Attention All Employees

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]btm62 wrote:
vroom wrote:
I agree with what your saying. The thing that irritates me and makes me angry is that, and this was reported on the TV news so…, agencies like the Red Cross took in over 1.8 billion for Katrina. Now assuming that the Red Cross is the only agency that took in money, which they weren’t, you divide that by the number of affected victims and thats a pretty good chunk of change for each individual. I know thats simplistic, there are infrastructure costs and all, but to me, with all that was given via charities, the gov’t shouldn’t have had to spend anything. There should be enough. In a perfect world with no corruption and greed anyways![/quote]

-What’s interesting is that you didn’t see this sort of outrage after 9/11, even though the same situation applies.
Charities took in billions upon billions of dollars after 9/11. Is the Red Cross rebuilding NYC? Where did the money go?

It think there may be a bit a racism burried under this public outrage. If racism isn’t the right word, then maybe classism is.

42

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
btm62 wrote:
vroom wrote:
I agree with what your saying. The thing that irritates me and makes me angry is that, and this was reported on the TV news so…, agencies like the Red Cross took in over 1.8 billion for Katrina. Now assuming that the Red Cross is the only agency that took in money, which they weren’t, you divide that by the number of affected victims and thats a pretty good chunk of change for each individual. I know thats simplistic, there are infrastructure costs and all, but to me, with all that was given via charities, the gov’t shouldn’t have had to spend anything. There should be enough. In a perfect world with no corruption and greed anyways!

-What’s interesting is that you didn’t see this sort of outrage after 9/11, even though the same situation applies.
Charities took in billions upon billions of dollars after 9/11. Is the Red Cross rebuilding NYC? Where did the money go?

It think there may be a bit a racism burried under this public outrage. If racism isn’t the right word, then maybe classism is.

[/quote]

I agree. I pointed out how much money was STOLEN in Florida after the Hurricanes…but we get rants about looting in New Orleans. Someone logically against any of these core acts would be equally outraged by ALL of them, not just the ones with the most poor/black people involved.

43

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
Vroom, you’re making my point for me. What are we here for? Don’t YOU want to be the one who decides that for YOU? Whatever we are here for, was it to work and slave so that some unfortunate person can DEMAND your help?

The guys who made this website and supplement company (and very well) worked their asses off to make it go. Are they now supposed to turn over the money they sweated for to someone who didn’t want to be bothered? What gives someone else the right to demand THEIR money (which is what taxes are)? “Oh, it’ll make the world better!” Well, what if they don’t want to ‘contribute’? Would you force them? By what right?

[/quote]

Headhunter,

What this all boils down to, in a nutshell, is YES, you HAVE to contribute.
Look at it this way. You are part of a tribe, probably several, but for the sake of arguement we’ll call this tribe U.S.A. Now, to be member of our tribe, YOU HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE.

If you choose not to, then you will be kicked out of said tribe. Now, because the government can’t deport you, and you no longer have the right to benefit from the tribe’s collective good, the only way to get you out of the tribe is to confine you. After some time goes by, you will be given another chance to contribute to the tribe’s well-being, if you elect not to contribute again, the cycle repeats.

Man is a social animal and lives in groups. These groups protect and help each other. That’s the point of the group. In our particular group we elect people to make the group decisions for us, so we can pursue other things(like complaining about those decisions).

Sometimes, as humans, we want to get philosophical about everything, but we forget the nuts and bolts of it.

44

Is there some way to consolidate threads? I’m tired of bouncing between this and “Katrina”.

45

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
You mean like you should have done in the first place?

[/quote]

Just get your state to give back the money. Colorado recieves money from Louisiana oil and gas. And in addition, New Orleans and it’s port helped buid this country and is considered FEDERAL.

I guess Colorado has never received Federal assistance when it has flooded… Or any Federal money…Right?

http://cwcb.state.co.us/flood_watch/floodplain.html

owned.

46

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
vroom wrote:
Vroom, you’re making my point for me. What are we here for? Don’t YOU want to be the one who decides that for YOU? Whatever we are here for, was it to work and slave so that some unfortunate person can DEMAND your help?

The guys who made this website and supplement company (and very well) worked their asses off to make it go. Are they now supposed to turn over the money they sweated for to someone who didn’t want to be bothered? What gives someone else the right to demand THEIR money (which is what taxes are)? “Oh, it’ll make the world better!” Well, what if they don’t want to ‘contribute’? Would you force them? By what right?

Headhunter,

What this all boils down to, in a nutshell, is YES, you HAVE to contribute.
Look at it this way. You are part of a tribe, probably several, but for the sake of arguement we’ll call this tribe U.S.A. Now, to be member of our tribe, YOU HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE.

If you choose not to, then you will be kicked out of said tribe. Now, because the government can’t deport you, and you no longer have the right to benefit from the tribe’s collective good, the only way to get you out of the tribe is to confine you. After some time goes by, you will be given another chance to contribute to the tribe’s well-being, if you elect not to contribute again, the cycle repeats.

Man is a social animal and lives in groups. These groups protect and help each other. That’s the point of the group. In our particular group we elect people to make the group decisions for us, so we can pursue other things(like complaining about those decisions).

Sometimes, as humans, we want to get philosophical about everything, but we forget the nuts and bolts of it.[/quote]

You are making an error, but an honest one. Your error is epistemological. You are ascribing identity to a group, over and above the individuals in the group. For example, when someone says : “For the good of the community…” or similar phraseology, they actually mean ‘for the good of the majority, or some members of the group.’

But this is precisely what I’m attacking. Forcing a member to work for someone else is actually detrimental to the group. There is no ‘group’ over and above the individuals within it. Harming one member harms someone in the group, thus hurting the group. Forcing someone to sacrifice for ‘the group’ is actually the philosophy of cannibals.

Therefore, it is up to us to ensure that our country does NOT become like others, a society of cannibals. The Katrina refugees must rely on private charity or themselves. Otherwise, they are moral-cannibals, consuming someone else’s extorted production.

47

[quote]RHINO928 wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
You mean like you should have done in the first place?

Just get your state to give back the money. Colorado recieves money from Louisiana oil and gas. And in addition, New Orleans and it’s port helped buid this country and is considered FEDERAL.

I guess Colorado has never received Federal assistance when it has flooded… Or any Federal money…Right?

http://cwcb.state.co.us/flood_watch/floodplain.html

owned.
[/quote]

If someone steals your car, do you have the right to go steal someone else’s?

48

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
RHINO928 wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
You mean like you should have done in the first place?

Just get your state to give back the money. Colorado recieves money from Louisiana oil and gas. And in addition, New Orleans and it’s port helped buid this country and is considered FEDERAL.

I guess Colorado has never received Federal assistance when it has flooded… Or any Federal money…Right?

http://cwcb.state.co.us/flood_watch/floodplain.html

owned.

If someone steals your car, do you have the right to go steal someone else’s?

[/quote]

If someone kills someone, we have the right to kill them. Does that count?

49

[quote]RHINO928 wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
You mean like you should have done in the first place?

Just get your state to give back the money. Colorado recieves money from Louisiana oil and gas. And in addition, New Orleans and it’s port helped buid this country and is considered FEDERAL.[/quote]

Colorado BUYS oil (not gas, as we’re one of the largest natural gas producers in the union) from LA. [quote]

I guess Colorado has never received Federal assistance when it has flooded… Or any Federal money…Right?

http://cwcb.state.co.us/flood_watch/floodplain.html

owned.
[/quote]
I’d be intersted to see if all these combined equals how much tax money has gone into NOLA.

Regardless, it was NO & LA responsibility to protect itself, which it obviously failed to do.

50

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
RHINO928 wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
You mean like you should have done in the first place?

Just get your state to give back the money. Colorado recieves money from Louisiana oil and gas. And in addition, New Orleans and it’s port helped buid this country and is considered FEDERAL.

Colorado BUYS oil (not gas, as we’re one of the largest natural gas producers in the union) from LA.

I guess Colorado has never received Federal assistance when it has flooded… Or any Federal money…Right?

http://cwcb.state.co.us/flood_watch/floodplain.html

owned.

I’d be intersted to see if all these combined equals how much tax money has gone into NOLA.

Regardless, it was NO & LA responsibility to protect itself, which it obviously failed to do.

[/quote]

But what about the millions stolen in Florida?

51

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

You are making an error, but an honest one. Your error is epistemological. You are ascribing identity to a group, over and above the individuals in the group. For example, when someone says : “For the good of the community…” or similar phraseology, they actually mean ‘for the good of the majority, or some members of the group.’[/quote]

Wow, first time I’ve had to look up an insult. Nice word.

When somebody says for the good of the community, they may actually mean for the good of the community. You are self-interpretting any meaning beyond this.[quote]

But this is precisely what I’m attacking. Forcing a member to work for someone else is actually detrimental to the group. There is no ‘group’ over and above the individuals within it.[/quote] At the same time, without the group, there would be no individual[quote]

Harming one member harms someone in the group, thus hurting the group. Forcing someone to sacrifice for ‘the group’ is actually the philosophy of cannibals.
[/quote]

You are equating harm and contribution, harm and sacrifice. These are not the same. You are not being harmed, but you ARE being forced to contribute to the society that you CHOOSE to belong to.

52

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You are making an error, but an honest one. Your error is epistemological. You are ascribing identity to a group, over and above the individuals in the group. For example, when someone says : “For the good of the community…” or similar phraseology, they actually mean ‘for the good of the majority, or some members of the group.’

But this is precisely what I’m attacking. Forcing a member to work for someone else is actually detrimental to the group. There is no ‘group’ over and above the individuals within it. Harming one member harms someone in the group, thus hurting the group. Forcing someone to sacrifice for ‘the group’ is actually the philosophy of cannibals.

Therefore, it is up to us to ensure that our country does NOT become like others, a society of cannibals. The Katrina refugees must rely on private charity or themselves. Otherwise, they are moral-cannibals, consuming someone else’s extorted production.

[/quote]

If you don’t like it here, why not move back to Africa?

53

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

Colorado BUYS oil (not gas, as we’re one of the largest natural gas producers in the union) from LA.

I’d be intersted to see if all these combined equals how much tax money has gone into NOLA.

Regardless, it was NO & LA responsibility to protect itself, which it obviously failed to do.

[/quote]

Wrong. They may buy gasoline, however ALL revenues generated by oil and gas in LA are shared with all 50 states. LA is #2 behind only Texas in oil and gas contributions to the general fund. Even a state as rich as California receives Louisiana money. It’s something we have been complaining about for many years. We asked for some of that money back to rebuild levees and we were denied. We have asked for 10 consecutive years and been denied 10 concsecutive times. So thank your Congress and elected officials, because now your going to pay regardless. Just look at one one month of Louisiana refineries being shut down did to gas prices. Hope you stay warm this winter too. Lousiana is the second largest crude refining state in the country.

I know sitting from where you are it’s easy to say fuck NOLA and our situation, but know that should this city not recover, the entire US economy is going to feel a lot more than if they help fix it. Those are the facts.

The US Government has always been charged with protecting the Port of NOLA because of it’s huge importance to the economy and growth of this country through domestic and international shipping. Why should that change now? In your America, is it fuck all of the other states except for the one you live in.

It’s really disgusting how some people see this as a Louisiana problem and not a US problem.

54

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

You are making an error, but an honest one. Your error is epistemological. You are ascribing identity to a group, over and above the individuals in the group. For example, when someone says : “For the good of the community…” or similar phraseology, they actually mean ‘for the good of the majority, or some members of the group.’

Wow, first time I’ve had to look up an insult. Nice word.

When somebody says for the good of the community, they may actually mean for the good of the community. You are self-interpretting any meaning beyond this.

But this is precisely what I’m attacking. Forcing a member to work for someone else is actually detrimental to the group. There is no ‘group’ over and above the individuals within it. At the same time, without the group, there would be no individual

Harming one member harms someone in the group, thus hurting the group. Forcing someone to sacrifice for ‘the group’ is actually the philosophy of cannibals.

You are equating harm and contribution, harm and sacrifice. These are not the same. You are not being harmed, but you ARE being forced to contribute to the society that you CHOOSE to belong to.

[/quote]

Isn’t ‘forced contribution’ the same as ‘required to volunteer’ as in “You will be required to volunteer a portion of your pay to Katrina refugees?”

You are calling extortion a ‘contribution’. Should I be excluded from the group if I disagree with the how the ‘group’ chooses to spend my ‘contribution’? This is precisely why I started this thread – I don’t want for someone to do evil under the guise of doing good. You cannot rob someone and make your act moral by giving the stolen goods to the needy.

I’m a teacher. I live for moments when a child understands thermodynamics or that not all functions have anti-derivatives. I couldn’t care less if I’m paid $1 or a million, I love teaching – I get to experience moments that most of you will experience only a few times in your lives. The parents who pay me are paying me a tribute with their money.

What do you think I think of someone who then shreiks at me on national TV about how evil we are? “Give me a job, give me housing, give me this or that…” That small amount of money was sacred; it’s bad enough it was extorted but then to see someone claim it as their right!! Disgusting.

55

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You are making an error, but an honest one. Your error is epistemological. You are ascribing identity to a group, over and above the individuals in the group. For example, when someone says : “For the good of the community…” or similar phraseology, they actually mean ‘for the good of the majority, or some members of the group.’

But this is precisely what I’m attacking. Forcing a member to work for someone else is actually detrimental to the group. There is no ‘group’ over and above the individuals within it. Harming one member harms someone in the group, thus hurting the group. Forcing someone to sacrifice for ‘the group’ is actually the philosophy of cannibals.

Therefore, it is up to us to ensure that our country does NOT become like others, a society of cannibals. The Katrina refugees must rely on private charity or themselves. Otherwise, they are moral-cannibals, consuming someone else’s extorted production.

If you don’t like it here, why not move back to Africa?
[/quote]

You are really some 16 year old who can’t go to school aren’t you? Are you a hs dropout who can’t find a job? Must be terrible – join the Marines. Get a real education.

56

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You are really some 16 year old who can’t go to school aren’t you? Are you a hs dropout who can’t find a job? Must be terrible – join the Marines. Get a real education.

[/quote]

All of these personal attacks are just uncalled for. Just because you get summers off…and Christmas (two WHOLE weeks)…and New Years…and Easter you think you can talk down to people.

57

[quote]RHINO928 wrote:

Wrong. They may buy gasoline, however ALL revenues generated by oil and gas in LA are shared with all 50 states. LA is #2 behind only Texas in oil and gas contributions to the general fund. Even a state as rich as California receives Louisiana money. [/quote]

You mean the Oil Companies that own the mineral rights (bought & paid for) “contribute” to the general fund via taxes, when the sell the oil?

58

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
You are really some 16 year old who can’t go to school aren’t you? Are you a hs dropout who can’t find a job? Must be terrible – join the Marines. Get a real education.

All of these personal attacks are just uncalled for. Just because you get summers off…and Christmas (two WHOLE weeks)…and New Years…and Easter you think you can talk down to people. [/quote]

I nailed it! You really are a teenager. Are you home schooling and do this because your bored?

59

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

You are making an error, but an honest one. Your error is epistemological. You are ascribing identity to a group, over and above the individuals in the group. For example, when someone says : “For the good of the community…” or similar phraseology, they actually mean ‘for the good of the majority, or some members of the group.’

Wow, first time I’ve had to look up an insult. Nice word.

When somebody says for the good of the community, they may actually mean for the good of the community. You are self-interpretting any meaning beyond this.

But this is precisely what I’m attacking. Forcing a member to work for someone else is actually detrimental to the group. There is no ‘group’ over and above the individuals within it. At the same time, without the group, there would be no individual

Harming one member harms someone in the group, thus hurting the group. Forcing someone to sacrifice for ‘the group’ is actually the philosophy of cannibals.

You are equating harm and contribution, harm and sacrifice. These are not the same. You are not being harmed, but you ARE being forced to contribute to the society that you CHOOSE to belong to.

Isn’t ‘forced contribution’ the same as ‘required to volunteer’ as in “You will be required to volunteer a portion of your pay to Katrina refugees?”[/quote]

Actually, if you’re referring to your fictional memo, NO it isn’t. You do not elect your employer to make decisions like these. Your contract, whether real or implied, stipulates that you will perform “x” service for “x” wages. That’s all. You do however elect your government to make them.
If you are a member of a teacher’s, or any, union you should be aware of how this works on a smaller level. To be a member of the union, you are required to volunteer a portion of your pay so the union can function properly. Some of those functions may only affect you indirectly, or not at all, but whatever the case, you are still required to pay.[quote]

You are calling extortion a ‘contribution’. Should I be excluded from the group if I disagree with the how the ‘group’ chooses to spend my ‘contribution’?[/quote]

Not as long as you MAKE the contribution. You’re entitled to disagree as much as you like. If enough people disagree, it doesn’t happen. That’s the beauty of Democracy.[quote]

This is precisely why I started this thread – I don’t want for someone to do evil under the guise of doing good.[/quote]

Helping victims of a natural disaster is evil disguised as good?[quote]

You cannot rob someone and make your act moral by giving the stolen goods to the needy.[/quote]

Allow me to reiterate. YOU ARE NOT BEING ROBBED!
You are being forced to contribute to the society you CHOOSE to be a part of. If you are unhappy about it, fine, but you still have to contribute. If you refuse to contribute, then you forfeit the right to be a member of this society.[quote]

What do you think I think of someone who then shreiks at me on national TV about how evil we are? “Give me a job, give me housing, give me this or that…” That small amount of money was sacred; it’s bad enough it was extorted but then to see someone claim it as their right!! Disgusting.
[/quote]

That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. CONTRIBUTE ANYWAY!!

Are you mad because a few citizens of NOLA didn’t ask nice? Is it the shreiking that has you in a tizzy? Since they lost EVERYTHING, I vote for giving them some slack if they have an occassional outburst. Money may be important, but it’s not sacred. Life is.
Money is a tool to protect what’s sacred.

60

[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

You are making an error, but an honest one. Your error is epistemological. You are ascribing identity to a group, over and above the individuals in the group. For example, when someone says : “For the good of the community…” or similar phraseology, they actually mean ‘for the good of the majority, or some members of the group.’

Wow, first time I’ve had to look up an insult. Nice word.

When somebody says for the good of the community, they may actually mean for the good of the community. You are self-interpretting any meaning beyond this.

But this is precisely what I’m attacking. Forcing a member to work for someone else is actually detrimental to the group. There is no ‘group’ over and above the individuals within it. At the same time, without the group, there would be no individual

Harming one member harms someone in the group, thus hurting the group. Forcing someone to sacrifice for ‘the group’ is actually the philosophy of cannibals.

You are equating harm and contribution, harm and sacrifice. These are not the same. You are not being harmed, but you ARE being forced to contribute to the society that you CHOOSE to belong to.

Isn’t ‘forced contribution’ the same as ‘required to volunteer’ as in “You will be required to volunteer a portion of your pay to Katrina refugees?”

Actually, if you’re referring to your fictional memo, NO it isn’t. You do not elect your employer to make decisions like these. Your contract, whether real or implied, stipulates that you will perform “x” service for “x” wages. That’s all. You do however elect your government to make them.
If you are a member of a teacher’s, or any, union you should be aware of how this works on a smaller level. To be a member of the union, you are required to volunteer a portion of your pay so the union can function properly. Some of those functions may only affect you indirectly, or not at all, but whatever the case, you are still required to pay.

You are calling extortion a ‘contribution’. Should I be excluded from the group if I disagree with the how the ‘group’ chooses to spend my ‘contribution’?

Not as long as you MAKE the contribution. You’re entitled to disagree as much as you like. If enough people disagree, it doesn’t happen. That’s the beauty of Democracy.

This is precisely why I started this thread – I don’t want for someone to do evil under the guise of doing good.

Helping victims of a natural disaster is evil disguised as good?

You cannot rob someone and make your act moral by giving the stolen goods to the needy.

Allow me to reiterate. YOU ARE NOT BEING ROBBED!
You are being forced to contribute to the society you CHOOSE to be a part of. If you are unhappy about it, fine, but you still have to contribute. If you refuse to contribute, then you forfeit the right to be a member of this society.

What do you think I think of someone who then shreiks at me on national TV about how evil we are? “Give me a job, give me housing, give me this or that…” That small amount of money was sacred; it’s bad enough it was extorted but then to see someone claim it as their right!! Disgusting.

That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. CONTRIBUTE ANYWAY!!

Are you mad because a few citizens of NOLA didn’t ask nice? Is it the shreiking that has you in a tizzy? Since they lost EVERYTHING, I vote for giving them some slack if they have an occassional outburst. Money may be important, but it’s not sacred. Life is.
Money is a tool to protect what’s sacred.
[/quote]

You’re still calling an extortion a contribution? Why? If your ideas are correct, why do the leaders of the group not ask the members of the group, “Hey guys, pony up! Some members are hurting over here.” Why do they have to resort to force? You say I must make contributions to a group I joined voluntarily – but ignore the difference between contribution and extortion.

Now, if you mean ‘dues’, then you may be on to something. But, if you were a member of a club, would you let the president spend your dues on some pet project, or to help his neighbor Charlie buy a new mower? No, you’d want him TO ASK FIRST.

Why can’t you see that compulsion is barbaric? Weren’t we all taught to ask first, before taking?

And to answer the persons who seem fascinated with “Oh, are you upset because they didn’t ASK nicely?” They didn’t ask!! They shreiked!! They DEMANDED!!