Why they hate us: the envy theory

Post #26,166 by marlowe 1/28/02 6:37:25 PM Reply	Why they hate us: the envy theory [link\|http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/20/231252.shtml\|You gotta admit, this explains a lot] Excerpt: As sociologist Helmut Schoeck summarizes in his seminal work, "Envy: A Theory of Human Behavior" (and who collected the above anthropologists' observations): A self-pitying inclination to contemplate another's superiority or advantages, combined with a vague belief in his being the cause of one's own deprivation, is also to be found among educated members of our modern societies who really ought to know better. The primitive people's belief in black magic differs little from modern ideas. Whereas the socialist believes himself robbed by the employer, just as the politician in a developing country believes himself robbed by the industrial countries, so primitive man believes himself robbed by his neighbor, the latter having succeeded by black magic in spiriting away to his own fields part of the former's harvest. The primitive atavism of left-wing bromides like "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is best illustrated by arguing that one can be healthy only at the expense of others. That in order to be in superior health, bursting with energy and vitality, one has to make someone else sick or in poor health -- just as in order to be rich you have to make others poor. The healthy are healthy because they unjustly exploited and ripped off the sick, spiriting away the sick's fair share of health with black magic. In fact, the sick are sick because the healthy are healthy. If this is absurd, then claiming the poor are poor because they have been exploited by the rich is equally absurd. Pandering to the envious, and intimidating those who are afraid of them, has been the path to power of all modern demagogues, from Lenin and Hitler to Yassir Arafat and Osama bin Laden. The three great political pathologies of the 20th century are all religions of envy: Nazism, preaching race envy toward "rich, exploitative Jews"; Communism, preaching class envy toward the "rich, exploitative bourgeoisie"; and Moslem terrorism, preaching culture envy toward the "rich, exploitative West." Envy-mongering has always been and continues to be the underlying strategy of all variants of the political Left, such as the Democratic Party. What a Yanomamo woman calls "black magic" and a Marxist professor at Harvard calls "exploitation," Tom Daschle calls "tax break for the rich." I say: I've always felt there's something sinister about the zero-sum mentality. At first I thought it was just the implications of the other two laws of thermodynamics. But maybe there's something morally corrupting about such a world view. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,170 by Brandioch 1/28/02 6:50:31 PM Reply	Interesting. Although I question why he places "magic" and health in the same grouping as economics. "The primitive atavism of left-wing bromides like "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is best illustrated by arguing that one can be healthy only at the expense of others." "Envy-mongering has always been and continues to be the underlying strategy of all variants of the political Left, such as the Democratic Party." Hmmmm, if one accepts this, then must one also accept the mirror "magic"? You know, the one about welfare queens driving cadilacs that is so near and dear to the Republican heart?
Post #26,298 by marlowe 1/29/02 10:30:15 AM Reply	Why ask why? Magic, medicine, economics... it's all voodoo. Remember: no matter what happens, it's always somebody else's fault. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,462 by nking 1/30/02 1:09:52 AM Reply	Voodoo economics Geroge H. W. Bush didn't call it "Voodoo Economics" for nothing when he debated Reagon on the topic. If course he did a 180 when Reagan made him his running mate. That apparently was one of the few things that George H. W. Bush (Dubya's father) got right. The middle-class people have been turned into Zombie-like consumers. Must buy more things to keep the economy going. Must work dead-end job to pay for it all. This way the money goes to our masters, that get more tax breaks to keep the whole system going. Popa George was right the first time on this issue. :) "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #26,177 by Simon_Jester 1/28/02 7:48:17 PM Reply	Laughing my tail off.... marlowe...you need better reading material... The article title: The Secret to the Suicidal Liberal Mind to quote: "A racist hatred of one's own race \ufffd auto-racism \ufffd has become a defining characteristic of the liberal mind." I suppose that the ignoring of actions done by same said race is manual-racism and is a defining characteristic of the conservative mind? lol. I'm not sure where to begin... the zero-sum game... The primitive atavism of left-wing bromides like "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is best illustrated by arguing that one can be healthy only at the expense of others. That in order to be in superior health, bursting with energy and vitality, one has to make someone else sick or in poor health -- just as in order to be rich you have to make others poor. Alas...every liberal decries that the ONLY way to get richer is for the poor to get poorer. Not that the CORRUPT get RICHER while the POOR get POORER -- we don't believe in that you know. (Can we say Enron and Kenneth Lay?) See, liberal know that it's not a zero-sum game (surprise!). But we also that the poker table IS a zero-sum game. But what REALLY gets me that is the assumption that this can be the ONLY reason that we're getting attacked. Yeah, that's the ticket. No-other reason, honest. (BTW: did you note that Saudia Arabia has asked us to reduce our forces. Hint: Bin Ladin is winning.)
Post #26,300 by marlowe 1/29/02 10:34:38 AM Reply	Bin Laden is winning? Well, you really laid your cards on the table with that one. Don't cash in your chips yet, though. This isn't over, and al Qaeda is on the run, like it or not. And just who was exploiting those people before the Western imperialists came along? Remember, they were living in squalor then, too. Give it up, man. Your laughter is sounding forced. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,327 by Simon_Jester 1/29/02 12:10:59 PM Reply	Marlowe... Well, you really laid your cards on the table with that one. Don't cash in your chips yet, though. Really....and what are you trying to say? That because I'm looking at world events with a critical eye that I'm somehow throwing my lot in with bin Ladin? (I am refraining from flaming you to hell and back again for questioning my patriotism, in an attempt to act civilized.... I have to ask though...what would you do if I questioned your patriotism?) Sidenote: bin ladin's 'win' depends on his goals. If he goal was to destroy the USA (as some people have suggested) then I agree, he's totally lost. If his goal was to disrupt USA/Saudia Arabia relations (as I suspect it is)....then...I'll argue that he's winning considering recent events. (Of course, comments like that mean I'm a commie mutant traitor unfit to serve the Computer unquestioningly.)
Post #26,463 by nking 1/30/02 1:14:21 AM Reply	Depends on your definition of winning If you mean that he is running like a scared rabbit and saying that the US Troops cannot find whatever bunker he is hiding in, then you might say that he is winning a game of "cat and mouse". If you mean that his terrorist network is being taken apart by the US/UN military one part at a time, until they find those responsible for the bombings, then he is losing. He is losing his people, his resources, and his bases. "All your base are belong to us!" said Dubya to Osama. :) "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #26,180 by Ashton 1/28/02 7:59:14 PM Reply	Wow! a veritable glossary of cant Beginning with Freedom Research Foundation. Thus I admit: "it does explain a lot". Hmmm - wonder what the membership rules are like. And would they be laxer than for the Hoover Institute ? (Ya gotta watch those knee-jerk Librul Sources, y'know?) Anthropologists observe that for most primitive and traditional cultures, "every individual lives in constant fear of the magical aggression of others ... there is only one explanation for unforeseen events: the envious black magic of another villager." Gosh - this sounds a lot like a pretty modern culture: Corporate worrying about possibly having to pay taxes / lose current welfare, via some next triumph of The Left God VS Individuals worrying about whether they can make it on 2 min-wage jobs - and whether they'll ever make enough to even pay taxes, via some next triumph of The Right God The primitive atavism of left-wing bromides like "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is best illustrated by arguing that one can be healthy only at the expense of others. Now as to bromides (or even iodides) - when in fact the Holy Economic Formul\ufffd have demonstrated an actual $-factoid and a trend: A) The rich Are getting richer.* B) The trend Is a growing disparity, especially of late. C) The rate is accelerating. dR/dt = positive number. Well, it seems that at least one bromide has plenty of fizz in it. PS - heard recently that there is not One billionaire* in the UK; where did we manage to screw up our legal origins and begin to create little Thanes of Cawdor all our own? For some of that 'balance' stuff on the topic, there's always - [link\|http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/ivins/story/1518110p-1594531c.html\|Molly Ivins: Wrath of the nations] {Sheesh marlowe} From sentence one, this guy's fav wing to dance on: was starkly Gee, never mind Haw. Let's just call us homo-erectus and forget that sapiens BS - OK?
Post #26,278 by Mike 1/29/02 9:29:16 AM Reply	Minor nitpick...... .....I believe there are billionaires in the UK. [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_793000/793325.stm\|http://news.bbc.co....0/793325.stm] The more general point about the huge disparity is well made -- Can't think of anything PC right now --
Post #26,285 by Arkadiy 1/29/02 9:45:26 AM Reply	Ash, you're amazing. Where does all your healthy skepticism disappear when it comes to Money? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *PS - heard recently that there is not One billionaire in the UK; where did we manage to screw up our legal origins and begin to create little Thanes of Cawdor all our own? <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< You've heard it same place as me, on NPR's Car Talk in the Puzzler section. It was a question: "Why is there not a single Billionaire in UK?" The answer is: in UK (and in the rest of the world AFAIK), they use the word "milliard" instead of "billion" to denote 10^9. Thus UK has milliarders, not billionaires.
Post #26,297 by marlowe 1/29/02 10:27:58 AM Reply	Ash has always been a very selective skeptic... as his response above demonstrates. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,304 by Brandioch 1/29/02 10:47:22 AM Reply	I heard it differently. one - 1 ten - 10 hundred - 100 one thousand - 1,000 ten thousand - 10,000 hundred thousand - 100,000 one million - 1,000,000 ten million - 10,000,000 hundred million - 100,000,000 thousand million - 1,000,000,000 ten thousand million - 10,000,000,000 hundred thousand million - 100,000,000,000 one billion - 1,000,000,000,000 But in the US, we don't follow that pattern. We assign names to every 3 zeros thousand - 1,000 million - 1,000,000 billion - 1,000,000,000 trillion - 1,000,000,000,000 Personally, I prefer the first system. It seems more sensible to me.
Post #26,474 by Ashton 1/30/02 5:06:21 AM Reply	Curses! Foiled Again. Milliards n'Milliards of Stars.. ..call it poetic licentiousness - after all, a Pound Sterling ain't no Pound o'Sterling - now is it? [Truth] I know of no prose means for inculcating the Revealed Truth that, letting Any* @#&%$* homo sap control as many other homo saps* - (as even One-$B guarantees) is stark raving lunacy, period. We Know How we Are... [/Truth] So I cheated. And I regret none of it. It is a far far better thing. But I didn't lie: I heard* it.* :-\ufffd
Post #26,302 by marlowe 1/29/02 10:44:37 AM Reply	Pardon me, your envy is showing. About your ABCs: why shouldn't the rich get richer, unless you presume that it's always at someone else's expense? You don't presume that now, do you? Because if you do, then you've proven the article is spot on. And if you don't presume that, than what exactly is your complaint? For my part, I'm happy to see the smart and decent people get richer, and I don't care how much or little they had to start with. More power to the good. On the flip side, scum is scum, be it rich or poor. I'm not entirely happy about the current distribution of wealth, but I'm not envious either, nor am I so simpleminded as to suggest any attempted equality of distribution. But some people obsess so much over wealth that they define "class" in terms of wealth. What kind of mentality is that? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,312 by gtall 1/29/02 11:05:41 AM Reply	Wrong measures I think most people measure themselves against the wrong standard. Immigrants to the U.S. think of themselves as doing well if their kids do better than they do. It is the change in wealth that is important, and not even individual wealth. What I'd really like to see is some measure of the proportion of groups who move from lesser circumstances to greater between, say, the U.S. economy and pick your favorite Workers' Paradise...say Sweden. Of course, even that is comparing apples and oranges due to the size difference. Sometimes size really does matter, it makes (similar problems) small problems in their society large problems in ours. And where problems are situation makes a difference. Sweden's immigrants are fairly isolated and not doing very well, even with the social programs. Of course, they haven't many of them. The U.S. gets a large influx of people every year, yet our institutions do not break, our social services haven't collapsed, etc. How do we measure this kind of ability of the U.S. economy? Another feature of the U.S. economy that get scant attention is that the U.S. is the biggest consumer in the world. While some may get squeamish at the thought, without the U.S. consumer, the rest of the world go down the toiletski. How do we measure the amount of economic gain the U.S. pumps out into the rest of the world. That of course doesn't even count our science...and ummm...my research...hehehhehehe... Gerard Allwein
Post #26,475 by Ashton 1/30/02 6:11:08 AM Reply	'Consumption' - a pretty spot-on measure after all. Old name for cancer, which aptly describes the process. We may get 'richer' (we say) through the religion of consumption - if we are willing to define 'wealth' in that way: Growth is good. Funny how that changes when you have a growth on your ___ (?) So you see no supreme irony in cancer being about unrestrained growth* - while we are not happy with anything less than an exponentially expanding what we call, 'economy' (er YAN oxymoron. As in economize). * while at once being The most Popular disease we have! - and have brought to other cultures (as we hook them on junk-food chains too): who formerly experienced a tiny cancer rate - check Japan, for one. You may explain the concentration of 'riches' via some fanciful notion of our -what?- 'seeding growth' around the world? Isn't the underlying assumption there: this isn't a zero-sum game? But that happy definition appears to lose sight of another concept - control. The energy usage? Sheer mass of stuff/person that we control: is quite a disproportional share of all there is. No? Our per capita accumulation of stuff - produced often by processes which create orders of magnitude more detritus (much of that toxic) than the particular toy - is surely a measure of something. (Entropy at very least?) However these logistics play out in 'physics' (or literal) 'space' - as our local usage/capita ascends uninterruptedly: isn't it odd that we imagine this trend may continue indefinitely? Not to mention: is THIS then, the meaning of life for us: "Consume as much stuff / energy as possible while also increasing in number - as casually" Izzat it - after the long slow climb from the slime? The Answer isn't 42 after all; it's just... EAT. MORE. --> ??? Sorry Gerard - my take is that we make the (false but cute) caricature of the lemming seem positively brilliant. Should the rest of the world acquire our fascination with waste (the larger part of each piece of stuff) .. well, Malthus has been patient (and ignored, if not ridiculed) and we enjoy imagining that a Murican! can even confound I=Ioe^Kt Yeah.. Sure We Can.. WTF has math got to do with What We Want! I mean - the cosmos may be 'finite and unbounded' and all, but I'll bet that the local neighborhood still weighs a few septillion tons and - it's circumference isn't noticeably growing either. So when there are just humanoids left.. after we et or killed off about every other critter: and then we look around - won't we call that The Boring Death? Ashton Watchin the Circus, is all. Don't change a thing.
Post #26,481 by gtall 1/30/02 8:09:26 AM Reply	Depends on how you calculate waste One of the biggest environmental pollutants is methane. Our cows fart too much. So you have a choice, you can (a) allow people to go hungry, (b) have a lot of farting cows, (c) get people to eat a diet rich in vegetables and other good stuff. You probably pick (c), good for you. Now, how will you be generating the crops? Do you (a) get farmers to produce more by giving them more fertilizer (cows make good fertilizer), (b) get a lot more farmers to produce a lot more stuff, but in enviromentally sound ways even if they have to use all available space and cut down the trees to do it, (c) make genetically engineered crops that do not rape the soil of nutrients and don't need no stinkin' pesticides. Who knows what you'll pick, I'll pick (c) for you because you are probably environmentally sound (if not otherwise so...snicker) and you don't want no stinkin' fertilizer causing algae growths in your mostquito pond. You'll be wanting some real good science to produce those genetic marvels, even if you breed them the old fashioned way. Now produce an economy that will allow you the freedom produce the eggheads that produce the science years before it is needed. And please do it in an environmentally sound way too. No coal fired power plants to produce the electricity, you'll be wanting to use solar. Of course, you'll need to produce the solar cells, produce them in an environmentally friendly way too, I won't allow you any backsliding. Your scientists will need to commute to the labs, give'em bikes. Oh, and produce those being conscious of the environment too. The point, Ashton, is that you want a perfect world to spring from a perfect world. It won't. You have a dirty world and the "economy" is nothing more than people doing what they do. From that, you must produce enough food, clothing, and science to keep'em all happy. I contend you haven't the faintest of fuzzies on how to make that work, and neither do all the other "anti-consumers" who somehow thinks this stuff grows on trees. By the way, China has 5 billion people, get cracking! Gerard Allwein
Post #26,488 by wharris2 1/30/02 9:00:30 AM Reply	Startling statistic Something like 70% of the soybeans currently grown are genetically engineered. (Now to what extent that means, whether it's actual put this gene here and take this gene out, or whether it's just advanced hormone therapy, or selection, or what, I don't know.) "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #26,526 by mhuber 1/30/02 11:14:15 AM Reply	Predator inefficiency completely eats the difference. As a life member of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) I wish your argument worked. But it doesn't, because the amount of resources (land, water, energy, chemicals) it takes to produce X calories of beef is far higher than the amount of resources it takes to produce X calories of most kinds of edible vegitation. Even taking into account the fertilizer that cows produce. It doesn't take evil technology to make eating plants less damaging than eating cows. At pretty much any technological level, carnivores do more damage. Except perhaps in terms of making an economy run. Farmers can produce more edible calories without expanding the fields or resorting to exotic biotech, simply by reducing the number of cows. Fertilizer might be a challenge without any cows, but the number of cows could be reduced quite a bit before a fertilizer shortage would occur. Except for those exotic biotechs, which tend to require fancy chemicals instead of dung. No, I'm not some kind of vegitarian activist - I buy my dead cows by the quarter cow, and there is a chunk of dead cow ready for my lunch right now. Also some rice. I recognize that I am consuming more resources than I really need to. So be it. I do not aspire to be harmless. ---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
Post #26,585 by gtall 1/30/02 4:46:21 PM Reply	Re: Predator inefficiency You are correct that producing animals requires much higher more stuff. But that wasn't my point. You could have substituted your argument for producing more veggies in place of mine for producing more veggies. The result would be the same. We still have to produce the infrastructure to manage the change. And that infrastructure is complicated, expensive, and requires a lot of technologies. Anyhow, I doubt we could eliminate raising animals in place of veggies because animal products are used in a lot more than just food. You'll be wanting to replace all those too. That will require more tech, start now, time's awasting... My point was that in order to fail to consume all that Ashton wishes us to fail to consume, he has no way to get from here to there. We get in the way because we want too many things. We even want the things that will allow us to consume less, and have to produce those things, thus starting the cycle all over again. But I do not think it is a zero sum game. We can consume less, but we won't get there by attempting to change human nature, we'll get there because we've learned how to become more efficient and do it in such a way that we would want to do it. Gerard Allwein
Post #26,565 by Ashton 1/30/02 3:17:05 PM Reply	It's all soluble without magic. But only after enough take the 12-step course beyond that comfy level, denial. Meanwhile we shall indulge our fav econo-fantasies, elide from our mentation the concept of exponential (That's the way to deal with scary things that go bump in the night!) And order another HumVee (the wanna-be UAV version) with the white rhino-skin seats and the Bose stereo - so we don't have to hear the sounds of the things squashed by the (optional with A/C) caterpillar treads. As mentioned above: justifying the horrendous side effects of billions n'billions of cattle as "a marvelous source of protein" is ~ like our other pseudo-economic theories for the maintenenance of bizness as usual: Hey! next quarter's gonna be Great. Who cares about quarter III - until quarter II? We could fix lots, IMhO - but I doubt we'll begin to try until likely, we will have missed all the windows of opportunity. It's just 'US' - and I Gotta be Me(-Me-Me). Better get started on that boffin-clone farm - to Keep The Good Things Flowing (like ketchup.. ketchup.. if'n ya ever catch Garrison Keillor & Co. ?) Hey I know! Pay 'em with stock options. There - all fixed. Ashton What, me worry? Won't happen on My shift! ZZZzzzzzzz Oops - time to turn the Ocelot on the Bar-B-Q
Post #26,566 by Another Scott 1/30/02 3:18:28 PM Reply	Nit: Most cow methane is due to burping. [link\|http://www.durable.gc.ca/radio-video/radio/radio1_e.phtml\|Here]'s a Canadian radio show report about it. The gas is methane. It's not the most plentiful gas linked to global warming; that title goes to carbon dioxide. But kilo-for-kilo, methane is said to have 21 times the warming effect of CO2.And it's becoming more abundant in the atmosphere every year. Methane is produced by all plant-eating animals, including the world's 1.3 billion beef cattle and dairy cows. Dr. Paul McCaughy is a research scientist with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Brandon. World wide, cattle produce enormous qualities of methane-probably about 15 per cent of world wide emissions of methane. Individual cattle can produce about 65 kilograms of methane per year. Actually, the gas is produced by bacteria in the cow's digestive system. According to the experts, about 85 per cent of that gas escapes through the animal's mouth and nose in the form of quiet, but frequent, belches. McCaughey and other government researchers are now looking for ways to reduce that gas production. Among their findings so far: methane levels can be cut substantially when the animal is served high-quality feed, rich in alfalfa and young grasses. McCaughey says the results of this research will benefit both the environment and the farmer. Methane is an energy loss to the cow and if we can somehow reduce methane production, we can improve the bottom line and make cattle production more profitable for farmers. So that would be a win-win situation for both society and the farmer. Emphasis added. Cheers, Scott.
Post #26,571 by Ashton 1/30/02 3:36:02 PM Reply	Gotta Love.. the implications and our next plan - Just like the new Palm XLII with add-on 42-'fix anything module': All we gots to do is reengineer the cow for less burping -- er maybe reengineer the bacteria for less burp-factor in cows -- er maybe reengineer the humanoids for more resistance to the new strain of bacteria which tends to interact with the reengineered corn fed the cows - and the reengineered deadly bees which pollinate the corn and ... ... (But DON'T ponder for very long: WTF SAYS..? we POSITIVELY NEED 1.3 billion cows/cattle-steers, yada yada.) Ashton I never admit my species origin, when travelling - it's so humiliating whenever they find out..
Post #26,484 by marlowe 1/30/02 8:56:05 AM Reply	Malthus has been patient with us? Of course he's been patient. He's been dead. And with the exception of Jeremy Bentham, the dead don't socialize much. If the West is really no different from the Rest, why should we have been given a reprieve from the dismal laws? It's a singular circumstance, which calls for explanation. Something better thought out than "just you wiat!" [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,560 by Ashton 1/30/02 2:50:25 PM Reply	Gosh marlowe, sometimes your rhetorical questions are just too precious! If the West is really no different from the Rest, why should we have been given a reprieve from the dismal laws? Golly.. I mean - that was a question? OK I'll bite - er Power? The ability to subordinate the needs of the many to the fantasies and weapons - of the few (for a time) ? (Of course, once the agar dish is full of the remains of cannibalized spores - the whole Petri dishful dies - but that won't happen til the next fiscal quarter, so why worry?) Adam Smith was lots smarter than the folks who think he was sleeping with Ayn Rand - so was Malthus, though he lacked modern spin doctors to make the medicine go down with the sugar syrup. Thanks for your support. Ashton
Post #26,586 by marlowe 1/30/02 4:47:49 PM Reply	Begging the question. Whence the power? Did Anglo-Saxon civilization get a visit from the power fairy? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,597 by Ashton 1/30/02 6:25:21 PM Reply	The more rapacious 'won', of course ..but continued the rapine long after parity was achieved. That became a habit, then a tradition - and now it seems to be all we know, to keep selves occupied during waking hours. So - is that the best we can supply as a 'Purpose' for hanging out in these parts? - get as much of everything as you can.. then try to get some more? Repeat. B o r i n g. And it makes the 'entrepreneur' the epitome of maudlin conversationalist: you always Know What S/he Wants, and it's always the same: my very Own Monopoly! Ashton
Post #26,600 by marlowe 1/30/02 7:02:59 PM Reply	Big problem with that theory. Conflicts with real world. A lot of loser types I can name are way more vicious and predatory than some winner types I know. It's not hard to find groups with an inflated sense of entitlement, and a ruthless determination to collect, who nonetheless are stuck at the bottom of the totem pole. Common street thugs. New Guinea headhunters. Day traders (yes, they kill, sometimes.) Those drunken losers who fall for get-rich-quick scams, and then go on a shooting spree when things don't turn out the way they planned. And that's just financial rapacity. What of the lust for power, and for respect far beyond what one is entitled to? Arab terrorists. The IRA. Chechens. And do you really not know any decent, honest people who work for a living, and happen to be doing well at it? If not, you need to hang out with a different crowd. And if so, can't the same principle apply to entire cultures? Why not? Not everyone who wins cheats. And not everyone who loses plays nice. Far from it. Be careful what underdog you root for. It might be rabid. Or just stupid. Really, Ash. If you'd actually thought about what you said for even a moment, you'd have realized how silly it is. You're envious. Get over it. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,670 by Ashton 1/31/02 1:43:53 PM Reply	Any use of the word 'real' to bolster a stereotype is doomed to failure - as is the usual reply: of YAN 'opposite'. This isn't argument - it's contradiction. Ditto 'power fairy' type excrescenses.. And your adolescent ideas about 'losers and winners' - hell, Billy is perhaps the biggest seeming-Winner to be.. so evidently: a 'real' Looser. You appear still to imagine that there are only Two POVs, and also believe that the usual polit-speak of inane polar opposites actually has 'meaning' (!) There are many reasons - none of which constitutes causality - for the US ascent to now virtual Imperial hegemony over any #2 or the rest. Our position is bolstered by our single-minded devotion to the mercantile, mechanical model of all things + our jingoistic, very Christian-like Certainty [a lot like the certainty your every comment oozes] -- that there is no need to examine any other peoples' POV: Ours is Best by definition, since we hold the \ufffd on those. We manufacture new nonsense words to justify our every action. We invented! the TLA (and we believe those fake words - that's the scariest part). For this tissue of self-referential 'morality' to continue, there needs to be ultimate power finally backing it up. We have that - the best nukes, delivery systems and.. a group well-conditioned to destroy the world on orders, if need be: to save Our idea of "democracy" (by Corporate surrogate, of course: here And abroad). Just as in Vietnam - kill the country and it's gooks - as we always dehumanize Every 'enemy' - to save them for Murican 'goodness'. Still the rampant mindset in US and us IMhO. No, not that any rocketeers long to see this magic stuff used (well, every techno type secretly wants to see His system perform) - just that: in the End (and it will Be That]: They Will Launch.. us all into terminal madness. No one out there can counter devoted, sanctimonious M.A.D. Certainty - backed by apocalyptic weaponry. And we're so insouciant: we feel actually smug about possessing!* this Damocles sword over the continuation of the species. Smug is the word because the Decision is already made: We Will Launch. * Who possesses Whom.. Don't talk to me about your fanciful idea of any real world or for that matter, about 'reality' of any label. You can't ever get past the cant, it seems. Erwache! Gehabt, kindern. Ashton
Post #26,722 by marlowe 1/31/02 4:18:34 PM Reply	Methinks you're suffering from reality envy. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,310 by marlowe 1/29/02 10:59:31 AM Reply	A veritable balance of cant. Yes, Molly Ivins certainly knows her cant. The difference is, people like Molly are really looking stupid these days, and more than a little desperate. One might even say... envious. For what it's worth, I never really bought into the idea of treating prisoners of war as anything other than criminals. Either they were on the right side of the war, or they weren't. If they were, then their captors are the bad guys, and aren't likely to care about their rights. If not, then they're international criminals, and should be dealt with accordingly. The Geneva Concention is a misguided effort to civilize war. You can't civilize war. You can only get it over with. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,316 by Brandioch 1/29/02 11:15:47 AM Reply	Thus speaks one who has never served. And it shows.
Post #26,318 by Silverlock 1/29/02 11:27:41 AM Reply	Isn't this your third or fourth "why they hate us"link? So which one do you subscribe to? It is remotely possible that you think there may be more than one cause. I doubt this though. That would mean you could be open to the possiblity that there might be a cause you haven't read about in Conservative Christian Marching Orders monthly yet. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #26,527 by marlowe 1/30/02 11:40:22 AM Reply	Yeah, I'm going for a record. For an encore, I'll start a series on why Silverlock hates me, and what can I do to get his goat even more. For a guy who brags about all his shades of grey, you sure do see red a lot. You must see the world in an H.R. Giger color scheme. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,528 by Silverlock 1/30/02 11:42:54 AM Reply	No hate needed. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em ---------------------------------------- "At this time, my wife and I would like to focus the press attention back on former President Clinton, and all the bad things he did..." This is the republican solution for everything...and it's working! -The GlenLivid from Fark.com
Post #26,464 by nking 1/30/02 1:23:33 AM Reply	Envy theory, good answer. The US Dollar is stronger than their unit of currency, and they see themselves exploted by US Corps and the US Military has been on their holy land and they see it as a violation of their religion. So they strike at us from any means they can. If that means that Habib and Ackbar have to turn themselves into human bombs, or hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings, then that is what they will do. What does this mean to us? The majority of the world hates us because of US policy, US military might, US Corps exploiting them, the US Dollar being stronger than their unit of currency, etc. They see us as "The Great Satan" or "Yankee Bozos" that must be gotten rid of. To them, we are the enemy. They cannot see that it is not the US people doing this stuff to them, but US Corps, US Military, the US Government, etc. But Osama said that any US Citizen is a target to his people. Which means that they are not only crazy, but totally bigoted towards us. They must be igoring all the good we did, like send their people money, food, and supplies, and helping them fight off the Russian armies and other things. The solution may be simple, just cut off the aid and help to any country that is helping out terrorists. Don't forgive them their loans, and don't help them anymore until they change their ways. Embargo them, drop support, and refuse to deal with them anymore until they change. Otherwise countries will get the idea that if they help terrorists, that they will eventually get US aid, be forgiven their loans, etc. Sort of like that "The mouse that roared" movie with Peter Sellers. Declair war on the US, lose, and then ask for Richfare. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #26,573 by mhuber 1/30/02 4:00:00 PM Reply	Primitive black magic? Cool! That means that the welfare queens can have all the cadilacs they want without having any impact on the rest of us! Seriously, that's some goofy rhetoric. Life isn't entirely a zero sum game, but the more X I consume, the less X there is for you, for most values of X. Obviously, health isn't one of those values of X. And neither is overall prosperity, within certain parameters and measured correctly. If wealth is not distributed efficiently (is there any doubt that Microsoft's monopolistic practices damage the software industry?) or measured clumsily (market share is always zero sum)then there are problems, but there is a reason why health is used as a metaphor for economic conditions. Economics is partly zero sum and partly not. The size of the pie is not constant, but to refer to looking at the zero sum parts as "primitive black magic" does not lead to deeper understanding of the truth. Overconsumption does lead to shortages, and to inefficiencies. But overconsumption of resources is not why these particular people hate us anyway. They don't hate us out of envy, they hate us out of pride. They know The Way It Ought To Be and that doesn't include scum like us. They'd hate us if we were penniless gypsies, if we still defended Israel effectively and had a presence in Saudi Arabia and a culture more attractive to their fellows than theirs is. ---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon.
Post #26,587 by marlowe 1/30/02 4:51:13 PM Reply	Envy is a symptom of pride. It boils down to: "How dare they be more successful than us?" [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,591 by Brandioch 1/30/02 5:33:32 PM Reply	For you, maybe. But you still haven't accounted for the fear of the "Welfare Queens" and their high priced cars. Envy?
Post #26,601 by marlowe 1/30/02 7:06:16 PM Reply	Who fears welfare queens? Do you honestly know anyone who pees his pants when a welfare queen rolls by in her limo? I don't know how it is on planet Brandioch, but here on earth we don't fear parasites. We despise them, and do our best to make them fear us. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
Post #26,603 by Brandioch 1/30/02 7:57:44 PM Reply	Perhaps you don't listen. "Do you honestly know anyone who pees his pants when a welfare queen rolls by in her limo?" Take a look at a google search on "welfare queen" and you'll see a whole lot of people afraid. "I don't know how it is on planet Brandioch, but here on earth we don't fear parasites." Hmmm, you're making this too easy. So, if they have less than you, they're envious. Or they're parasites. "We despise them, and do our best to make them fear us." I see that fear plays a very important role in your world view.
Post #26,592 by mhuber 1/30/02 5:37:27 PM 1/31/02 3:18:36 PM Reply	A bit of theological theory There is an idea that pretty much every form of badness stems from pride. I haven't seen any real specific counter-examples to that, but my own inclination is to see that most sin derives from self-loathing. I think a case could be made that the thing these guys are really trying to kill is an aspect of themselves. We threaten their order mostly by temptation. If they weren't tempted, we wouldn't be much of a threat. That perspective doesn't contradict the idea of pride being the root - self-loathing is driven (at least partly) by an exaggerated idea of what that self should be. Pride, in other words. ---- "You don't have to be right - just use bolded upper case" - annon. Edited by mhuber Jan. 31, 2002, 03:18:36 PM EST Expand All History
Post #26,598 by Ashton 1/30/02 6:31:35 PM Reply	Ben Franklin's take (~~) I think that in time I might overcome all of the sins - except vanity - for even were I to become truly humble, I'd probably feel vain about it. Can't 'Win' :-\ufffd I'm the humblest person I know: I'm Numbah One!

Welcome to IWETHEY!