Welcome to Gaia! ::

low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Old Blue Collar Joe
Naiax Sidorenka
Michael Noire

The wealthy do have a moral obligation to better the world they live in,


I particularly like this statement. I can make logical math out of it.

The obligation to better the society one lives in is directly proportional to the influence one has on it.


There is no such 'obligation'. It is a myth.


User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

really? this is like saying there is no obligation to prevent child abuse or be a kind person. technically it's true, but to make a better society it needs to be done.
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
Naiax Sidorenka
Michael Noire

The wealthy do have a moral obligation to better the world they live in,


I particularly like this statement. I can make logical math out of it.

The obligation to better the society one lives in is directly proportional to the influence one has on it.


There is no such 'obligation'. It is a myth.


User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

really? this is like saying there is no obligation to prevent child abuse or be a kind person. technically it's true, but to make a better society it needs to be done.


There's already a safety net provided, from their tax donations, as well as jobs from investments. I'd ask how much those demanding this 'moral obligation' donate, but I am well aware that it will only result in excuses and lies.
If someone ain't willing to do it themselves, then they are not worth listening to. And to say 'well, if I had it' is absolutely meaningless and worthless. If they aren't doing it, their opinion is irrelevant and useless whining.
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
Naiax Sidorenka
Michael Noire

The wealthy do have a moral obligation to better the world they live in,


I particularly like this statement. I can make logical math out of it.

The obligation to better the society one lives in is directly proportional to the influence one has on it.


There is no such 'obligation'. It is a myth.


User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

really? this is like saying there is no obligation to prevent child abuse or be a kind person. technically it's true, but to make a better society it needs to be done.


There's already a safety net provided, from their tax donations, as well as jobs from investments. I'd ask how much those demanding this 'moral obligation' donate, but I am well aware that it will only result in excuses and lies.
If someone ain't willing to do it themselves, then they are not worth listening to. And to say 'well, if I had it' is absolutely meaningless and worthless. If they aren't doing it, their opinion is irrelevant and useless whining.


if you agree with the 'safety net' in place then you agree there is a moral obligation....

what you don't understand is how the much reform the 'safety net' needs....
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
Naiax Sidorenka
Michael Noire

The wealthy do have a moral obligation to better the world they live in,


I particularly like this statement. I can make logical math out of it.

The obligation to better the society one lives in is directly proportional to the influence one has on it.


There is no such 'obligation'. It is a myth.


User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

really? this is like saying there is no obligation to prevent child abuse or be a kind person. technically it's true, but to make a better society it needs to be done.


There's already a safety net provided, from their tax donations, as well as jobs from investments. I'd ask how much those demanding this 'moral obligation' donate, but I am well aware that it will only result in excuses and lies.
If someone ain't willing to do it themselves, then they are not worth listening to. And to say 'well, if I had it' is absolutely meaningless and worthless. If they aren't doing it, their opinion is irrelevant and useless whining.


if you agree with the 'safety net' in place then you agree there is a moral obligation....

what you don't understand is how the much reform the 'safety net' needs....


It needs no 'reforms'. It's a safety net, not a hammock. Free cell phones, now they want free wi-fi and internet? Where do we draw the line? It's not supposed to be a way of life for any other than the physically and mentally handicapped.
If people want more than a basic safety net, then get to it and hit the bricks.
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe


There is no such 'obligation'. It is a myth.


User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

really? this is like saying there is no obligation to prevent child abuse or be a kind person. technically it's true, but to make a better society it needs to be done.


There's already a safety net provided, from their tax donations, as well as jobs from investments. I'd ask how much those demanding this 'moral obligation' donate, but I am well aware that it will only result in excuses and lies.
If someone ain't willing to do it themselves, then they are not worth listening to. And to say 'well, if I had it' is absolutely meaningless and worthless. If they aren't doing it, their opinion is irrelevant and useless whining.


if you agree with the 'safety net' in place then you agree there is a moral obligation....

what you don't understand is how the much reform the 'safety net' needs....


It needs no 'reforms'. It's a safety net, not a hammock. Free cell phones, now they want free wi-fi and internet? Where do we draw the line? It's not supposed to be a way of life for any other than the physically and mentally handicapped.
If people want more than a basic safety net, then get to it and hit the bricks.


dude you are spewing so much bull s**t i can hardly handle it.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

first of all i don't agree with giving the poor everything they will ever need or want. when i say it needs reforms i think that some of it should be cut out and some of it handled better and some of it left alone.

i would not trust you to know how to reform it because you are an idiot.
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe


There is no such 'obligation'. It is a myth.


User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

really? this is like saying there is no obligation to prevent child abuse or be a kind person. technically it's true, but to make a better society it needs to be done.


There's already a safety net provided, from their tax donations, as well as jobs from investments. I'd ask how much those demanding this 'moral obligation' donate, but I am well aware that it will only result in excuses and lies.
If someone ain't willing to do it themselves, then they are not worth listening to. And to say 'well, if I had it' is absolutely meaningless and worthless. If they aren't doing it, their opinion is irrelevant and useless whining.


if you agree with the 'safety net' in place then you agree there is a moral obligation....

what you don't understand is how the much reform the 'safety net' needs....


It needs no 'reforms'. It's a safety net, not a hammock. Free cell phones, now they want free wi-fi and internet? Where do we draw the line? It's not supposed to be a way of life for any other than the physically and mentally handicapped.
If people want more than a basic safety net, then get to it and hit the bricks.


dude you are spewing so much bull s**t i can hardly handle it.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

first of all i don't agree with giving the poor everything they will ever need or want. when i say it needs reforms i think that some of it should be cut out and some of it handled better and some of it left alone.

i would not trust you to know how to reform it because you are an idiot.


Yeah...most on here when they say 'reform' they mean just what I said. What YOU are saying is what I agree with.
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe


There's already a safety net provided, from their tax donations, as well as jobs from investments. I'd ask how much those demanding this 'moral obligation' donate, but I am well aware that it will only result in excuses and lies.
If someone ain't willing to do it themselves, then they are not worth listening to. And to say 'well, if I had it' is absolutely meaningless and worthless. If they aren't doing it, their opinion is irrelevant and useless whining.


if you agree with the 'safety net' in place then you agree there is a moral obligation....

what you don't understand is how the much reform the 'safety net' needs....


It needs no 'reforms'. It's a safety net, not a hammock. Free cell phones, now they want free wi-fi and internet? Where do we draw the line? It's not supposed to be a way of life for any other than the physically and mentally handicapped.
If people want more than a basic safety net, then get to it and hit the bricks.


dude you are spewing so much bull s**t i can hardly handle it.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

first of all i don't agree with giving the poor everything they will ever need or want. when i say it needs reforms i think that some of it should be cut out and some of it handled better and some of it left alone.

i would not trust you to know how to reform it because you are an idiot.


Yeah...most on here when they say 'reform' they mean just what I said. What YOU are saying is what I agree with.


i think we should try to give everyone in the world food and education before we do much else. i don't put american poor over world poor.
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe


There's already a safety net provided, from their tax donations, as well as jobs from investments. I'd ask how much those demanding this 'moral obligation' donate, but I am well aware that it will only result in excuses and lies.
If someone ain't willing to do it themselves, then they are not worth listening to. And to say 'well, if I had it' is absolutely meaningless and worthless. If they aren't doing it, their opinion is irrelevant and useless whining.


if you agree with the 'safety net' in place then you agree there is a moral obligation....

what you don't understand is how the much reform the 'safety net' needs....


It needs no 'reforms'. It's a safety net, not a hammock. Free cell phones, now they want free wi-fi and internet? Where do we draw the line? It's not supposed to be a way of life for any other than the physically and mentally handicapped.
If people want more than a basic safety net, then get to it and hit the bricks.


dude you are spewing so much bull s**t i can hardly handle it.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

first of all i don't agree with giving the poor everything they will ever need or want. when i say it needs reforms i think that some of it should be cut out and some of it handled better and some of it left alone.

i would not trust you to know how to reform it because you are an idiot.


Yeah...most on here when they say 'reform' they mean just what I said. What YOU are saying is what I agree with.


i think we should try to give everyone in the world food and education before we do much else. i don't put american poor over world poor.


I'm for fixing my house before I worry about my neighbors problems. And those that don't like us? ******** em.
Michael Noire
Innovation - Exploration of new Frontiers, R&D, Scholarships, Science Fairs, and Universities
Infrastructure - Bridges, Canals, Hospitals, Roads, and Schools
Inspiration - Art, Activities, Cultural Events, History, Music, Museums, and Parks

These are the core responsibilities of the Rich. The Idea that the responsibility of the Rich is to pay higher taxes is an ethical fallacy, for it assumes the greatest good can be achieved by obligating the wealthy to pay into a system where their contributions are routed and redistributed largely to the collectors and through a system of political nepotism. This system makes sure the best possible solutions are never achieved, and the largest fraction of revenues are abused, rather than used.

A rich man doesn't get to determine if his tax dollars go to a space program or to blowing up children in some poverty stricken middle eastern territory. A rich man doesn't get to determine if his tax dollars are spent on the cure for his wife's cancer, or on a monstrous fund raiser and banquette with no actual dollars going to cancer research itself. Tax dollars are highly inefficient, and seldom beneficent.

The wealthy do have a moral obligation to better the world they live in, but that should not be construed as a responsibility to pay even more taxes that do little to improve our quality of life.

First, you need to justify this notion that the rich have responsibilities by virtue of being rich.

Next, and this is probably the biggest contention- if you think it is a 'ethical fallacy' to believe that the greatest good might be achieved by empowering a body created expressly to do so, then I would think you need to articulate why it is any less 'ethically fallacious' to argue that the wealthy have some natural inclination to finance anything you noted, or why the wealthy have a separate set of obligations by sheer virtue of their money when it comes to providing for communal benefits.

After all, the points you allege about a rich person not being able to decide where his money goes is the same of the middle class and poor who pay taxes.
marshmallowcreampie's avatar

Sparkly Pirate

17,250 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Citizen 200
Oy, a rich man doesn't decide where his tax money goes, but neither do the poor or middle class. If I actually paid much in taxes (tax money does get taken out of my paycheck, but since I get minimum wage, I get pretty much all of it back in April) and I got to choose where the money went, I certainly wouldn't be letting any go to the war. Oh well.
marshmallowcreampie's avatar

Sparkly Pirate

17,250 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Conventioneer 300
  • Citizen 200
Old Blue Collar Joe


It needs no 'reforms'. It's a safety net, not a hammock. Free cell phones, now they want free wi-fi and internet? Where do we draw the line? It's not supposed to be a way of life for any other than the physically and mentally handicapped.
If people want more than a basic safety net, then get to it and hit the bricks.


Oy, internet? I'd be cool with supporting more public libraries to have computers with internet, if mostly for job search and school purposes. A lot of jobs these days only allow you to apply online. But if you're talking "provide internet to all homes", well, I can't really support that either. Public libraries are good enough, yes?
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe


It needs no 'reforms'. It's a safety net, not a hammock. Free cell phones, now they want free wi-fi and internet? Where do we draw the line? It's not supposed to be a way of life for any other than the physically and mentally handicapped.
If people want more than a basic safety net, then get to it and hit the bricks.


dude you are spewing so much bull s**t i can hardly handle it.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

first of all i don't agree with giving the poor everything they will ever need or want. when i say it needs reforms i think that some of it should be cut out and some of it handled better and some of it left alone.

i would not trust you to know how to reform it because you are an idiot.


Yeah...most on here when they say 'reform' they mean just what I said. What YOU are saying is what I agree with.


i think we should try to give everyone in the world food and education before we do much else. i don't put american poor over world poor.


I'm for fixing my house before I worry about my neighbors problems. And those that don't like us? ******** em.


people should starve because they don't like us? that's just plain cruel. i really don't think people who hate american are starving though. that's more of a second world country thing, i think. people who are starving don't care they just want some ******** food. people who are starving probably hate everything and everyone or are too starving to care.
low iq 111's avatar

Familiar Friend

Riviera de la Mancha

First, you need to justify this notion that the rich have responsibilities by virtue of being rich.


like i said in another post, "really?"

what you're asking for is like asking someone to prove that it's wrong to be a child abuser... it's not exactly proven by science or anything but it will make a society better if the rich give their stuff too other people or other life forms. why? because we need to start making sure all humans have what they need and then after that we should be promoting life and growth on our world. why? because the earth is one of the rare places that supports life and we as humans should try and allow as many lifeforms and precious things have a chance to live. why, again, you ask? because that is the right thing to do. and i am 'pro-life'.
Riviera de la Mancha
Michael Noire
Innovation - Exploration of new Frontiers, R&D, Scholarships, Science Fairs, and Universities
Infrastructure - Bridges, Canals, Hospitals, Roads, and Schools
Inspiration - Art, Activities, Cultural Events, History, Music, Museums, and Parks

These are the core responsibilities of the Rich. The Idea that the responsibility of the Rich is to pay higher taxes is an ethical fallacy, for it assumes the greatest good can be achieved by obligating the wealthy to pay into a system where their contributions are routed and redistributed largely to the collectors and through a system of political nepotism. This system makes sure the best possible solutions are never achieved, and the largest fraction of revenues are abused, rather than used.

A rich man doesn't get to determine if his tax dollars go to a space program or to blowing up children in some poverty stricken middle eastern territory. A rich man doesn't get to determine if his tax dollars are spent on the cure for his wife's cancer, or on a monstrous fund raiser and banquette with no actual dollars going to cancer research itself. Tax dollars are highly inefficient, and seldom beneficent.

The wealthy do have a moral obligation to better the world they live in, but that should not be construed as a responsibility to pay even more taxes that do little to improve our quality of life.

First, you need to justify this notion that the rich have responsibilities by virtue of being rich.

Next, and this is probably the biggest contention- if you think it is a 'ethical fallacy' to believe that the greatest good might be achieved by empowering a body created expressly to do so, then I would think you need to articulate why it is any less 'ethically fallacious' to argue that the wealthy have some natural inclination to finance anything you noted, or why the wealthy have a separate set of obligations by sheer virtue of their money when it comes to providing for communal benefits.

After all, the points you allege about a rich person not being able to decide where his money goes is the same of the middle class and poor who pay taxes.


The location the tax dollars of a poor or middle class person goes is almost irrelevant, because they do not pay a sufficient amount of taxes to enact change. For example, even the wealthiest of the middle class cannot afford to build a hospital, space program, cancer research facility, university, or even an elementary school. They cannot make more than a minor contribution to the economy, to a library, or to a public stadium, park, or international conflict. The Rich are not constrained by this level of powerlessness. They can make lasting changes, such as paving hundreds or thousands of miles of highways, building Universities and leaving Endowments to keep them operational, or funding research into private space exploration. The vast majority of scientists, astronomers, and mathematicians during the early years were wealthy "natural philosophers". Those that were not were funded by those that were.

Ethical boundaries exist in different cultures for the wealthy, however, barring nihilism, the core ethic of the wealthy is to generate the currency of status. Status cannot be earned by wealth alone, but how wealth is spent. Admiration of financial and political rivals is the real treasure in the storehouse of the aristocrat. Hundreds of thousands of history books will tell you precisely the same thing. The opinions of others is what really matters when you are rich, and one of the ways to improve the opinions of others is to succeed in your goals, and to rule by love/likableness/respect, rather than by fear. Citizens, slaves, and the lesser titled function more efficiently when operating out of admiration rather than out of fear. The Son of Khan discovered this all too late when the Chinese ship builders under his rule sabotaged his ships and they were dashed asunder by a typhoon.
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe
low iq 111
Old Blue Collar Joe


It needs no 'reforms'. It's a safety net, not a hammock. Free cell phones, now they want free wi-fi and internet? Where do we draw the line? It's not supposed to be a way of life for any other than the physically and mentally handicapped.
If people want more than a basic safety net, then get to it and hit the bricks.


dude you are spewing so much bull s**t i can hardly handle it.
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

first of all i don't agree with giving the poor everything they will ever need or want. when i say it needs reforms i think that some of it should be cut out and some of it handled better and some of it left alone.

i would not trust you to know how to reform it because you are an idiot.


Yeah...most on here when they say 'reform' they mean just what I said. What YOU are saying is what I agree with.


i think we should try to give everyone in the world food and education before we do much else. i don't put american poor over world poor.


I'm for fixing my house before I worry about my neighbors problems. And those that don't like us? ******** em.


people should starve because they don't like us? that's just plain cruel. i really don't think people who hate american are starving though. that's more of a second world country thing, i think. people who are starving don't care they just want some ******** food. people who are starving probably hate everything and everyone or are too starving to care.


So? Welcome to the real world. A good many people have no interest in wasting what they have on people that don't like them and actually hate them. If they're our friends/allies, then help them all we can. But otherwise? Not our problem.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games