digest. Virtually all information arrives via these five senses, admittedly through various forms, and in modern society, mass mediums.

My point, however, and the reason for the "bullshit hypothetical", is that our senses limit our true understanding of the functioning of the Earth. A starving and suffering person in a far off country, who our senses will never allow us to acknowledge, hurts every bit as much as our "friend" who our senses will allow us to empathise with. But the human, as a whole, is a very limited creature and can only recieve and make judgements on "proximate suffering". If humanity could find the empathy to treat people beyond their senses with perhaps the compassion they would treat a "proximate friend", the world would be a much different place. But this is beyond humanity's understanding en masse.

Hence, why I feel it neccessary to incorporate "hypotheticals", so people can view obvious things from a different perspective.

Moreso, people in rich countries generally come in contact with those that don't need money as much. The system in rich countries looks after those that require it.

People in destitute countries come in contact with people willing and able to help them far less often. This is partly the reason these people do not receive the help they so desperately require.

I said previously humanity is in trouble. Generally, humanity's understanding has severe limitations. These limitations are our perspective via our senses. We may be able to empathise with people our senses come into contact with regularly, such as friends and neighbours, but this is still an extremely limited perspective. A greater understanding is required, where we are able to see the larger picture, beyond that which our senses tell us. Then, perhaps, humanity will find the compassion to help those beyond our senses.

I'm writing a movie script as stated, exploring many of these issues, a script I plan to use in helping those that require it so badly. Talk is talk until it happens, but then when it happens, there's no need for talk. Everyone is fake and sucks your ****.

Normally I am a very polite poster. However, this is an issue I feel very strongly about, people suffering. Also, if people are going to insult me be it directly, passive aggressively, or transparent posting techniques that are incredibly cliched (why is cliched frowned upon in any other mediums, but forums it's considered cool?), then I will answer back.

I am sorry to sound egotistical, but to explain where I am coming from I felt the need to explain I came in the top one percent without trying (I only cared about sports in high school ha ha). My sister, who studied much harder than I, obtained scores of 4 x 20's and 1 x 19 in her matriculation and is currently studying as an orthapaedic surgeon. I dunno why she got that 19, what a disappointment, ha ha. But anyway, I view things differently and I'll speak my mind, and oftentimes people feel the need to insult me for this, which is how this argument originated being sarcastically referred to as a "bleeding heart" by Lazlow, and from there, things only escalated, my viewpoint being referred to as "bullshit" etc. I try to see the big picture. People that cannot see the big picture cannot understand my perspective.

Anyway, I can live with posters disliking me. I can live with insults I don't have to read. I can't live with forever wasting time arguing with people whose opinions I don't value in the first place. Thankfully I am coming to a point where insults intended to "make me feel bad" are so transparent to me, none of it really matters. Everything is becoming so obvious to me nowadays. I just wanted to explain my opinion (soberly) before reinserting my fingers in my ears. Sorry to people I was rude to who DID NOT deserve it, ha ha.

God that wastes time. I think I'll just go back to posting movies and football :P

Peace.

Hahahahahahahahaha

This kid can't be serious right? I'm not reading all that shit. I just skipped to the part where he brags his sister is studying orthapaedics, a potentially successful sister really validates all his moronic arguments, I'm convinced! Is she hot?