chasteh

Actually, wal-marts "security" is told to tell the person to stop, and if they get out of reach and refuse to cooperate to just let them go - this is an effort to reduce the likelihood of wal-mart developing a negative public image. >I still bet 9/10 say it's because they didn't want to get arrested for shoplifting rather than to benefit Walmart. In other words, they would rather shoplift than pay for the items?I thought that when mnealtx accuses people of being theives, he is referring to only a minority of persons. Or do you mean to say that most people would steal the items if they could? >Correct - however, I ate at Red Lobster because I wanted seafood for dinner, not because I think it's the greatest company in the world. Uh huh. And why did you pay for the service as opposed to just walking out? You are capable of doing this also. Did you tip your server? Why?

>I edited my post to better reflect reality Well, actually, that much is still left to be debated. Do 9/10 people pay for things strictly because they want them? We've established that they want the product. Now we need to see if that is why they paid for that product. Your response says that they paid for it because they wanted it. However, that still doesn't explain why they paid for it, just that they wanted it - because they could have just stolen the product. My response is, that they paid for the product to compensate for the services, not to avoid a law against theft. edit: And if they paid for the product to compensate for the services, then they did actually contribute to the seller's wealth, thus making it the case that they did not "do it on their own." >Tipping is the best example I could think of to support YOUR hypothesis Thanks? I didn't see that you were finding an example to support my hypothesis. >I choose a restaurant based on what I want to eat that night, not who the wait staff is. Ok. And you don't have to pay the waiter, either.

>And YOU surmised that everyone would make the purchase to "help out the provider" - after all, they could have just STOLEN whatever it was Backin yourself into a corner again? Show me. >NOW you're saying that even ONE person proves your point - what was that about 'being prepared'? Yep. It shows how their "wealth" is at the very least not entirely made of their own efforts. "they went out and made their own" was the comment. There is quite a bit of ammo negating that here.

>Ask the same 10 people why they gave their server a tip, and you'll get the 9 matches. Interesting response now that you have edited your post. So, your saying they gave the tip to the server because they wanted the product/service? You have that one backwards. They got the service before the tip. Many people NEVER tip their servers, and many who do don't tip them in an "ethical" way, whatever that is. What reasons do we have available? To compensate them for services that were provided. Sounds like your tipping to contribute to the service they provided and who provided it - them.

You surely left us an indication that your being convinced otherwise. Before you were saying that it is done purely on self-interest, and now you have changed your hypothesis within a few posts on an online forum? You must not have been so prepared after all. Ever seen Twelve angry men? One down.

>They made the purchase because they wanted the product - that's it That's it, meaning if 10 went into a store then 10 would have that response. Thats different from 9 out of 10. Hell, there only needs to be one for my hypothesis to show that the person earning the money received it from another person willing to support them for their services. I rest my case.

>It sure wasn't to 'benefit the provider' Really? My hypothesis is that they wanted to pay the person for the services that were provided. Donations don't quite accomplish that goal. Neither does simply saying they "wanted the product."

>They made the purchase because they wanted the product - that's it. And they could have stolen it instead. Why the difference? Because of laws? See the earlier post.

>their actions were a noble gesture to support the author? What, are you saying that they did it because it would be "illegal" to steal it instead? So much is extremely unlikely given tools such as Napster, Kazaa, etc. There must be some other reason they did it. Like paying for services. But....wait... that would mean that they did it to benefit the provider of that service/product.

>Everyone has equal opportunity to use public infrastructure (roads, fire, cops, libraries, etc) to get rich. That's why they call it public. Millionaires paid into those facilities too. Ok so we have established that they didn't do it on their own, then, because they 1) used public infrastructure and 2) they werent the only ones who paid for it, let alone were they the only ones who put forth effort into creating those public goods. >As another poster mentioned, 80% of millionaires are first generation rich. So, then, 20% of them obtained their wealth by the work of another generation. Doesn't sound like they "accomplished" much other than inheritence. What about the other 80%? How are we to say that they did it alone? How many of them employed other people? How many of them sold property to another person looking to obtain capital for themselves? How many of them earned their "wealth" through theft? (Gates) How many of them won the lottery? >they went out and made their own MMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaaaaaybe.... Not lookin too good though.

Odds are they had much assistance in learning to write also.

Given that businesses have to stay profitable to exist, Well, of course, unless your talking about the short run.

>Namely, paperwork has priority over people. Isn't that amazing? You are there to help people and all that can be said is that they want you to get paperwork done and worry about patients later. Gotta love it.

>I find it hard to believe that as a professional, ANYONE would stand up and say "We are not seeking a cure - only treatment" Search Savant Syndrome and read about it. >The goal is a CURE, not just treatment. And I expect my neurosurgeon is very happy with the 'cure' he provided me - I know I am Excellent. Is that a cure? It sucks that whatever happened to you did, but I have a hard time believing you are entirely satisfied with it. I know I am not entirely satisfied with the state of my left shoulder and the end of its humerous. It seems like you and I have really great treatments, but were not exactly cured. >I found nothing to support that statement that the mental health profession is not trying to find 'cures' for things. Is that my thesis? >ALL, if not, MOST medical professions are searching for CURES, not just TREATMENTS. Physical therapists. Pharm Doctors. So now we have most medical professions searching for cures, not just treatments. I can agree with that. edit: Maybe RonD should have said something about the effectiveness of these searches. The Mental Health profession hasn't made much headway relative to other health fields.

What about situations where a person experiences brain damage? Can you reasonable expect to cure brain damage, or can you only treat that? What about people with savant syndrome? Is Psychology there to both treat and cure that, as well? There are some who would say that savant syndrome is not something we should cure. It depends on the professional and the disorder, it appears. >I find it hard to believe that as a professional, ANYONE would stand up and say "We are not seeking a cure - only treatment Your profile says DZO, not Person with Doctorate in a field of Psychology, my bad.

Neat. So in the end, you do not need to be a Christian to be a charitable person. That much has been established. (A while back) The question remains, how many charitable Christians would we lose were Christianity to be non existent (say, tomarrow)? And would that end up in less Charitability or destruction (overall)?

>a fundamentally incorrect statement Actually, that would depend on what kind of psychologist, say, you were speaking to. Are they a developmentalist? Is their focus drugs and behavior? Are they psychoanalysts? Clinical psychologists? Social workers? You are likely to find disagreements among those professionals. It turns out, that if you were to ask a clinical psychologist or a social worker, they would often say that treatment is the goal. Is a parent neglecting the child? Lets remedy it. Is the person suffering from schizophrenia? Lets give them a drug to treat it. BL: It depends on who you ask amongst certified industry professionals, as well as w hat the disorder (disfunction) is.

>So the question really is how many of those people do it solely because they believe they would go to Hell if they do not. Right. Does self-interest play in their decision making? Maybe. Maybe not. (Probably) >Then we will get a complete picture, and understand whether they are adding value to the world, or not. You mean, we will see if they are adding to the world by comparing the "good" things that they do to the "bad" things that they do? Do you have any information comparing these? >t is actually not only Christians - what about Mr. Madoff who was pretty famous because of his contributions? He would be both capable of providing great benefit to people and on another side providing great damage to them. I don't see how "being Bernie Madoff" compells people worldwide to contribute to the world around them like Christianity does. (I will admit Christianity is responsible for some deplorable acts, as are other things that we cherish in this society- like wealth. Yet wealth surely isn't at the top of the list in terms of "bad" factors, as Christianity is here) >And if you look on Scandinavian countries (which are generally non-believing), the number of charitable contributions there is pretty significant, so you do not have to be Christian to donate. Heh. Wait, isn't Norway like 80% Christian? (85% Church of Norway - Lutheran Christians) Sweden - 87% Finland - 82%

>While you may have MEANT that statement to read something else, that is NOT how a plain reading of it sounds. Be more clear, next time. And you are the "arbiter" of how such a statement is meant to sound? Hah! >As for "compelling" someone - that is for the EVIDENCE to do, not you. Bullshit. Evidence and the person can both compell someone to change their mind. The person can also use evidence to "compell" someone to change their mind. "Bullshit right back, dude" (your next response) Oh mnealtx. >I find myself surprisingly unmoved about your opinion of my word choices. Deal with it. Likewise.

Yep. It's just not the main issue,

>>Fun thought experiments, but otherwise utterly useless. >Your question was limited to lawyers and judges, made no mention of juries, so I was just answering the question Which question? I was negating the first statement of this post, which was written by (I think) pirana. So, your example, Jury trials, is another situation in which logic is used for the benefit of humanity. Great!

>And just who the fuck do you think you are, No idea >that you deserve to be the arbiter of who can discuss what? 1) I never said I would dictate, in any way, "who can discuss what" 2) I said I was "working to eliminate some of the biggest providers of rocks, rushmc." That is best performed by showing him where he (you) use "rocks," and compelling you to not use them anymore. 3) Calm down. It is obvious how emotional you get when someone tags you. 4) Stop saying arbiter. It doesn't add much to your statements. Lawrocket uses "arbiter" really well. I actually enjoy reading his posts, because he has some really solid information, in most cases, to add to the discussion. edit: And he does his damndest to corner me. He makes for quite the logic opponent. Wait... that is his job...

>Logic is largely a big mystery to me. Actually, your far better at it than you know. Most people are excellent with logic, its just their formal practice of it is rusty or non-existent. >I started reading a college text book on it a while back, still on chapter one. I am just too much of a romantic. Artists and crazy people make more sense to me. Heh yea I hear you. I found logic and Philosophy to be the hardest things I have ever studied. I did not want to leave it behind as something I didn't delve into, consider it is applicable to daily life on so many levels. Most people have some experience with it, others not, and some deny it completely, usually adopting some other philosophy and its evaluation of the "field." You'll find some of the most brilliant artists, authors, and musicians have some philosophical or political background. It adds a lot to their content.

You don't remember the David Letterman thread. Go look at all your responses. Count how many times you say something like: "Nope! Still didn't get it! Try again! " "Rocks" >Lefty arrogance on parade Hah! What evidence do you have to consider me 1) a "lefty" and 2) an "arrogant" lefty?

Sorry Mnealtx, I should have included your rock piles also.