Ethics question for anybody to chime in an answer.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

OK, placed this thread here but know it could go elsewhere. I am a big believer in capitalism but do have some concerns about it too. I've been wondering this for a very long time. And not sure if it has definitive or rational answer . Here goes. Have you ever wondered why the people that educate this nation , protect us from criminals and burning to death, save us when hurt and injured, and defend this nation with life and limb so damn often make much less in a year than some guy that plays with a ball for a living or raps stupidity makes in an hour or a day?? Think about it , isn't there something kinda screwy about that. One is reward (actual pay) for those that save and educate us while the other is the massive gifting of wealth and fame for those that merely entertain us. Now that Obama is the new dictator "righting all perceived past wrongs (class warfare) shouldn't he tax these people into poverty as well? And not to just key in on the political aspect of it but isn't it just out of balance that a dumbass rap singer "as dumb as a brick" makes more in a week than professional highly educated doctors , lawyers, etc. Its bad enough when drug dealers make that kind of money but at least they face punishment if caught whereas these guys face nothing but wealth and praise. Doesn't that truly point to how shallow we have become!?? Is it or is it not really a problem? -Tyr

[revelarts]

one of the issues is that capitalism rewards those who serve the most people.

A pro baseball player and a popular rapper serve millions of people.
In contrast the local fireman,even though he's laying his life on the line, only serves a few people in a local area. same with teachers.

But a teacher that can reproduces her work in audio or video or speaks to stadiums can earn millions as well.

it's 1 of the aspect of capitalism at work there.
the expertise or difficulty of work, demand, negotiating skills of the worker/s, perceived value and probably others come into play as well but the numbers make an easy difference.

[jlgray88]

I agree to a certain degree but I also have no problem with athletes making millions for their God given talents. Like the other poster said the more you serve the more you make. It would be kinda hard to pay a teacher (which some are worthless,but that's a separate issue) millions for teaching

[fj1200]

I am a big believer in capitalism but do have some concerns about it too. ... Is it or is it not really a problem? -Tyr

A believer in capitalism won't worry about it. Rev has a good take on it but it's a matter of talent, or perception of talent. By and large anyone can be a teacher/police officer/firefighter but only the relative few have the ability to appeal to a larger population.



Or are you now beginning your long awaited move towards Progressivism and desire to control the behaviors of mass society? You might want to clear that with some folks. :poke:

[DragonStryk72]

OK, placed this thread here but know it could go elsewhere. I am a big believer in capitalism but do have some concerns about it too. I've been wondering this for a very long time. And not sure if it has definitive or rational answer . Here goes. Have you ever wondered why the people that educate this nation , protect us from criminals and burning to death, save us when hurt and injured, and defend this nation with life and limb so damn often make much less in a year than some guy that plays with a ball for a living or raps stupidity makes in an hour or a day?? Think about it , isn't there something kinda screwy about that.

One is reward (actual pay) for those that save and educate us while the other is the massive gifting of wealth and fame for those that merely entertain us. Now that Obama is the new dictator "righting all perceived past wrongs (class warfare) shouldn't he tax these people into poverty as well? And not to just key in on the political aspect of it but isn't it just out of balance that a dumbass rap singer "as dumb as a brick" makes more in a week than professional highly educated doctors , lawyers, etc. Its bad enough when drug dealers make that kind of money but at least they face punishment if caught whereas these guys face nothing but wealth and praise. Doesn't that truly point to how shallow we have become!?? Is it or is it not really a problem? -Tyr

Actually, teachers and cops have never made that much, and here's why: Look at the number of pro athletes we have, and now turn around and look at the number of cops we have. Notice the cops are more numerous? Could you imagine what the payroll would look like if we paid them like professional athletes? You only think we're in horrible debt now.

As well, you seem to be demeaning the amount of time, energy and effort that goes into becoming a professional athlete. Pretty much every professional athlete out there has spent their whole life building toward becoming just that, and they have taken damage along the way. If a cop breaks his ankle, he is under no worry that he's no longer going to be a cop anymore afterward, whereas that is a very real prospect for a pro athlete. It's not like they just picked up a bat when they hit college, and now they're on the Yankees. Their 15-20 year odyssey began with picking up a bat at 5.

Any profession, yes, even entertaining, takes energy and effort. Even if you look at entertainers who came out of Disney, you have to bear in mind that not only do they have to do the regular school stuff growing up, but if you're working with Disney, you live under a morality clause that includes things such as maintain good grades, and not doing anything that would be "non-disney". That's sort of why you see a lot of kid's from Disney shows who hit 18, and go on a bender. For a number of rappers, they grow up in really horrible neighborhoods, and have likely seen death from an early age. They've gotten by scraping by, and yeah, they likely ended up down at least one bad path, but it doesn't make it any less valid for them to build something out of that, and many put some of that money back into their old communities, which should be encouraged.

Then of course, there's waving goodbye to any sense of privacy you've ever had. Let's look at a scenario that is fairly common for most Americans: It's kind of late, and you're feeling snackish, but there's nothing in the house, so you chuck on some old jeans and a hoodie, and hit up the local 7-11 or whatnot. Now, your average teacher does this, goes home, and nothing odd happens. The celebrity meanwhile can expect the following ad in the next magazine to hit the shelves, "Is Tyr spiralling out of control?" With a picture of you in the hoodie, bent over and slouched a bit because there was wind while you were walking, making your hair also be a mess. Or maybe there's a girl at the local Wal-Mart that you chat with somewhat regularly, "Tyr stepping out on his wife?!"

A lot of these teachers, cops, firefighters and soldiers wanted to be the entertainers, and through whatever means, ended up in the careers they're in. Actually, a number of basketball players have come out of the ranks of the Army and Navy. Attempting to decide that this or that profession is more or less valid is basically trying to tell people what they can or cannot really be.

This is why I get sick of sayings such as "Real job", or "the real world", or even "real americans". It's an attempt to basically castigate an entire group as "unreal". Like there is some fake job out there, where you're not actually getting paid or actually doing any work, but really what it's saying is, "I don't think what you do counts, and therefore it isn't valid." Well, who the fuck are they to tell me what's valid?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A believer in capitalism won't worry about it. Rev has a good take on it but it's a matter of talent, or perception of talent. By and large anyone can be a teacher/police officer/firefighter but only the relative few have the ability to appeal to a larger population.



Or are you now beginning your long awaited move towards Progressivism and desire to control the behaviors of mass society? You might want to clear that with some folks. :poke: The question was one to draw forth ideas and thoughts on the positive and negatives of Capitalism. I am well aware that no governing system devised by imperfect and evil man can be perfect and devoid of flaws. Capitalism far beats anything else ever tried ! It doesn't have to be perfect and no system ever will be. So far all replies offered have been very good , even yours.:poke: Do not hold your breath on a move this old dog has plans to never make. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Do not hold your breath on a move this old dog has plans to never make. -Tyr

If you want to "improve" capitalism then progressivism is your ticket. You either accept that individuals, alone or collectively, will make decisions that you don't agree with or you determine that capitalism has a flaw, like too much power vested in business over the individual for example, that can be corrected and you politic for your solution. A more salient example that could be discussed is pollution; How can government control a negative externality like pollution without grabbing too much power and infringing on the private property rights of business.

[Drummond]

If you want to "improve" capitalism then progressivism is your ticket. You either accept that individuals, alone or collectively, will make decisions that you don't agree with or you determine that capitalism has a flaw, like too much power vested in business over the individual for example, that can be corrected and you politic for your solution. A more salient example that could be discussed is pollution; How can government control a negative externality like pollution without grabbing too much power and infringing on the private property rights of business.

Fascinating, FJ .. you're now an advocate of the merits of progressivism ??

Perhaps this is one moment when I really need to remind you of your self-declared, supposed 'Thatcherite' bona fides ????

Because you've just shown us a sign of deviating from them ...

See >> http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/04/reconsidering-margaret-thatcher.html


Plenty of ink has been well-deployed in commemorating Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013), Britain’s greatest statesman since Churchill, who rolled back Britain’s command economy and, together with Ronald Reagan and The Blessed John Paul II, helped to end communism which was the most murderous ideology in human history. So, for now, let us pause only to look at a few paradoxes still surrounding her.

Hours after her death, the hateful glee unleashed by British Leftists and assorted Progressives in media is nothing short of obscene, especially in a country where people scramble to find a kind word to say about even scoundrels and traitors recently dead. Even the majority of UK conservative commentators temper nearly their every paragraph with mumbled half-apologies for how she was perceived, usually by her enemies. It is, alas, a testament to how badly Mrs. Thatcher failed to stop the onslaught of Progressivism, now in utter control of UK culture while busily uprooting our values and destroying our sense of history. The leaders of Britain’s Conservative Party, so keen for gay marriage and the state persecution of Christians while so reluctant to make hard economic decisions, are more the bastard offspring of Progressivism than any children of hers.

I don't think I need add anything further. Except to remark that, if you wait long enough, truths inevitably emerge and hold sway over propaganda.

[aboutime]

Fascinating, FJ .. you're now an advocate of the merits of progressivism ??

Perhaps this is one moment when I really need to remind you of your self-declared, supposed 'Thatcherite' bona fides ????

Because you've just shown us a sign of deviating from them ...

See >> http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/04/reconsidering-margaret-thatcher.html



I don't think I need add anything further. Except to remark that, if you wait long enough, truths inevitably emerge and hold sway over propaganda.



Sir Drummond. I wondered how long it would be before fj finally admitted to be a full-fledged Liberal/Socialist/Progressive who admires people like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.
Congratulations go out to fj for...COMING OUT OF THE CLOSET.

[fj1200]

Fascinating, FJ .. you're now an advocate of the merits of progressivism ??

Perhaps this is one moment when I really need to remind you of your self-declared, supposed 'Thatcherite' bona fides ????

Because you've just shown us a sign of deviating from them ...

See >> http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/04/reconsidering-margaret-thatcher.html

I don't think I need add anything further. Except to remark that, if you wait long enough, truths inevitably emerge and hold sway over propaganda.

:laugh: You are, truly, too easy. Shall I remind you of some background?


The question was one to draw forth ideas and thoughts on the positive and negatives of Capitalism.

And my response:


If...

Perhaps if you feel like having a substantive conversation on the subject then have at it. If you do not then I'm sure you'll let your imagination get the better of you. I even gave you an example on which to opine: Pollution. Any thoughts on the subject or would you prefer to scream "leftie" again?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Fascinating, FJ .. you're now an advocate of the merits of progressivism ??

Perhaps this is one moment when I really need to remind you of your self-declared, supposed 'Thatcherite' bona fides ????

Because you've just shown us a sign of deviating from them ...

See >> http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/04/reconsidering-margaret-thatcher.html



I don't think I need add anything further. Except to remark that, if you wait long enough, truths inevitably emerge and hold sway over propaganda. Having just now read his and your posts I need time to cipher out this new information. However this quote gave me cause to pause to think ..
If you want to "improve" capitalism then progressivism is your ticket.
I shall wait for further enlightenment before commenting directly on it myself. Still not over the flu fully so forgive me my slowness this weekend.-Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

Successful entertainers and athletes bring in the big bucks. Soldiers and cops do not. It's a big money wheel, in a sense.

But to Tyr's point, I wouldn't classify it as an ethics issue, as each person has the choice of any profession they can do well.

It is also a question of supply and demand. Like it or not, there are more people who are able to patrol the streets than can score 26 points per game in the NBA.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Successful entertainers and athletes bring in the big bucks. Soldiers and cops do not. It's a big money wheel, in a sense.

But to Tyr's point, I wouldn't classify it as an ethics issue, as each person has the choice of any profession they can do well.

It is also a question of supply and demand. Like it or not, there are more people who are able to patrol the streets than can score 26 points per game in the NBA. Valid points but there is an ethics question there. Those I listed were entertainers and the question becomes why we are so apt to reward so greatly those that merely entertain us over those that do truly greater actions--like saving our lives , healing us etc? Do we appreciate entertainment over even our own survival or is it we take one for granted and reward the other so highly because we admire them for their talent? Are we truly that shallow? A doctor saves your life or that of your child and you think its ok the pay the going rate and may even complain about it being too high but a dumbass rapper dumb as a rock can make ten times that amount for stupid lyrics that appeal to stupid people! Or should I have stated stupid and shallow people? And why is scoring 26 points in a game that means nothing a greater rewarded act than a doctor saving a life or healing a dying child? If those 26 points are that great in a person's life that had nothing to do with making them isn't that proof of people having the luxury of being truly shallow? -Tyr

[fj1200]

Valid points but there is an ethics question there.

I think you're doing a disservice to capitalism by trying to place morality on money. Those who help a small number of people obtain payment for services from a limited group and are as such limited, even if doctors are worth more it's still a limited market. "Dumb ass rappers" only need to get a small payment from many people to be successful. It's just individual choices, not ethics.

[aboutime]

Tyr. Not trying to throw COLD WATER on your thread about ethics. But, you did say 'anybody' could chime in.

So. Instead of instantly jumping on the LACK of ethics, across the board in our 21st Century, Mixed-up, Selfish society.

I would prefer to see everyone step back to using the ETHICS of those 10 Commandments most of us learned at a very young age.

And for anyone who demands they DO NOT BELIEVE, are an ATHIEST, AGNOSTIC, or any of the other assorted excuses to say they are Non-believers.

The TEN COMMANDMENTS Do not need to be the rules of RELIGIOUS minded people.
They are just COMMON SENSE, HUMAN TRAITS....Everyone should follow.

Anyone who says they Do Not Believe...also use their excuses of not needing to follow those 10 Commandments...because, they do not believe. So...breaking the common laws...better known as the 10 Commandments...like KILL, CHEAT, ADULTERY, FALSE GODS...etc; are just reasons for them to BREAK ALL OF THE LAWS...and laugh.
Thus...NO ETHICS in their life.

[jimnyc]

It's kind of late, and you're feeling snackish, but there's nothing in the house, so you chuck on some old jeans and a hoodie, and hit up the local 7-11 or whatnot.

I see what you did there ya dirty bastard! :lol:

[Drummond]

:laugh: You are, truly, too easy. Shall I remind you of some background?



And my response:



Perhaps if you feel like having a substantive conversation on the subject then have at it. If you do not then I'm sure you'll let your imagination get the better of you. I even gave you an example on which to opine: Pollution. Any thoughts on the subject or would you prefer to scream "leftie" again?

I shall refrain from screaming 'leftie', FJ, because I've no need to do so. You see, the truth of a person's thinking, sooner or later, HAS to surface, even if it's just an occasional leakage of it. So, every now and again, a phrase or sentiment will reveal what it is.

And your seeing any advantage, any at all, to progressivism is revealing, regardless of subsequent deflection attempts.

Me, now, I see none at all. Neither did Margaret Thatcher. You might make that the start of your future thoughts.

[DragonStryk72]

I see what you did there ya dirty bastard! :lol:

lol, I see it now, but I swear I was not going there. I just have a regular hoodie I wear when I go in search of the wild 7-11 danish and Yoo-Hoo

[DragonStryk72]

why we are so apt to reward so greatly those that merely entertain us over those that do truly greater actions--like saving our lives , healing us etc?

Well, because entertainment is important as well. Without entertainment, we're back to baseline subsistence survival, and while that can work, it really takes away the joy, and desire to aspire to something greater. Cops, teachers, firefighters, and soldiers perform some very necessary services, but let's be honest here, we hope about 3/4 of them never actually have to do their jobs. If cops fully succeed at their job, they are no longer need, same with soldiers.



Do we appreciate entertainment over even our own survival or is it we take one for granted and reward the other so highly because we admire them for their talent?

Neither really. We understand that teachers and such are necessary, and appreciated the services they provide, but really, we all know that people aren't getting into those for a paycheck, and so do they. While we admire talent, what we really look for is something that touches us profoundly, whether it be for amusement, inspiration, or whatnot. There are mainly talented musicians who never take off because, while they are likely better with their instruments, they aren't really touching people with their music. Same with athletes, you might have some who have the technical skill, but no heart behind it, and so organizations pass on them.



Are we truly that shallow?

No, we're not.


A doctor saves your life or that of your child and you think its ok the pay the going rate and may even complain about it being too high but a dumbass rapper dumb as a rock can make ten times that amount for stupid lyrics that appeal to stupid people!

What you have to understand, though, is that one, doctor's actually make a decent amount, so that's not really the best example, but in reference to rap music, whether or not it speaks it to you is irrelevant to whether or not it touches those who are the target audience of it. They make that money because people enjoy what they have created, and buy it. They are, in essence, selling a product that they get a small portion of each sale. For those who are touched by a specific song, there's almost always some special meaning attached to it, and that has worth, whether it be to lift you up for a time, or to call attention to how wrong things are in your neighborhood.


Or should I have stated stupid and shallow people? And why is scoring 26 points in a game that means nothing a greater rewarded act than a doctor saving a life or healing a dying child?

Healing a dying child is a reward to just about every doctor out there. But you know what, let's go with the doc in this scenario. It's been a rough day, a lot of near misses, but he managed to eke it out, and even save a child's life himself, but he's burned out. It's not really a matter of money, just needing to get outside his head, so he swings by a sports bar near the ball park real quick for a beer, before picking up tickets for the game, where he chows down on some pretzels and beer, and screams along with thousands of other people for his team. He leaves feeling uplifted, and with a sense of community with his fellow fans, countering the presence of death in his job with the sounds and sights of life.


If those 26 points are that great in a person's life that had nothing to do with making them isn't that proof of people having the luxury of being truly shallow? -Tyr

Nope, actually, it's just that we're really competitive by nature. For those that get really into a sports team, like say.... the Pittsburgh Steelers (since we know no one here is a fan), most feel like they are a part of an extended family of sorts, with a group of people that they have an instant connection with.

[fj1200]

I shall refrain from screaming 'leftie', FJ, because I've no need to do so. You see, the truth of a person's thinking, sooner or later, HAS to surface, even if it's just an occasional leakage of it. So, every now and again, a phrase or sentiment will reveal what it is.

And your seeing any advantage, any at all, to progressivism is revealing, regardless of subsequent deflection attempts.

Me, now, I see none at all. Neither did Margaret Thatcher. You might make that the start of your future thoughts.

Yeah, I wasn't really expecting that you'd be able to have a coherent conversation. And the part that really makes me chuckle is one of your allies, a word you like to use, has suggested that there could possibly be a failing in capitalism of which the only solution would be some sort of government intervention... but that's the sort of thing that you actually prefer when the going gets tough isn't it? So, another chance for you; your conservative solution to pollution would be???

I also see that you're trying to get ahead of your future inability to identify my leftie positions. I'll expect another dose of unnamed members who agree with you I suppose??? ;)

[SassyLady]

OK, placed this thread here but know it could go elsewhere. I am a big believer in capitalism but do have some concerns about it too. I've been wondering this for a very long time. And not sure if it has definitive or rational answer . Here goes. Have you ever wondered why the people that educate this nation , protect us from criminals and burning to death, save us when hurt and injured, and defend this nation with life and limb so damn often make much less in a year than some guy that plays with a ball for a living or raps stupidity makes in an hour or a day?? Think about it , isn't there something kinda screwy about that. One is reward (actual pay) for those that save and educate us while the other is the massive gifting of wealth and fame for those that merely entertain us. Now that Obama is the new dictator "righting all perceived past wrongs (class warfare) shouldn't he tax these people into poverty as well? And not to just key in on the political aspect of it but isn't it just out of balance that a dumbass rap singer "as dumb as a brick" makes more in a week than professional highly educated doctors , lawyers, etc. Its bad enough when drug dealers make that kind of money but at least they face punishment if caught whereas these guys face nothing but wealth and praise. Doesn't that truly point to how shallow we have become!?? Is it or is it not really a problem? -Tyr

I don't blame the individual ... because that's capitalism ... taking your ideas and making money off of it. For those that make ungodly amounts of money for doing nothing but rapping, or playing with a ball .... I blame the public. We are the ones that "reward" that type of "work". However, I have always felt there is a huge injustice regarding the pay that those who are willing to give their life to protect us (military, LE, firemen) receive. It is a product of our culture when we revere celebrities over a medal of honor recipient. Sad.

[Drummond]

Yeah, I wasn't really expecting that you'd be able to have a coherent conversation. And the part that really makes me chuckle is one of your allies, a word you like to use, has suggested that there could possibly be a failing in capitalism of which the only solution would be some sort of government intervention...

You'll have to enlighten me, then. Show me where 'one of my allies' (.. meaning the instigator of this thread ?) has recommended, as a 'solution', 'some sort of government intervention'.

I've seen no such recommendation. But perhaps I missed it ? Show me it ...


but that's the sort of thing that you actually prefer when the going gets tough isn't it? So, another chance for you; your conservative solution to pollution would be???

Easy peasy. You defeat the Leftie whose pollution would otherwise persuade ordinary, decent citizens away from the more righteous path of Conservatism ...


I also see that you're trying to get ahead of your future inability to identify my leftie positions. I'll expect another dose of unnamed members who agree with you I suppose??? ;)

From what I've seen, you've so far tried to find ways of advancing Leftie (i.e liberal) thinking in two distinct ways, just in this thread alone. One .. you're trying to make the reader think that the only way to deal with pollution has to be outside the realms of Capitalistic methodology, that's to say, by applying a Governmental answer to it, one where the State wields power. Two .. YOU were the one who has pushed for 'progressivism' as an answer.

And I have shown you already that Margaret Thatcher was an opponent of Progressivism herself.

[fj1200]

You'll have to enlighten me, then. Show me where 'one of my allies' (.. meaning the instigator of this thread ?) has recommended, as a 'solution', 'some sort of government intervention'.

I've seen no such recommendation. But perhaps I missed it ? Show me it ...

He identified what he perceives as a failing leaving a government solution. Unless you have a free market solution to the alleged market failure that is.


Easy peasy. You defeat the Leftie whose pollution would otherwise persuade ordinary, decent citizens away from the more righteous path of Conservatism ...

That doesn't even make sense. Come on man, I teed it up for you; prove out your conservative chops.


From what I've seen, you've so far tried to find ways of advancing Leftie (i.e liberal) thinking in two distinct ways, just in this thread alone. One .. you're trying to make the reader think that the only way to deal with pollution has to be outside the realms of Capitalistic methodology, that's to say, by applying a Governmental answer to it, one where the State wields power. Two .. YOU were the one who has pushed for 'progressivism' as an answer.

And I have shown you already that Margaret Thatcher was an opponent of Progressivism herself.

You suck at this, I asked for your conservative solution; Do you have one? I also would have expected you to understand an if-then statement; Did I overestimate again?

Any substance forthcoming or just more of your juvenile "gotcha" attempts?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You'll have to enlighten me, then. Show me where 'one of my allies' (.. meaning the instigator of this thread ?) has recommended, as a 'solution', 'some sort of government intervention'.

I've seen no such recommendation. But perhaps I missed it ? Show me it ...



Easy peasy. You defeat the Leftie whose pollution would otherwise persuade ordinary, decent citizens away from the more righteous path of Conservatism ...



From what I've seen, you've so far tried to find ways of advancing Leftie (i.e liberal) thinking in two distinct ways, just in this thread alone. One .. you're trying to make the reader think that the only way to deal with pollution has to be outside the realms of Capitalistic methodology, that's to say, by applying a Governmental answer to it, one where the State wields power. Two .. YOU were the one who has pushed for 'progressivism' as an answer.

And I have shown you already that Margaret Thatcher was an opponent of Progressivism herself.


I've seen no such recommendation. But perhaps I missed it ? Show me it ... I suspect that fj means this one liner quoted below I tossed in merely to sarcastically point out Obama's and the dem party's attacks on capitalism by pushing the idea of taxing those "that make too much" meaning targeting selected enemies by way of higher taxation ==strip the wealth .. --Tyr
Now that Obama is the new dictator "righting all perceived past wrongs (class warfare) shouldn't he tax these people into poverty as well? Drummond on Thatcher you are dead to right with this quote ---
And I have shown you already that Margaret Thatcher was an opponent of Progressivism herself. As Thatcher was a confirmed and dedicated opponent of progressivism!! -Tyr

[aboutime]

You'll have to enlighten me, then. Show me where 'one of my allies' (.. meaning the instigator of this thread ?) has recommended, as a 'solution', 'some sort of government intervention'.

I've seen no such recommendation. But perhaps I missed it ? Show me it ...



Easy peasy. You defeat the Leftie whose pollution would otherwise persuade ordinary, decent citizens away from the more righteous path of Conservatism ...



From what I've seen, you've so far tried to find ways of advancing Leftie (i.e liberal) thinking in two distinct ways, just in this thread alone. One .. you're trying to make the reader think that the only way to deal with pollution has to be outside the realms of Capitalistic methodology, that's to say, by applying a Governmental answer to it, one where the State wields power. Two .. YOU were the one who has pushed for 'progressivism' as an answer.

And I have shown you already that Margaret Thatcher was an opponent of Progressivism herself.




Sir Drummond. Most all of us recognize fj's tactics by now. He uses them at almost every opportunity...I call the simple, LIBERAL, OBAMA blame game....where he so easily just accuses you, or me of doing what he expects, as in not being able to keep up with his IGNORANCE, and Downright STUPIDITY.
But then. WHY would anyone feel a need to amuse fj, other than to emulate, copy, and impersonate him to give him that feeling of IGNORANT superiority over animal waste, and cesspool contents???

[fj1200]

I suspect that fj means this one liner quoted below I tossed in merely to sarcastically point out Obama's and the dem party's attacks on capitalism by pushing the idea of taxing those "that make too much" meaning targeting selected enemies by way of higher taxation ==strip the wealth .. --Tyr

Clearly you're concerned so I would imagine you have some sort of "solution" in mind. And last I knew "dumb ass rappers" were subject to the same tax laws as actual productive members of society.


Drummond on Thatcher you are dead to right with this quote --- As Thatcher was a confirmed and dedicated opponent of progressivism!! -Tyr

Now if only references to the Thatchinator weren't an effort at distracting from an utter lack of argument. ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Clearly you're concerned so I would imagine you have some sort of "solution" in mind. And last I knew "dumb ass rappers" were subject to the same tax laws as actual productive members of society.



Now if only references to the Thatchinator weren't an effort at distracting from an utter lack of argument. ;)


Clearly you're concerned so I would imagine you have some sort of "solution" in mind. Yes, it called real education and the destruction of the government education monopoly. We had a better society before Feds took over our Education system. School back then reinforced morals and even outright supplied moral principles to kids that parents lacked them. Federal government education seeks not a moral society but rather an indoctrinated and compliant one. Get the schools back to state and local control only. Stop the Fed indoctrination program . that's MY SOLUTION. -Tyr

[fj1200]

^I'm all for breaking the public education monopoly but there will still be dumb ass millionaires.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

^I'm all for breaking the public education monopoly but there will still be dumb ass millionaires. Sure but far less of them will have been made so by a public rewarding them as entertainers such as rap crap artists etc. More will be made so by way of inventions, capitalistic enterprises etc. ADDITIONALLY, the Republic will fair better and have a far less intrusive government harassing its citizens. Now the questions is can we ever go back? Or rather what has to be done to go back? I submit that nothing short of a revolution will get us there because we allowed the "gangrene" to go too long. To much powermad force will be used to stop any attempted remedy!! The attempted remedy is not by way of federal government action rather its by way of forcing smaller federal government and thus having less government action. Which corresponds exactly with Conservative ideas and tis' the exact opposite of progressive ideas. -Tyr

[aboutime]

^I'm all for breaking the public education monopoly but there will still be dumb ass millionaires.


AND fj. THANKFULLY...most of us know for certain. YOU will never be qualified to be one of those dumb ass millionaires. Your success only comes from making sure everybody else is as MISERABLE as you are.

[fj1200]

Sure but far less of them will have been made so by a public rewarding them as entertainers such as rap crap artists etc. More will be made so by way of inventions, capitalistic enterprises etc. ADDITIONALLY, the Republic will fair better and have a far less intrusive government harassing its citizens. Now the questions is can we ever go back? Or rather what has to be done to go back? I submit that nothing short of a revolution will get us there because we allowed the "gangrene" to go too long. To much powermad force will be used to stop any attempted remedy!! The attempted remedy is not by way of federal government action rather its by way of forcing smaller federal government and thus having less government action. Which corresponds exactly with Conservative ideas and tis' the exact opposite of progressive ideas. -Tyr

Your correlation is weak at best and "solution" won't be effective.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your correlation is weak at best and "solution" won't be effective. That solution of having a much smaller , less powerful and intrusive Federal government is the heart and soul of conservatism. I find it strange that you choose to designate it as "not effective"... Every reality presents that it would do exactly that. As does historic evidence. -Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

Sure but far less of them will have been made so by a public rewarding them as entertainers such as rap crap artists etc. More will be made so by way of inventions, capitalistic enterprises etc. ADDITIONALLY, the Republic will fair better and have a far less intrusive government harassing its citizens. Now the questions is can we ever go back? Or rather what has to be done to go back? I submit that nothing short of a revolution will get us there because we allowed the "gangrene" to go too long. To much powermad force will be used to stop any attempted remedy!! The attempted remedy is not by way of federal government action rather its by way of forcing smaller federal government and thus having less government action. Which corresponds exactly with Conservative ideas and tis' the exact opposite of progressive ideas. -Tyr

Um... Rap music is a capitalistic enterprise. You are literally selling a product, an audio track of you singing multiple different songs, for the money you believe people would pay as fair market value. It's doesn't get much more capitalist than that.

What you're suggesting is actually creating a more intrusive government, as opposed to less, Tyr, and I don't think you realize that. The only way for people to stop buying music, or books, or whatever media for money (Thus creating these millionaires), is to remove their right to do so, thus killing capitalism.

What gangrene? Citizens selling their own legal product for fair prices and making money, even a large amount of it, is the basis of the free market economy. Why on God's Earth would you want to stop that? And also, of course, it would involve killing Free Speech right along with it, because you'd have to stop the words from reaching people that they touch.

This is directly akin to when Hilary Clinton said she wanted to get rid of all violent video games. Do you really want to be Hilary Clinton, Tyr? The problems you have with rap music are not actually with rap music, and I'll prove it. Believe it or not, I hate rap music, always have, it's annoying about 99% of the time, but I love Eminem's Lose Yourself, which essentially speaks to a generation saying, "You have one chance in this life, do not let it go." The difference between us? The reason I hate it is the subject matter of a lot of it just agitates me, because most artists are essentially glorifying the very culture that's holding them back.

In learning to write, I ended up watching a video series called Extra Credits, about video gaming, and they went over in a video how to play games like a designer, and there was a lesson there I've since taken with me. Basically it goes like this, "If you cannot see the value in a piece of media that has touched millions of lives, then it is not the media's fault. It is your own lack of understanding."

[fj1200]

That solution of having a much smaller , less powerful and intrusive Federal government is the heart and soul of conservatism. I find it strange that you choose to designate it as "not effective"... Every reality presents that it would do exactly that. As does historic evidence. -Tyr

Your "heart and soul of conservatism" solution won't be effective in the problem that you see because there is no causation from one to the other, education is still largely local.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Um... Rap music is a capitalistic enterprise. You are literally selling a product, an audio track of you singing multiple different songs, for the money you believe people would pay as fair market value. It's doesn't get much more capitalist than that.

What you're suggesting is actually creating a more intrusive government, as opposed to less, Tyr, and I don't think you realize that. The only way for people to stop buying music, or books, or whatever media for money (Thus creating these millionaires), is to remove their right to do so, thus killing capitalism.

What gangrene? Citizens selling their own legal product for fair prices and making money, even a large amount of it, is the basis of the free market economy. Why on God's Earth would you want to stop that? And also, of course, it would involve killing Free Speech right along with it, because you'd have to stop the words from reaching people that they touch.

This is directly akin to when Hilary Clinton said she wanted to get rid of all violent video games. Do you really want to be Hilary Clinton, Tyr? The problems you have with rap music are not actually with rap music, and I'll prove it. Believe it or not, I hate rap music, always have, it's annoying about 99% of the time, but I love Eminem's Lose Yourself, which essentially speaks to a generation saying, "You have one chance in this life, do not let it go." The difference between us? The reason I hate it is the subject matter of a lot of it just agitates me, because most artists are essentially glorifying the very culture that's holding them back.

In learning to write, I ended up watching a video series called Extra Credits, about video gaming, and they went over in a video how to play games like a designer, and there was a lesson there I've since taken with me. Basically it goes like this, "If you cannot see the value in a piece of media that has touched millions of lives, then it is not the media's fault. It is your own lack of understanding." My quote about Obama taxing them into poverty was a sarcastic condemnation of his flaunting doing that to his political enemies . Perhaps you missed this reply I made to fj about the solution being education .


Clearly you're concerned so I would imagine you have some sort of "solution" in mind.

Yes, it called real education and the destruction of the government education monopoly. We had a better society before Feds took over our Education system. School back then reinforced morals and even outright supplied moral principles to kids that parents lacked them. Federal government education seeks not a moral society but rather an indoctrinated and compliant one. Get the schools back to state and local control only. Stop the Fed indoctrination program . that's MY SOLUTION. -Tyr I agree real education would go a damn long way to solving the problem. Sure it just capitalism in action but I despise rap same reason you do -it glories the wrong things and keeps them stirred up into a mood of fighting back. They have equal rights (in fact more than IMHO) so they'd be better served trying to live like decent people instead of glorifying crime, drugs, gambling , stealing cars , shooting white cops, greed ,money and hoes. Additionally 95% is just stupid monotonous lyrics with just about the same ffing beat. =boring. However I used that specific subject perhaps as not the best one to have chosen. Still it got to my point about what is wrong in our culture and how education is the key. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Personally. I view RAP as an extension of EBONICS. What I find even more offensive about RAP, is how...so many people allow themselves to be led into the LESS than educated path of shortcutting the English language...and daring to call it POETRY.

Like almost everything else. I see RAP as just another excuse for so many people to BELIEVE...they can AVOID being labeled as Racists if they PRETEND to enjoy, love, admire RAP artists...which actually ARE NOT artists, and RAP is NOT music, nor is it anything near INTELLIGENT to anyone..other than those who torture, destroy, and play useless word games without knowledge.

Look up Ebonics. That describes it better than anyone dares to Honestly say.

Here's a link for anyone, to be fair....http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ebonics

[Drummond]

I asked for your conservative solution; Do you have one?

Here's the thing, FJ.

You claim to be pro-Thatcher. Yet ... Lady Thatcher, as I've shown you and as another contributor agrees is true, was very ANTI Progressivism.

And you have taken a pro-Progressivism line.

So, you either need to change your tune on Progressivism, or, admit that you are not in line with Lady Thatcher's thinking.

Moreover, you keep pressing me for a Conservative answer. Why, as a supposed 'conservative' yourself, have YOU failed to offer one, instead pushing one far more Socialist ???

So I'm asking YOUR question, right back at YOU. What is YOUR conservative answer ????

[aboutime]

Here's the thing, FJ.

You claim to be pro-Thatcher. Yet ... Lady Thatcher, as I've shown you and as another contributor agrees is true, was very ANTI Progressivism.

And you have taken a pro-Progressivism line.

So, you either need to change your tune on Progressivism, or, admit that you are not in line with Lady Thatcher's thinking.

Moreover, you keep pressing me for a Conservative answer. Why, as a supposed 'conservative' yourself, have YOU failed to offer one, instead pushing one far more Socialist ???

So I'm asking YOUR question, right back at YOU. What is YOUR conservative answer ????



Sir Drummond. Once again. fj is using his much used, liberal tactic to distract, and change context to meet his demands by asking another question to ignore responding at all costs.
Perhaps we should do the same, and ask fj to provide his Communist, Socialist/Marxist solutions to offset our conservative ones????

[fj1200]

Here's the thing, FJ.

You claim to be pro-Thatcher. Yet ... Lady Thatcher, as I've shown you and as another contributor agrees is true, was very ANTI Progressivism.

And you have taken a pro-Progressivism line.

So, you either need to change your tune on Progressivism, or, admit that you are not in line with Lady Thatcher's thinking.

Moreover, you keep pressing me for a Conservative answer. Why, as a supposed 'conservative' yourself, have YOU failed to offer one, instead pushing one far more Socialist ???

So I'm asking YOUR question, right back at YOU. What is YOUR conservative answer ????

Here's the thing, I don't give a whit about Mags as it relates to this thread, perchance you only bring her up to deflect. So... you have no answer to the question? All you can do is turn it around. I didn't think you had any chops, all you can do is use your imagination as to what I've been "pushing."

[aboutime]

Here's the thing, I don't give a whit about Mags as it relates to this thread, perchance you only bring her up to deflect. So... you have no answer to the question? All you can do is turn it around. I didn't think you had any chops, all you can do is use your imagination as to what I've been "pushing."



fj. The one, and only thing you are able to show, or brag about here is...that you know how to use the (strike)

<strike> tag </strike> Other than that. You only impress no-one.

[fj1200]

Easy peasy. You defeat the Leftie whose pollution would otherwise persuade ordinary, decent citizens away from the more righteous path of Conservatism ...

So is this still your answer? That only lefties pollute?

[aboutime]

So is this still your answer? That only lefties pollute?



Without question fj. And...as you so often demonstrate here. Your pollution comes from all directions. Left, just happens to be your signature.

[gabosaurus]

Without question fj. And...as you so often demonstrate here. Your pollution comes from all directions. Left, just happens to be your signature.

A person without any ethics trying to comment on another person's ethics. How amusing is that? :whammer:

[aboutime]

A person without any ethics trying to comment on another person's ethics. How amusing is that? :whammer:


Just emulating you gabby. Just emulating you.