Here is a Christmas message for men only

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

I will stand on the principle that if a woman is loved she will respect her husband and submit to him. Because he, by command, will love her as he loves himself.

It would seem that you and GeorgiaDon have difficulty with sharing love in the sense that the husband and wife are one flesh.

Ummm.... I too (and probably a LOT of others) have difficulty sharing your version of love if it means submitting and bowing to my husband.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[jakee 1,500]

RonD1120

I will stand on the principle that if a woman is loved she will respect her husband and submit to him. Because he, by command, will love her as he loves himself.

It would seem that you and GeorgiaDon have difficulty with sharing love in the sense that the husband and wife are one flesh.

Ok, so if a husband and wife are one, and if they love each other equally, why does that mean that the wife should submit to the husband but not the husband to the wife?

If a wife should submit because here husband really loves her then a husband should submit because his wife really loves him.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

LyraM45

Quote

I will stand on the principle that if a woman is loved she will respect her husband and submit to him. Because he, by command, will love her as he loves himself.

It would seem that you and GeorgiaDon have difficulty with sharing love in the sense that the husband and wife are one flesh.

Ummm.... I too (and probably a LOT of others) have difficulty sharing your version of love if it means submitting and bowing to my husband.

Pfft. Didn't you read the title?

"For MEN only."

You wimmen aren't capable of reading and understanding this kind of stuff.

It's a man thing.

Now go get me a sammich and a beer.

And take off your shoes. It's winter time.



We really need a sarcasm font.


Note: I'm kidding.
Unfortunately, others actually do hold this point of view.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Shotgun 1]

billvon

>Really, the answer is grow balls? How about grow brains?

How will you take other kid's lunch money with a big brain?

Cheat them out of it.

Sorry, woman here, posting in the "men only" thread.

[champu 1]

jakee

***The author strikes me as a well-meaning, honest, rambling nit-wit.

He's rambling and he's an nit-wit but she he's talking about beating the shut out if anyone that does behaves in a way he doesn't like but couches it in the vague, deniable phrase of 'taking into the woods' isn't well meaning and isn't honest, that's being a thug and a bully.

After getting a couple critiques for having written this I read the article again and I see where you and Don are coming from (e.g. he joined the Army and his go-to example of coming together as a team is being in bar fights together.) To me, though, he still comes across as more of tool than a thug or a bully, just kinda spinning his wheels in a bog of bravado.

I have in the past, however, expressed my disapproval of the kind of people with whom you could reach a moderate agreement in conversation and yet they'd go off and vote a straight ticket on social issues. So in that sense I concede that "well-meaning" may have been too generous, as he very much strikes me as such a person.

Also, for someone who claims as much manliness as he does, he uses the word "metrosexual" too frequently.

[jakee 1,500]

***After getting a couple critiques for having written this I read the article again and I see where you and Don are coming from (e.g. he joined the Army and his go-to example of coming together as a team is being in bar fights together.) To me, though, he still comes across as more of tool than a thug or a bully, just kinda spinning his wheels in a bog of bravado./quote]

But again, his idea of a good church group is one where it's members will gang up on anyone who's behaviour doesn't conform to their standards, take them into the woods and beat the crap out of them. You could at a stretch say that's well meaning because he thinks it will make society better in the long run, but then you'd have to apply the same term to anyone from Jihadists to Stalin.

And you're right, he's almost certainly just a blustering windbag, but I can only judge the social change he's advocating.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[RonD1120 62]

Based on what I've seen in the liberal movement in America, I am empathic with your position.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rehmwa 2]

quade

The market place doesn't function for the betterment of mankind. Never has, never will. It functions solely for the benefit of the owners of businesses.

interesting statement there...IMHO - it indicates a serious distrust in people being capable on their own to choose what they think they need and want. And the assumption that the betterment of mankind demands pure self sacrifice on the part of individuals, even forced on them if necessary. and more....

so mankind as a group can only be better when individuals are poor and miserable - got it

seems to be a lesson that mass religious groups tried for centuries, now cloaked in terms of something else more palatable?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,006]

>interesting statement there...IMHO - it indicates a serious distrust in people being
>capable on their own to choose what they think they need and want.

I think it indicates a trust in people being capable on their own to choose what they think they need and want - but a disconnect between that and what is good for society as a whole.

>And the assumption that the betterment of mankind demands pure self sacrifice on
>the part of individuals, even forced on them if necessary.

Nothing pure about it. The Tragedy of the Commons is a simple illustration of the maxim that what individuals want is not the same as what's good for society. So we have governments that work to prevent those sort of abuses. How "pure" that solution is, and what it requires of people. depends on your ideology.

>so mankind as a group can only be better when individuals are poor and miserable -
>got it

?? Where does "poor and miserable" come into it? I'd prefer we better mankind while making everyone rich and happy.

[Andy9o8 2]

Are you a ballerina? Your dancing is all spin!

[GeorgiaDon 362]

rehmwa

***The market place doesn't function for the betterment of mankind. Never has, never will. It functions solely for the benefit of the owners of businesses.

interesting statement there...IMHO - it indicates a serious distrust in people being capable on their own to choose what they think they need and want. And the assumption that the betterment of mankind demands pure self sacrifice on the part of individuals, even forced on them if necessary. and more....

so mankind as a group can only be better when individuals are poor and miserable - got it

seems to be a lesson that mass religious groups tried for centuries, now cloaked in terms of something else more palatable?Another way to think of it, though, is to acknowledge that the marketplace is not motivated by the "betterment of mankind", it is an actuarial calculation motivated by profit. All that is necessary is that the market price (what somebody somewhere is willing to pay) is less than the cost of production, leaving room for a net profit. Whether or not that also works out for the "betterment of mankind" is somewhat serendipitous. Generally it will, of course, because profitable businesses generally produce products or services that people want, and people usually want things that offer them some benefit. In such cases the marketplace can favor efficiency and timely response to consumer's needs, much better than government "central planning" can.

However, the marketplace can also produce goods or services that cater to a small number of clients to the detriment of a large number of other people; an example would be arms sales to terrorist organizations or dictators. I'm fairly sure North Korea would be able to find people interested in buying a nuclear weapon, and I'm also sure supplying those people with such a weapon would not serve the "betterment of mankind".

The "marketplace" has no capability to make judgements about "good" or "bad", it is only able to judge "demand" and "profitability". Sometimes however judgements about "good" or "bad" need to be made. If a business produces pollution that harms people or destroys livelihoods in the area around the factories, yet still enjoys a profitable market because the clients who purchase their products live far away and are not impacted by the pollution, the marketplace provides no means to correct the harm. As another example, demand for rhinoceros horn and elephant ivory has pushed those animals to the brink of extinction. The marketplace cannot make value judgements about whether or not those species should be saved from extinction. Therefor, we also need a mechanism to evaluate "good" and "bad" according to society's interests; laws and regulations limiting the marketplace are that mechanism.

I really didn't see anything in Quade's statement that implied anything of what you saw there. If you read "is motivated by" in place of "functions for" I think you'll see what I mean.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rehmwa 2]

GeorgiaDon

Another way to think of it, though, is to acknowledge that the marketplace is not motivated by the "betterment of mankind", it is an actuarial calculation motivated by profit. All that is necessary is that the market price (what somebody somewhere is willing to pay) is less than the cost of production, leaving room for a net profit..... Generally it will, of course, because profitable businesses generally produce products or services that people want....ctions for" I think you'll see what I mean..

good reply, my apologies as I almost skipped it after the snarks (including mine to start the flow)

as always, it's a balancing act - But, in the end, even the people making the policy are still motivated by self interest - but now they have more impact than regular individuals.


you want to regulate rotation of crops until farmers learn that their long term interest is to do it anyway? I like it

you want to force people to buy a specific brand of product because they had a good PR campaign and politicians think it'll buy votes? I don't like it

you want to artificially prop up the economy short term to buy votes even though it'll devastate our economy and several other countries' economies as a result? I don't like it


the problem I see is people stating the obvious examples, and then taking up a position that more is better, and even more is even more better, and even more too. and the politicians love to hear that for sure

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Rick 67]

quade

The market place doesn't function for the betterment of mankind. Never has, never will. It functions solely for the benefit of the owners of businesses.

It's why boner pills were invented before a cure for ebola.

a by product of this is providing employment
people having jobs definitely works for the betterment of society

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[jakee 1,500]

rehmwa

***The market place doesn't function for the betterment of mankind. Never has, never will. It functions solely for the benefit of the owners of businesses.

interesting statement there...IMHO - it indicates a serious distrust in people being capable on their own to choose what they think they need and want. And the assumption that the betterment of mankind demands pure self sacrifice on the part of individuals, even forced on them if necessary. and more...

It doesn't indicate anything but a knowledge of history. The pure free market will supply jobs and innovation, but it will also knowingly pollute with deadly chemicals if it is cheaper, send workers into extremely dangerous situations if the cost of killing them is lower than the cost of supplying protection, create company towns where workers are paid in company script that is only valid in company stores with hyper inflated prices... The list goes on. The pure free market place sustains this sort of activity because people know that they want and need a job - and if the only job is effectively indentured servitude or an extended death sentence it's still better than starving on the street.

So the betterment of mankind doesn't require pure self sacrifice from anyone - but it does require the market place to sacrifice some profit.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

The pure free market

so Quade talks about the 'marketplace' now it's moved to a 'pure free market'

I can counter with 'pure socialism' points, but I think it would also be a non-value added digression. We all know the damage going down that road would be also.

so in the discussion about 'balance' (relative to today's world, not fear of issues from decades ago that are, frankly, moot today)

I do think that today's world and the availability of opportunity and ready information frees up the workforce to make better and better decisions - thus making it more and more difficult for companies to be abusive - at least those that would do so, not all companies are 'pure profit' in philosophy, but those arent the ones we worry about.

So the answer is we are in a position to move in the direction of freeing the market rather than tightening controls....but the trend seems to be incrementally in the opposite direction. I suspect that is likely more examples of causing hurt despite good intentions (not on the part of the politicians, but on the part of the members of society).

I get your points, though. So that's my opinion on why I think 'less' is the right way to go. I've like to understand why others think MORE is the right philosophy, but in today's context, not the 1930's....and just arguing that less is fear of changing the status quo.




Edit: there is likely a better thread for this. I thought this thread was about chauvinistic antiquated societal roles. Rather than antiquated economic/business theory. as long as it's out of date, I guess....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,006]

>a by product of this is providing employment
>people having jobs definitely works for the betterment of society

Definitely. And businesses pay taxes, which also helps society. But in a capitalist system, those are necessary evils - every company out there tries to minimize the number of employees they pay and the amount of tax they pay, because they are in business to make money, not to employ people or pay taxes.

[billvon 3,006]

>you want to regulate rotation of crops until farmers learn that their long term interest
>is to do it anyway? I like it

That smacks of "a serious distrust in people being capable on their own to choose what they think they need and want." If the only goal in mandating crop rotation is to protect the farmers from their own incompetence, it's a bad idea. Farmers can learn crop rotation; let the good ones succeed and the bad ones fail.

However, if the goal is preventing a dust bowl that hurts everyone, or ensuring a reliable supply of food to prevent famine, then it makes sense. That is one of the role of government - in our case we call it "promoting the general welfare." In such cases it is important that the government use its power to require EVERYONE to rotate crops, so that no one farmer is penalized over another farmer by such regulation.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

...because they are in business to make money, not to employ people or pay taxes.

not entirely true. lots of teachers teach because they enjoy teaching. Lots of doctors work in clinics because they want to help people. Lots of artists enjoy their craft. I pursued skydiving because that is what I wanted to do.

Yes, they may very well end up making a living from it but one of the all-too-often-repeated bastions of capitalism is the incorrect assumption that everyone works for money and money only.

there are greater causes in the world.

Do something, enjoy doing it, make a living if you can.

[rehmwa 2]

billvon

>you want to regulate rotation of crops until farmers learn that their long term interest
>is to do it anyway? I like it

That smacks of "a serious distrust in people being capable on their own to choose what they think they need and want." If the only goal in mandating crop rotation is to protect the farmers from their own incompetence, it's a bad idea. Farmers can learn crop rotation; let the good ones succeed and the bad ones fail.

edit - of course, how dare I talk about the balance and not just advocate one side to the nutty extreme...

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,500]

rehmwa

***The pure free market

so Quade talks about the 'marketplace' now it's moved to a 'pure free market'

I can counter with 'pure socialism' points,

Check your post Rehm, you already did. You described Quade's post as advocating 'pure self sacrifice' (sic, exact quote, etc.) when it contained nothing of the sort, only that the market alone does not work best for the betterment of mankind. Given your response it was only fair to assume that you were arguing against any form of regulation, therefore my post was a direct reply to what you said. Now, if you agree with the points I made in favour of having some regulation, then I don't see what it is that you disagree with in Quade's post unless you were making an assumption about his position.

Clear?

but I think it would also be a non-value added digression. We all know the damage going down that road would be also.

Quote

so in the discussion about 'balance' (relative to today's world, not fear of issues from decades ago that are, frankly, moot today)

Oh really? Recent history shows that even modern, western companies are still perfectly willing to make those profit positive/workforce + society detrimental decisions when they are operating in undeveloped nations that do not have the protections enshrined in law that we enjoy. Companies did not start being nicer to us in the first world because they grew a conscience, they did it because they were made to.

Quote

Edit: there is likely a better thread for this. I thought this thread was about chauvinistic antiquated societal roles. Rather than antiquated economic/business theory. as long as it's out of date, I guess....

Yeah, I'm not sure where this came from. I was expecting to be arguing with Ron still!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

when they are operating in undeveloped nations that do not have the protections enshrined in law

so what is your suggestion for telling other countries what to do?


'enshrined' in law
that's another interesting choice words

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,500]

rehmwa

***when they are operating in undeveloped nations that do not have the protections enshrined in law

so what is your suggestion for telling other countries what to do?


So that's the only thing you take away from my post? OK, bye.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,006]

>of course, how dare I talk about the balance and not just advocate one side to the
>nutty extreme...

I assume you are being snarky. But sorry, I don't think there should be a balance. Protect people from their own incompetence? Just not possible, and a dangerous path to go down - even though we do it with depressing regularity.

Provide them with opportunities? Absolutely. Provide them with the help they need to do a good job themselves? Sure, within limits. Pass laws so their mistakes don't harm others? Definitely. Have guidelines? Great.

But make them succeed through regulation? I think that's a bad option. A good solution doesn't have a balance of good options and bad options - it has as much of the good options as possible.

[Rick 67]

billvon

>a by product of this is providing employment
>people having jobs definitely works for the betterment of society

Definitely. And businesses pay taxes, which also helps society. But in a capitalist system, those are necessary evils - every company out there tries to minimize the number of employees they pay and the amount of tax they pay, because they are in business to make money, not to employ people or pay taxes.

true I see your point
even when we look at charitable contributions there is a tax benefit involved for the corp.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But make them succeed through regulation? I think that's a bad option. A good solution doesn't have a balance of good options and bad options - it has as much of the good options as possible

There has to be some regulation for long term stability. People/organization have shown over and over again that they will chose short term profitability over long term sustainability time and time again.