Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=joec] For people who have had great dogs, the choice is very easy, especially if, say, they just got messed with in a foreign country (more hate for foreigners) or, say loss their job to outsourcing, whatever…
I think the situation just leads to feeling one way vs. the other…[/quote]
I’ve had two great dogs, and, yes, the choice is very easy for me. I wouldn’t for a second even consider letting a human die before either of those dogs.
I really have trouble believing what I’m hearing here. You think that the average person would blame outsourcing (or whatever) on an individual foreigner and save their dog over that person partially for that reason. The troubling part is that you’re obviously correct.
The average person is a real schmuck.
Let me ask you this, joec and flyerinhi and anybody else who would save their dog:
Say you can only save one of: your dog or a foreign tourist. You save your dog. You find out that the foreign tourist had two kids. Those kids loved him dearly. They cry every night because they miss him so much. Their lives are permanently (negatively) affected by the pain of his death and the lack of his guidance. Not an unlikely scenario at all. Would you feel you’d made the right choice? Would you feel guilty? Would you still (assuming you do now) feel that you were a moral human being? If you’re religious, do you think your god would approve? Would you lose any sleep? Would you ever think about the 12-year-old girl and the 7-year-old boy whose father you let die?
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
If you want to say that humans are fucked up, then yeah.[/quote]Some humans. Not all.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]the question was your dog (not any dog) or a foreign tourist.
I think that 40% would save their own iphone or handbag over a foreign tourist. the word “foreign” is in the question for a reason. Foreign means someone who doesn’t look like you. or someone who you do not have cultural affinity with.
It might be fucked up, but I think people would save their own skin and property first.[/quote]
What airline do you fly for? I want to make sure to avoid it.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]I’d save my own dog over a foreign tourist. The key word is foreign, hence not one of us.[/quote]
A foreign tourist is not one of us, but a dog is?
On the one hand, it seems like you must be a troll because you can’t possibly be that fucked up.
On the other hand, survey says… 40%. Heck, you’re almost in the majority.
40% of the people who drive in cars on the same streets as us and who work with us and who…I guess, are our friends… are this fucked up.
This argument over Dahmer vs. a dog has kind of gotten us away from the foreign tourist vs. dog issue. Am I the only one who finds 40% an extremely scary number?
Participant[quote=spdrun]Depends on the dog and the person. You’re telling me you’d choose Bernie Madoff’s, Jeffrey Dahmer’s, or Adolf Eichmann’s life over that of a loyal dog?[/quote]
Is that really what you think I’m telling you?
The question is about a stranger you know nothing about.
ParticipantI like our dog. He’s fun. I’m glad we have him.
But he’s just a dog.
From the below-linked article:
“A recent paper by Richard Topolski at George Regents University and colleagues, published in the journal Anthrozoös, demonstrates this human involvement with pets to a startling extent…
40% of respondents, including 46% of women, voted to save their dog over a foreign tourist [when they could only save one].”That is really quite scary. How messed up do you have to be to save a dog’s life over a person’s? To let somebody’s father or sister or daughter die so that you can still have your dog. Among other things, how outrageously and abominably selfish is that? “Yes, I picked your father to die over my dog.” Or, “I know your daughter is dead. But I still have my dog!” And 40%?
What a horrible commentary on the society we live in.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324085304579008623945193510
Participant[quote=6packscaredy]
There should be another word for it though for the case where one party thinks they will receive sympathy bUT instead receive derision.
If there already is a word let me know[/quote]
How about “Sadowski.”
ParticipantSilence of the Lambs was pretty scary.
November 22, 2013 at 9:10 AM in reply to: OT: The “Radical” Gay Agenda in California Public Schools #768309Participant[quote=6packscaredy]App idea;
Gaydar.[/quote]
Hi. Could you say the word “mellifluous” into my cell phone please?
Participant[quote=flyer]
I know you’re not looking for sympathy, flu, but few people could walk in your shoes and still be standing. You’re definitely dealing very well.[/quote]Well, flu, if the chemo wasn’t making you sick…
Participant[quote=flu]
You know the biggest irony of so called “champions of the poor”… I’m wondering how many of them actually lifted a finger.
[/quote]
To be clear, I’m not necessarily a champion of the poor in this country, who really aren’t that poor relative to the truly poor in some other countries. My help, in the form of money, goes outside this country.
My suggestion that we improve the environment for the “poor” in this country has more to do with the country as a whole than the poor themselves. If we could manage to turn welfare recipients and gang members into college graduates, the whole country would be better off.
ParticipantLet me start right off by saying that , when it came to race in my hypothetical, I didn’t explain myself very well. My bad. In my hypothetical, all the children from CV get switched with all the children from Watts. If suddenly all the children in Watts are Asian and white and have black and Hispanic parents, the hypothetical doesn’t work. Because now everybody is wondering how all these blacks had all these Asian kids. I was going for a hypothetical where the kids had the same genes, but their appearance had to fit their families. It’s got nothing to do with race, as I said.
[quote=flu]
Maybe you forgot about that portion, because maybe you haven’t been along long enough.
[/quote]Actually, I’ve been here longer than you, flu. Since before the system reset and we had to sign up again. Since the page background was white. Since there was paid content. I remember when you started posting. I don’t remember you being quite as whiny or as cynical then. Maybe you should take your own advice and lighten up.
[quote=flu]
Financial stupidity isn’t a conservative versus liberal thing. Unless you want to equate financial stupidity to being liberal.
[/quote]For the issue at hand, (if we’re talking about taxes and entitlements) financial stupidity is very much a conservative versus liberal thing. Unfortunately, both of them are financially stupid in this regard.
[quote=flu]
See, you know what your problem is? You don’t mind dishing it out to people who differ opinions or jab at things, but oh no, when someone says something that rubs you the wrong way, you need to put yourself on a high and mighty soap box and give people a lecture and you immediately attach the conservative label to anything that goes against the grain of your thinking. Pretty open minded there… Pretty entertaining…
[/quote]If you read my post again, you’ll see that I agree with neither the conservative nor the liberal platform on the issue that was being discussed. I attached the conservative label to the conservative viewpoint and the liberal label to the liberal viewpoint.
And to say that I attach the conservative label to anything that goes against my grain of thought is ludicrous. First of all, many of my own ideas (several of which I’ve expressed on this board) are ideas that agree with the conservative way of thinking. Also, I have many ideas (several of which I’ve expressed on this board) which disagree with the liberal way of thinking. I’m not a conservative or a liberal. I think for myself, and my opinions are spread across the political spectrum.
I will admit that I particularly despise the brainwashing techniques of the behemoth apparatus that is the right-wing noise machine. I’m pretty sure I would feel the same way about the left-wing noise machine if it wasn’t a rusty, beat-down tricycle with two flat tires. It kind of takes care of itself.
Soap box? Lecture? I’m offering an idea. I welcome other opinions. Especially if they don’t come with inaccurate accusations of race baiting. But again, that was probably my fault for not explaining my hypothetical very well.
[quote=flu]
Also, pretty open minded there that you keep bringing race into this. [/quote]
I brought race into it the first time to make my hypothetical work and the second time as a joke. You see, I said “just kidding. Sort of. Maybe.” Sound familiar? You can’t have it both ways, flu. When you say, “just kidding. Sort of. Maybe.” it’s a joke. When I say it, it’s not.
[quote=flu]
And what do you mean “It wouldn’t work with Asian kid in Watts with Hispanic parents” as you say?
Are you,again generalizing that every single asian is born into a well educated, high income/ upper middle class. And are you also suggesting that no asians are poor, no asians are lazy, and hence no asians would “fit”?
Like I said, generalize much? [/quote]Again, my fault for not explaining that well. I hope it’s clearer now.
Participant[quote=flu]
Ok come on zk. Lighten up…No rich or poor or middle class or whatever people got hurt last night…
And sorry, where in my joke did I mention anything about Watts and race?
Why do people like to turn every ribbing of a joke about something they don’t like to hear into race?
Last time I checked being “lazy” was a race and gender neutral thing.
Where does something unrelated race get dragged into a race issue? Or are you starting to generalize about people of certain races?????
Are people starting to ban jokes as well as guns now?
Generalize much?[/quote]
I only mentioned race because my hypothetical wouldn’t really work with an Asian kid in Watts with Hispanic parents. As I said, race doesn’t have anything to do with it. You must have missed that part.
Even though I said race doesn’t have anything to do with it, in so many words, you accused me of turning your joke into a race issue several times. You’re a real pain in the ass. And your reading skills are seriously lacking. You and AN, who also “misses” important parts of my posts and responds with lame non sequiturs and nonsense. Maybe it’s an Asian thing. Just kidding. Sort of. Maybe.
Flu, you’re a conservative. Unless I miss my mark, you view the liberal philosophy as “tax the hard-working well-off and give to the lazy poor.” And, again unless I miss my mark, you’re philosophy would be to do less of both. You certainly do a lot of bitching and moaning about liberals. But if you don’t have any better ideas or you can’t defend the ones you have, then why don’t you just keep your whiny cynicism to yourself?
Participant[quote=flu]My kid got two buckets of candy last night after walking around for 1 1/2 hrs.
I took one of the buckets and gave it to one of my neighbor’s kid who was too lazy to go out and trick o treat himself.
When my kid cried, pouted that wasn’t fair, and asked why, I explained to her that she’s too rich and we needed to redistribute half of her candy to people who didn’t have any candy last night because they didn’t want to walk up and down the hill for 1 1/2 hr….
I’m kidding….I’m kidding…..
I didn’t actually give one of the buckets away….
I just pretended like I was going to so she would know what it feels like so she would get use to it later….I’m kidding… I’m kidding… Sort of….[/quote]
Your half kidding. I get it. Nonetheless, this is a typical conservative’s view of the intentions of liberals. Tax the hard-working well-off and give to the lazy poor.
Following is how I see it. (Not that this is a typical liberal view. Or, necessarily a liberal view at all).
Picture two kids. One is born in Carmel Valley. The other in Watts. They’re both near the middle of the lazy to hard-working spectrum. Both of average to a bit above average intelligence. The kid from CV gets Bs and some As, goes to SDSU, gets a job as an accountant. His sister does something similar. The kid from Watts ends up in a gang, gets shot in the leg, the taxpayers pay for his surgery, and eventually he winds up with a minimum wage job that is supplemented by food stamps. His sister has a kid, there’s no father around, and she’s on welfare.
The kids from CV are paying taxes to support the kids from Watts. But are those kids really that different from each other? Let’s say, hypothetically, that we could have identical twins raised separately in these situations (except the ones in Watts would appear black/hispanic and the ones in CV would appear white/asian). In fact, let’s just switch gene pools entirely between CV and Watts. Does anybody think the outcome would be different from how it is now? Would the kid with the white/asian genes turn out any different from the kids with the black/hispanic genes?
Now, I know that no one is suggesting that racial differences have anything to do with it. And neither am I. The point I’m trying to make is that it’s the environment that you grow up in that has everything to do with it. Why do the kids from Watts generally end up taking government support while the kids from Carmel Valley pay for it? If it’s not their genes, it has to be their environment. Right? It’s not because they’re lazy. And if it is, it’s because their environment encouraged that attitude.
Sure, a kid from Watts has the opportunity to make it out of the ghetto. He can get good grades. He can go to UC. He can be an accountant. But for him to do that from Watts would take a great deal more… I don’t know… rebelliousness, focus, fortitude. Self motivation. The kid from CV has his parents hounding him to do his homework and practice his violin. The kid from Watts… generally not as much. He’s much more likely to have to do it by himself. His parents aren’t really placing an emphasis on education. So your occasional special kid will make it out. But the general population is going to turn out people who are expensive to the taxpayers.
Yes, these are generalizations. Not every family in Watts doesn’t emphasize education. Not every family in CV does (At least I don’t think they do. Every family I know does). But these are probably pretty accurate generalizations. In Watts, you can avoid the gangs if you try. I’d imagine, though, for a 15-year-old boy who’s father isn’t around, it’s pretty hard. In Carmel Valley, you’d really have to go out of your way to join a gang. And if you did and your dad or, god forbid, your tiger mom found out…
So right now, I imagine the conservatives are focusing on the “And if it is (because they’re lazy), it’s because their environment encouraged that attitude” comment. And let’s go ahead and add uneducated and unskilled to lazy, because their environment produced that, as well. (Actually, lazy isn’t the exact word I’m looking for. More like “disinclined to work at a job and to take the steps necessary to contribute to society.” Which is different. But lazy is close enough, so I’ll use that.) So, at this point, you could say, “I don’t care why they’re lazy. They’re lazy. I don’t want to pay for their food stamps.” Ok, but then what happens? They’re hungry and they don’t have jobs. Doesn’t take Nostradamus to see what happens after that.
So, assuming that the same population raised in Carmel Valley will turn out differently from if it was raised in Watts, what’s the solution?
Well, it’s not to keep doing what we’re doing or to give them more free assistance. Because that’s not going to change anything and it’s going to cost a lot of money. Nonetheless, this is a view that some liberals hold. And it’s not to just say “fuck them” and hope for the best. Because, while that might save some money in the short run, it is not a viable long-term strategy. To hope that the underclass will say, “well, the jig is up. Gotta get a job now and start contributing to society” is a pipe dream. Nonetheless, this is a view that some conservatives hold.
I think the solution is (and I’ve said this before in this forum) to change their environment and their culture and their access to education. This would obviously be a difficult, expensive, and, in the case of their culture, very politically incorrect thing to attempt. But what choice do we have?
-
AuthorPosts
