Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

A.D wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: There is no greed in claiming what one rightfully earned. Greed lies in claiming something you have no claim to.

In this I consider socialism to be greedy.

Earned. Interesting term. So, people who inherit things which they did nothing to earn....are they greedy?

They earned it by being a part of the family, and the person who did earn it shows that they wish to give it to them by putting them in their will.

Irrelevant point. They certainly have more claim to this money than someone who had nothing to do with it at all.

Quit trying to take peoples money from them, that is greed.

[Kindred]

cap'n queasy wrote: A.D wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: There is no greed in claiming what one rightfully earned. Greed lies in claiming something you have no claim to.

In this I consider socialism to be greedy.

Earned. Interesting term. So, people who inherit things which they did nothing to earn....are they greedy?

They earned it by being a part of the family, and the person who did earn it shows that they wish to give it to them by putting them in their will.

Irrelevant point. They certainly have more claim to this money than someone who had nothing to do with it at all.

Quit trying to take peoples money from them, that is greed.


Hmmm. I never thought of Rupert Murdoch's children as 'earning' their billion dollar empires.....

What about people who inherit capital, never work a day in their lives, and make money from the stream of wealth derived soley from that capital? Do they 'earn' that?

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: I never thought of Rupert Murdoch's children as 'earning' their billion dollar empires..

They earned it. Or Murdoch wouldn't have left it to them. The point is irrelevant anyway. It's Murdoch's money and he can what he wants with it. He could leave it to the John Birch Society or Islamic Jihad or the American Humane Society and you would have no case to say he couldn't. It's his money, not yours. So it's irrelevant whether you think it was earned or not.

What about someone who has never worked a day in his life and is on welfare, do they earn that? If they work, they can pay for themselves. They can save their money, which is how capital is created, and start their own business and if they are smart and work hard, maybe someday they will be able to leave their kids something too.

What's your point, anyway? That you are jealous that some folks are successful and want to take their money?

[The Impeacher]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I never thought of Rupert Murdoch's children as 'earning' their billion dollar empires..

They earned it. Or Murdoch wouldn't have left it to them. The point is irrelevant anyway. It's Murdoch's money and he can what he wants with it. He could leave it to the John Birch Society or Islamic Jihad or the American Humane Society and you would have no case to say he couldn't. It's his money, not yours. So it's irrelevant whether you think it was earned or not.

What about someone who has never worked a day in his life and is on welfare, do they earn that? If they work, they can pay for themselves. They can save their money, which is how capital is created, and start their own business and if they are smart and work hard, maybe someday they will be able to leave their kids something too.

What's your point, anyway? That you are jealous that some folks are successful and want to take their money?

so being born is... a form of "earning"? :lol:

for a self-proclaimed capitalist you have some serious aristocratic tendencies.

[social]

Yep

[Roy L]

The Impeacher wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I never thought of Rupert Murdoch's children as 'earning' their billion dollar empires..

They earned it. Or Murdoch wouldn't have left it to them. The point is irrelevant anyway. It's Murdoch's money and he can what he wants with it. He could leave it to the John Birch Society or Islamic Jihad or the American Humane Society and you would have no case to say he couldn't. It's his money, not yours. So it's irrelevant whether you think it was earned or not.

What about someone who has never worked a day in his life and is on welfare, do they earn that? If they work, they can pay for themselves. They can save their money, which is how capital is created, and start their own business and if they are smart and work hard, maybe someday they will be able to leave their kids something too.

What's your point, anyway? That you are jealous that some folks are successful and want to take their money?

so being born is... a form of "earning"? No, no. Being born is only earning if you are born to rich parents. If you are born to poor parents, that's lazy parasite welfare leeching.

Don't you know anything? ;^)

[The Impeacher]

ahhh, yes, i see NOW!

its helpful if you to have "earned" your poverty by being born into it...

up next: being born into the freedom of wage slavery!!!

:lol: :-|

[cap'n queasy]

The Impeacher wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: I never thought of Rupert Murdoch's children as 'earning' their billion dollar empires..

They earned it. Or Murdoch wouldn't have left it to them. The point is irrelevant anyway. It's Murdoch's money and he can what he wants with it. He could leave it to the John Birch Society or Islamic Jihad or the American Humane Society and you would have no case to say he couldn't. It's his money, not yours. So it's irrelevant whether you think it was earned or not.

What about someone who has never worked a day in his life and is on welfare, do they earn that? If they work, they can pay for themselves. They can save their money, which is how capital is created, and start their own business and if they are smart and work hard, maybe someday they will be able to leave their kids something too.

What's your point, anyway? That you are jealous that some folks are successful and want to take their money?

so being born is... a form of "earning"? :lol:

for a self-proclaimed capitalist you have some serious aristocratic tendencies.

If you are so concerned with people earning their money why do you want to give other peoples money to someone without them earning it?

The suppostion is merely a ploy to provoke a sentimental reaction among the naive.

[Roy L]

Free Thinkr wrote: Roy L wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Actually, no, you made the claim that it matches the usage of 'skilled and educated' native speakers and writers. No. That is not a mere claim, it is a fact, and its accuracy is easily verified by examining samples of educated writing that use the word (in the relevant literal sense, of course).
The above is an assertion. You are simply asserting that it is a fact. ?? Buddy, you need to buy a clue somewhere: the only way to IDENTIFY a fact is by ASSERTING it. Hello?
Quote:
Quote: Most others here merely make claims; I identify facts.
No, you are making a claim. Saying that it is used in such a way in "samples of educated writing" is a claim. Calling it a fact does not make it so, no matter how you rephrase it. ?? What a load of nonsense. How else could one identify a fact, other than by stating it?
Quote:
Quote: And in most cases, the facts I identify, which disprove the other side's false claims, are self-evident and indisputable.
Actually, it's neither. "Greed" is a very subjective concept. No, people manage to communicate quite well about it.
Quote:
Finding samples of usage that are very different in two pieces of literature would be quite an easy task;
Just not an easy enough task for you to accomplish....?
Yes, there are different senses of the word, poetic uses, metaphorical uses, etc. But the basic concept that is relevant to this discussion ("What is so damn wrong with greed") is clear and not subjective in the least.
Quote: though I wonder what your qualification for determining whether said literature is "educated" is. I am a professional writer and editor.
Quote:
Quote: Quote: Your evaluation may or may not be true; ?? What are you talking about? Of course it's true. Any educated person who has read any significant amount of English literature knows that's what the word means. Who on earth do you think you are fooling with this "may or may not be true" nonsense?
Another assertion. You are very bad at making a case. Also, I wasn't even arguing as to whether or not your claim was true (in fact, it's not), In fact, it is.
Quote: but simply pointing out that it was an unsupported claim rather than a fact. Now, predictably, you are just lying. The fact that the definition I gave is listed FIRST in a good dictionary is actually pretty conclusive support, as is the fact that other good dictionaries' first listings for the word are generally similar.
Quote:
Quote: Quote: simply declaring it to be factual is disingenuous. <yawn> So, you've decided to join the club of refuse-to-know-niks? You have lots of company....
LOL. Well, I'm convinced! You say that all literature uses the term in one certain way, Liar. I explicitly stated that it was the RELEVANT LITERAL sense of the word. Look up at the second quoted passage at the top of this post. Yep, there it is: the proof that you are a liar.

[Roy L]

A.D wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: There is no greed in claiming what one rightfully earned. Greed lies in claiming something you have no claim to.

In this I consider socialism to be greedy.

Earned. Interesting term. So, people who inherit things which they did nothing to earn....are they greedy? Greed is defined as a certain kind of excessive desire, not excessive acquisition.

[Roy L]

Reason wrote: Isn't greed just (to put it into broad terms) wanting lots and lots of things (physical and metaphysical)? There doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with that. Read the definition I quoted. Greed is the root of all evil.

[Roy L]

thefranzkafkafront wrote:
I hate it when arguments get into semantics
Those who do not define their terms are in the unfortunate position of not knowing what they are talking about. One of the great advances in philosophy in the 20th C was the consensus that definition must come before discussion. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on just what the definition of "definition" is...

[Roy L]

cap'n queasy wrote: There is no greed in claiming what one rightfully earned. Greed lies in claiming something you have no claim to. IF you also do not need it. To claim that a starving man's desire for food he has not worked to earn and can't buy is "greed" simply does violence to accepted usage.

[Roy L]

A.D wrote: Quote: All irrelevant. I have already provided the real definition of greed. Learn it, and use it. Problem solved

Quote: "greed n. 1) excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one needs or deserves."

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.

Your interpretation of the definition is incorrect.
No, it is quite correct.
Quote: The use of the word ‘or’ implies three alternative scenarios, not two; 1) one having an excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one needs, 2) one having a excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one deserves, and 3) one having an excessive, inordinate, or rapacious desire for much more than one needs and deserves.

My scenario clearly fits within the first, and arguably the third categories.

Your statement that my example is ‘irrelevant’ probably more highlights your misunderstanding of the dictionary meaning than anything else. A man who won’t spare a dollar of a billion dollar estate to save a thousand innocent men is greedy, irrespective of whether his estate is deserved or not. No. You're using the wrong word. His desire to keep that dollar is not greedy, because it's only a dollar. It's stingy, miserly, inhumane, sure. But not greedy.
Quote:
Likewise, a man who would rather purchase a $50,000 car, rather than save thousands of innocent peoples lives, is acting greedily.
No, that is just false, assuming he has earned the money for the car. You are simply claiming to be the judge of his priorities. We all choose to consume luxuries rather than "sell all we have, and give to the poor." Applying the word "greed" to that universal behavior robs the word of all meaning. Quote:
Quote: But you know what? What other people need and deserve has nothing whatever to do with what WE need or deserve.
Don’t be silly. We live in a global market place and undoubtedly benefit from the exploitation and destitution of third world nations on a daily basis.
Don't you be silly. The fact that we may inadvertently benefit from someone else's greed does not make us greedy. Hello? Quote:
Quote: 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.
Actually, it is a moral question which is of relevance so long as those circumstances exist. As long as you have the choice to save lives and chose not to, it is of great relevance. If the choice did not exist, it would be moot, but it does. The fact that there are moral issues and choices involved does not make it greedy to consume a luxury rather than give all one's money in excess of one's needs to those who need it more.
Quote:
Quote: 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.

I’m talking about the type of financial exploitation referred to in that book, and books like it (see Age of Consent by Monbiot, Globalization and its Discontents by Stiglitz, Understanding Power by Chomsky, Fences and Windows by Klien for example). To isolate the theft to bankers is to over simplify the issue, as our governments have a prime role, and our governments, supposedly, represent us and act on our behalf. ??? What? Now you are claiming one is responsible for the actions of one's government, even if one voted AGAINST it? Get serious. Quote: When we fail to address these issue, and continue to benefit from the pre-existing order, then it is at the behest of even the most ordinary person in society. Nonsense. IME most people are not even capable of understanding the economic relationships involved. They can't be held responsible for them, and their desire to spend their earnings as they see fit is not greed.

[Roy L]

cap'n queasy wrote: A.D wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: There is no greed in claiming what one rightfully earned. Greed lies in claiming something you have no claim to.

In this I consider socialism to be greedy.

Earned. Interesting term. So, people who inherit things which they did nothing to earn....are they greedy?

They earned it by being a part of the family, Nonsense. Quote: and the person who did earn it shows that they wish to give it to them by putting them in their will. Hehe. And your use of the word "did" shows that you know full well the heir did not....
Quote:
Irrelevant point. They certainly have more claim to this money than someone who had nothing to do with it at all. That doesn't mean their desire for it is not greed. Greed is the root of all evil, and you must surely be aware that many heirs have done evil to get their hands on inheritances.
Quote:
Quit trying to take peoples money from them, that is greed. Not if they obtained it unjustly, it isn't.

[Free Thinkr]

Roy L wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Roy L wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Actually, no, you made the claim that it matches the usage of 'skilled and educated' native speakers and writers. No. That is not a mere claim, it is a fact, and its accuracy is easily verified by examining samples of educated writing that use the word (in the relevant literal sense, of course).
The above is an assertion. You are simply asserting that it is a fact. ?? Buddy, you need to buy a clue somewhere: the only way to IDENTIFY a fact is by ASSERTING it. Hello?
No, it is you who needs to get a clue. In a debate, you make an assertion, and then you provide substantiation for it. You've only got the first part down.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Most others here merely make claims; I identify facts.
No, you are making a claim. Saying that it is used in such a way in "samples of educated writing" is a claim. Calling it a fact does not make it so, no matter how you rephrase it. ?? What a load of nonsense. How else could one identify a fact, other than by stating it?
How are we to know whether you're identifying an actual fact, or making s**t up? Enlighten us, Roy.

Quote: Quote: Quote: And in most cases, the facts I identify, which disprove the other side's false claims, are self-evident and indisputable.
Actually, it's neither. "Greed" is a very subjective concept. No, people manage to communicate quite well about it.
Not really. You'll note the exhaustive arguments over whether X or Y is greedy on these forums and in this very thread. Durh.

Quote: Quote: Finding samples of usage that are very different in two pieces of literature would be quite an easy task;
Just not an easy enough task for you to accomplish....?
Read Rand and then read Dickens; come back and tell me they use the term in the same way.

Quote: Yes, there are different senses of the word, poetic uses, metaphorical uses, etc. But the basic concept that is relevant to this discussion ("What is so damn wrong with greed") is clear and not subjective in the least.
Oh? Then how come we are 5 pages in with almost no actual discussion of the topic at hand? Why are we still wading through semantics? The answer is obvious.

Quote: Quote: though I wonder what your qualification for determining whether said literature is "educated" is. I am a professional writer and editor.
And? How do you go about determining whether literature is "educated?" Perhaps I should have said "criteria."

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Your evaluation may or may not be true; ?? What are you talking about? Of course it's true. Any educated person who has read any significant amount of English literature knows that's what the word means. Who on earth do you think you are fooling with this "may or may not be true" nonsense?
Another assertion. You are very bad at making a case. Also, I wasn't even arguing as to whether or not your claim was true (in fact, it's not), In fact, it is.
LOL. Again, you have the first part down swimmingly. If only you could get the substantiating part down, you'd be a mediocre debater.

Quote: Quote: but simply pointing out that it was an unsupported claim rather than a fact. Now, predictably, you are just lying. The fact that the definition I gave is listed FIRST in a good dictionary is actually pretty conclusive support, as is the fact that other good dictionaries' first listings for the word are generally similar.
What's a "good" dictionary? How does one determine whether a dictionary is "good" or not? How similar must it be for it to still fall under your nebulous "generally similar?"

All icing, no cake.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: simply declaring it to be factual is disingenuous. <yawn> So, you've decided to join the club of refuse-to-know-niks? You have lots of company....
LOL. Well, I'm convinced! You say that all literature uses the term in one certain way, Liar. I explicitly stated that it was the RELEVANT LITERAL sense of the word. Look up at the second quoted passage at the top of this post. Yep, there it is: the proof that you are a liar.
LOL. Whatever that's supposed to mean. More meaningless qualifiers to distract from the fact that you have been busted. Nice try though.

[Free Thinkr]

Roy L wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
I hate it when arguments get into semantics
Those who do not define their terms are in the unfortunate position of not knowing what they are talking about. One of the great advances in philosophy in the 20th C was the consensus that definition must come before discussion. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on just what the definition of "definition" is...
Actually, he provided a working definition for the purposes of this thread. Unfortunately, this forum is full of people like you who have nothing of substance to say, and instead choose to simply be contrary.

[cap'n queasy]

Roy L wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: There is no greed in claiming what one rightfully earned. Greed lies in claiming something you have no claim to. IF you also do not need it. To claim that a starving man's desire for food he has not worked to earn and can't buy is "greed" simply does violence to accepted usage.

Yeah but the people who aren't earning their way are having problems with obesity, so where does that leave you?

They also have cable TV, cell phones, and cars. That's total BS.

[cap'n queasy]

And 60% of people classified as poor own their own homes in the US.

[Kindred]

cap'n queasy wrote: Roy L wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: There is no greed in claiming what one rightfully earned. Greed lies in claiming something you have no claim to. IF you also do not need it. To claim that a starving man's desire for food he has not worked to earn and can't buy is "greed" simply does violence to accepted usage.

Yeah but the people who aren't earning their way are having problems with obesity, so where does that leave you?

They also have cable TV, cell phones, and cars. That's total BS.

People starving in Sub-Saharan Africa have obesity, cable TV, cell phones, and cars?