America: are we too arrogant?

[Danoff]

Note how the context changes when you don't ignore the last part of the sentence.

I don't see how the context changes at all. I could have included the last part of the line in my first post and nothing would be changed.

The context is now "Someone who is so fantastically wealthy that they can afford a house-valued car does not deserve sympathy when more money does not come their way"

Nobody deserves sympathy when money does not come their way. What I'm talking about is something different. The refusal to have sympathy for someone who EARNED more money but didn't get it.

Let's paint that picture shall we.

K_speed effectively said (in his own teenage way) "Prodigy makes good music and they get screwed over by the music industry"

You said,

I find it hard to feel sorry for The "Oh look I drive a TVR Speed 12" Prodigy, or in fact anyone at all in the music industry.

You said prodigy sucks, which is a valid reason for not feeling sorry for them if they don't make more money. But that's not the reason you listed. You said that since they already had lots of money, they didn't need to make any more. Even though they worked for it and got screwed over. It doesn't matter because they can AFFORD an expensive car you said.

What follows from this is that anyone who has lots of money cannot deserve to get any more than that, which is arrogant and wrong.

No doubt "Liam" will find a buyer for his compositions in the end - The Prodigy are a fairly large name.

If they really are as good as K_speed says, then they will find one and will continue to make the gobs of money they have worked hard for.

 

[Famine]

You said prodigy sucks, which is a valid reason for not feeling sorry for them if they don't make more money. But that's not the reason you listed. You said that since they already had lots of money, they didn't need to make any more. Even though they worked for it and got screwed over. It doesn't matter because they can AFFORD an expensive car you said.

What follows from this is that anyone who has lots of money cannot deserve to get any more than that, which is arrogant and wrong.

You really do read too much into my posts. I do not leave anything out in a cunning and hidden subtext, I say precisely what I mean.

When I say that someone who has lots of money (I'm talking about 6 figures or more income in pounds sterling) does not merit my sympathy when some more does not come to them (earned or unearned) that's what I mean. If I meant that people who have lots of money (earned or unearned) automatically don't deserve it or any more, that is what I would say. I do not mean that, so I didn't say it. Simple.

The former is realism. The latter is symptomatic of "have-not" jealousy - something I do not suffer from.


I reserve my sympathy for those situations that require it. Should anyone mentioned in this thread be stricken with a debilitating illness (I hope they aren't), I would feel sorry for them. Should they be bankrupted (ditto), I would feel sorry for them (although those with some discernable talent should be able to find their feet again). I do not wish to take anything off anyone. On the same level, I don't wish to be asked to feel sorry for someone who has lots in the first place but hasn't acquired some more.

Nobody deserves sympathy when money does not come their way.

Wrong. Dead wrong.

 

[Danoff]

When I say that someone who has lots of money (I'm talking about 6 figures or more income in pounds sterling) does not merit my sympathy when some more does not come to them (earned or unearned) that's what I mean.

But that's terrible. You're basically claiming that it is not an injustice if a rich person does not get money he/she earned. If it were, you would be sympathetic.

Wrong. Dead wrong

I figured you'd think that. But it's not - and that's exactly what I'm getting at here. That's the whole point of our little argument - just another example of the same disagreement.

Just face it, when it comes to money, the only people who you think can be wronged are people with almost none. That mentality is arrogant and refuses to acknowledge the whole concept of earning money.

 

[Famine]

And yet you are refusing to acknowledge the whole concept of inability to earn money.

Again, you are extrapolating based on what I am typing, and paraphrasing. Don't. I say exactly what I mean. I don't "basically claim" anything - don't put my words into your words. Look what you did - you decided that from saying that you were wrong to say "Nobody deserves sympathy when money does not come their way." I actually meant that "people with almost none" deserved it. I didn't mean anything of the kind.

Don't infer. Read.

 

[Danoff]

Don't infer. Read.

Believe it or not, what you're saying does actually have some meaning. It's not good, but it's there.

you decided that from saying that you were wrong to say "Nobody deserves sympathy when money does not come their way." I actually meant that "people with almost none" deserved it

Ok, I can understand how you could infer this from my post. However, I should have been more clear about which parts of your post I was drawing conclusions from. I didn't get that conclusion from your (oh so informative) "wrong" (though I certainly could have gotten it from there). I got it from this:

When I say that someone who has lots of money (I'm talking about 6 figures or more income in pounds sterling) does not merit my sympathy when some more does not come to them (earned or unearned) that's what I mean.

If you didn't mean that people who don't have lots of money deserve sympathy when money doesn't come their way, then what the hell did you mean?

I'll list my earlier assumptions here:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) You would offer your sympathy for an innocent person who has been the victim of injustice.
(2) When you write words, you do so for a reason.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If either of these assumptions are not true, let me know and I’ll realize you’re not worth my time.

Due to assumption 1, I concluded that you thought that it was not an injustice if some people (you mentioned the criteria) did not get the money they had earned. If this is not true then as far as I can tell, assumption 1 is not valid and you’re a bad person. If it is true, then you’re just a bad person. Either way you’re lacking in morals.

Due to assumption 2, I though there was a purpose behind the phrase “When I say that someone who has lots of money”. If that wasn’t to point out that the phrase “does not merit my sympathy...” does not apply when the person doesn’t have lots of money, why did you say it in the first place?

Look, if you want to try to lawyer your way out of what you said then do it to someone else. Don’t try to blow me off by saying that I inferred things that you didn’t mean. I know what I’m talking about and it’s quite clear what you meant. Don’t take my posts lightly just because there are lots of idiot teenagers on this board who’s posts mean nothing. Read what I write and think about it before you respond. Think about why I said what I did and what you said that I was responding to.

And yet you are refusing to acknowledge the whole concept of inability to earn money.

Edit: Given a little more thought, this statement is actually not even technically correct. Show me how you come to this inference

 

[Duke]

An injustice is an injustice no matter whether it happens to a rich or poor person. Injustice deserves sympathy.

A person's inability to arrange a deal whereby they can earn money for their goods or services does not quailfy as an injustice assuming it's a relatively free-market economy.

Now, can we get back on topic or settle this is a separate thread, please?

 

[Famine]

I know what I’m talking about and it’s quite clear what you meant.

For the last time I never, ever, EVER (apologies for the tautology, but I apparently haven't got the point across yet) say something but mean something else. You shouldn't exercise your brain thinking about what I meant as it's all written there for you.

You may be accustomed to dealing with double-speak, or "lawyer"ing (never seen it used as a verb before) but I do not utilise it. This is the third discussion we have had (you refer to them as arguments) and the third time you have refused to take my words at face value. Why?


Your logic is rather intriguingly backwards. For some reason you seem to think that if I say "When I say that someone who has lots of money (I'm talking about 6 figures or more income in pounds sterling) does not merit my sympathy when some more does not come to them (earned or unearned) that's what I mean." then automatically I must mean the exact opposite - people with no money not getting it DO merit my sympathy. No - I said precisely what I meant (and I keep trying to tell you this). If I had meant anything else, relevant to the discussion/argument, be sure I would have mentioned it.


Now please, for once, refer only to what I have said. Do not extrapolate supposed positions based on what you think I meant by it.

 

[ledhed]

If you said what I think you said I thought you said what you said.

 

[Danoff]

No - I said precisely what I meant

You're arguing about the stupidest most pointless part of this discussion and missing all of the important parts of the subject. I'm pointing out to you that what you said was quite bad and you have not refuted that. You've picked a small part of what I was talking about and made that your whole argument. Not that I'm not right about that part, but how about commenting on the meat of my post?


Now, just in case you don't remember the core of what I was getting at... what you said was immoral.

By the way, the new inferences you drew from my post were not correct, read more carefully.

 

[Famine]

I don't care how much you want to try to insult me to get a response - you are not reading anything I've written and simply drawing your own conclusions where none need to be drawn - what I say is what I mean. The "meat" of your post (more like Quorn, to be honest) is based on your assumptions, inferences and conclusions drawn from reading into what I have written. They are all totally invalid as they are contrived in your mind, rather than what has come out of mine.

Learn to read the lines, rather than what is between them.

You make interesting points and your discussions are often worth reading. For some reason, with me, you seem to think you know what I actually mean when I don't say it, despite me telling you repeatedly that I only mean what I say. Now that's arrogant.

 

[///M-Spec]

Guys. Guys. Take it easy, eh? You both are two of the smarter and more well respected members of this forum. Can't you manage to have a disagreement without the insults?


M

 

[Danoff]

You make interesting points and your discussions are often worth reading. For some reason, with me, you seem to think you know what I actually mean when I don't say it, despite me telling you repeatedly that I only mean what I say.

I don't know why you're still talking about this. You keep repeating yourself when I feel that I have drawn no unjustified conclusions. Why don't we start over?

...someone who has lots of money... does not merit my sympathy when some more does not come to them (earned or unearned).

First of all, I'll volunteer that I have removed portions of the original quote to make it easier to read. If you feel that I have somehow changed the meaning of the quote, please let me know.

Why you said in this quote is very wrong. When someone has earned money that they do not receive, it is an injustice regardless of the size of their bank account and injustice merits sympathy. I believe you meant what you said here, it was not some kind of off the cuff remark or mistake (as you keep telling me) and that's terrible. Can you explain why it is not an injustice for someone who is rich to not receive the money they earned?

(note: There is absolutely no extrapolation of your original statement here. I have made no assumptions or really drawn any conclusions, other than that you meant what you said. I'm sure that your response will have inferences and assumptions, but I don't mind - I'll point it out if you draw an incorrect conclusion from what I posted.)

Edit: One more thing. How have I insulted you? I can't seem to find it.

 

[Famine]

I don't know why you're still talking about this. You keep repeating yourself when I feel that I have drawn no unjustified conclusions. Why don't we start over?

Let's not. neon_duke has asked that this ceases. You want to keep "arguing" (as you put it), you do it yourself. You appear to be quite capable of that.

I seem to keep repeating myself because you seem to not be paying attention. I'm staggered that you cannot grasp the simple concept of meaning what you say and saying what you mean. You may, or may not, be used to be devisive and evasive. I am not.

I am curious why you keep quoting me but removing sections of the quote. Perhaps you are worried that your flimsy, turgid resolutions of what I actually say won't add up when the sentence is quoted fully?


I'd like to suggest you put me on your "Ignore" list. You appear to be making up your own versions of what I type, so you may as well just not see the originals.

Edit: One more thing. How have I insulted you? I can't seem to find it.

You have attempted to insult me by repeatedly saying I'm arrogant, drawn from your versions of my words, coupled with a conjecture "If this is not true then as far as I can tell, assumption 1 is not valid and you’re a bad person. If it is true, then you’re just a bad person. Either way you’re lacking in morals." - meaning (mathematically, rather than assuming) that, again from your versions of my words, I'm a bad person and lacking in morals. Insulting someone is when you accuse them of something which isn't true, and none of your accusations are true - however you've not yet succeeded in insulting me since I don't believe you have the wit, despite your bluff and bluster, to actually succeed in saying anything to me I actually care about.

 

[Danoff]

I am curious why you keep quoting me but removing sections of the quote. Perhaps you are worried that your flimsy, turgid resolutions of what I actually say won't add up when the sentence is quoted fully?

That is both ass inine and deliberately dense. <- There's an insult for you

Let's not.

Why didn't you just say from the beginning that you don't want to discuss it? That's all I've seen you do is avoid discussion here.

You seem convinced that I have misrepresented your position, but I see no place where that is that case and you have pointed none out. After reading your post, I think you (and Duke) are right. In the future, you might be a little more careful to cover up your biogtry of rich people because you're obviously not ready/willing to discuss it.

By the way, there is a fine line between observation and insult.

 

[Famine]

Set up a new thread and I will happily discuss anything you want. There are two caveats - it must stay on-topic and you must actually read what I said. I see little point in discussing things with someone who thinks they know my own head better than I do, enough to decide what I really mean. Perhaps plain-speaking isn't something you encounter often. Pity, really.

Neon_duke has asked that this thread stays on-topic. I'm glad to see you don't ignore only my words as it suits you. You can see this as evasion from discussion if you want, I don't care.

Oh, and you haven't mis-represented my position. Just as in the Iraq/Saudi threads, you've completely made my position up.

Glad to see you make the same errors we mere humans do to. That flagged, direct insult is not only mis-spelled, but also a breach of the Terms of Service. Read them sometime - they're good.

 

[toler]

Famine

danoff



ps: Prodigy suxx!

 

[ledhed]

So this thread is about some dude Prodigy Sucks.... right ?

 

[wellyrn]

yes, and to an astronomical degree. And thats not nearly your biggest problem either. No one wanted you to be #1, but you are. AND FOR GOD SAKE GROW UP AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!!! 9/11 is over, its sad, but you are SOOOOOOOO BIG AND RICH and you are in a petty b*tch fight with 3 countries with a combined GDP per capita of $500... GROW UP!

GDP(gross domestic product) is how much the country has to spend on goods and services, per person. in the US it is $35,000+. so in 1 sense your life is 70x better... but its hard to put a price on bombing.

and i cant help but add that the war in iraq you MURDERED, which is exactly what i would call AK's and camels vs. laser guided air strikes and abrams tanks, 100's of thousands of iraqis just so you could not kill the 1 guy you wanted to get rid of. ever heard of an f'in sniper rifle? its like a 500,000 word joke with no punch line.

i shouldnt go on but, calling your troops heros is too much. they are getting big bucks and pension to rack up kill ratios that would make duke nukem envious and the biggest threat being one of thier own helicopters falling on them. Then I see them whine on 60 minutes about the "dastardly cowards" who are fighting back with some actual tactics. OOOOOHhhhhhh im soooo sorry, if the US invades canada I'll make sure just to throw myself in front of a smart bomb rather than actually try to fight back.

well now im sure every american hates me. i dont hate you. i just disagree.

 

[Solid Fro]

If you haven't noticed yet, wellyrn, the US is taking responsibility. Because, the UN is not.

Unfortunately, assassinating Saddam may have not been the best course to take. Israel has already tried, but failed. Saddam frequently hid from public view and use multiple body doubles, a very difficult task for one sniper. Even if Saddam was assassinated, his sons would have taken over power. Yeah, now we have two Saddams in power and more unrest in the Middle East. Great idea, wellyrn.

The US military are the real heroes. They are willing to trade their lives for others to live in freedom. US troops do not fire back when they are fired upon. No, they wait until they have a clean shot of the enemy, one bullet, one dead hostile. They are the greatest fighting force ever created by man.

I don't know how the Canadian media spins the truth about the outside world, but it seems pretty bad if their citizens have opinions like these. Using 'murder' to describe a legitimate war by countries adhering to UN and NATO guidelines, praising two AWOL US soldiers for 'standing up against America', and distorting facts by using unrelated information like GDP numbers. For the record, Canada's GDP per capita is $29,700 USD (which is $40,828 in Canadian or "Your economy sucks" in Viper Zero's terms). Canada must be 50x better than the people in Iraq. Does that make Canada any better than the US? Canada is not as bad as the mighty Americans, we must be better than they are!

Before you post, wellyrn, make sure you get the facts straight.



GDP facts from here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html

 

[yeti]

They are the greatest fighting force ever created by man.

As a point of conjecture here... It is widely known that the British Armed forces are far superior to the American armed forces in all areas except funding and equipment (And especially shooting allies!).

It is also widely known that the Israeli's are a dab hand with the rifle too.

C.

 

[Solid Fro]

Oh, ok. Maybe I should have said IMO. I would like to see the US and UK go at it in a war game.

 

[Carl.]

=(which is $40,828 in Canadian or "Your economy sucks" in Viper Zero's terms).

If I understand well Viper Zero's terms, then "Your economy sucks" when compared to EU? And by the way Canada's Currency rose 25% in the last two years compared to the US. Note that in many cases it did more harm than good.

Just a thought here.

 

[///M-Spec]

As a point of conjecture here... It is widely known that the British Armed forces are far superior to the American armed forces in all areas except funding and equipment (And especially shooting allies!).

It is not widely known to me. Objective proof?


M

 

[toler]

speaking of armed forces and such, take a look at this:


www.costofwar.com


weak 👎

 

[Danoff]

I went to the site.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

I had more respect for eisenhower than to say something like this. This is stupid. It not only assumes that if the war were not necessary that this would be the proper way to spend the money (which it would not) - it also assumes that the money belongs to them, that they own it and that not giving it to these hungry needy people is theft. I can only hope that this was some kind of misquote and eisenhower is not this much of a moron. I really hope he understood his country better than this. Thanks for destroying my image of the man.

Dumb website. It ignores the need for war altogether.

 

[toler]

yeah right, we really need war. STUPID.

 

[Duke]

If everybody followed principles as illustrated here by danoff, ///M-spec, Sage, milefile, and myself (among others), no, we would not need war.

But since they don't, we do. Seeing the surface of things is easy. Understanding what's beneath is difficult.

 

[87chevy]

yes, and to an astronomical degree. And thats not nearly your biggest problem either. No one wanted you to be #1, but you are. AND FOR GOD SAKE GROW UP AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!!! 9/11 is over, its sad, but you are SOOOOOOOO BIG AND RICH and you are in a petty b*tch fight with 3 countries with a combined GDP per capita of $500... GROW UP!

GDP(gross domestic product) is how much the country has to spend on goods and services, per person. in the US it is $35,000+. so in 1 sense your life is 70x better... but its hard to put a price on bombing.

and i cant help but add that the war in iraq you MURDERED, which is exactly what i would call AK's and camels vs. laser guided air strikes and abrams tanks, 100's of thousands of iraqis just so you could not kill the 1 guy you wanted to get rid of. ever heard of an f'in sniper rifle? its like a 500,000 word joke with no punch line.

i shouldnt go on but, calling your troops heros is too much. they are getting big bucks and pension to rack up kill ratios that would make duke nukem envious and the biggest threat being one of thier own helicopters falling on them. Then I see them whine on 60 minutes about the "dastardly cowards" who are fighting back with some actual tactics. OOOOOHhhhhhh im soooo sorry, if the US invades canada I'll make sure just to throw myself in front of a smart bomb rather than actually try to fight back.

well now im sure every american hates me. i dont hate you. i just disagree.

oh, my, God. You are like the champion of Moronic Posters on GTP. wow..........

So you say the attacks of 9/11 are no big deal because we (America) can afford the loss? Man i hope not but that sure is what it sounds like.....

And you say we murdered people who were just trying as hard as they could to kill us first, often through methods of cowardice.

oh, god, wait, your also justifing what the "rebels" in Iraq are doing........... wow, hey you ever heard of a group called Al' Queda, you should join those guys. They would love to have you.

 

[87chevy]

yeah right, we really need war. STUPID.

your right, let's turn back time and not go to war with the Axis powers, let's just have a nice chit chat with them, or, wait, we should have continued to talk to Sadam, because he was a perfectly rational human being. Maybe sitting down and chatting solves everything. Let's just talk North Korea into giving up communism..... cause that'll work!

 

[toler]

i did say that we need war didn´t i ? i just think that`s STUPID but what do i know