Political Crossfire Forums

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: If I make a chain of hotels, then they'll only make me money if other people consensually pay for them. I am taking from no-one, and making a lot that many people obviously find useful. That money is therefore mine and if I choose to give it to my good-for-nothing daughter, then it's my choice.

Furthermore if you aren't going to let me use my money in the way that I deem most fit then it's worth less to me and I may not make the chain of hotels, or make them so well, and other people will be worse off for it - including by a long chain of mutually consensual transactions starving children in Africa.

As usual, you are ignorant of the subject about which you post. Conrad Hilton was the founder of the Hilton hotel chain, and Paris Hilton's great grandfather. Whe he died, he left a will stating that each of his siblings was to receive $250k and each of his nieces and nephews were to receive $10k, the remainder of his $350 million fortune was to go towards establishing a philanthropic organization that was to establish prizes for humanitarian work. Nine years after his death, his second son (William Barron Hilton, Paris grandfather) contested the will in court, had a judgement awarded in his favor, and walked away with $335 million, DIRECTLY AGAINST the written wishes of his father. So clearly and obviuously, your claim that Paris' money is the result of consentual transaction is demonstrated to be FALSE.

I was simplifying and never actually mentioned the Hiltons. What Mr 'challenge my own father's will' Hilton did was wrong, at least from the facts you gave me.

So given that information, do you now acknowledge that Paris Hilton's fortune was wrongfully acquired and cannot be morally justified?

Assuming that information is correct, then I agree. Her Grandfather's will should have been fulfilled.

But it wasn't, and that was a long time ago. So now the question is - how do we rectify the situation?

[garyd]

Define fair? That the majority should be able to tell Paris' mommy and daddy what to do with their money?

It's their money they earned it they have the right to do with it as they please. If giving a large chunk of it to their brainless daughter is how they choose to pursue happiness what business is that of yours?

The only people on the Simlpe life who uniformly come off as insensitive low class bores are Paris and Nicole and most of them aren't poor except of course in Comparison to The Hiltons.

And let's not forget that Paris' extravagance helps a good many others to live well and helps keeps a lot of people from dog food manufactures to furriers to clothing designers in business.

And no I'm not a fan. Had the girl been born to parents of average means she'd probably be on welfare with six kids by now.

[Robin Hood]

RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: If I make a chain of hotels, then they'll only make me money if other people consensually pay for them. I am taking from no-one, and making a lot that many people obviously find useful. That money is therefore mine and if I choose to give it to my good-for-nothing daughter, then it's my choice.

Furthermore if you aren't going to let me use my money in the way that I deem most fit then it's worth less to me and I may not make the chain of hotels, or make them so well, and other people will be worse off for it - including by a long chain of mutually consensual transactions starving children in Africa.

As usual, you are ignorant of the subject about which you post. Conrad Hilton was the founder of the Hilton hotel chain, and Paris Hilton's great grandfather. Whe he died, he left a will stating that each of his siblings was to receive $250k and each of his nieces and nephews were to receive $10k, the remainder of his $350 million fortune was to go towards establishing a philanthropic organization that was to establish prizes for humanitarian work. Nine years after his death, his second son (William Barron Hilton, Paris grandfather) contested the will in court, had a judgement awarded in his favor, and walked away with $335 million, DIRECTLY AGAINST the written wishes of his father. So clearly and obviuously, your claim that Paris' money is the result of consentual transaction is demonstrated to be FALSE.

I was simplifying and never actually mentioned the Hiltons. What Mr 'challenge my own father's will' Hilton did was wrong, at least from the facts you gave me.

So given that information, do you now acknowledge that Paris Hilton's fortune was wrongfully acquired and cannot be morally justified?

Assuming that information is correct, then I agree. Her Grandfather's will should have been fulfilled.

But it wasn't, and that was a long time ago. So now the question is - how do we rectify the situation?

I don't know...somewhere between forgive and forget, and returning some of the money to the stated receiver in the original will.

[garyd]

Courts vacate contracts and wills all the time. I'd need a heck of a lot more details than you given to decide whether or not the Jury who had all the facts before them made the proper decision.

[RueTheDay]

garyd wrote: Define fair? That the majority should be able to tell Paris' mommy and daddy what to do with their money?

It's their money they earned it they have the right to do with it as they please. If giving a large chunk of it to their brainless daughter is how they choose to pursue happiness what business is that of yours?

The only people on the Simlpe life who uniformly come off as insensitive low class bores are Paris and Nicole and most of them aren't poor except of course in Comparison to The Hiltons.

And let's not forget that Paris' extravagance helps a good many others to live well and helps keeps a lot of people from dog food manufactures to furriers to clothing designers in business.

And no I'm not a fan. Had the girl been born to parents of average means she'd probably be on welfare with six kids by now.

How was it "their money" when the courts distributed it against the will of the person who actually earned it and specified how it was to be distributed upon his death?

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: If I make a chain of hotels, then they'll only make me money if other people consensually pay for them. I am taking from no-one, and making a lot that many people obviously find useful. That money is therefore mine and if I choose to give it to my good-for-nothing daughter, then it's my choice.

Furthermore if you aren't going to let me use my money in the way that I deem most fit then it's worth less to me and I may not make the chain of hotels, or make them so well, and other people will be worse off for it - including by a long chain of mutually consensual transactions starving children in Africa.

As usual, you are ignorant of the subject about which you post. Conrad Hilton was the founder of the Hilton hotel chain, and Paris Hilton's great grandfather. Whe he died, he left a will stating that each of his siblings was to receive $250k and each of his nieces and nephews were to receive $10k, the remainder of his $350 million fortune was to go towards establishing a philanthropic organization that was to establish prizes for humanitarian work. Nine years after his death, his second son (William Barron Hilton, Paris grandfather) contested the will in court, had a judgement awarded in his favor, and walked away with $335 million, DIRECTLY AGAINST the written wishes of his father. So clearly and obviuously, your claim that Paris' money is the result of consentual transaction is demonstrated to be FALSE.

I was simplifying and never actually mentioned the Hiltons. What Mr 'challenge my own father's will' Hilton did was wrong, at least from the facts you gave me.

So given that information, do you now acknowledge that Paris Hilton's fortune was wrongfully acquired and cannot be morally justified?

Assuming that information is correct, then I agree. Her Grandfather's will should have been fulfilled.

But it wasn't, and that was a long time ago. So now the question is - how do we rectify the situation?

I don't know...somewhere between forgive and forget, and returning some of the money to the stated receiver in the original will.

Forgive and forget? :lol:

Are all of your moral principles founded upon arbitrary quips like that and "first come first serve"?

[Robin Hood]

RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: If I make a chain of hotels, then they'll only make me money if other people consensually pay for them. I am taking from no-one, and making a lot that many people obviously find useful. That money is therefore mine and if I choose to give it to my good-for-nothing daughter, then it's my choice.

Furthermore if you aren't going to let me use my money in the way that I deem most fit then it's worth less to me and I may not make the chain of hotels, or make them so well, and other people will be worse off for it - including by a long chain of mutually consensual transactions starving children in Africa.

As usual, you are ignorant of the subject about which you post. Conrad Hilton was the founder of the Hilton hotel chain, and Paris Hilton's great grandfather. Whe he died, he left a will stating that each of his siblings was to receive $250k and each of his nieces and nephews were to receive $10k, the remainder of his $350 million fortune was to go towards establishing a philanthropic organization that was to establish prizes for humanitarian work. Nine years after his death, his second son (William Barron Hilton, Paris grandfather) contested the will in court, had a judgement awarded in his favor, and walked away with $335 million, DIRECTLY AGAINST the written wishes of his father. So clearly and obviuously, your claim that Paris' money is the result of consentual transaction is demonstrated to be FALSE.

I was simplifying and never actually mentioned the Hiltons. What Mr 'challenge my own father's will' Hilton did was wrong, at least from the facts you gave me.

So given that information, do you now acknowledge that Paris Hilton's fortune was wrongfully acquired and cannot be morally justified?

Assuming that information is correct, then I agree. Her Grandfather's will should have been fulfilled.

But it wasn't, and that was a long time ago. So now the question is - how do we rectify the situation?

I don't know...somewhere between forgive and forget, and returning some of the money to the stated receiver in the original will.

Forgive and forget? :lol:

Are all of your moral principles founded upon arbitrary quips like that and "first come first serve"?

You're really pathetic. I have zero trustworthy information on what actually happened yet you expect an exact and complete answer? Or are you pretending to expect one just to be annoying? Maybe it's just that you're unhappy because I gave you nothing with which to deny my unanswered arguments for land ownership? Furthermore I said 'somewhere between forgive and forget, and returning some of the money to the stated receiver in the original will'. Anyway, you haven't actually stated what you would do?

[RueTheDay]

Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Reason wrote: If I make a chain of hotels, then they'll only make me money if other people consensually pay for them. I am taking from no-one, and making a lot that many people obviously find useful. That money is therefore mine and if I choose to give it to my good-for-nothing daughter, then it's my choice.

Furthermore if you aren't going to let me use my money in the way that I deem most fit then it's worth less to me and I may not make the chain of hotels, or make them so well, and other people will be worse off for it - including by a long chain of mutually consensual transactions starving children in Africa.

As usual, you are ignorant of the subject about which you post. Conrad Hilton was the founder of the Hilton hotel chain, and Paris Hilton's great grandfather. Whe he died, he left a will stating that each of his siblings was to receive $250k and each of his nieces and nephews were to receive $10k, the remainder of his $350 million fortune was to go towards establishing a philanthropic organization that was to establish prizes for humanitarian work. Nine years after his death, his second son (William Barron Hilton, Paris grandfather) contested the will in court, had a judgement awarded in his favor, and walked away with $335 million, DIRECTLY AGAINST the written wishes of his father. So clearly and obviuously, your claim that Paris' money is the result of consentual transaction is demonstrated to be FALSE.

I was simplifying and never actually mentioned the Hiltons. What Mr 'challenge my own father's will' Hilton did was wrong, at least from the facts you gave me.

So given that information, do you now acknowledge that Paris Hilton's fortune was wrongfully acquired and cannot be morally justified?

Assuming that information is correct, then I agree. Her Grandfather's will should have been fulfilled.

But it wasn't, and that was a long time ago. So now the question is - how do we rectify the situation?

I don't know...somewhere between forgive and forget, and returning some of the money to the stated receiver in the original will.

Forgive and forget? :lol:

Are all of your moral principles founded upon arbitrary quips like that and "first come first serve"?

You're really pathetic. I have zero trustworthy information on what actually happened yet you expect an exact and complete answer? Or are you pretending to expect one just to be annoying? Maybe it's just that you're unhappy because I gave you nothing with which to deny my unanswered arguments for land ownership? Furthermore I said 'somewhere between forgive and forget, and returning some of the money to the stated receiver in the original will'. Anyway, you haven't actually stated what you would do?

A simple Google search would give you all of the information you needed regarding the Hilton family fortune and its history. Of course, that presumes that you are actually interested in learning the truth, which I doubt.

[garyd]

Again sir why did the court decide in their favor? Courts in general rule in favor of the side with the best case.

Interestingly the Court seems to have taken his side because a great deal of his fathers estate would not have existed except through Barron Hilton's efforts so indeed it appears the courts thought it was Barron's Money. Nice try though...

[RueTheDay]

garyd wrote: Again sir why did the court decide in their favor? Courts in general rule in favor of the side with the best case.

Courts have been known to issue all sorts of illogical and unjust decisions from time to time.

Quote:
Interestingly the Court seems to have taken his side because a great deal of his fathers estate would not have existed except through Barron Hilton's efforts so indeed it appears the courts thought it was Barron's Money. Nice try though...

Then Barron should have negotiated a better deal with Conrad, including partial ownership, while Conrad was still alive. Your argument is akin to GM workers stating after the fact that they built GM, therefore the company belongs to them and not GM's shareholders.

[Free Thinkr]

RueTheDay wrote: garyd wrote: Define fair? That the majority should be able to tell Paris' mommy and daddy what to do with their money?

It's their money they earned it they have the right to do with it as they please. If giving a large chunk of it to their brainless daughter is how they choose to pursue happiness what business is that of yours?

The only people on the Simlpe life who uniformly come off as insensitive low class bores are Paris and Nicole and most of them aren't poor except of course in Comparison to The Hiltons.

And let's not forget that Paris' extravagance helps a good many others to live well and helps keeps a lot of people from dog food manufactures to furriers to clothing designers in business.

And no I'm not a fan. Had the girl been born to parents of average means she'd probably be on welfare with six kids by now.

How was it "their money" when the courts distributed it against the will of the person who actually earned it and specified how it was to be distributed upon his death?
Ultimately the courts are the final arbiter. Your apparent dislike for that is irrelevant.

[RueTheDay]

Free Thinkr wrote: RueTheDay wrote: garyd wrote: Define fair? That the majority should be able to tell Paris' mommy and daddy what to do with their money?

It's their money they earned it they have the right to do with it as they please. If giving a large chunk of it to their brainless daughter is how they choose to pursue happiness what business is that of yours?

The only people on the Simlpe life who uniformly come off as insensitive low class bores are Paris and Nicole and most of them aren't poor except of course in Comparison to The Hiltons.

And let's not forget that Paris' extravagance helps a good many others to live well and helps keeps a lot of people from dog food manufactures to furriers to clothing designers in business.

And no I'm not a fan. Had the girl been born to parents of average means she'd probably be on welfare with six kids by now.

How was it "their money" when the courts distributed it against the will of the person who actually earned it and specified how it was to be distributed upon his death?
Ultimately the courts are the final arbiter. Your apparent dislike for that is irrelevant.

This is the Philosophy Forum and we are discussing a matter of ethics, not law. If the courts decide that all income over $70k/year is to be taxed at 100%, is your position that such an act must be right because the courts are the "final arbiter"?

[zelda]

there's no such thing as fairness or unfairness. who are you to decide what's just and what's not? i don't even find this topic with paris hilton relevant in any way for anything. paris hilton is nothing but a very rich and dumb bimbo.period. i don't see how she can become an international issue and what's more how she can become a philosophy subject! people are not, have never been and will never be equal, you just have to live and deal with this. instead of thinking and debating whether paris hilton's enhariting millions of dollars is fair, when there are so many poor people in the world, you'd better go in the kitchen make a couple of sandwiches and then go out and give them to the first beggar you see. and suddenly, things will seem a bit more "fair" for at least one poor guy.

[Robin Hood]

zelda wrote: you'd better go in the kitchen make a couple of sandwiches and then go out and give them to the first beggar you see. and suddenly, things will seem a bit more "fair" for at least one poor guy.

:clap:

[Roy L]

zelda wrote: there's no such thing as fairness or unfairness.
That sort of directly anti-rational claim is one of the ways the beneficiaries of unfairness and other evils perpetuate them. Quote: who are you to decide what's just and what's not?
I'm a thinking human being. That's what qualifies me to decide what's just and what's not. If you don't feel qualified, I can understand why, believe me. But that doesn't mean others are not better qualified than you.
Quote: i don't even find this topic with paris hilton relevant in any way for anything. paris hilton is nothing but a very rich and dumb bimbo.period. i don't see how she can become an international issue and what's more how she can become a philosophy subject! She's just a case in point. Quote: people are not, have never been and will never be equal, you just have to live and deal with this.
The issue is the meaning of equal rights and equal opportunity, not equality of identity or condition. Quote:
instead of thinking and debating whether paris hilton's enhariting millions of dollars is fair, when there are so many poor people in the world, you'd better go in the kitchen make a couple of sandwiches and then go out and give them to the first beggar you see. and suddenly, things will seem a bit more "fair" for at least one poor guy.
Yeah, that's it. If you don't like injustice, devote all your time and effort to trying to overcome its effects. Don't you dare even think about reforming the unjust institutions that cause them. In fact, there's no such thing as justice or injustice, so you can't complain about any institution being unjust.

Lalalala don't think about institutions lalalala don't think about how some benefit while others are harmed lalala no such things as justice or injustice anyway lalala it's all your fault because you're not helping the victims yourself lalala who are you to think you can decide what is just and unjust when it's all your fault anyway lalala....

Isn't it funny how a rich bimbo like Paris Hilton can somehow bring us face to face with the problem of Evil?

[zelda]

Roy L wrote: I'm a thinking human being. That's what qualifies me to decide what's just and what's not. If you don't feel qualified, I can understand why, believe me. But that doesn't mean others are not better qualified than you.

and i'm a walking melon unqualified to decide what's just and what's not because my opinion differs from yours. it's very interesting how many people seem to believe they hold the supreme knowledge of the world, congratulations you're one of the chosens!!

Quote: people are not, have never been and will never be equal, you just have to live and deal with this.
[/quote]The issue is the meaning of equal rights and equal opportunity, not equality of identity or condition.[/quote]

how can you have equal opportunities if you don't have equal conditions? it's just a question, i was hoping you would explain it to me, obviously i'm not as smart as you to understand.

Quote: instead of thinking and debating whether paris hilton's enhariting millions of dollars is fair, when there are so many poor people in the world, you'd better go in the kitchen make a couple of sandwiches and then go out and give them to the first beggar you see. and suddenly, things will seem a bit more "fair" for at least one poor guy.
Quote: Yeah, that's it. If you don't like injustice, devote all your time and effort to trying to overcome its effects. Don't you dare even think about reforming the unjust institutions that cause them. In fact, there's no such thing as justice or injustice, so you can't complain about any institution being unjust.

is paris hilton an institution? are rich people in general, institutions? my guess is that she isn't, she's just a chick lucky enough to inherit money she can spend exactly the way she wants to. this is no crime, everybody is free to spend his/her money on what they want, this doesn't make them in any way messengers of the devil.

Quote: Lalalala don't think about institutions lalalala don't think about how some benefit while others are harmed lalala no such things as justice or injustice anyway lalala it's all your fault because you're not helping the victims yourself lalala who are you to think you can decide what is just and unjust when it's all your fault anyway lalala....

lalalala isn't it funny how people talk when they have lalalala nothing to say? isn't it funny lalala when people accuse lalala when they have no lalala clue of what they're talking about? isn't it lalalala funny how people envy and blame lalala other people who have more money than they do and believe lalala it's unfair because people are starving, dieing, etc lalala in the world and they themselves won't move a lalalal finger to change this?
if you are so revolted against this situation, do something, stop whining, stop discussing philosophy when there's no need to do it, just do something about it! there's no need to donate money or ask others to do it, give those poor people you consider to be in an unjust situation food, compassion, do voluntary work, help somehow! this is my point. if you don't like something you see, do something to change it. complaining that paris hilton unfairly inherited millions of dollars is nothing else but a whole bunch of lalalala.

[Roy L]

zelda wrote: Roy L wrote: I'm a thinking human being. That's what qualifies me to decide what's just and what's not. If you don't feel qualified, I can understand why, believe me. But that doesn't mean others are not better qualified than you.

and i'm a walking melon unqualified to decide what's just and what's not because my opinion differs from yours. Yeah, I figured. Quote: it's very interesting how many people seem to believe they hold the supreme knowledge of the world, congratulations you're one of the chosens!!
Some people think they can browbeat their moral and intellectual betters by demanding, "who are you to judge what's just and unjust?" Others are so unsure of their moral ground that they fall for that sort of thing.

But I am not one of them. Quote: Quote:
Quote: people are not, have never been and will never be equal, you just have to live and deal with this.
The issue is the meaning of equal rights and equal opportunity, not equality of identity or condition.

how can you have equal opportunities if you don't have equal conditions? By ensuring that the inequality of conditions is not imposed deliberately, by force, to make opportunities unequal. Quote:
Quote:
Quote: instead of thinking and debating whether paris hilton's enhariting millions of dollars is fair, when there are so many poor people in the world, you'd better go in the kitchen make a couple of sandwiches and then go out and give them to the first beggar you see. and suddenly, things will seem a bit more "fair" for at least one poor guy. "Seem" being the operative word, here.... Quote:
Quote: Yeah, that's it. If you don't like injustice, devote all your time and effort to trying to overcome its effects. Don't you dare even think about reforming the unjust institutions that cause them. In fact, there's no such thing as justice or injustice, so you can't complain about any institution being unjust.

is paris hilton an institution? are rich people in general, institutions? my guess is that she isn't, she's just a chick lucky enough to inherit money she can spend exactly the way she wants to. this is no crime, everybody is free to spend his/her money on what they want, this doesn't make them in any way messengers of the devil. Judging by these strawmen strewn all over the place, looks like you were right: you're not qualified to understand any of this.
Quote:
Quote: Lalalala don't think about institutions lalalala don't think about how some benefit while others are harmed lalala no such things as justice or injustice anyway lalala it's all your fault because you're not helping the victims yourself lalala who are you to think you can decide what is just and unjust when it's all your fault anyway lalala....

lalalala isn't it funny how people talk when they have lalalala nothing to say? <yawn> Not really. I see you doing it now, and it strikes me as more stupid and dishonest than funny. But YMMV.
Quote:
isn't it funny lalala when people accuse lalala when they have no lalala clue of what they're talking about? isn't it lalalala funny how people envy Ah. There it is. I knew the "envy" card would be played before very long. It always is. There has never been a time -- and probably never will be -- when those who object to injustice have not been accused of envy for its beneficiaries: "You think slavery should be abolished? Envy! Just buy some slaves of your own, then you won't have anything to be so envious of, you envious, whining little nuisance! Problem solved!"

That about it, servant of Evil?
Quote: and blame lalala other people who have more money than they do Would you now be, well, LYING about what I have plainly written? Because that would be the usual procedure at this point, and as you know, I have not said that airheaded bimbos like Paris Hilton are to blame for the systematic, institutionalized injustices of which she is a beneficiary, but that she is no doubt even more remote from understanding than you are. Quote: and believe lalala it's unfair because people are starving, dieing, etc lalala in the world and they themselves won't move a lalalal finger to change this?
Oddly enough, I'm moving my fingers to change it right at this very instant. Just as you're moving yours to stop it from being changed. Quote:
if you are so revolted against this situation, do something, stop whining, stop discussing philosophy when there's no need to do it,
Oh, there is very much a need to discuss it. To bring it out into the open. To shine the cold glare of fact and logic on it, and reveal its true nature and cause. Which might be why you want to stop me from discussing it, by diverting my efforts to treating the symptoms rather than curing the disease:

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -- Henry David Thoreau
Quote:
just do something about it! there's no need to donate money or ask others to do it, give those poor people you consider to be in an unjust situation food, compassion, do voluntary work, help somehow! this is my point. if you don't like something you see, do something to change it. complaining that paris hilton unfairly inherited millions of dollars is nothing else but a whole bunch of lalalala. Probably a lot of people fall for this sort of diversionary guilt-trip tactic, and waste their lives hacking at the branches of evil that grew because others before them were similarly diverted from attacking the root.

But I am not one of them.

[Kindred]

ieatfood wrote: Ssushi wrote:

Typically capitalist systems exploit 3rd world countries via cheap labour and the like. Who would the poor nations exploit in order to adopt the capitalist system?

uh
thats not exploitation
thats called mutual benefit
the third world countries are made better off too

exploitation is when one party gains while the other party loses
this is clearly not the case

The global economic system is built on exploitation of the poor world for the benefit of the rich world. The very fact that we enforce a cash economy on nations is what deprives many of so much. The fact that we let them continue to pay debt incurred through unjust mechanisms highlights its exploitative nature ($384 billion flows from south to north due to these debts, which have already been paid [the principle that is] several times over in many cases]).

For all your admiration of 'capitalism' (which you refer to as if it is a moving, thnking object with goals and ambitions of its own), you fail to see its deleterious effects. Take Latin America; many countries such as Argentina and Bolivia totally privatised their economies, with the result being major decreases in growth rates, and in some cases actual decrease in growth, period. It confounded the conditions of the middle class, which had seen decent increases in quality of life for 20 years prior to this catastrophy. Capitalism is not a mesiah, it has its benefits and its shortcommings- generally as one tide is raising, another is ebbing, with disasterous results in some instances.

[zelda]

Quote:
lalalala isn't it funny how people talk when they have lalalala nothing to say? Quote: <yawn> Not really. I see you doing it now, and it strikes me as more stupid and dishonest than funny. But YMMV.

dishonest?? how come?

Quote: Ah. There it is. I knew the "envy" card would be played before very long. It always is. There has never been a time -- and probably never will be -- when those who object to injustice have not been accused of envy for its beneficiaries
call it objection to injustice, call it revolutional thinking, call it idealism, call it anyway you wish but in the end it all boils down to the exact same thing: envy. they have, you don't. why do they diserve to have and you don't?

Quote: "You think slavery should be abolished? Envy! Just buy some slaves of your own, then you won't have anything to be so envious of, you envious, whining little nuisance! Problem solved!"
should i dare ask you where the hell is the connection?? slavery is exploitation, selling, mistreatement etc of human beings by human beings. rich p. hiltons don't sell, trade or own other human beings.
maybe i don't word my replies very well, but hellll you're crossing the line with your meaningless comparisons!!

Quote: I have not said that airheaded bimbos like Paris Hilton are to blame for the systematic, institutionalized injustices of which she is a beneficiary, but that she is no doubt even more remote from understanding than you are.
ok, please make me understand something. what institution, what institutionalized injustices are you talking about?? what is actually the problem in your own twisted mind? what is the solution to it?
because in my opinion this "institution" is called luck or fate or whatever and these are things you can't really change. the best thing you can do is to accept them as they are and try to overcome their effects if you find them disturbing......

Quote: Oddly enough, I'm moving my fingers to change it right at this very instant. Just as you're moving yours to stop it from being changed.
oh? how are you changing it? by writing 2 replies in an internet thread? and how am i stopping it from being changed? by doing volontary work with extremely poor children? by devoting my time and energy to stop discrimination against poor people? again, i'd kindly ask you to refrain from speaking when you don't know what you're talking about.

Quote: Oh, there is very much a need to discuss it. To bring it out into the open. To shine the cold glare of fact and logic on it, and reveal its true nature and cause. Which might be why you want to stop me from discussing it, by diverting my efforts to treating the symptoms rather than curing the disease
once again i'll ask you, what is the disease, what is the problem, what symptoms, what are you trying to talk about??
the thread was about the fairness/unfairness of p. hiltons inheriting a huge fortune, when there are so many poor people in the world. why should you make it a phylosophical, medical, logical etc problem when it's all about pure luck? that's it. that's all. there's no conspiracy, no satan involved. just luck.
live with it. there'll always be poor people and there'll always be rich people just like there'll always be tall and short people. what is the point you're trying to make?

Quote: Probably a lot of people fall for this sort of diversionary guilt-trip tactic, and waste their lives hacking at the branches of evil that grew because others before them were similarly diverted from attacking the root.
But I am not one of them.
no, you are one of those wasting their lives beating around the bush.

[Roy L]

zelda wrote: Quote:
lalalala isn't it funny how people talk when they have lalalala nothing to say? Quote: <yawn> Not really. I see you doing it now, and it strikes me as more stupid and dishonest than funny. But YMMV.

dishonest?? how come? You know very well I have something to say, and that it is important. Which is why you are trying so hard not to understand it.
Quote:
Quote: Ah. There it is. I knew the "envy" card would be played before very long. It always is. There has never been a time -- and probably never will be -- when those who object to injustice have not been accused of envy for its beneficiaries
call it objection to injustice, call it revolutional thinking, call it idealism, call it anyway you wish but in the end it all boils down to the exact same thing: envy. they have, you don't. So you're saying that when Jesus said, "Sell all thou hast and give to the poor," he was just envious, and wanted others' money for himself? When he chased the moneylenders out of the temple, he was just envious and wanted their money for himself? You're saying that the only reason anyone but a slave would object to slavery is because they don't have any slaves themselves?
Quote: why do they diserve to have and you don't? Good question. Answer: they very often don't.
Quote:
Quote: "You think slavery should be abolished? Envy! Just buy some slaves of your own, then you won't have anything to be so envious of, you envious, whining little nuisance! Problem solved!"
should i dare ask you where the hell is the connection?? See above. You are the one claiming there is no such thing as a sincere objection to injustice, only envy for its beneficiaries. Quote: slavery is exploitation, selling, mistreatement etc of human beings by human beings. And what is wrong with that? Think hard. Quote: rich p. hiltons don't sell, trade or own other human beings. I see. So, as long as they are not actually made chattels, people can be robbed, mistreated, exploited, starved, tortured and killed for the unearned profit of the Paris Hiltons of the world, and anyone who objects to any of it is only envious of those who pocket the proceeds? OK. I understand where you're coming from: the kindest interpretation of your views is that you are afraid that if there were no poor people, you would have no one to practice your virtue of charity on. Quote:
maybe i don't word my replies very well, but hellll you're crossing the line with your meaningless comparisons!! It's not meaningless. The meaning is very clear: you have made a false, despicable, and evil claim about the motivations of those who oppose injustice, including me, and I am calling you on it. You just cannot permit yourself to understand the meaning of my words, because then you would not be able to avoid knowing that you are a servant of Evil.
Quote:
Quote: I have not said that airheaded bimbos like Paris Hilton are to blame for the systematic, institutionalized injustices of which she is a beneficiary, but that she is no doubt even more remote from understanding than you are.
ok, please make me understand something. what institution, what institutionalized injustices are you talking about?? The systematic legal violations of people's rights that result in private appropriation, almost always by the rich, of publicly created value, and the associated public appropriation through taxation, almost always from working people, of privately created value. Quote: what is the solution to it? Secure, equal rights to life, liberty, and property in the products of one's labor. Quote:
because in my opinion this "institution" is called luck or fate or whatever and these are things you can't really change. Yes, well, I guess the difference between your opinion and mine is that mine is a reasoned and informed one. Quote: the best thing you can do is to accept them as they are and try to overcome their effects if you find them disturbing... No, the best thing you can do is stop hacking at the branches of evil (if you are even doing that much) and start striking at the root.
Quote:
Quote: Oddly enough, I'm moving my fingers to change it right at this very instant. Just as you're moving yours to stop it from being changed.
oh? how are you changing it? by writing 2 replies in an internet thread? Beats standing on a street corner. Quote: and how am i stopping it from being changed? by doing volontary work with extremely poor children? by devoting my time and energy to stop discrimination against poor people? By accusing those who are trying to stop it at the institutional, political and philosophical level of envy.
Quote:
Quote: Oh, there is very much a need to discuss it. To bring it out into the open. To shine the cold glare of fact and logic on it, and reveal its true nature and cause. Which might be why you want to stop me from discussing it, by diverting my efforts to treating the symptoms rather than curing the disease
once again i'll ask you, what is the disease, what is the problem, what symptoms, what are you trying to talk about?? See above (not that I imagine you are willing to understand it). Quote:
the thread was about the fairness/unfairness of p. hiltons inheriting a huge fortune, when there are so many poor people in the world. why should you make it a phylosophical, medical, logical etc problem when it's all about pure luck? that's it. that's all. there's no conspiracy, no satan involved. just luck. Wrong. There is a systematic injustice involved, just one that you are either unable or unwilling to understand. Quote:
live with it. there'll always be poor people and there'll always be rich people just like there'll always be tall and short people. what is the point you're trying to make? The fact that there will always be poor and rich people is not an excuse for forcibly making the poor poorer and the rich richer, any more than the fact that there will always be tall and short people would excuse forcibly shortening the short and stretching the tall.
Quote:
Quote: Probably a lot of people fall for this sort of diversionary guilt-trip tactic, and waste their lives hacking at the branches of evil that grew because others before them were similarly diverted from attacking the root.
But I am not one of them.
no, you are one of those wasting their lives beating around the bush. ?? :rofl: I have been accused of many things, but I have to say this is the first time I can remember having been accused of that.