Political Crossfire Forums

The Grandmaster · Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:42 am Post subject:

garyd wrote: I still like my definition by example best. Abraham after all was the Bill gates of his day with far more than he could ever possibly need but his possessions did not rule his life.

If you are ruled by your possessions then you've got problems.

What is it to be ruled by one's possessions?

W.J. Wilczek · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 19

deleted

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

To be overzealous in their protection to see them as an end rather than as a means to and end.

Play chess Grandmaster?

W.J. Wilczek · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 19

deleted

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

Greed isn't about possession but your attachment to them. I've seen rich men who gave richly and generously, and poor men who'd rather die than part with a penny to buy a meal.

W.J. Wilczek · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 19

deleted

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

It is easier to be rich and without desire than poor and with desire.

W.J. Wilczek · Joined: 10 Apr 2006 Posts: 19

deleted

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

It is not wrong to desire peace, justice, and tranquility among one's relations.

Nor is it wrong to desire enough to eat or a good job. What is wrong is to horde food while others starve, or prevent others from having a good job.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:12 am Post subject:

garyd wrote: It is not wrong to desire peace, justice, and tranquility among one's relations.

Nor is it wrong to desire enough to eat or a good job. What is wrong is to horde food while others starve, or prevent others from having a good job.

If your talking about greed being the denial of resorces to others ,even in your non-greedy consumption you still do that as evey item you consume removes it from the market.

As i've said as its quantifiable the propisition is fallible.

thefranzkafkafront

Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Now there are as many definitions for a word as their are dictionaries, and none of them are infallible, but i did a bit of the ol' research and this is one i came up with that im fairly satisfied with.

Quote: Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs.
Sorry, but I consider that definition worse than useless. It does not accord with the sense of most dictionary definitions, and renders the word unable to denote what people normally mean by it. It is nothing but an attempt to smuggle your conclusion into the definitions of the terms of the discussion. Which may be a venerable form of argument, but is nonetheless a fallacious one.

Ok find me some dicatory definitions and justfy them.

Uh, Franz? It's your idiosyncratic definition that would need justifying, NOT dictionary definitions. Hello? Dictionary definitions are compiled by lexicographers -- who are experts in the field -- based on commonly accepted usage by skilled and educated native speakers and writers (that's me).
I did justfy it, few people are responding to that part.

Quote:
Webster's New Universal Unabridged gives an exemplary definition that IMO matches educated usage quite precisely: "greed n. 1) excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one needs or deserves."
Popularity dose not equate justification, nor dose the dictory of many people using it justify their usage and termanology of greed.
People need to stop hiding behind dictionaries and do some independant thinking.

Quote:
Notice the important implication of the second occurrence of the word, "or" this definition: it is not greedy to desire more than one needs, as long as one deserves it; nor is it greedy to desire more than one deserves, as long as one needs it. It is only when one neither needs nor deserves the desired item that desire becomes greed. Please take the time to rethink your position on greed in light of this definition.

Of the many words of wisdom in the Bible, IMO among the wisest is the observation that greed (unfortunately mistranslated as "love of money" in the King James version) is the root of all evil.
How can another human observer equate deservance?

The simple fact of the matter is that in a metrocracy who ever so aquires said materials deserves to have their out of the merit of their aqusition.

If people keep saying 'excessive' i want them to try and quantifiy it as cato has done.

I have a Tv is that excessive, after all i don't actually need it, papers and the crossword at the back could quite easily serve the dual function of information and entertainment. Is a Tv not execessive, am i not greedy?

When dose greed diverge from nessisary want, when is the qualifing split.

Kindred · Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:56 am Post subject:

Quote: I have a Tv is that excessive, after all i don't actually need it, papers and the crossword at the back could quite easily serve the dual function of information and entertainment. Is a Tv not execessive, am i not greedy?

When dose greed diverge from nessisary want, when is the qualifing split.

First of all, you really need to stop making up words :lol:

dictory?

deservance?

Secondly, I do believe that you, I, and everyone else with a T.V is being greedy to some degree. Basically, we are exercising our wants over the actual needs of others. In making the choice to purchase a T.V, or a new jacket or fast car, we are essentially saying that we value these material objects more than the life of innocent people starving in Africa [for example]. If we are reasonable, we can admit that many of these people generally do not deserve poverty and destitution, and have come into such a situation through no fault of there own.

We are, in actuality, allowing people to die in order to satisfy our selfish desires. We are all fully aware that a little money (to us), would make a sizeable difference to a starving child in Sudan, for example, but instead of actually saving a life (or ten), we purchase a T.V (in fact, a modern plasma T.V selling for $10,000 could save at least 50 children according to some coruses).

If that’s not greed, I’m not sure what is.

jawsome · Joined: 17 Jan 2004 Posts: 13372 Location: Berkeley

Uh oh, AD's been reading Singer. :]

I always bring up such an argument when people claim that selfishness/greed is inherently evil and should be avoided (this happens a lot when talking with my environmentalist/socialist friends). Everyone is extremely greedy by nature, if you ask me. It is only with education, experience, and compassion that people become a little less greedy.

garyd · Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 691 Location: tulsa, ok

AD If I hoarded TV's that would be greedy if I buy one for my use and leave others on the market for others to purchase precisely how is that greedy?

Your version of 'greedy' makes hypocrites of us all and while from a strictly religious perspective there is some truth in that I don't think you can use that as a meaningful definition for greed.

Cato · Joined: 28 Jul 2004 Posts: 1274 Location: Ottawa, ON

thefranzkafkafront wrote: If greed is entirely subjective how can it then be quantified, is then the western man in the village in africa, most problaly greedy by definition without doing a single thing.

I didn't say it was subjective, I said it was relative.

Quote: . . . Is then the western man in the village in Africa most problaly greedy by definition without doing a single thing.

I don't understand... If this 'western man' does nothing, I don't see why they would consider him greedy; he would simply starve. If he lived their lifestyle, took on their tools, then he wouldn't be looked on as greedy. Conversely, if he tried to live in their society with a pile of useless possessions, I just think they'd look on him as insane.

Native: 'Hrmm.. What's that box?'

Westerner: 'Why, it's a computer my good man..'

Native: 'What does it do?'

Westerner: 'Well, images appear on this flat part here, and sound comes out of these here...'

Native: 'What use is it? Will it help you hunt or farm, can you draw water with it?..'

Westerner: 'Well...'

Native: 'Show me how it works...'

Westerner: *frantically searching for a power-source*

Quote: And would not the greedy man of the village in the western city then not be greedy as his yard stick for greed would have moved.

A farmer from a village in Africa moves to New York with all of his possessions... He was considered greedy in his village because he happened upon a satchel containing $1000, and wouldn't share the wealth with his starving family. Now he's in New York with his 1k. How wealthy is he now? He wont be able to afford to live there; nobody's going to call him greedy (unless they hear about how he didn't help out his family back home).

Quote: Is the defintion for greed is not universal it cannot be quantified, and if it cannot be quantified it cannot be said to exist as anything more than subjective emotional essement.

But it's relative, not subjective!

Roy L · Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 1819

thefranzkafkafront wrote:
If your talking about greed being the denial of resorces to others ,even in your non-greedy consumption you still do that as evey item you consume removes it from the market. Wrong. The item was only produced in the first place so that someone could "remove it from the market" and consume it. Buying products therefore deprives no one of anything.

Roy L · Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 1819

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Now there are as many definitions for a word as their are dictionaries, and none of them are infallible, but i did a bit of the ol' research and this is one i came up with that im fairly satisfied with.

Quote: Greed is a desire to obtain more money, wealth, material possessions or any other entity than one needs.
Sorry, but I consider that definition worse than useless. It does not accord with the sense of most dictionary definitions, and renders the word unable to denote what people normally mean by it. It is nothing but an attempt to smuggle your conclusion into the definitions of the terms of the discussion. Which may be a venerable form of argument, but is nonetheless a fallacious one.

Ok find me some dicatory definitions and justfy them.

Uh, Franz? It's your idiosyncratic definition that would need justifying, NOT dictionary definitions. Hello? Dictionary definitions are compiled by lexicographers -- who are experts in the field -- based on commonly accepted usage by skilled and educated native speakers and writers (that's me).
I did justfy it, few people are responding to that part. ??? No, you most certainly did not, and everything we have seen here shows it is just flat wrong.
Quote: Quote:
Webster's New Universal Unabridged gives an exemplary definition that IMO matches educated usage quite precisely: "greed n. 1) excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one needs or deserves."
Popularity dose not equate justification,
Uh, Franz? When you are talking about definitions, popularity does equate to justification. Quote: nor dose the dictory of many people using it justify their usage and termanology of greed. ?? What on earth do you imagine you are talking about? The meaning of a word is determined by how people use it. Hello? Quote:
People need to stop hiding behind dictionaries and do some independant thinking. Simple question, Franz: do you want to communicate, or not? 'Cause making up your own definitions can only result in the latter.
Quote: Quote:
Notice the important implication of the second occurrence of the word, "or" this definition: it is not greedy to desire more than one needs, as long as one deserves it; nor is it greedy to desire more than one deserves, as long as one needs it. It is only when one neither needs nor deserves the desired item that desire becomes greed. Please take the time to rethink your position on greed in light of this definition.
How can another human observer equate deservance? By noting whether reward is commensurate with contribution.
Quote:
The simple fact of the matter is that in a metrocracy who ever so aquires said materials deserves to have their out of the merit of their aqusition. ?? What on earth is a metrocracy? Anything to do with metrosexuals? Aren't you just trying to smuggle your conclusion into your definitions again?
Quote:
If people keep saying 'excessive' i want them to try and quantifiy it as cato has done. More than is needed or deserved. I already told you that. What is the point of my correcting your errors if you just ignore the facts I provide for you? Am I talking to a brick wall, here, or what?
Quote:
I have a Tv is that excessive, after all i don't actually need it, papers and the crossword at the back could quite easily serve the dual function of information and entertainment. Is a Tv not execessive, am i not greedy? Look, Franz, I already told you to rethink your position based on the ACCURATE definition of greed that I very patiently and generously provided for you. So, DO IT. NOW. You will neither understand anything about greed nor be able to communicate about it if you insist on making up your own false definitions for it.
Quote:
When dose greed diverge from nessisary want, when is the qualifing split. Please consult the real (i.e., a good dictionary's, not your own) definition of greed. It will provide your answer.

Roy L · Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 1819

A.D wrote:
Secondly, I do believe that you, I, and everyone else with a T.V is being greedy to some degree. Basically, we are exercising our wants over the actual needs of others. In making the choice to purchase a T.V, or a new jacket or fast car, we are essentially saying that we value these material objects more than the life of innocent people starving in Africa [for example]. If we are reasonable, we can admit that many of these people generally do not deserve poverty and destitution, and have come into such a situation through no fault of there own. All irrelevant. I have already provided the real definition of greed. Learn it, and use it. Problem solved.
Quote:
We are, in actuality, allowing people to die in order to satisfy our selfish desires. We are all fully aware that a little money (to us), would make a sizeable difference to a starving child in Sudan, for example, but instead of actually saving a life (or ten), we purchase a T.V (in fact, a modern plasma T.V selling for $10,000 could save at least 50 children according to some coruses).
But you know what? What other people need and deserve has nothing whatever to do with what WE need or deserve. So the plight of the poor in other countries has absolutely nothing to do with whether someone in this country buys a TV rather than making a donation to Save the Children.

Now, if you are talking about international financial exploitation and oppression (as described in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" for example), then yes, greed in this country is a problem for poor people in other countries. But that's the owners and executives of big banks and so on being greedy for higher dividends and more valuable stock options. Not some ordinary guy buying a TV. Quote:
If that’s not greed, I’m not sure what is. And you won't be, as long as you ignore the DEFINITION of greed.

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6289

There's nothing wrong with greed. Nothing at all.

If you think something is immoral, then blame the government. The government should pass laws against things that are "bad." Corporations are not responsible for the well-being of society. THey are only responsible to their shareholders. It is the government's job to take care of the interests of society--not big pharm, not exxon-mobil, not haliburton.

Corporations have a right to be greedy. When you sell something on ebay, you hope that the price goes as high as possible. Corporations are doing the same thing.

Government officials, however, should have their constituents interests in mind. If government officials act in a greedy manner, then they are to blame.

So in summary--blame the government, not the corporation.

Roy L · Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 1819

ieatfood wrote: There's nothing wrong with greed. Nothing at all.
Hint: Gordon Gekko was not the good guy.