Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: mmeron on 12 Nov 2006 18:48 In article <998ff$4557aace$4fe7025$26268(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> writes: >Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >> unsettled wrote: >> >>>I never met anyone who grew up during the great depression >>>who didn't think they had a good life and a good childhood >>>on account of not having much. >>> >>>Take the model of hunter-gatherer tribes. They wouldn't >>>begin to understand a value system that thought they are >>>just "existing." Still the totality of their posessions >>>was limited to what they could carry. >> >> >> >> So? If they had to move, they didn't have to worry about what to >> leave behind. > >Yes, so very little which took significant investment in >time and energy, that means wealth in posessions, was >accumulated. Only such things as they could carry. > >> As long as they could eat, clothe themselves and keep a >> roof over their heads, they had what mattered to them. > >So the definition of "living" as oposed to "surviving" which >spawned this bit of discussion was clearly invalid > >Do you realize how insane the discussions by Lucas, Eeyore, >Newsam, and Wake are after this point (your posting) in >time? They're feeding off one another now. I think if >any opposition to their philosophy stops right here they >are quite capable of carrying on congratulating one another >for another 10K posts. > Many years ago some writer (the name escapes me, unfortunately) described the "intelligentsia" as "society of mutual adoration". Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 18:57 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > Most of them [bottled water] are vastly over-rated and overpriced. It's snob > appeal > > mostly. > > That's the expensive ones (Perrier, etc.) I don't know what is the appeal > of the cheap ones. Perhaps convenience, perception of purity, etc. In any > case, I peel off the label the minute I get it. There's a nice Italian one actually that you get in Italian restaurants over here. http://www.finewaters.com/Bottled_Water/Italy/San_Pellegrino.asp Plenty to choose from too. http://www.finewaters.com/Bottled_Water/Italy/Index.asp Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 18:59 T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > > > >> I would love to see someone on $200 per week even affording food bills > >> let alone anything else. > > > > Did you mean $200/month? The missus and I eat quite well on $200/week, > > and that even involves eating out one or two nights a week. > > > > That said, that's only food. > > Ok, $200 a week may well be enough for food. However, that is the whole > income. Deduct tax, transport, insurance, rent, heating, electricity and > what is left? Would there be any income tax payable on $10,000 ? Graham
From: Ben Newsam on 12 Nov 2006 18:57 On Sun, 12 Nov 06 14:06:06 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <50e26$4555da8b$49ecfa5$6404(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>Ben Newsam wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:41:23 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>The fact is that some jobs >>>>aren't worth "minimum wage". >>> >>> >>> Are you saying that you consider some jobs to be so menial that you >>> would actually pay someone less than enough to live on to do them? >>> >>> The trouble with naked capitalism is that it doesn't just produce >>> winners and wealth, it actually requires losers and poverty to >>> operate. Because otherwise there would be no incentive to do anything, >>> would there? The "pure" capitalist system actually requires that some >>> people starve to death just to make sure that the oiks get back to >>> their slave labour. >> >>Been reading too much Marx of late? >> >No, what you are seeing is how people, who have grown up >in most socialists countries, consider what "capitalism" >means. I haven't been able to describe this in English ASCII >yet. If you think that what I said is merely a socialist's view of what capitalism means, then consider this: the USA (as an example of one of the most "pure" capitalist countries, I couldn't choose the UK because we have had governments of a more or less socialist nature over the years) has a huge number of poor people on the very verge of survival. Now... how would you make their lot better without "turning socialist"? It can't be done by just giving them money provided by rich people, you can't force everyone into labour camps, you certainly can't wave a magic wand and implement a five year growth plan; all of those "solutions" are either economically impossible, or would compromise the purity of the capitalist ideal. Any system that hopes for "winners" on a grand scale requires "losers" on an equally grand scale. It cannot be otherwise.
From: John Fields on 12 Nov 2006 19:15
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:17:01 -0800, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:53:05 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >> You may not, but I expect better of my >>president and of the leader of the free world. > > > All of our current operations are only the start. Yes, it was >needed, and yes it is going to continue until all of the remaining >harbingers of hate and destruction are themselves put down. --- Hey, I like that one! -- JF |