| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
thellama73 
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
 Posted: September 14 2010 at 13:16 |
|
|
|
|
 |
jplanet
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 799
|
Posted: September 14 2010 at 13:26 |
|
And this is my problem with religion.The Bible contains so much, and from so many perspectives, that it can be quoted to support any ideal. It serves as a reflection of the reader, not the other way around.
It has been said that even Satan could quote the Bible for his own ends...
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 14 2010 at 14:14 |
 Negoba wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
A majority?
Take yourself. You are incredibly wealthy to a majority of the world. How many of those descriptions fit you. |
They all do, to some extent. I wish it was less.
|
Sucks for you then, but that doesn't apply to most people in the world.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 14 2010 at 14:15 |
jplanet wrote:
And this is my problem with religion.The Bible contains so much, and from so many perspectives, that it can be quoted to support any ideal. It serves as a reflection of the reader, not the other way around.
It has been said that even Satan could quote the Bible for his own ends...
|
So you don't have a problem with religion so much as you have a problem with anything that is written in a non-scientific language, especially anything that uses metaphors.
I guess you're not much of a reader.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
jplanet
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 799
|
Posted: September 14 2010 at 14:27 |
|
I guess you're even less of a reader than I am. You extrapolated three incorrect assumptions out of just one sentence - I can only imagine what you do with something that is several pages long...
Why do you attack me no matter what I post? I'm starting to think you might have unnatural feelings towards me. You're not my type. Go away.
Edited by jplanet - September 14 2010 at 14:37
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 14 2010 at 15:01 |
I didn't extrapolate anything. Your issues with the Bible apply to anything non-scientific.
I attack you because I'm sexually attracted to you and don't know how to express these feelings in a social context. My inner struggle is reflected in my outward hostility towards you.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: September 14 2010 at 15:03 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I attack you because I'm sexually attracted to you and don't know how to express these feelings in a social context. My inner struggle is reflected in my outward hostility towards you. |
This is true, don't let his demeanor fool you. Deep down he's a confused man and filled with sexual rage.
|
|
jplanet
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 799
|
Posted: September 14 2010 at 15:14 |
|
Well, as long as we've cleared that up! LOL...
No, the context of a Bible vs., let's say, James Joyce, is night and day. People always think that they are using the Bible to guide them on right and wrong, and view it as law to live by. They do not do that with James Joyce, for example. They are both equally open to interpretation, but it is quite different to say, this is the meaning behind this author's novel, in contrast to, this is what I use to guide how I live my life and how I expect others to behave or else I burn in hell...
|
|
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 14 2010 at 15:17 |
So any belief system should essentially be grounded in a formal axiom system?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
jplanet
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 799
|
Posted: September 14 2010 at 15:38 |
Yeah, dude, not really into the way you spit back assumptions in the form of questions, without ever addressing the fact that your previous question was answered. You seem to enjoy putting people on the defensive. I was clear in what I stated, and didn't imply anything that I didn't already say - I certainly didn't imply what I think any belief system should or shouldn't be. I merely described my opinion of one of the problems with one facet of belief. It's also funny that you're trying to deconstruct my opinion - ergo, belief - about belief - with a logical process - that challenges whether I believe belief should be based on logic! 
Edited by jplanet - September 14 2010 at 15:48
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: September 14 2010 at 18:22 |
JJLehto wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I attack you because I'm sexually attracted to you and don't know how to express these feelings in a social context. My inner struggle is reflected in my outward hostility towards you. |
This is true, don't let his demeanor fool you. Deep down he's a confused man and filled with sexual rage.
|
False. Pat knows exactly what he wants. And it can be obtained at Bed Bath and Beyond...
|
|
|
|
Easy Money
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 11 2007
Location: Memphis
Status: Offline
Points: 10679
|
Posted: September 14 2010 at 19:42 |
thellama73 wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Easy Money wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
I think anyone who thinks the take away message of the New Testament is "be nice to people" is missing a large part of the point.
|
The New Testament is about love, God's love for his creation including mankind. We learn from the example of God's love and apply it to our personal life. Jesus' sacrifice of his own life was the ultimate gift of love.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that he who believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life" - from memory. |
Jesus wasn't some meek pacifist, he was a revolutionary. He came not bearing peace, but with a sword. He was happy to turn brother against brother or father against son if that's what it took. |
Jesus' death on the cross was an act of unselfish love, he gave himself up willingly, there was no sword, he didn't need one, he had God's love, something that is more powerful than any human made weapon. |
The sword was a metaphor. It's from Matthew 10:34. I don't mean to sound condescending, but have you read the New Testament? I only ask because you seem to keep misunderstanding things that are said. |
Yes, I know the New Testament well, my father is an ordained minister with the equivalent of a masters degree from Memphis Theological Seminary and I was raised on nightly Bible lessons. Was there something I misunderstood?
Edited by Easy Money - September 14 2010 at 20:04
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 14 2010 at 21:09 |
jplanet wrote:
Yeah, dude, not really into the way you spit back assumptions in the form of questions, without ever addressing the fact that your previous question was answered. You seem to enjoy putting people on the defensive. I was clear in what I stated, and didn't imply anything that I didn't already say - I certainly didn't imply what I think any belief system should or shouldn't be. I merely described my opinion of one of the problems with one facet of belief. It's also funny that you're trying to deconstruct my opinion - ergo, belief - about belief - with a logical process - that challenges whether I believe belief should be based on logic!
|
Soooooooooo, the answer to the question is no then?
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 08:22 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
A majority?
Take yourself. You are incredibly wealthy to a majority of the world. How many of those descriptions fit you. |
They all do, to some extent. I wish it was less.
|
Sucks for you then, but that doesn't apply to most people in the world. |
Personal jab answered with honest self-appraisal? Glib generality, unsupported statement.
Accumulation of wealth inherently requires self-interest. In a best case scenario, systems can evolve where synergistic effort results in profit for all. But zero-sum transactions are at minimum common, and thereby one man's profit is another's loss.
If I had to look back on my life and it was spent primarily on the acquisition of wealth and the exchange of services with no added value, I would feel my life was wasted. I will teach my children the same.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 08:51 |
Zero-sum transactions don't occur in a free market. If you trade money for a good or service, then you value that good or service more than the dollar amount. Therefore you have a net gain.
If I sold that good or service for the dollar amount, then I value the dollar amount more than the good/service. So I have then gained.
I admit I'm generalizing when I say it doesn't apply to most people. However, you are suggesting that it does, so you too are generalizing. I believe people are on the whole good, which is why I make that statement. I suppose you would disagree with that?
I didn't make a personal jab. You jabbed yourself. I just didn't refute it.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 09:09 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Zero-sum transactions don't occur in a free market. If you trade money for a good or service, then you value that good or service more than the dollar amount. Therefore you have a net gain.
If I sold that good or service for the dollar amount, then I value the dollar amount more than the good/service. So I have then gained.
I admit I'm generalizing when I say it doesn't apply to most people. However, you are suggesting that it does, so you too are generalizing. I believe people are on the whole good, which is why I make that statement. I suppose you would disagree with that?
I didn't make a personal jab. You jabbed yourself. I just didn't refute it. |
While at some level what you say is true, the disparity in the knowledge of how the process works makes the "gains" vastly different. And though the consumer has the "duty" to inform himself if he doesn't want to get taken, he's never going to match the professional who spends 40hrs/week dealing with economic margins. (This is a fact of life in medicine for me. No matter how informed the patient is, there is almost always a knowledge differential that cannot be closed)
Though I may want a soda at the movie theater, paying $3 for what I can buy at the supermarker for $1 and what cost the theater 5 cents and the manufacturer 1 cent is leveraging cultural norms and control of the marketplace. I pay $3 because it's legal to say "No outside drinks." It's a free country and I can choose not to buy anything. But the market is not truly free, ever. Leveraging of some kind almost always happens. We have laws against some monopoly practices but monopoly-style leveraging happens all the time.
As for jabs, my position is that we all look out for #1 plenty. You're right in that how you feel about that is up to you.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 09:19 |
Disparity of knowledge does not mean that one is losing in a transaction. For that to occur we would need either a consumer to act irrationally, which we assume does not happen. Although I don't believe that a soda is costing $.05 to the theater, your point is well taken.
However, you still did not lose that transactions. You did not gain as much as you would have buying the soda outside the theater, but to compare the two is to confuse the issue. You're paying for a soda within a movie theater, where obviously the supply is severely limited compared to the outside world. If you're paying though, you still value the soda here more than your $5.
This is irrelevant, but do you still have theaters around you that don't allow outside beverages? Most theaters around here have switched to allowing outside food and drink.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 10:12 |
I think we're exploring something interesting here.
The merchant has decided that the profit margin of selling the soda is worth it to him because (a. he doesn't want to drink the soda all himself, and more importantly b. the profit margin works into a bigger business plan that hopefully results in net profit).
The consumer has decided that the entertainment value of a soda and a movie is worth the asking price in their particular financial situation.
This seems reasonable. But where I used "leverage" you discussed "limited supply." Perhaps the most neutral way to describe it is who has control of the supply and demand. Who determines how free the market is? How many viable choices are available?
What if the product is basic foodstuffs?
At some level, the consumer will pay whatever they have to because the don't want to starve. $50 for a loaf of bread is a win/win - the supplier makes a profit and the consumer doesn't starve. If the supplier is able to limit access and make this the only choice, the consumer will choose it and have chosen wisely. This is why I use the word leverage.
In terms of ultimate value, perhaps that scenario is still mutual benefit. But in terms of distribution of wealth, it is predatory. I.E. less than zero sum.
I'll stop there for now.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 13:33 |
I was going to touch on that in my post, but I omitted it. So now I'll go into it.
I'll agree with your use of leverage in the second example, but not the first. In the first you willingly put yourself in an environment where you know there is a severe supply limitation. You wouldn't go to a poor tribal island which has one water source, and then accuse them of leveraging you when they demand $20 for a bottle of water. That's just the market's rationing system.
Now this "leverage" thing could arise in the case of some evil food monopoly which extorts the customer. I'll accept that, and in that situation we could discuss what rational decision the consumer makes. Surely, he values being alive and not starving to death more than the $1000 dollars for the loaf of bread. So he still gains in a technical sense from the interaction. However, without a supply shortage we would feel such a price is 'unfair'.
Fortunately, there has never been a natural monopoly on the free market. Near-monopolies have never exhibiting this pricing behavior. In fact, there's no good economic benefit for the company to do so. It's the great scare tactic you always hear, but it just doesn't exist unfortunately. Llama has more technical knowledge with regards to this than I do. Maybe he could make some things more lucid.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 13:42 |
|
It is generally not in a monopolies best interest to charge an unreasonably high price, because there always exists some amount of price elasticity, that is, the quantity demanded goes down as price goes up. Even in the bread example (which Pat correctly states would never happen in real life) there would be some people who would be unable to pay the high price, even if they were willing. Therefore a monopoly does not increase its profits by raising prices indefinitely. A monopoly will charge a higher price than the competitive market, yes, but usually not insanely higher.
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Don't Ask, Don't Tell Deemed Unconstitutional
