|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 5:22 pm
Because a philosophy thread completely belongs in the miso soup subforum. Feel free to bring up any philsophy question/debate you want, and if I find it interesting, I'll post it up as the "Philosophy Question/Debate of the Moment."
Philosophy Question/Debate of the Moment:
Trust gives us the incentive to betray.
My answer:
Because a person can not betray another until there is trust involved.
Your answer?
If you bring up a good point/argument, I'll post your answer up here.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:14 pm
Faded Soulfire
Philosophy Question/Debate of the Moment:
Why is it amusing to watch as someone else's delusions come crashing down and burning in a great, giant inferno? Is it really amusing?
Well, it depends on whose delusions are crashing, but yes, it's funny for the most part. Yes, I agree that idealism and romanticism should stay far, far away from each other. I think that it's mostly funny when the person is clingy and dependent on the delusions....if they just shrug off the delusions, it's not that funny. We want pain and suffering, dammit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 12:43 am
Silent Dancer Faded Soulfire
Philosophy Question/Debate of the Moment:
Why is it amusing to watch as someone else's delusions come crashing down and burning in a great, giant inferno? Is it really amusing?
Well, it depends on whose delusions are crashing, but yes, it's funny for the most part. Yes, I agree that idealism and romanticism should stay far, far away from each other. I think that it's mostly funny when the person is clingy and dependent on the delusions....if they just shrug off the delusions, it's not that funny. We want pain and suffering, dammit! I really, really dont like you saying that. actually, I feel offended. stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 7:18 pm
Uneita_Rei I really, really dont like you saying that. actually, I feel offended. stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 10:32 pm
Faded Soulfire Uneita_Rei I really, really dont like you saying that. actually, I feel offended. stare *did* cool. whats our new debate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 2:13 pm
Uneita_Rei *did* cool. whats our new debate?
Hah! I pressed the quote button!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:19 pm
Faded Soulfire Philosophy Question/Debate of the Moment:Why is the materialistic object wanted most in life for any given reason the most expensive to purchase?
My answer:The most wanted materialistic object is always so expensive because of the natural bussiness law of "Supply and demand." This law was brought up during the era of industrialization. The more a product is wanted, the higher the price will go. This is in order to make a big profit for the companies that exploid their workers and make products from cheap resources and sell them at very high prices.
All of this also ties in to the law of self interest.
In few words, the materialistic object that we most want is the most expensive because the producer is self interested and greedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:28 pm
Nukima
My answer:The most wanted materialistic object is always so expensive because of the natural bussiness law of "Supply and demand." This law was brought up during the era of industrialization. The more a product is wanted, the higher the price will go. This is in order to make a big profit for the companies that exploid their workers and make products from cheap resources and sell them at very high prices.
All of this also ties in to the law of self interest.
In few words, the materialistic object that we most want is the most expensive because the producer is self interested and greedy.
Also, companies that exploit their workers tend to have lower prices because they pay their workers so cheaply, like Walmart. Walmart does not have high prices because the company does not pay as high a salary or have the same benefits as other companies.
Without a producer, there would be no product for the consumer, but if a producer abuses their power, there would be no consumer for the product, thus, the producer makes a profit because the consumer allows them to, and the producer allows the consumer to make that decision.
So my question still stands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:35 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:40 pm
I'm not even sure what I argued right there. I think I just listed definitions to negate your response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:46 pm
Yes and now you made me feel like I should review my history notes emo
*sigh* Opens folder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:05 pm
You're supposed to learn that stuff in history? O.o I just talk to Mr. Higger and Mr. Pastis about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Yeah we are. It was part of last months unit.
And now I feel like reviewing for my semester tests sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 8:23 pm
OH my gosh. *slight panic attack* Semester ends in one month. I have to get my math grade up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:57 pm
...I'm on the quarter system *DIES* X_X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
