Current Events > Sometimes I think profit is intrinsically evil.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
darkjedilink 02/04/18 5:24:01 PM #102:	averagejoel posted... an inability to defend one's worldview is independent of being out of touch You haven't defended your worldview in any way whatsoever. --- 'It's okay that those gangbangers stole all my personal belongings and cash at gunpoint, cuz they're building a rec center!' - OneTimeBen <cite>darkjedilink posted [p:895453243] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>an inability to defend one's worldview is independent of being out of touch</quote> You haven't defended your worldview in any way whatsoever.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 5:25:06 PM #103:	I went from being very religious to not being religious. That journey required a lot of deep and painful introspection, and admitting that I was wrong about a lot of things. I have many defects, but being "out of touch" on this stuff is not one of them. I'm more than able and willing to admit when I'm wrong about something. This topic and the other topic are not areas where I'm wrong, based on all the evidence I've looked at and provided. If I was wrong I'd admit it and adopt a different position. You're using these weak tactics because you know I'm right but don't yet know how to admit you were wrong about a worldview you've been steeped in for many years. --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895453318] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote>I went from being very religious to not being religious. That journey required a lot of deep and painful introspection, and admitting that I was wrong about a lot of things. I have many defects, but being "out of touch" on this stuff is not one of them. I'm more than able and willing to admit when I'm wrong about something. This topic and the other topic are not areas where I'm wrong, based on all the evidence I've looked at and provided. If I was wrong I'd admit it and adopt a different position. You're using these weak tactics because you know I'm right but don't yet know how to admit you were wrong about a worldview you've been steeped in for many years.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DevsBro 02/04/18 5:29:33 PM #104:	People seem to forget that even if we've gotten pretty good at it, life is still a survival situation. --- http://backloggery.com/devsbro/sig.gif http://i.imgur.com/kU5vu5N.png Never pepper popcorn <cite>DevsBro posted [p:895453587] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote>People seem to forget that even if we've gotten pretty good at it, life is still a survival situation.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/04/18 5:59:55 PM #105:	FLUFFYGERM posted... I went from being very religious to not being religious. That journey required a lot of deep and painful introspection, and admitting that I was wrong about a lot of things. I have many defects, but being "out of touch" on this stuff is not one of them. I'm more than able and willing to admit when I'm wrong about something. This topic and the other topic are not areas where I'm wrong, based on all the evidence I've looked at and provided. If I was wrong I'd admit it and adopt a different position. You're using these weak tactics because you know I'm right but don't yet know how to admit you were wrong about a worldview you've been steeped in for many years. the only people agreeing with you here think that "a roof over your head and food in your belly" is a luxury. is that setting off an alarm bell for you? because it should be --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:895455233] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>I went from being very religious to not being religious. That journey required a lot of deep and painful introspection, and admitting that I was wrong about a lot of things. I have many defects, but being "out of touch" on this stuff is not one of them. I'm more than able and willing to admit when I'm wrong about something. This topic and the other topic are not areas where I'm wrong, based on all the evidence I've looked at and provided. If I was wrong I'd admit it and adopt a different position. You're using these weak tactics because you know I'm right but don't yet know how to admit you were wrong about a worldview you've been steeped in for many years.</quote> the only people agreeing with you here think that "a roof over your head and food in your belly" is a luxury. is that setting off an alarm bell for you? because it should be</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 6:13:48 PM #106:	A lot of things you said, particularly around violence, set off a lot of alarm bells for me. I dunno, you haven't given me any reason to trust your summaries/generalizations of what your opposition said/believes. --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895456112] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote>A lot of things you said, particularly around violence, set off a lot of alarm bells for me. I dunno, you haven't given me any reason to trust your summaries/generalizations of what your opposition said/believes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/04/18 6:22:03 PM #107:	FLUFFYGERM posted... A lot of things you said, particularly around violence, set off a lot of alarm bells for me. I dunno, you haven't given me any reason to trust your summaries/generalizations of what your opposition said/believes. read it for yourself (emphasis mine): Esrac posted... Seems closer to suggesting everyone should have equal access to these luxuries without having to consider the financial sense of purchasing these luxuries. And employers who don't pay even their lowest employees enough to afford them should be maimed or killed. the only thing I've said that's related to that was: if one of your employees, for one month, is unable to afford a roof over their head and food in their belly, you lose an eye. therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Esrac believes "a roof" and "food" to be luxuries that not everyone should have access to. --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:895456646] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>A lot of things you said, particularly around violence, set off a lot of alarm bells for me. I dunno, you haven't given me any reason to trust your summaries/generalizations of what your opposition said/believes.</quote> read it for yourself (emphasis mine): <cite>Esrac posted...</cite> <quote>Seems closer to suggesting everyone should have equal access to these luxuries without having to consider the financial sense of purchasing these luxuries. And employers who don't pay even their lowest employees enough to afford them should be maimed or killed.</quote> the only thing I've said that's related to that was: <quote>if one of your employees, for one month, is unable to afford a roof over their head and food in their belly, you lose an eye.</quote> therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Esrac believes "a roof" and "food" to be luxuries that not everyone should have access to.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 6:28:16 PM #108:	averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... A lot of things you said, particularly around violence, set off a lot of alarm bells for me. I dunno, you haven't given me any reason to trust your summaries/generalizations of what your opposition said/believes. read it for yourself (emphasis mine): Esrac posted... Seems closer to suggesting everyone should have equal access to these luxuries without having to consider the financial sense of purchasing these luxuries. And employers who don't pay even their lowest employees enough to afford them should be maimed or killed. the only thing I've said that's related to that was: if one of your employees, for one month, is unable to afford a roof over their head and food in their belly, you lose an eye. therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Esrac believes "a roof" and "food" to be luxuries that not everyone should have access to. And I responded to that with data that shows that it's not so simple. When 107 million working Americans (which is the majority of working Americans) are financing cars to the tune of an average $479 per month...you don't have an income / housing / food problem. You have a spending problem, because people in America have abandoned personal responsibility and are instead complaining about corporate America. To that you had no rebuttal. It's completely pointless to frame these issues as issues of "luxuries vs rights" because it doesn't address any of the causes or the solutions to frame it as such. --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895457069] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>A lot of things you said, particularly around violence, set off a lot of alarm bells for me. I dunno, you haven't given me any reason to trust your summaries/generalizations of what your opposition said/believes.</quote> read it for yourself (emphasis mine): <cite>Esrac posted...</cite> <quote>Seems closer to suggesting everyone should have equal access to these luxuries without having to consider the financial sense of purchasing these luxuries. And employers who don't pay even their lowest employees enough to afford them should be maimed or killed.</quote> the only thing I've said that's related to that was: <quote>if one of your employees, for one month, is unable to afford a roof over their head and food in their belly, you lose an eye.</quote> therefore, it is reasonable to believe that Esrac believes "a roof" and "food" to be luxuries that not everyone should have access to.</quote> And I responded to that with data that shows that it's not so simple. When 107 million working Americans (which is the majority of working Americans) are financing cars to the tune of an average $479 per month...you don't have an income / housing / food problem. You have a spending problem, because people in America have abandoned personal responsibility and are instead complaining about corporate America. To that you had no rebuttal. It's completely pointless to frame these issues as issues of "luxuries vs rights" because it doesn't address any of the causes or the solutions to frame it as such.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dragonblade01 02/04/18 6:37:12 PM #109:	I wasn't aware that frugality stopped being a virtue. <cite>Dragonblade01 posted [p:895457629] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote>I wasn't aware that frugality stopped being a virtue.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/04/18 6:38:52 PM #110:	FLUFFYGERM posted... And I responded to that with data that shows that it's not so simple. When 107 million working Americans (which is the majority of working Americans) are financing cars to the tune of an average $479 per month...you don't have an income / housing / food problem. You have a spending problem, because people in America have abandoned personal responsibility and are instead complaining about corporate America. To that you had no rebuttal. It's completely pointless to frame these issues as issues of "luxuries vs rights" because it doesn't address any of the causes or the solutions to frame it as such. your response was completely irrelevant to my point, so a rebuttal would be meaningless. "whoosh" is just as effective --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:895457711] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>And I responded to that with data that shows that it's not so simple. When 107 million working Americans (which is the majority of working Americans) are financing cars to the tune of an average $479 per month...you don't have an income / housing / food problem. You have a spending problem, because people in America have abandoned personal responsibility and are instead complaining about corporate America. To that you had no rebuttal. It's completely pointless to frame these issues as issues of "luxuries vs rights" because it doesn't address any of the causes or the solutions to frame it as such.</quote> your response was completely irrelevant to my point, so a rebuttal would be meaningless. "whoosh" is just as effective</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 6:41:12 PM #111:	averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... And I responded to that with data that shows that it's not so simple. When 107 million working Americans (which is the majority of working Americans) are financing cars to the tune of an average $479 per month...you don't have an income / housing / food problem. You have a spending problem, because people in America have abandoned personal responsibility and are instead complaining about corporate America. To that you had no rebuttal. It's completely pointless to frame these issues as issues of "luxuries vs rights" because it doesn't address any of the causes or the solutions to frame it as such. your response was completely irrelevant to my point, so a rebuttal would be meaningless. "whoosh" is just as effective It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. So your entire narrative was pointless because it's ignoring the reality of things. --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895457822] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>And I responded to that with data that shows that it's not so simple. When 107 million working Americans (which is the majority of working Americans) are financing cars to the tune of an average $479 per month...you don't have an income / housing / food problem. You have a spending problem, because people in America have abandoned personal responsibility and are instead complaining about corporate America. To that you had no rebuttal. It's completely pointless to frame these issues as issues of "luxuries vs rights" because it doesn't address any of the causes or the solutions to frame it as such.</quote> your response was completely irrelevant to my point, so a rebuttal would be meaningless. "whoosh" is just as effective</quote> It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. So your entire narrative was pointless because it's ignoring the reality of things.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
r4X0r 02/04/18 6:43:42 PM #113:	FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. So your entire narrative was pointless because it's ignoring the reality of things. So you think that people should do the jobs they're capable of, and be paid based on their needs? --- Smiled as fierce as a forty pounder. <cite>r4X0r posted [p:895457982] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. So your entire narrative was pointless because it's ignoring the reality of things.</quote> So you think that people should do the jobs they're capable of, and be paid based on their needs?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
flussence 02/04/18 6:44:54 PM #114:	lol he still mad after I left him yelling at a wall last night --- u <cite>flussence posted [p:895458061] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote>lol he still mad after I left him yelling at a wall last night</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 6:45:12 PM #115:	r4X0r posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. So your entire narrative was pointless because it's ignoring the reality of things. So you think that people should do the jobs they're capable of, and be paid based on their needs? Uh no? --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895458081] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>r4X0r posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. So your entire narrative was pointless because it's ignoring the reality of things.</quote> So you think that people should do the jobs they're capable of, and be paid based on their needs?</quote> Uh no?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 02/04/18 6:46:04 PM #116:	If I sell you lemonade for 75 cents, 50 cents more than it took me to make it, all it means is you want that lemonade more than you wanted to keep that 75 cents. How were you screwed in that scenario? --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:895458122] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote>If I sell you lemonade for 75 cents, 50 cents more than it took me to make it, all it means is you want that lemonade more than you wanted to keep that 75 cents. How were you screwed in that scenario?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
r4X0r 02/04/18 6:46:31 PM #117:	FLUFFYGERM posted... r4X0r posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. So your entire narrative was pointless because it's ignoring the reality of things. So you think that people should do the jobs they're capable of, and be paid based on their needs? Uh no? You just said that somebody who's not getting paid enough to pay their bills is getting "shafted." Why do they deserve more pay? They agreed to that position. If they're not getting paid what they need and you think that's bad, certainly you think people should get paid what they need. --- Smiled as fierce as a forty pounder. <cite>r4X0r posted [p:895458152] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>r4X0r posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. So your entire narrative was pointless because it's ignoring the reality of things.</quote> So you think that people should do the jobs they're capable of, and be paid based on their needs?</quote> Uh no?</quote> You just said that somebody who's not getting paid enough to pay their bills is getting "shafted." Why do they deserve more pay? They agreed to that position. If they're not getting paid what they need and you think that's bad, certainly you think people should get paid what they need.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/04/18 6:48:15 PM #118:	FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong. --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:895458252] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 6:50:24 PM #119:	r4X0r posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... r4X0r posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. So your entire narrative was pointless because it's ignoring the reality of things. So you think that people should do the jobs they're capable of, and be paid based on their needs? Uh no? You just said that somebody who's not getting paid enough to pay their bills is getting "shafted." Why do they deserve more pay? They agreed to that position. If they're not getting paid what they need and you think that's bad, certainly you think people should get paid what they need. No, what I said is that it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895458376] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>r4X0r posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>r4X0r posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. So your entire narrative was pointless because it's ignoring the reality of things.</quote> So you think that people should do the jobs they're capable of, and be paid based on their needs?</quote> Uh no?</quote> You just said that somebody who's not getting paid enough to pay their bills is getting "shafted." Why do they deserve more pay? They agreed to that position. If they're not getting paid what they need and you think that's bad, certainly you think people should get paid what they need.</quote> No, what I said is that it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 6:50:52 PM #120:	averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong. Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895458396] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong.</quote> Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
r4X0r 02/04/18 6:51:25 PM #121:	FLUFFYGERM posted... r4X0r posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... r4X0r posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. So your entire narrative was pointless because it's ignoring the reality of things. So you think that people should do the jobs they're capable of, and be paid based on their needs? Uh no? You just said that somebody who's not getting paid enough to pay their bills is getting "shafted." Why do they deserve more pay? They agreed to that position. If they're not getting paid what they need and you think that's bad, certainly you think people should get paid what they need. No, what I said is that it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. Oh, I had you backwards. My bad. ....now i'm guessing you knew where I was going with that, so don't spoil it. --- Smiled as fierce as a forty pounder. <cite>r4X0r posted [p:895458427] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>r4X0r posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>r4X0r posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. So your entire narrative was pointless because it's ignoring the reality of things.</quote> So you think that people should do the jobs they're capable of, and be paid based on their needs?</quote> Uh no?</quote> You just said that somebody who's not getting paid enough to pay their bills is getting "shafted." Why do they deserve more pay? They agreed to that position. If they're not getting paid what they need and you think that's bad, certainly you think people should get paid what they need.</quote> No, what I said is that it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> Oh, I had you backwards. My bad. ....now i'm guessing you knew where I was going with that, so don't spoil it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/04/18 6:53:47 PM #122:	FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong. Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:895458563] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong.</quote> Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney</quote> there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 6:55:59 PM #123:	averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong. Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. How do you reconcile that with the data that shows the the majority of working Americans are shafting themselves by making very bad decisions? IE spending $479 on average per month for a new car they don't need, having kids they can't afford, buying a new flagship smartphone every year, etc. --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895458682] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong.</quote> Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney</quote> there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> How do you reconcile that with the data that shows the the majority of working Americans are shafting themselves by making very bad decisions? IE spending $479 on average per month for a new car they don't need, having kids they can't afford, buying a new flagship smartphone every year, etc.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Musourenka 02/04/18 6:57:05 PM #124:	averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong. Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. Or they're shafted by landlords. But yes, there are sadly a lot of people who work but have to sleep in their cars. Others might be able to afford motels from time to time, but going from motel to motel means they can't afford to rent an apartment. --- Shooing away pigeons crapping on debate tables is not a violation of the pigeons' free speech. <cite>Musourenka posted [p:895458745] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong.</quote> Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney</quote> there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> Or they're shafted by landlords. But yes, there are sadly a lot of people who work but have to sleep in their cars. Others might be able to afford motels from time to time, but going from motel to motel means they can't afford to rent an apartment.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 02/04/18 6:57:21 PM #125:	averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong. Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. The only way you can remain poor in the US with a full-time job is if you either don't finish high school or have a kid out of wedlock. Both are pitifully easy to accomplish and the taxpayer should not be responsible for people who are fuckups. --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:895458765] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong.</quote> Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney</quote> there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> The only way you can remain poor in the US with a full-time job is if you either don't finish high school or have a kid out of wedlock. Both are pitifully easy to accomplish and the taxpayer should not be responsible for people who are fuckups.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
flussence 02/04/18 6:58:23 PM #126:	Sephiroth1288 posted... The only way you can remain poor in the US with a full-time job is if you either don't finish high school or have a kid out of wedlock. or fall ill --- u <cite>flussence posted [p:895458836] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote>The only way you can remain poor in the US with a full-time job is if you either don't finish high school or have a kid out of wedlock.</quote> or fall ill</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 7:01:43 PM #127:	Musourenka posted... averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong. Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. Or they're shafted by landlords. But yes, there are sadly a lot of people who work but have to sleep in their cars. Others might be able to afford motels from time to time, but going from motel to motel means they can't afford to rent an apartment. I'm sure there are people in that situation, but not in numbers that would be evidence of the system at large failing them. --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895459099] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>Musourenka posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong.</quote> Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney</quote> there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> Or they're shafted by landlords. But yes, there are sadly a lot of people who work but have to sleep in their cars. Others might be able to afford motels from time to time, but going from motel to motel means they can't afford to rent an apartment.</quote> I'm sure there are people in that situation, but not in numbers that would be evidence of the system at large failing them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Musourenka 02/04/18 7:05:44 PM #128:	At what point do you consider the system failing them? --- Shooing away pigeons crapping on debate tables is not a violation of the pigeons' free speech. <cite>Musourenka posted [p:895459343] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote>At what point do you consider the system failing them?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 7:06:26 PM #129:	Musourenka posted... At what point do you consider the system failing them? When it is failing more than it is working, or when a better system is available. --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895459382] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>Musourenka posted...</cite> <quote>At what point do you consider the system failing them?</quote> When it is failing more than it is working, or when a better system is available.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/04/18 7:08:54 PM #130:	FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong. Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. How do you reconcile that with the data that shows the the majority of working Americans are shafting themselves by making very bad decisions? IE spending $479 on average per month for a new car they don't need, having kids they can't afford, buying a new flagship smartphone every year, etc. see, this is why I compared you to a caricature. you insist on deflecting to "poor people shouldn't get to enjoy things" instead of addressing the actual issue --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:895459525] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong.</quote> Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney</quote> there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> How do you reconcile that with the data that shows the the majority of working Americans are shafting themselves by making very bad decisions? IE spending $479 on average per month for a new car they don't need, having kids they can't afford, buying a new flagship smartphone every year, etc.</quote> see, this is why I compared you to a caricature. you insist on deflecting to "poor people shouldn't get to enjoy things" instead of addressing the actual issue</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 7:13:18 PM #131:	averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong. Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. How do you reconcile that with the data that shows the the majority of working Americans are shafting themselves by making very bad decisions? IE spending $479 on average per month for a new car they don't need, having kids they can't afford, buying a new flagship smartphone every year, etc. see, this is why I compared you to a caricature. you insist on deflecting to "poor people shouldn't get to enjoy things" instead of addressing the actual issue I never said "poor people shouldn't get to enjoy things" or anything remotely close to that. --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895459810] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong.</quote> Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney</quote> there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> How do you reconcile that with the data that shows the the majority of working Americans are shafting themselves by making very bad decisions? IE spending $479 on average per month for a new car they don't need, having kids they can't afford, buying a new flagship smartphone every year, etc.</quote> see, this is why I compared you to a caricature. you insist on deflecting to "poor people shouldn't get to enjoy things" instead of addressing the actual issue</quote> I never said "poor people shouldn't get to enjoy things" or anything remotely close to that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 7:18:08 PM #132:	Like if that's really your takeaway from my arguments then this conversation is hopeless --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895460107] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote>Like if that's really your takeaway from my arguments then this conversation is hopeless</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/04/18 7:18:46 PM #133:	FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong. Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them. How do you reconcile that with the data that shows the the majority of working Americans are shafting themselves by making very bad decisions? IE spending $479 on average per month for a new car they don't need, having kids they can't afford, buying a new flagship smartphone every year, etc. see, this is why I compared you to a caricature. you insist on deflecting to "poor people shouldn't get to enjoy things" instead of addressing the actual issue I never said "poor people shouldn't get to enjoy things" or anything remotely close to that. you're blaming people for having a nice car, rather than employers for not paying a living wage, or (as was mentioned above) landlords for charging way too much --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:895460151] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>It's relevant to your point because it's arguably not the case that there's a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> if you want to go that route, then you might as well go full on chemtrails and flat-Earth conspiracies, because they're every bit as arguable as your idea. it's still wrong.</quote> Lmao what? Expand on that because that's just baloney</quote> there is, factually, a meaningful subset of the population that is working a full-time job and unable to afford food or a place to sleep in at night due to their employer shafting them.</quote> How do you reconcile that with the data that shows the the majority of working Americans are shafting themselves by making very bad decisions? IE spending $479 on average per month for a new car they don't need, having kids they can't afford, buying a new flagship smartphone every year, etc.</quote> see, this is why I compared you to a caricature. you insist on deflecting to "poor people shouldn't get to enjoy things" instead of addressing the actual issue</quote> I never said "poor people shouldn't get to enjoy things" or anything remotely close to that.</quote> you're blaming people for having a nice car, rather than employers for not paying a living wage, or (as was mentioned above) landlords for charging way too much</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 7:21:26 PM #134:	so if I make $150,000 a year but decide to finance a $1,500,000 home is it my employer's fault or the bank's fault when I can't afford the home? --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895460344] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote>so if I make $150,000 a year but decide to finance a $1,500,000 home is it my employer's fault or the bank's fault when I can't afford the home?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Musourenka 02/04/18 7:23:14 PM #135:	FLUFFYGERM posted... so if I make $150,000 a year but decide to finance a $1,500,000 home is it my employer's fault or the bank's fault when I can't afford the home? The bank's. Why are they signing off on things you can't afford? --- Shooing away pigeons crapping on debate tables is not a violation of the pigeons' free speech. <cite>Musourenka posted [p:895460457] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>so if I make $150,000 a year but decide to finance a $1,500,000 home is it my employer's fault or the bank's fault when I can't afford the home?</quote> The bank's. Why are they signing off on things you can't afford?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 7:24:43 PM #136:	Musourenka posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... so if I make $150,000 a year but decide to finance a $1,500,000 home is it my employer's fault or the bank's fault when I can't afford the home? The bank's. Why are they signing off on things you can't afford? Okay, so let's adjust the numbers to a more realistic example. If I make $150,000 a year and try to afford a $750,000 house, is it the bank's fault or my employer's fault if I mismanage my money and can't afford it? People that are financing $479 a month of car are not poor because of their employer - they're poor because of their own actions. You don't NEED a brand new car when you can't afford one. Save now, buy new later. Do you agree that a lot of people are being irresponsible with money and that averagejoel's response was naive? --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895460547] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>Musourenka posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>so if I make $150,000 a year but decide to finance a $1,500,000 home is it my employer's fault or the bank's fault when I can't afford the home?</quote> The bank's. Why are they signing off on things you can't afford?</quote> Okay, so let's adjust the numbers to a more realistic example. If I make $150,000 a year and try to afford a $750,000 house, is it the bank's fault or my employer's fault if I mismanage my money and can't afford it? People that are financing $479 a month of car are not poor because of their employer - they're poor because of their own actions. You don't NEED a brand new car when you can't afford one. Save now, buy new later. Do you agree that a lot of people are being irresponsible with money and that averagejoel's response was naive?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 02/04/18 7:25:24 PM #137:	FLUFFYGERM posted... so if I make $150,000 a year but decide to finance a $1,500,000 home is it my employer's fault or the bank's fault when I can't afford the home? --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:895460598] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>so if I make $150,000 a year but decide to finance a $1,500,000 home is it my employer's fault or the bank's fault when I can't afford the home?</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 7:25:44 PM #138:	averagejoel posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... so if I make $150,000 a year but decide to finance a $1,500,000 home is it my employer's fault or the bank's fault when I can't afford the home? lol --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895460620] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>so if I make $150,000 a year but decide to finance a $1,500,000 home is it my employer's fault or the bank's fault when I can't afford the home?</quote> </quote> lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
flussence 02/04/18 7:32:28 PM #139:	it's obviously John Deere's fault --- u <cite>flussence posted [p:895461083] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote>it's obviously John Deere's fault</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Musourenka 02/04/18 7:33:33 PM #140:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Okay, so let's adjust the numbers to a more realistic example. If I make $150,000 a year and try to afford a $750,000 house, is it the bank's fault or my employer's fault if I mismanage my money and can't afford it? People that are financing $479 a month of car are not poor because of their employer - they're poor because of their own actions. You don't NEED a brand new car when you can't afford one. Save now, buy new later. Do you agree that a lot of people are being irresponsible with money and that averagejoel's response was naive? I agree that there are many people who are irresponsible with money, but at the same time, the economy is dependent on people buying beyond their means. Three-fourths of the US population live paycheck to paycheck. That is a systemic failure. --- Shooing away pigeons crapping on debate tables is not a violation of the pigeons' free speech. <cite>Musourenka posted [p:895461155] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> Okay, so let's adjust the numbers to a more realistic example. If I make $150,000 a year and try to afford a $750,000 house, is it the bank's fault or my employer's fault if I mismanage my money and can't afford it? People that are financing $479 a month of car are not poor because of their employer - they're poor because of their own actions. You don't NEED a brand new car when you can't afford one. Save now, buy new later. Do you agree that a lot of people are being irresponsible with money and that averagejoel's response was naive?</quote> I agree that there are many people who are irresponsible with money, but at the same time, the economy is dependent on people buying beyond their means. Three-fourths of the US population live paycheck to paycheck. That is a systemic failure.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Joelypoely 02/04/18 7:37:10 PM #141:	darkjedilink posted... Joelypoely posted... "For those that are equal to have an unequal share and those that are alike to have an unlike share is contrary to nature, and nothing contrary to nature is noble." - Aristotle Which proves that Aristotle was a capitalist. Re-read the quote, then read some of his work and get back to me on whether you believe he was in favour of a capitalistic socio-economic model. --- https://philoetryblog.wordpress.com/ <cite>Joelypoely posted [p:895461396] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Joelypoely posted...</cite> <quote>"For those that are equal to have an unequal share and those that are alike to have an unlike share is contrary to nature, and nothing contrary to nature is noble." - Aristotle</quote> Which proves that Aristotle was a capitalist.</quote> Re-read the quote, then read some of his work and get back to me on whether you believe he was in favour of a capitalistic socio-economic model.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 7:43:15 PM #142:	flussence posted... it's obviously John Deere's fault lol Musourenka posted... I agree that there are many people who are irresponsible with money, but at the same time, the economy is dependent on people buying beyond their means. Three-fourths of the US population live paycheck to paycheck. That is a systemic failure. Come on now, this is nonsense. Surely you're old enough to remember 2007-2009. When people live beyond their means, the economy ends up collapsing. There is no evidence to suggest that the economy requires that people live beyond their means. That's nonsense. A healthy economy does not presuppose a population that lives beyond its means. Most of the working class lives paycheck to paycheck, but most of it is also spending an average of $479 a month to finance a vehicle. 42 million new iphones were purchased in 2017. Every year about 1 million children are born out of wedlock, in fatherless households. People are making more and more bad decisions, which is why they're living paycheck to paycheck. Most of those people wouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck if they weren't throwing out $479 on average per month in order to drive a brand new car to and from work. This problem is so easily resolved without blaming the system rather than the people. People want to blame the system because making changes to spending behaviors is hard and requires effort. Most of us want to be lazy and want to blame someone else for our bad decisions. --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895461821] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>flussence posted...</cite> <quote>it's obviously John Deere's fault </quote> lol <cite>Musourenka posted...</cite> <quote>I agree that there are many people who are irresponsible with money, but at the same time, the economy is dependent on people buying beyond their means. Three-fourths of the US population live paycheck to paycheck. That is a systemic failure.</quote> Come on now, this is nonsense. Surely you're old enough to remember 2007-2009. When people live beyond their means, the economy ends up collapsing. There is no evidence to suggest that the economy requires that people live beyond their means. That's nonsense. A healthy economy does not presuppose a population that lives beyond its means. Most of the working class lives paycheck to paycheck, but most of it is also spending an average of $479 a month to finance a vehicle. 42 million new iphones were purchased in 2017. Every year about 1 million children are born out of wedlock, in fatherless households. People are making more and more bad decisions, which is why they're living paycheck to paycheck. Most of those people wouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck if they weren't throwing out $479 on average per month in order to drive a brand new car to and from work. This problem is so easily resolved without blaming the system rather than the people. People want to blame the system because making changes to spending behaviors is hard and requires effort. Most of us want to be lazy and want to blame someone else for our bad decisions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 02/04/18 7:44:01 PM #143:	Joelypoely posted... darkjedilink posted... Joelypoely posted... "For those that are equal to have an unequal share and those that are alike to have an unlike share is contrary to nature, and nothing contrary to nature is noble." - Aristotle Which proves that Aristotle was a capitalist. Re-read the quote, then read some of his work and get back to me on whether you believe he was in favour of a capitalistic socio-economic model. Why should we care whether or not Aristotle was a capitalist, socialist, or anything else? He lived in a world so different from our own that little of what he had to say is of value. At least on matters of economics. --- proudclad LAYIN DOWN THE SMACK - Error1355 <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:895461859] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>Joelypoely posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Joelypoely posted...</cite> <quote>"For those that are equal to have an unequal share and those that are alike to have an unlike share is contrary to nature, and nothing contrary to nature is noble." - Aristotle</quote> Which proves that Aristotle was a capitalist.</quote> Re-read the quote, then read some of his work and get back to me on whether you believe he was in favour of a capitalistic socio-economic model.</quote> Why should we care whether or not Aristotle was a capitalist, socialist, or anything else? He lived in a world so different from our own that little of what he had to say is of value. At least on matters of economics.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
flussence 02/04/18 7:46:21 PM #144:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Joelypoely posted... darkjedilink posted... Joelypoely posted... "For those that are equal to have an unequal share and those that are alike to have an unlike share is contrary to nature, and nothing contrary to nature is noble." - Aristotle Which proves that Aristotle was a capitalist. Re-read the quote, then read some of his work and get back to me on whether you believe he was in favour of a capitalistic socio-economic model. Why should we care whether or not Aristotle was a capitalist, socialist, or anything else? He lived in a world so different from our own that little of what he had to say is of value. At least on matters of economics. just like bezos --- u <cite>flussence posted [p:895462034] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Joelypoely posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkjedilink posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Joelypoely posted...</cite> <quote>"For those that are equal to have an unequal share and those that are alike to have an unlike share is contrary to nature, and nothing contrary to nature is noble." - Aristotle</quote> Which proves that Aristotle was a capitalist.</quote> Re-read the quote, then read some of his work and get back to me on whether you believe he was in favour of a capitalistic socio-economic model.</quote> Why should we care whether or not Aristotle was a capitalist, socialist, or anything else? He lived in a world so different from our own that little of what he had to say is of value. At least on matters of economics.</quote> just like bezos</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Musourenka 02/04/18 9:30:28 PM #145:	FLUFFYGERM posted... Come on now, this is nonsense. Surely you're old enough to remember 2007-2009. When people live beyond their means, the economy ends up collapsing. There is no evidence to suggest that the economy requires that people live beyond their means. That's nonsense. A healthy economy does not presuppose a population that lives beyond its means. Yeah, and this is not a healthy economy. Rent increases are exceeding income increases. People aren't saving. I shouldn't have said "The economy requires people to spend beyond their means," but rather "The current economy is built on people spending beyond their means." You and I agree that this is bad. Most of the working class lives paycheck to paycheck, but most of it is also spending an average of $479 a month to finance a vehicle. 42 million new iphones were purchased in 2017. Every year about 1 million children are born out of wedlock, in fatherless households. People are making more and more bad decisions, which is why they're living paycheck to paycheck. Most of those people wouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck if they weren't throwing out $479 on average per month in order to drive a brand new car to and from work. This problem is so easily resolved without blaming the system rather than the people. People want to blame the system because making changes to spending behaviors is hard and requires effort. Most of us want to be lazy and want to blame someone else for our bad decisions. 75% of people are living paycheck to paycheck. When that many people are doing that, it's not simply a matter of personal failings. The system has to fit the people, even if every single person in that paycheck-to-paycheck group is making bad decisions. --- Shooing away pigeons crapping on debate tables is not a violation of the pigeons' free speech. <cite>Musourenka posted [p:895469780] in Sometimes ... [t:76280211]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote> Come on now, this is nonsense. Surely you're old enough to remember 2007-2009. When people live beyond their means, the economy ends up collapsing. There is no evidence to suggest that the economy requires that people live beyond their means. That's nonsense. A healthy economy does not presuppose a population that lives beyond its means. </quote> Yeah, and this is not a healthy economy. Rent increases are exceeding income increases. People aren't saving. I shouldn't have said "The economy requires people to spend beyond their means," but rather "The current economy is built on people spending beyond their means." You and I agree that this is bad. <quote>Most of the working class lives paycheck to paycheck, but most of it is also spending an average of $479 a month to finance a vehicle. 42 million new iphones were purchased in 2017. Every year about 1 million children are born out of wedlock, in fatherless households. People are making more and more bad decisions, which is why they're living paycheck to paycheck. Most of those people wouldn't be living paycheck to paycheck if they weren't throwing out $479 on average per month in order to drive a brand new car to and from work. This problem is so easily resolved without blaming the system rather than the people. People want to blame the system because making changes to spending behaviors is hard and requires effort. Most of us want to be lazy and want to blame someone else for our bad decisions.</quote> 75% of people are living paycheck to paycheck. When that many people are doing that, it's not simply a matter of personal failings. The system has to fit the people, even if every single person in that paycheck-to-paycheck group is making bad decisions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > Sometimes I think profit is intrinsically evil. (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Sometimes I think profit is intrinsically evil.