Log in

View Full Version : Don't go to strip clubs....



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14]

xdamage
10-29-2009, 02:07 AM
did someone say he was a bad cop? /:O

Not at all. Just thinking out loud that GR is passionate about the Golden Rule concept, hence his avatar and job.

And there are a LOT worse things to be passionate about.

Hey, even bible thumpers piss me off at times when they invite themselves on my property and preach, but all in all I can't get upset with them over much of the message.

I certainly do get upset over implications I'm a sinner in need of saving, but not over their passion for people treating each other well. Like most people, I see myself as reasonably moral and feel my choices are already pretty well considered and fair, so find it offensive for a stranger to suggest I'm not. That part pisses me off, but not their overall positive intent.

Golden_Rule
10-29-2009, 04:46 AM
:rotfl:

This is delicious irony, following up the "why won't everyone just let it stop when I say I'm done?" BS we've heard a million times now.


Not what was said, but you know that.

Golden_Rule
10-29-2009, 04:56 AM
Well FWIW I bought some dances on a whim Sunday.

I only casually counted, and she lost count.

When she asked the guy (there is no VIP room but there is a LD room) who notes the start/stop time, and he told us a number which was short by my count, and I could see on her face disappointing.

I paid her for what I counted, which included 2 more.

Now I could have paid for 2 less, but she treated me well, and I'd want to be paid fairly for my time if I was in her shoes.

Maybe that little matter will make no difference. Maybe it will have made her day and some good will passed on to the next customer. I'll likely never see her again, but the little things we do impact on each other and have ripple down effects.

And I think that is a key point GR is trying to make is that how we behave towards each other can feed into a downward spiral of negativity, and likewise small positives tend to feed into positive outcomes. Its just that the later requires faith that there is a pay off, and that the pay off may not be something we benefit from directly, but indirectly it works. The former usually downward spirals because short-term gains are put ahead of long term good.

GR probably saw that a lot as someone working in LE, people who tended to do what is best for themselves in the immediate short-term, so he probably tends to be very sensitive to it everywhere. Of course it is insulting if someone implies we are people who are short-sighted, so naturally the dancers are feeling insulted. He does seem to be saying though that customers are also often no angels.

FWIW that is how I view Karma, not as some mystical book-keeping, but I do see a pattern in life how we behave towards each other today has impacts on how we are likely to be treated in the future.

EXACTLY!!! Thanks.

The effects are cumulative.

As we add to them, whether it be positively or negatively, we help create the very environment we comment on or complain about.

So I merely ask those who see a potential problem(s) if they are doing anything to help or hinder the situation. [Something I ask myself anytime I do something that impacts another person directly. Especially in environments like strip-clubs that can present extra opportunities to do someone hurt.]


Agreed. And yes I don't know the answer. For the most part I say let adults do what they will, and unfortunately a few may be harmed in the process, but the greater good is to let adults have the freedom to choose.


^That's my thought.


And my point was that you don't keep someone from choosing.

The comment made by the person observing the behavior just gives the other pause to think and if they choose differently having been given reason to pause and ponder they still choose.

Worst/best case scenario the person asking the question of the other opts out of being the one doing any damage. So they are choosing as well.

Lots of choosing in what I am talking about. In fact, its all about choice.

Deciding how to behave usually is. :)

vmurphy252
10-29-2009, 05:41 AM
^I personally agree with the examples provided. However, I would not enforce anyone else to follow those examples, or expect them to. If I am the drunk, the spender going beyond my limit, or the extra's girl in those cases, I have no expectation of "being saved" from my decisions; in all cases, I made a decision that brought me to the current situation, and am making decisions based on those earlier decisions in the present. Would I APPRECIATE it if someone stopped me from doing something that would appear to be ultimately harmful? Of course, and I would also be the one saying "are you sure" in all those cases.

Golden_Rule
10-29-2009, 07:28 AM
accidently deleted the below but was able to copy it here to maintain continuity:


I haven't really seen anyone arguing this point. It's more the definition of the bad behavior in the examples he was giving. Is it morally wrong to let someone do something that might harm them or is it morally wrong to interfere with someone's adult choices?

OK, take it to an extreme to test it.

Do you think the drinker who argued with the bartender about getting another round or two and has an accident on the way home says to himself, "Thank God that bartender let me practice free choice and have a couple of more shots of whiskey instead of telling me if I wanted more booze I ought find it someplace else.", or does he think, "Why didn't that guy cut me off when he saw I was getting drunk."

If you draw from this that the recipients feelings are based on end result that is certainly part of it.

The world works better and is a better place if we each have each others backs a bit. I'm not talking about going all big brother on folks, but making a passing comment to someone who looks like they might be falling over the edge isn't doing someone a disservice.

A bartender who sees a guy whose had five shots of booze who asks him, "Do you really want a sixth.", before he pours it; or a dancer who sees a guy whose seems a bit under the weather - has spent $500 and is heading to the ATM again, who asks him if he's within his limit; or the customer who sees a dancer who is a little tipsy and she's making out with him in the VIP and unzipping his fly and asks her if this is really what she wants to do, these are all examples of folks practicing good faith towards each other.

Most people aren't stupid. They know when something feels odd or "off" in some way.

This is especially true if these people know each other from the clubs and have seen them before and know this behavior is outside their normal routine, but it can apply to first time encounters as well when something seems a bit outside the norm.

=======new quote and response================




^I personally agree with the examples provided. However, I would not enforce anyone else to follow those examples, or expect them to. If I am the drunk, the spender going beyond my limit, or the extra's girl in those cases, I have no expectation of "being saved" from my decisions; in all cases, I made a decision that brought me to the current situation, and am making decisions based on those earlier decisions in the present. Would I APPRECIATE it if someone stopped me from doing something that would appear to be ultimately harmful? Of course, and I would also be the one saying "are you sure" in all those cases.

But that is all I am talking about.

And that kind of appreciation might just cause someone to do the same for someone else that was done for them, which propagates the "pay it forward" ripple effect that can, if enough people are practicing "golden rule thinking', improve the overall feel of an environment.

None of it happens though without the change in attitude toward the "golden rule" approach I reference. It really just reflects a change in position from being entirely "me" absorbed thinking to including "we" thinking in making decisions that effect other people.

vmurphy252
10-29-2009, 08:18 AM
I don't think any of the dancers that have responded would maliciously take advantage of someone; however, how are they going to know if they guy going to the ATM has 1,000,000 in his bank account or a credit card balance of 10,000 that is going to cause him to go bankrupt if he pulls out more cash? If they personally feel the need to ask him if he's sure, that's they're decision; however, I don't think they're morally wrong, or contributing to a bad environment, by not doing so. He's still an adult; if he can't face the decisions he's made, he should find a way of preventing himself from getting into situations where he can make those decisions.

Anyway, I think we've got a somewhat different starting premise as I really see Elvia and Chris' points of view, so I will bid you adieu on this topic.

Golden_Rule
10-29-2009, 08:21 AM
I don't think any of the dancers that have responded would maliciously take advantage of someone; however, how are they going to know if they guy going to the ATM has 1,000,000 in his bank account or a credit card balance of 10,000 that is going to cause him to go bankrupt if he pulls out more cash? If they personally feel the need to ask him if he's sure, that's they're decision; however, I don't think they're morally wrong, or contributing to a bad environment, by not doing so. He's still an adult; if he can't face the decisions he's made, he should find a way of preventing himself from getting into situations where he can make those decisions.

Anyway, I think we've got a somewhat different starting premise as I really see Elvia and Chris' points of view, so I will bid you adieu on this topic.

I don't think they are horrible people either. Just part of the very "me" centered culture we've developed into.

We agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.

wishing well...

vmurphy252
10-29-2009, 08:41 AM
Sorry, have further thoughts I can't suppress.

I think what Elvia and Chris were saying (and, if you guys are still here, feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting) is that, from their point of view (and mine), they ARE practicing "do unto others"; we would prefer to let people make their own decisions and them let us make ours. Whether that's selfish or not will be an "eye of the beholder" type of thing. Especially as we cannot determine the long term outcome of those decisions for the most part; maybe the guy heading towards bankruptcy will have an epiphany because of that last little bit he got out of the ATM at the SC and change his ways.

But, on the topic of selfishness, I am of the Gordon Gekko school of thought: "Greed is good". IMO, greed and selfishness are the largest engines of progress we have available. While there is bad that goes along with that progress, I prefer the progress... and while many cultures have something like the GR as the basis for their ethical systems, I think, if you look at the culture's behavior in the long term, you won't see it put into practice.

Anyhoo...

xdamage
10-29-2009, 06:20 PM
But, on the topic of selfishness, I am of the Gordon Gekko school of thought: "Greed is good". IMO, greed and selfishness are the largest engines of progress we have available. While there is bad that goes along with that progress, I prefer the progress... and while many cultures have something like the GR as the basis for their ethical systems, I think, if you look at the culture's behavior in the long term, you won't see it put into practice.

Anyhoo...

I'm a great believer that our general unhappiness, our want to improve our lot in life is awesome, I guess in some cases our "greed" does indeed drive progress of our society. And I love progress, but...

There is a balance point. If people are given everything they become lazy, entitlement minded, and ultimately fail. OTOH if a society becomes too unfair, if it becomes hopeless, or only a very few have a chance of success, then people give up trying en-masse and progress is also slowed.

There is a sweet spot where we thrive because there is a reasonable chance we can succeed if our desire is reasonable stronger then the majorities, but there are always going to be winners and losers.

Dancers should compete in the SC to make as much as they can, but that said...

I do think that how we treat our very weakest, the mentally ill, the emotionally ill, the truly weak is a barometer of our balance.

Ruthlessness to an extreme is a step towards a society that will fail. It fails for the same reason violence escalates, wars escalate, because ruthlessness invites a reply of equal ruthlessness. So ruthless people may win for the moment but quickly find that the people they are dealing with sense that they want to play by a set of extremes, and similarly feel they are then free to act likewise. In short order there are no winners.

Perry
10-30-2009, 04:14 AM
Here's a fun story. I went to my local strip club last weekend as a customer. I tipped all the girls on stage (except one, who wouldn't take my money for some reason) had a few drinks - and asked the waitress to send a hot girl in a red bikini over. My husband got a few dances from her. Then, we were out of money. So we went home. The end.

Hopper
10-30-2009, 05:53 AM
I'm a great believer that our general unhappiness, our want to improve our lot in life is awesome, I guess in some cases our "greed" does indeed drive progress of our society. And I love progress, but...

You are using "greed" to mean any desire to improve one's standard of living, making it sound wrong. Not only is it right, it would be wrong not to want to improve one's standard of living. Calling it 'greed" also implies that to do so, one has to take from others.


There is a balance point. If people are given everything they become lazy, entitlement minded, and ultimately fail. OTOH if a society becomes too unfair, if it becomes hopeless, or only a very few have a chance of success, then people give up trying en-masse and progress is also slowed.

Here you assume that people wanting to advance their circumstances somehow must result in unfairness to someone else. Also that there is only room for some people to succeed and not others, or that one person's success must mean someone else's failure.

False dichotomy.

One person's success can mean opportunities for others. A successful company employs people - the more successful, the more employees. That company also provides goods and services which otherwsie may not be available. The profit-motive creates wealth and technical advancement from which all benefit, directly or indirectly. Not all advance to the same degree, but the standard of living of all is far above what it otherwise would be, and there is no gulf between rich and poor, just people of varying wealth.

What kind of progress are you talking about if successes are cancelled out by failures?

You are also implying that the unfairness would be remedied by "entitlements". This is really taking from the incomes of successful people (who gained through effort, not luck) and giving to the unsuccessful (whoever they are). This is institutionalised theft. Theft is unfair, even if it is legal and perpetrated by the government.


There is a sweet spot where we thrive because there is a reasonable chance we can succeed if our desire is reasonable stronger then the majorities, but there are always going to be winners and losers.

...

Again - why must someone lose?


I do think that how we treat our very weakest, the mentally ill, the emotionally ill, the truly weak is a barometer of our balance.

Most of them probably have relatives to care for them, and failing that, there have long been charities which cared for the genuinely unfortunate. Are you imagining a society which so ruthless that even the parents or other relatives of the weak leave them to die?


Ruthlessness to an extreme is a step towards a society that will fail. It fails for the same reason violence escalates, wars escalate, because ruthlessness invites a reply of equal ruthlessness. So ruthless people may win for the moment but quickly find that the people they are dealing with sense that they want to play by a set of extremes, and similarly feel they are then free to act likewise. In short order there are no winners.

A free market society is not necessarily a ruthless one. Just because people ruthlessly compete in business does not mean they treat others ruthlessly in all situations. We have developed ethics as a necessary foundation of society. Without them, there is no society. A ruthless, law-of -the-jungle, survival-of-the-fittest society is no society at all. The free market works well in a society with the right shared ethics and values.

We are people, not animals. Even animals have social codes, and we are above the animals.

There are a lot of hidden assumptions in this line of thinking. There you go X I've anticipated quite a lot there. I expect you don't have anything to say to it.

xdamage
10-30-2009, 07:39 AM
You are using "greed" to mean any desire to improve one's standard of living, making it sound wrong.


Incorrect, I was not using it so. The word 'greed' was used in a post I was responding too, so I was continuing a line of thought. It's a word and the word has well understood connotations but don't assume I view it purely negatively.



Here you assume that people wanting to advance their circumstances somehow must result in unfairness to someone else. Also that there is only room for some people to succeed and not others, or that one person's success must mean someone else's failure.

False dichotomy.


I dismissed a lot of what you wrote because while there was some truth in there it also requires ignoring reality and I just can't, but if you can, enjoy.

I really don't care about utopian worlds in your head.

I do care about the real world I live in and in that world I/we eat at the expense of weaker creatures; many of our products come at the expenses of not only weaker creatures, but people who work for crappy wages making our life style possible. And most important of all, it is not up to you to decide if everyone else feels like they are winning. The fact that so many feel they are losing is worrisome.

This is like you telling me that over population doesn't have to be a problem, and that it doesn't happen because it's self limiting, while ignoring that real people really are starving to death in some over populate countries. I think their real world experience trumps your wishful thinking about how it could be. I think your could-be's simply cannot exist because if you really understood all of the variables at play, you'd realize the reason why your utopian ideas don't actually play out (and can't play out because it requires ignoring some aspect of reality).


And I never said a free market society is necessarily a ruthless one... where did that even come from? I basically said the very opposite, but that still maintaining a balance is important. Look, if the balance thing bothers you because you want simple rules like Free Market is ALWAYS good, then great, enjoy simple rules. Me, I love the Free Market as compared with other systems but to me there are no perfect systems, just trade offs where we compete or don't, some get ahead some fall behind, and hopefully in the long run we end up with people and a society that well adapted and survives.

So I guess your suspicion was wrong after all.

Golden_Rule
10-30-2009, 06:30 PM
Again it is a matter of not using language as precisely as it could be used.

Hopper, the most common usage of "GREED" is the excessive desire to get or to have, esp. wealth, desire for more than one needs...

What you probably mean is "AMBITION". Man's ambition to succeed and to know propels his advancements.

Greed is what happens when ambition goes off the rails.

I don't think anyone would knock being ambitious, but greedy is a whole other matter.

Cyril
10-30-2009, 06:42 PM
Again it is a matter of not using language as precisely as it could be used.

Hopper, the most common usage of "GREED" is the excessive desire to get or to have, esp. wealth, desire for more than one needs...

What you probably mean is "AMBITION". Man's ambition to succeed and to know propels his advancements.

Greed is what happens when ambition goes off the rails.

I don't think anyone would knock being ambitious, but greedy is a whole other matter.

Yep.

There is a big difference between ambition and greed. Ambition is noble and greed is not. There was something noble even in Attila's ambitions.

xdamage
10-30-2009, 09:27 PM
Hopper, the most common usage of "GREED" is the excessive desire to get or to have, esp. wealth, desire for more than one needs...

What you probably mean is "AMBITION". Man's ambition to succeed and to know propels his advancements.

Greed is what happens when ambition goes off the rails.

I don't think anyone would knock being ambitious, but greedy is a whole other matter.

Your definition works well enough for me since I also believe there is a sweet spot, and we need some word that covers the area of excessive. Greed could be that word. But I'm not so much interested in debating words as it seems pointless. I am interested in the idea that there is a degree of competition (or ambition if you prefer) that is overall is for the best, and a degree beyond which it comes at too high a cost to others.

Golden_Rule
10-30-2009, 11:21 PM
Your definition works well enough for me since I also believe there is a sweet spot, and we need some word that covers the area of excessive. Greed could be that word.

But my point was that greed is that word. All one has to do is look it up. Ambition means one thing. Greed means something else. They describe two levels of related, but dissimilar, behavior.

I think I've said this before but words are like tools. We wouldn't be going round and round on some of these things as much if people, and I include myself sometimes in this, didn't try to drive nails with screwdrivers.

So Hopper, Gecko was wrong. Which, by the way was the point of "Wall Street" in the first place. Greed is NOT good. Ambition is.

Earl_the_Pearl
10-31-2009, 01:01 AM
Vice
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Pride

Virtue
Chastity
Temperance
Charity
Diligence
Patience
Kindness
Humility

chris91
10-31-2009, 01:27 AM
Hopper, the most common usage of "GREED" is the excessive desire to get or to have, esp. wealth, desire for more than one needs...


I suppose you get to decide what is excessive?

Hopper
10-31-2009, 04:01 AM
Incorrect, I was not using it so. The word 'greed' was used in a post I was responding too, so I was continuing a line of thought. It's a word and the word has well understood connotations but don't assume I view it purely negatively.

Sorry - I didn't note the quote marks.


I dismissed a lot of what you wrote because while there was some truth in there it also requires ignoring reality and I just can't, but if you can, enjoy.

I really don't care about utopian worlds in your head.

All of what I said was perfectly reasonned and nowhere in it did I say it would achieve utopia. It would merely be more just and beneficial. If you believe it ignores reality, you need to say why - dismissing isn't good enough. Our disagreement is over what the real world is - you are not right by default.


I do care about the real world I live in and in that world I/we eat at the expense of weaker creatures; many of our products come at the expenses of not only weaker creatures, but people who work for crappy wages making our life style possible. And most important of all, it is not up to you to decide if everyone else feels like they are winning. The fact that so many feel they are losing is worrisome.

Yes, people work for low wages. That is not necessary for "us" (whoever that is) to benefit. Since a large proportion of "us" IS that cheap labour, obviously we are not benefitting. I was talking about everyone benefitting, not just "us". Nor did I say that anyone is winning. My whole point was that as a society, we are not winning, because the system by which I believe we could win - the one I described - is not in place.

Apparently in order to dismiss my ideas as unrealistic, you had to ignore what I actually said.

A couple of additional points: (1) The most wealthy are not in practice the most heavily taxed. The common man - the cheap labour and the small businessman - are hit the hardest. How does that help the common man? (2) The funds the government takes from the "winners" is handled by elite bureacrats, not Santa Claus or Jesus Christ, and squandered in the interests fo those bureacucrats, not the interests of the common man.

"Redistribution of wealth" is just a pretext for confiscating the earnings of the common man, transferring wealth from the workers to the elite.


This is like you telling me that over population doesn't have to be a problem, and that it doesn't happen because it's self limiting, while ignoring that real people really are starving to death in some over populate countries. I think their real world experience trumps your wishful thinking about how it could be.

The population of those countries is not the cause of starvation. You merely assume those problems are due to overpopulation. The famine in Ethiopia was due to the Communist government killing all of the educated people required to run the economy. Or do you think that just by coincidence the population of Ethopia suddenly got too big at the same time that regime took power? It actually got a lot smaller right after the regime took over.

Clearly starvation is not proof of overpopulation.


I think your could-be's simply cannot exist because if you really understood all of the variables at play, you'd realize the reason why your utopian ideas don't actually play out (and can't play out because it requires ignoring some aspect of reality).

You are resorting to ridicule - by labelling my ideas as "utopian" or "wishful" - instead of responding to my argument with reason. You don't say what aspects of reality I am ignoring, or what variables I don't understand.


And I never said a free market society is necessarily a ruthless one... where did that even come from? I basically said the very opposite, but that still maintaining a balance is important. Look, if the balance thing bothers you because you want simple rules like Free Market is ALWAYS good, then great, enjoy simple rules. Me, I love the Free Market as compared with other systems but to me there are no perfect systems, just trade offs where we compete or don't, some get ahead some fall behind, and hopefully in the long run we end up with people and a society that well adapted and survives.

So do you like the free market or not? A free market is just what it says: free, meaning free from government intervention. If there is intervention, the market is not free. You cannot simultaneously have both. If you have a "balance" between free market and government controls, you don't have a free market.

You didn't explicitly say that a free market society is necessarily ruthless, but you clearly assumed it in what you did say. Otherwise, what is it you are trying to "balance" and why are you saying I am "utopian" to advocate it?


So I guess your suspicion was wrong after all.

You haven't said anything. This is the problem with trying to anticipate what others will say: People often misread, misinterpret, ignore or forget what someone else said earlier. And it also requries that others will respond logically to what that person said. That cannot be anticipated. That is a utopian idea. I respond to what people do say, after they actually say it, not what I think they will say.

xdamage
10-31-2009, 04:56 AM
So Hopper, Gecko was wrong. Which, by the way was the point of "Wall Street" in the first place. Greed is NOT good. Ambition is.


Vice
Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Pride

Virtue
Chastity
Temperance
Charity
Diligence
Patience
Kindness
Humility


...
The population of those countries is not the cause of starvation. ...
So do you like the free market or not? A free market is just what it says: free, meaning free from government intervention. If there is intervention, the market is not free. You cannot simultaneously have both. If you have a "balance" between free market and government controls, you don't have a free market.



I'll respond to all of these at once, but backwards.

Hopper, you need this to be A or B, entirely Free or not. I don't need it to be. I sleep fine with the idea of a market that is more free then others, something in a gray scale. I sleep with it for the same reason I sleep with the idea that even though we like our freedoms, we also put in place LE to keep the worst of the worst in check, because some abuse freedoms, and indeed we all might if there were no consequences to limit our use of freedoms.

Just like I don't need to see things as all virtue or all evil, there is behavior in the middle. That our little human brains have binned out the world into simplicities like, and that our words reflect our strong tendency to do so (the words describing good vs bad, virtue vs vice) is just more of the same.

I see the world in statistical odds, tendencies, bell curves, and our language is weak at describing these concepts and some humans are seemingly unable to grasp them at all.

So for example, if we see a pattern where animals over populate, that their population is regulated via they'll tend to starve out and die off (a pretty horrible but realistic thing), likewise when we see China or India over populate, and people starving in large numbers, it's likely that we are seeing the same pattern. Yes, starvation can happen for other reasons, but the odds are the over population and starvation are related just as they are among animals, which we are more of. I don't really need more details or complex theories or conspiracy theories. The pattern is a simple one and predictable. Over populate one's own borders and the odds are the people will eventually face increasing numbers of starving, maybe in large groups in the face of a drought or weather change. The specifics are complicated, but the probable outcome is not hard to predict.

Likewise I just don't view human behavior in simple all good or all bad terms, not as simply ambitious or greedy. There are degrees, and in fact we see it even in this conversation that humans even rarely can agree on where the line of ambition vs greed really lies. And that's because it is not absolute truth, it is a PoV relative to how one is personally benefiting. But what you can do is ask the group, get enough votes, and work with that, try to find the sweet spot where the majority reasonably agree on a compromise that works for the majority. Even so there will be a minority who feels like they are losers no matter what is agreed on.

Golden_Rule
10-31-2009, 12:34 PM
I suppose you get to decide what is excessive?

Geeze, you are something.

I never, ever, said I get to decide anything for anyone else.

You can pretty much reduce the majority of my posts to:

1) Strip-clubs would be better places if those who were acting differently choose to treat each other as they would choose to be treated themselves.

2) Society sets standards of comportment via laws, policy and peer pressure. The individual can choose to conform or not but can't be surprised that there are consequences for non-conformance.

How can you:

a) get bent out of shape about either of the two above as one would think they are both fairly benign comments to begin with and...

b) deny the rationale behind either of the two as they are fairly straight forward and based on plain old horse sense.

Golden_Rule
10-31-2009, 12:37 PM
Likewise I just don't view human behavior in simple all good or all bad terms, not as simply ambitious or greedy. There are degrees, and in fact we see it even in this conversation that humans even rarely can agree on where the line of ambition vs greed really lies. And that's because it is not absolute truth, it is a PoV relative to how one is personally benefiting. But what you can do is ask the group, get enough votes, and work with that, try to find the sweet spot where the majority reasonably agree on a compromise that works for the majority. Even so there will be a minority who feels like they are losers no matter what is agreed on.

I don't view it in black or white either.

All I said was that when using language to describe human behavior, which is complicated enough as is, its better to use precise wording that makes clear precisely the type of behavior you mean to describe.

I try not to but I am guilty of it myself.

FBR
10-31-2009, 01:53 PM
wow! just now?? Considering that the members don't live and die around what is posted here, "just now" is a reasonable time frame.

FBR

Earl_the_Pearl
10-31-2009, 03:42 PM
Considering that the members don't live and die around what is posted here,
Some do get hit in the face with reality and become despondent .

Hopper
10-31-2009, 04:33 PM
I'll respond to all of these at once, but backwards.

Hopper, you need this to be A or B, entirely Free or not. I don't need it to be. I sleep fine with the idea of a market that is more free then others, something in a gray scale. I sleep with it for the same reason I sleep with the idea that even though we like our freedoms, we also put in place LE to keep the worst of the worst in check, because some abuse freedoms, and indeed we all might if there were no consequences to limit our use of freedoms.

Just like I don't need to see things as all virtue or all evil, there is behavior in the middle. That our little human brains have binned out the world into simplicities like, and that our words reflect our strong tendency to do so (the words describing good vs bad, virtue vs vice) is just more of the same.

I see the world in statistical odds, tendencies, bell curves, and our language is weak at describing these concepts and some humans are seemingly unable to grasp them at all.

I don't want to draw out this threadjack much further. My original intention was to point out that it is wrong to view the free market as unfair and necessarily unfair and disadvantaging - a system of "winners and losers".

Our market is not " more free than others". It is merely not officially a dictatorship. Markets in the West (and international ones) are heavily regulated and interfered with by government. It is far more regulated than it is "free".

Yes I need it to be A or B, since "free" means "free", not cotrolled to some degree. If you are half free, you are all slave.

Your "balance" also assumes that government does put abuses in check. Really it is the opposite. The government abuses the power it takes supposedly to address inbalances - it uses that power in it's own interests and in the interests of the wealthiest people, the ones people you most wish to "check", the "worst" imbalances.

So government intervention does not place limits on freedoms - it places limits on the freedoms of the majority and gives extra freedoms to the minority of richest people.

You are talking about theory, I am talking about the real world. It is you who are talking in simplistic terms - free market unfair, government fair. You fail to see that the people in government are as self-interested as people in business. Your statistics, tendencies and bell-curves are useless if you don't observe how things actually work.


So for example, if we see a pattern where animals over populate, that their population is regulated via they'll tend to starve out and die off (a pretty horrible but realistic thing), likewise when we see China or India over populate, and people starving in large numbers, it's likely that we are seeing the same pattern. Yes, starvation can happen for other reasons, but the odds are the over population and starvation are related just as they are among animals, which we are more of. I don't really need more details or complex theories or conspiracy theories. The pattern is a simple one and predictable. Over populate one's own borders and the odds are the people will eventually face increasing numbers of starving, maybe in large groups in the face of a drought or weather change. The specifics are complicated, but the probable outcome is not hard to predict.

In one paragraph you say other people are too simple, in the next you say you don't need complexity, you think it is simple. I think that the basic ideas of how things work are simple - once you know how. But you cannot find out how with simplistic reasonning or assumptions.

You are starting out with a simplistic and unjustified assumption: starvation is caused by overpopulation. Your reasonning is simplistic too: it happens to animals, therefore it happens to us, because we are animals. However, we are not LIKE other animals. We have the ability to plan and to develop technically in order to improve our circumstances and remove ourselves from being at the mercy of nature. Animals don't buy and sell and aquire knowledge. They are stuck with a very basic and ruthless economic system. So I think you do need some more complex theories than that one.

You might answer that humans cannot cheat nature any more than animals can. I am not saying that humans can break natural laws. I am saying that humans can apply their intelligence so that they are not at the mercy of nature. That is what we do in business. Animals don't have farms, factories, distribution and technology.


Likewise I just don't view human behavior in simple all good or all bad terms, not as simply ambitious or greedy. There are degrees, and in fact we see it even in this conversation that humans even rarely can agree on where the line of ambition vs greed really lies. And that's because it is not absolute truth, it is a PoV relative to how one is personally benefiting. But what you can do is ask the group, get enough votes, and work with that, try to find the sweet spot where the majority reasonably agree on a compromise that works for the majority. Even so there will be a minority who feels like they are losers no matter what is agreed on.

I never said that people are all good or all bad. I am merely advocating a system in which both tendencies are harnessed in a direction which benefits the most and removes the opportunity for abuses by a ruling elite (by not having one). I am also pointing out that the other system - government intervention - does not change those tendencies or protect us from them any more. It just puts more power into the hands of a minority, who share those tendencies with everyone else. What has changed?

Now how is this system of democratic decision-making cotrolling the government any better? The majority is not necessarily wisest. On most issues, they are the dumbest. The person directly concerned is in the best position to decide on any situation, not the voting public around the country. Once you have a governing elite, they are not even necessarily obliged to follow the majority anyway. Experience tells us they use their power to mis-inform and manipulate the views of the majority.

The best system is for everyone to mind their own business and keep their noses out of other people's.

I don't know what this "sweet spot" you keep talking about is. To me it looks like one giant shit sandwich. Obviously your "balance" isn't working. I'm not utopian just for thinking we can do better than that. Sitting in the centre between your left and right speakers is not a good analogy. In politics, left and right are not components of one sound. They are two entirely different and incompatible systems in their own right. You may as well try to make a washing machine partly from refrigerator parts.

xdamage
11-02-2009, 09:08 AM
Hopper, we can take the threadjack private if you like....

--

Somewhat more on topic, just a bit ago we were talking about a situation where it was debated if one could walk out of a SC without paying a debated bill.

This recent news store was in fact the very club I was debating returning too this year (for around here this is a clean, safe club):

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local-beat/Dad-of-2-Beaten-by-Strip-Club-Owner-Workers-Police-64681097.html

But apparently these guys don't believe in calling LE and would risk a life, a lawsuit and what may well end up shutting down their entire business as a result. Nifty.

Golden_Rule
11-02-2009, 04:53 PM
But apparently these guys don't believe in calling LE and would risk a life, a lawsuit and what may well end up shutting down their entire business as a result. Nifty.

I will admit I haven't heard the whole story yet, but if what I have heard to this point is true I hope these bastards go right to f'king prison with a minimum of 20 years before they can even think about parole.

Earl_the_Pearl
11-02-2009, 05:10 PM
But apparently these guys don't believe in calling LE
With enough calls to LE the town would consider the place a public nuisance.

xdamage
11-03-2009, 06:09 AM
I will admit I haven't heard the whole story yet, but if what I have heard to this point is true I hope these bastards go right to f'king prison with a minimum of 20 years before they can even think about parole.

There is always another side, agreed, but the end result looks quite bad.


With enough calls to LE the town would consider the place a public nuisance.

Valid point, though I'm guessing "the town" will also remember this incident.

yoda57us
11-03-2009, 06:31 AM
With enough calls to LE the town would consider the place a public nuisance.

Agreed. Too many calls to LE and too many complaints cause problems for any establishment with a liquor license. It's only worse for strip clubs...