 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Kid, again, YOU are the one who keeps saying that everybody should be equal (or, mostly equal). That's you, not me....I think you are confusing yourself.
I've been arguing from the get-go that people are not equal, and will NEVER be equal. Thus, opportunity will never be equal, nor will outcome. And it shouldn't be.
Nonetheless, EVERYONE (and yes, I mean everyone) who has a job and participates in the economy can succeed by following those two steps.
Does it mean that they will find ultimate fulfillment? Of course not, we're simply talking about making gains in the economic system. If material wealth is something you enjoy (or, god forbid, something you totally define yourself by) then it's probably important to you, and THAT is how you go about it.
That's all.
Nothing about fair or unfair, nothing about greater or lesser opportunity. Only that spending less than you earn and buying things that increase in value WILL (every single time) increase your economic well being.
If you aspire for more, then work harder at spending less than you earn, or work harder at earning more, and educate yourself about buying things that increase in value over time.
You set the limits. You decide where you want to be.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid, again, YOU are the one who keeps saying that everybody should be equal (or, mostly equal). That's you, not me....I think you are confusing yourself.
I've been arguing from the get-go that people are not equal, and will NEVER be equal. Thus, opportunity will never be equal, nor will outcome. And it shouldn't be.
|
You are trying to justify the fact that people aren't treated equal. You are failing.
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Nonetheless, EVERYONE (and yes, I mean everyone) who has a job and participates in the economy can succeed by following those two steps.
Does it mean that they will find ultimate fulfillment? Of course not, we're simply talking about making gains in the economic system. If material wealth is something you enjoy (or, god forbid, something you totally define yourself by) then it's probably important to you, and THAT is how you go about it.
That's all.
Nothing about fair or unfair, nothing about greater or lesser opportunity. Only that spending less than you earn and buying things that increase in value WILL (every single time) increase your economic well being.
If you aspire for more, then work harder at spending less than you earn, or work harder at earning more, and educate yourself about buying things that increase in value over time.
You set the limits. You decide where you want to be.
-=Vel=- |
Like this. There is no point to your line of argument. No one really believes that everyone can become as rich as they care to. Capitalism can't even work like that even if it were possible. Capitalism depends on exploitation of a certain class. You are in a dream world.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
 Oh Kid, you are a fun one to banter with!
Yes, I live in a dream world. The house I just bought? Figment of my imagination, obviously. The agent I've got scouting out duplexes and small condo outfits? Nope....he doesn't exist either.
I'm not a supremely talented or gifted individual. Just a regular workin' stiff from a blue collar background.
If I can do it, then yes, anybody can do it. It's not hard.
What does it take? Repeat after me:
1) Spend less than you earn
and
2) Buy things that increase in value over time
Mystifying, innit?
I'm not justifying anything, nor am I even making the attempt.
Mine is purely an economic explanation of the rules of the game, and those two (above) are the way you play if you want to get ahead, economically.
We can argue about fairness, opportunity levels, and all that junk till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, the answer to getting ahead economically (regardless of what your current socioeconomic position is), is the EXACT same little two-step dance.
So....some people have more cards to play than others....big deal. It's still the same two steps.
Play the game or not. Your choice. The game don't care whether you participate or not. That's not "unfair," it just means you ain't playing. 
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Templar
You're 0-2 on the ad hominem Ming. I don't know alot about advertising, but I do know quite a bit about evolutionary psychology and cognitive science (cog sci was an important area of my dissertation work, and give a month or so to prepare, I could probably teach a grad level seminar on the subject). Yes, what I know about psychology in the ad business comes from a "few friends". A few friends who do psychological research in the ad business.
What was your degree in again, Ming?
|
For starters, mine is in advertising... and I lecture on the subject... What's your degree in? I'm glad you admit you don't know much about advertising, because you seem to be proving that fact every time you post.
And by the way... Many of my friends are doctors,
and they talk about their work all the time, but that doesn't make me an expert on it 
quote:
But, the primary goal is preference formation. When is the last time you saw a "tombstone" ad that just anounced the introduction of a new product in blacktext on a white background? (And even if you did, the subtext would be "see our product is so good, no need for advertising".)
Oh, and reread my last post. It is impossible to seel people things they don't want - so the goal is to create the desire and nudge them towards your brand.
|
Thanks for admitting you were wrong before... when you said that advertising is to blame for fast food and whiney brats.
Fast Food is something that people already want... and advertising only helps nudge them toward a specific restaurant (as you so clearly state)... So blame the people that desire food that is bad for them, and blame parents for not being able to control their own children... Don't look stupid by blaming advertising... something you've even admitted does not have the power to do what you originally claimed it did.
It's funny to see somebody backpeddal like you have when you are caught mouthing off your usual rants that don't make any sense...
And it's even better when your later arguments prove how your earlier comments were totally in error.
Enjoy the fantasy land you live in
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Templar
|
 |
People's Republic of the East Village
Oct 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Fear is a controlled response. I used to be scared of the dark. I'm not any more. I used to be scared of the water. That changed. Why? Because I MADE it change. I chose, using my spiffy lil' ol' free will to simply not be afraid anymore.
|
Lets talk fear then. Fear is a conditioned response to danger. A subconscious nudge if you will in a certain direction in response to perceived immanet danger. One cannot usually just say "fear go away" or will their fear away in an instant. It arises based on perception. So there is one limit on free will already. You can't make the feeling just go away once it arises.
What you have done is to recondition your fear response over time. Again, this isn't willing your fear away when it arises, but reconditioning the fear response itself.
Now here is where I get harsh with you. Why did you decide to get rid of your fear response to the dark? It could be that you had other desires that necessitated the ridding of this response. It might have been normative images of masculinity, it could have been a desire to hang out in dark places. It doesn't matter, some other value was strong enough to move you to recondition your fear response. SO where is the free will here? One value you held (most likely subrationally) mandated that your fear of the dark be reconditioned, so you figured out a way to recondition that fear and did so. It looks to me like a desire forced you to take action. Where is the great choice here? What would it mean to choose to stay afraid of the dark
MOreover, ask yourself this. Why did you decide to overcome your fear? Obviously, you valued a proper fear response to an irrational one. But why did you so value? What made it rational to not fear the dark? Again, this was a value judgement based on some value you held that made the fear of the dark irrational. Just where do you think all thses values come from?
To be a bit more concilatory, free will does not mean the ability to do whatever you like when you like. As above, you cannot just will fear away when it appears. Likewise, the rest of us who did occassionally freeze up when asking girls out in high school (again, another subrational effect - maybe you experienced this too but just rationalized it some way thereby making it your own "choice" ) simple could not force ourselves forward. Whatever adloscent anxieties about sexuality and body image took control and all the willing in the world wasn't going to do jack **** about it. After awhile, you grow out of it. But nobody chooses to be axious or afraid. So if there is a free will, it is more constrained than you are makingit out to be.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2003 22:39
|