I'm not a perfect worker bee and could do more. Better. I know it and I'm a fuck up anyways. I don't try to excuse my poor behavior through my ideology though.
I have no problem with profit as a motivator in itself. It is a good thing for innovation, it creates competition which helps motivate people and light a fire under them. But how do you respond to the fact that there are full-time working poor? How do you justify that? How is it beneficial to anyone but a few select individuals to allow people to slowly accumulate more and more of the total wealth, to the direct detriment of other people who did nothing to deserve it and are still trying their best to contribute to society and survive. What is so bad about laws that helped to prohibit that sort of predatory, destructive behavior? We pretty much open encourage it. It's unhealthy for our society, if they succeed in creating a wage slave labor force, then the country just becomes a place for obscenely wealthy sociopaths to feed off of a population of people until they suck it dry and it collapses.CH said:There's just a reason the profit motive exists.
Also not entirely what I said nor meant."well work harder and you can become rich".
I know right? I want to go back to being a full-time not-working poor person. Those were the days.We should not have the full-time working poor as a thing in the wealthiest nation in the world. It's fucked up.
So is your beef with the way things are, or that the way things are cannot be changed?There are a whole lot of people who have done everything they reasonably could be expected to do.
Not everyone breaks the mold. Before "better" there was just simple human life, before humans had clothes or farms... I don't want to go back. I like "better", even if it is literally worse. [These last words are very telling about the nature of how far we are into the progression of the technological singularity...]They didn't have opportunities for better built into their lives.
Implies determinism. With the advent of feminism virtually every woman can marry up a societal class and in 1 generation move her family on up. We don't live in a caste system where people are literally barred from social progression. LINK YUGE .JPG OF MELANIA TRUMP. Next someone will "boo hoo" me the woes of men who couldn't get ahead. Well, you can marry up too as a man. Some men manage that. I don't care. You have something to offer the world and no one's just going to hand it to you on a silver platter (this lesson has been brainwashed into me a thousand times over).get dealt that hand.
YES WE CAN all be wealthy! Do the math. If very few people existed on earth THERE WOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH TO GO AROUND AND WE ALL KNOW IT. It is a simple math problem, after all...And if we all *cannot* be wealthy, well, wouldn't that paint me correct when I say things like "There IS NOT enough to go around..." in explaining why we cannot equalize wealth or raise minimum wage further without serious economic implications (stock market decline, job decline, etc.)? Please please please think this one out, very important. I'd like to think we all can be wealthy and the #1 thing in the way is severe human overpopulation. I might be wrong.We can't all be wealthy.
Left you guys with this. Have fun.The Aggivacchagotta Sutta records a conversation between the Buddha and an individual named Vaccha that further elaborates on this. In it Vaccha asks the Buddha to confirm one of the following, with respect to the existence of the Buddha after death:
After death a Buddha reappears somewhere else
After death a Buddha does not reappear
After death a Buddha both does and does not reappear
After death a Buddha neither does nor does not reappear
To all four questions, the Buddha answers that the terms 'appear', 'not appear', 'does and does not reappear' and 'neither does nor does not reappear' do not apply. When Vaccha expresses puzzlement, the Buddha asks Vaccha a counter question to the effect of: if a fire were to go out and someone were to ask you whether the fire went north, south east or west how would you reply? Vaccha replies that the question does not apply and that a fire gone out can only be classified as 'out'.
Thanissaro Bikkhu elaborates on the classification problem around the words 'reappear' etc. with respect to the Buddha and Nirvana by stating that a "person who has attained the goal [Nirvana] is thus indescribable because [they have] abandoned all things by which [they] could be described". The Suttas themselves describe the liberated mind as 'untraceable' or as 'consciousness without feature', making no distinction between the mind of a liberated being that is alive and the mind of one that is no longer alive.