jc4prez Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 No, it justs means we are stealing. Not trying to make any statement. heres a good lesson i learned in grade school. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THEN WORDS. Only a fool doesn't realize your making a statement with everything you say or do. I gotta get out here though. See ya all later. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 heres a good lesson i learned in grade school. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THEN WORDS.Well, that's one thing, because English certainly wasn't it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 they are making severl hundred livings is my point. Its insane that people can be sick and dieing all over the world and people have more then they could ever use. How do you not see that as fucked up. As tom waits said "were all gonna be just dirt in the ground". So how can you justify living la vida loca while people can't eat? This is their only chance at life as well. Why should it be misreable while you (or these artists) are having a gay old time. Because it's what they've made. They have no duty or responsibility to help those people, and we have no right to take away something they've rightfully earned because you feel they are earning more than their share. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 Did we ever determine what constitutes "working hard"? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 God...what I wouldn't give to see you in about 20 years... Wow, jc4prez is 21? I wish I had it all figured out when I was 21. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted November 15, 2007 Share Posted November 15, 2007 you grow up and you calm down start working for the clampdown Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 Because it's what they've made. They have no duty or responsibility to help those people, and we have no right to take away something they've rightfully earned because you feel they are earning more than their share. I think a rather persuasive case could be made, has been made, that the more well off among us have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I think a rather persuasive case could be made, has been made, that the more well off among us have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 I couldn't care less about Guthrie's words, personally. Charity should be something you do out of the kindness of your heart, it shouldn't be forced. Would you agree that you are morally obligated to feed a starving person in your presence provided you have more than your fill? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Would you agree that you are morally obligated to feed a starving person in your presence provided you have more than your fill? No. I would agree that under your morals I am. But morality is not constant . Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted November 16, 2007 Author Share Posted November 16, 2007 No. I would agree that under your morals I am. But morality is not constant . Well, I admire your honesty, though I find your views unfortunate, perhaps we shouldn't be having this discussion, you and I. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Well, I admire your honesty, though I find your views unfortunate, perhaps we shouldn't be having this discussion, you and I. I'm not saying that under my morals I wouldn't. I'm just saying you can't say that everyone has the same morals, which has been a problem you've had from day one here. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it applies to everyone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Would you agree that you are morally obligated to feed a starving person in your presence provided you have more than your fill? Sure, as long as he's willing to do the dishes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I think a rather persuasive case could be made, has been made, that the more well off among us have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 'morally obligated' People should help out of a movement of their hearts Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Yeah, or their sense of ethics. Sometimes those things even coincide. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I take morally obligated to be the movement caused by an outside force. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 No, as I said, it can't be imposed. I'm not prescribing what those ethics ought to be--just saying that ethical obligations to our fellow citizens exist, whatever that means. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jc4prez Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 No, as I said, it can't be imposed. I'm not prescribing what those ethics ought to be--just saying that ethical obligations to our fellow citizens exist, whatever that means. They do indeed exist. So much so that our goverment has created social programs to help the needy. The problem is that these programs aren't fair and the manner of taxing indivduals is also not quite on the mark. Which is why I countinually have suggested we need a change in our infrastructure. I wouldn't have so much of an issue with our current system prevented people from being left behind. Forcing people to shell out outrageous amounts for health care, equal educational opportunities, acess to good food (meaning non processed, things with nutrtional value), clothing and shelter doesn't seem exactly fair. Especially when most are born into these probelms. (not to metion the atrocitys that occur daily around the world) You can say that you have the ability to get out of these problems in this country, but its sadly not that simple. In this sense how can you blame somone for getting angry at these multi million/billionares that have the power to help thoushands if not millions in some cases. I think the bigget problem is the people who are in the postion to do something about this don't because they don't understand the reality which is a disadvantged persons life. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jc4prez Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Wow, jc4prez is 21? I wish I had it all figured out when I was 21. This is just laughable. Since when has age been an indication of intelligence. I find it to be ridiculously more immature of the lot of you that countine to insult and instigate rather have input in the coverstation then my poor spelling. Here is a little poem by Charles Bukowski on the revlevance of age and intelligence; it's titled "I Met A Genius": I met a genius on the traintodayabout 6 years old,he sat beside meand as the train ran down along the coastwe came to the oceanand then he looked at meand said,it's not pretty. In short I've learned more from some eight year olds then any adult. It was cute that one of you asked to see me in twenty years. Did you ever think your way of thinking has been mainpulated because of the circumstances your in? I wonder if you at twenty would be embarrsed of you now? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I find it to be ridiculously more immature of the lot of you that countine to insult and instigate rather have input in the coverstation then my poor spelling. Hint: this board has spell check. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 This is just laughable. Since when has age been an indication of intelligence. I find it to be ridiculously more immature of the lot of you that countine to insult and instigate rather have input in the coverstation then my poor spelling. Here is a little poem by Charles Bukowski on the revlevance of age and intelligence; it's titled "I Met A Genius": I met a genius on the traintodayabout 6 years old,he sat beside meand as the train ran down along the coastwe came to the oceanand then he looked at meand said,it's not pretty. In short I've learned more from some eight year olds then any adult. It was cute that one of you asked to see me in twenty years. Did you ever think your way of thinking has been mainpulated because of the circumstances your in? I wonder if you at twenty would be embarrsed of you now? To imply that you have figured out the world when you are 21, have little financial obligations (relatively), have no family to care for, and no full time career to worry about is far more immature. I'm sure you're view on things will change the older you get. It happens to alot of people. It's easy to be idealistic when you don't have much to lose. (I know, I'm 19, same thing applies to me. I don't think I've figured it out, though. Thats the difference). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ction Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Age may have little to do with intelligence, but it sure does influence knowledge and experience. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spawn's dad Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Did you ever think your way of thinking has been mainpulated because of the circumstances your in? I wonder if you at twenty would be embarrsed of you now? Have you ever considered your way of thinking could change because of circumstances you find yourself in? I'll field that second question: no. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I wonder if you at twenty would be embarrsed of you now? As a general matter, I have a feeling that most people would feel the reverse is true. I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now. I certainly laugh when I think of myself at 20. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.