Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Inferior/Superior person.....the root of the problem

Posted 10 years ago on Dec. 8, 2011, 10:21 a.m. EST by Slammersworld (210)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Something that I think few understand, and even fewer practice, is the difference between those who achieve (superior) and those who do not (inferior)...there IS a difference, and the difference in approach explains the difference in results, as one adjusts to life, and the other expects life to adjust to him. The evolution of organisms, is not the adjustment of nature to suit the organism, but instead the organism adjusting and evolving to fit into the natural order....man often thinks, in the lofty halls of abstract academia that man is super-natural, as in, not part of, or constrained by, natural order....and that somehow by wishing, can become whatever he wishes for....sorry to break it to you...it doesn't work like that, we are as trapped by our nature, and natural order as the lowest single cell organism, but...we can think, and we can use that thinking to adjust and prosper within the greater system...but we cannot demand that the system bend to our will....that is foolish and naive.

The Inferior person: in rank, effort and results, always projects outwardly the causes and conditions of his situation, and even existence....it's "the system", or "them" or the situation, or the circumstances....the flaw always exists outside...

The Superior person (earned superiority, by effort and results) always projects inwardly, what did "I" do, what could "I" have done better, how could "I" have adjusted to the situation/circumstances.....

You can't change the external, be it the system, circumstance or situation, you can only demand that someone else change it for you, demand that others provide YOU with your needs....need is not a value, it is the absence of value and cannot be equitably exchanged, only given to, as in charity, or forced upon, as in extortion by force....and transfer by force is an immoral act.

If you wish to become greater stop demanding and start adjusting....



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by warriorjoe7 (232) 10 years ago

I have an idea. Why don't we just kill all the inferior people! (sarcasm)

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 10 years ago

"...man often thinks, in the lofty halls of abstract academia that man is super-natural, as in, not part of, or constrained by, natural order....and that somehow by wishing, can become whatever he wishes for....sorry to break it to you...it doesn't work like that, we are as trapped by our nature, and natural order as the lowest single cell organism, but...we can think, and we can use that thinking to adjust and prosper within the greater system...but we cannot demand that the system bend to our will....that is foolish and naive...."_slammer


Psych 101. You listened to the lectures too!

.. Here's a Wrench in That Work for ya...

The Only Two ACTUAL Feelings 'Humans' have are: 'FEAR' and 'LOVE'

First , 'Fear' is the Absence of Love, and Vice Versa.

Have you learned anything about that yet? And, how that pertains to your thought Process in this Topic message?


[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

hardly......where will the superior people rise from?


[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

some may...but not without an attitude adjustment

[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 10 years ago

An attitude of what....you OWE me? I'm your leader and you OWE me? Wow dude. Sweet Baby Jesus isn't sleeping in Zucotti Park.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

the missing piece of modern culture is that struggle can reveal what's best in people....by eliminating it, we deprive many people of their best selves...

I left off a word, I fixed it

[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 10 years ago

The missing piece of modern culture is nothing of the sort. What it is is that spoonfed babies haven't figured out that they need to work to eat, and they need to excel to prosper.

OWS shows neither prospect. They are a fad, like owning a pet rock.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

that too, but no one is hopeless until they exhale their final breath

[-] 0 points by simplesimon (121) 10 years ago

That kind of statement is one with which I can agree. I'm not entirely unreasonable. I predict this movement will reach its crescendo come political convention time, and then wimper away by January, 2013 to become a footnote in the history of 2012, leaving behind only a handful of hardened radicals.

[-] 3 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Burlington, VT 10 years ago

One reason why we should drop the notions of "demands" and assert specific "goals." I believe we touched on this last night in chat.

Now your argument assumes that we live in a system that cannot be changed, however I respectfully disagree on that point. The system that we live in was made by humans, which makes it inherently malleable given enough effort. Someone can aspire to take an environment and adapt it to them; everyone from the Romans with their aqueducts to the colonists with their Declaration of Independence has done this. I believe we could come to an agreement that it is our goal to change our system, or that that should be the case.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

but...we are bound by the nature of value exchange, and natural law...you cannot use more than is produced, you cannot use that which has not yet been produced, you cannot force people to produce if you do not provide them equal value for that production, except by force, and even then..not for long....

[-] 2 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Burlington, VT 10 years ago

We're not making a connection here. Those are all true points but do not speak to what I am saying, which is that we can be a movement to enact change in the system, and are not "inferior" by virtue of our protesting. If you are saying that is what we want to create, I would respectfully disagree on that point as well. The sentiment is that we feel we are being exploited; all our effort does not amount to the return enjoyed by some who have changed the system to their favor, economically, politically, etc. Though that's only one stance among many, all the more reason for us to enumerate goals.

[-] 2 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

protesting is external projection, you are demanding something be done, by others, for you.... you are not adjusting and growing, you are standing still and demanding all things move toward you...you are not trying to become "better" you are demanding the world bend to your will, as-is...

[-] 2 points by divineright (664) 10 years ago

I would disagree. I would say the protest is the result of people looking inward and saying "the system is broken. What can I do to change it? What action can I take?". I think that waiting for external change would be a completely fruitless and inferior choice.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

But they aren't DOING anything to change it...they are demanded that others change it....demanding others provide things for them.....for free, offering nothing in return but their need and their existence on this earth as the right for it....but, everything they demand must be provided by someone else....by the efforts of someone else...and they expect that person to provide that exchange while receiving nothing......

They refuse to adapt to the system as those they expect to provide for their needs have....they want a changed system for themselves and only a change in compensation by those who they presume to plunder...

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 10 years ago

While I think that much more calculated action needs to be taken in addition to protesting, I think that at least getting off the couch and bringing attention to the issues is doing something. I don't agree in free college degrees for everyone (such issues could possibly be taken up when the country is free of debt, but aren't reasonable right now), or abandoning the country's work ethic.

I would liken adapting to our current erred system to Body Integrity Identity Disorder. The system clearly sends the message to one's brain to remove a limb or limbs. However, this message is due to a malfunctioning system and the message is clearly against the benefit of said individual. That being said, ignoring the propaganda and messages of the crimiticians, one needs to look inward and find the drive to make daily lifestyle changes (moving money out of undesirable banking institutions, stopping purchases from irresponsible corporations, etc.).

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I agree with those suggestions...I personally "bank" with a credit union, and always have..... there are "choices" which those who externalize blame refuse to acknowledge... nothing can be done, in the opinions of some, except to provide them with all their needs without any effort surrendered in trade

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 10 years ago

All we can do with the people that completely externalize blame and refuse to take on personal responsibility is educate them (or in necessary cases try and get them mental health treatment). I'm hoping that is a low percentage of the populace and that most will be reasonable in understanding their part in attempts at progress.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I also do not invest in "funds" managed by others..I do my due diligence and invest in specific companies based on what they produce, and do..not based on "historical returns" a guy like Madoff has no effect on me...I'm not looking to "get rich" I am only looking to get my money working for me...I follow the philosophies behind the companies I invest it, in the mission they pursue, and in the people they hire...when those things change and create undue risk, I divest of my shares in their enterprise....

it takes more effort, and research, and I have to stay "plugged in"...but, the rewards and benefits are higher..and safer...and "I" am responsible...and when I make mistakes.."I" own those mistakes..there is no one else to "blame"

I totally agree with the education statement...I truly believe that if it's presented at the proper time, in the proper circumstances the responsible life is preferred by all...you just have to get the information to the people when they will accept it...

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 10 years ago

It sounds like you are a responsible investor as we should all be. It certainly does take more effort, but you can know within yourself you are investing in companies with philosophies and actions you believe in.

I agree that timing can be essential when trying to get a message through to people. The approach to delivering that message is also an important factor.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

yeah...that one I have to work on ;)

[-] 1 points by divineright (664) 10 years ago

We can all always work on refining our skills :)

[-] 2 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 10 years ago

So would you recommend that a slave "adapt" or revolt. Protest could be considered a means of adaptation. Your stance is a bit too absolute. Results are a combination of ability and opportunity. Opportunity is an external factor. Sometimes it can be changed. Economic opportunities are not determined by the laws of physics or nature as much as the policies of those in power.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

opportunity is not an external "factor"....every choice is an opportunity, the choice is internal and the recognition is also internal, some miss or dismiss opportunities others accept..the only difference is internal....opportunities aren't "given" they are created and/or accepted....

[-] 2 points by JProffitt71 (222) from Burlington, VT 10 years ago

You have a different definition of opportunity, what I hear being described is initiative. Initiative is completely internal, and is where all of our action (or lack thereof) arises from, no doubt. Opportunity on the other hand can be thought of as a coefficient that determines how much change ones initiative translates to.

I will provide a simple example, let's say you are fresh on your own and you need a job – so you go job-hunting in all the businesses local to you, which happen to be big ones. You are actively inquiring about employment, but are told that there is an online application which you have to fill out. You do not have internet and cannot afford to acquire it, so despite your active effort you cannot be employed, and therefore have no opportunity. Had you a) money, b) small businesses nearby, or c) connections, you would have opportunity for your initiative to gain you something. All of these are more or less external factors which translate to your opportunity which influences the result of your initiative.

This is an extreme example of course, because we do have means of finding employment in this situation thanks to public transportation and libraries, but you understand that those are external sources of opportunity that are enabling your initiative to better yourself, yes? Naturally it would then follow that it is possible for someone to lack the opportunity without being "inferior," or shall we just say "lazy," correct?

I can cite personal examples too, though just to ground this in reality. My best friend is a very industrious person, many times we have went out job-hunting (by her suggestion) and she checks the entire district to a store. Even though she is an absolutely avid worker, the only times she has found work has been thanks to either a) work-study program, b) craiglist (internet), and c) a friend (connection). Applying herself otherwise has done nothing to help her, even though she has proven herself a highly competent and confident individual.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

limiting yourself to work provided by others is, of course, external opportunity.....but, other opportunity abounds...there are things that need to be done, and people will pay for them....picking up and delivering dry cleaning for those too busy to do so, grocery shopping for the elderly, and or single mothers too busy, or unable to do it themselves, lunchtime deliveries from restaurants that do not deliver..you could easily make the equivalent of normals days wages doing this to a single high-rise office building....maybe it would take a bit to ramp up, and create a customer base, but there are adjustments to any enterprise....

Like I said, you have think about the opportunities that exist because of your decision to form an awareness of them..that is what I mean by internal opportunities....

The easy ones, like posted jobs, are the first descended upon by everyone, haphazardly without skill or thought.....set yourself apart.

Tell your friend to create a resume that isn't the same, first choice, canned one from MS Word...get creative....the secret is not to conform to the photo gray mediocrity of the masses, and not to give up.....

the patent line from the inferior mass is that we are "common men"...don't be common, or all you'll get is common rewards and a common life...we are all different, all better than each other at some task, or skill, or talent.....find a way to identify that and use it to your advantage...let those who wish to remain common and inferior, do so....it's sad, but many would rather remain in the background of life, rather than take chances and live, create and enjoy the abundance that is available..they choose instead to focus on the created world and say there are limitations, and scarcity, and lack....that there isn't enough for everyone, so everyone else must share with them..... There IS enough, there is more than enough, but not if everyone just sits around and complains, while creating, or re-creating, nothing...then lack is a surety.....

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

in response...go to the library...a coffee shop, a friend with internet, many many choices there...

or, if it was winter you could go buy a shovel and go to work, you don't have to ask anyone, or get permission to do it...just start knocking on doors...a rake, and some trash bags, in the fall...I think you get my point...if you want to stay stuck in the "typical" yeah..perhaps you will stay stuck..you have to be more creative..

I guess I was fortunate to be a kid in the early 80's...when there was no money from parents to be had...I had to figure out ways to get my own money....we used to wade the lake for golf balls, wash peoples cars..using their hoses and water..at their homes. We even sold water balloons at the park to a gathering who started in impromptu water ballon fight...seriously increasing the demand for our product...we turned a 69c pack of water balloons into over 10 bucks....that was a nice profit margin for an 11 year old....it can be done....but if you quit, or give up, before you even start....I guess you can prove me wrong by inaction...but it's not really wrong...you haven't tried (not you specifically, but in general)

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 10 years ago

I find your philosophy to be simplistic.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

it's the impractical human mind, not the reasoning/logical mind, that likes complicate the simple....most important things are very simplistic......

you find my philosophy distasteful because you "wish" it to be....but my assertions are not about wishes, they are about things that exist, effort, reward, compensation, contribution, participation...and the negatives that correspond....and you want to assign a value to "need" which has no value, and is in-fact the absence of value...but you want to assign it MORE value than the creation and effort it requires to sate it....which is again...immorality....but you twist the rules of morality to your arbitrary ends, for you really don't care where or how the 'need' is satisfied, or what the cost is...you just expect others to fill its claim upon their resources without complaint, even if it cost them their very lives....that, my friend is simplistic and immoral...

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

Once upon a time, people we're enslaved and treated inferior by so-called superior men, not because of effort or results, but merely because of a bigotry to the color of their skin. other people eventually got tired of this moral flaw in the system and demanded it be changed, and by way of civil war, transfered by force a moral act to restore freedom and equality to these so-called inferior people. I hope you find the wisdom to get the moral of this story.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

no superior man..in the definition I provided will accept anything from others unless the exchange provides equitable value to both parties...any example you provide that does not do that, is not an example of a superior man.....you are defining "superior" as something other than the results produced..which is clearly the definition I ascribed to "superior"...you are arguing about something that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, because you either: don't understand it, or are trying to conceal it's meaning from yourself

and, if you are trying to make the point that slavery was about race, you are incorrect....in the early days of this country, including before the revolution, and long before the civil war, there were free men of all races and slaves of all races...it was not a racial issue, you should know better, but apparently you do not...

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

Did I mention long before the civil war? No. I mentioned only the civil war and it was racial. It is a fact, the blacks we're viewed as inferior simply because of the color of their skin. As for as your idea of superior and inferior men, I agree. Some people can achieve greater things. But I disagree about the system part. A system devised by men can be flawed and if found significantly flawed to the point where it treats some people inferior, not based on efforts and results, but by some other means, it should be changed.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I guess you aren't familiar with the black free men who served voluntarily in the confederate army?, or those Black freemen who owned slaves themselves? apparently you are unschooled about the cause of and aftermath of the Civil War....much of the "inferiority" you speak of, against men of color was from the same sort of person who I define as inferior today...the newly freed slaves were better workers, and had more motivation and incentive than did many of the "inferior" whites of the time...the laws concerning the discrimination of blacks came long after the civil war...when "needy" and result-lacking whites...not those I have defined as "superior", who welcomed the newly freed slaves and their work ethic and self-respect....but those who saw them as rivals who excelled their talents and set about creating laws to stop that competition...

You need a better education...

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

So educate me. Why is it wrong for people, as in occupiers, to stand up and demand more equal footing in a system they see rigged against them? This transfer of force being an immoral act concept doesn't make sense to me. Give me an everyday example of this concept so I can better understand where you're coming from.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

because it is demand...inequitable exchange...what are they offering in exchange for this supposed "equal footing"?

transfer by force...a simple example, that I will place on your side of the court is the TARP program, I didn't agree with that...that is taking value, tax revenue, and distributing it by force (the force being, the threat of fine or imprisonment for not paying your taxes) and not providing equal value in return...I received nothing for that tax expenditure...no improved road, no new airport, no dam, or school, nothing....but I was forced to pay. same for welfare, for government expansion, congressional pensions, etc etc......

these things we probably agree on...however, "demanding" that YOU (not specifically, perhaps) get some of the loot is not equitable...it's immoral, it's just joining forces with the thieves hoping to get a cut...

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

I get your point. But my understanding from the pro arguments in support of TARP, was that it was necessary to keep the world economy from a disastrous meltdown. It's hard for me to argue against that reasoning. Wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to do that.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I guess we'll never know, but...I think not, the banks would have been forced to make some hard decisions, and some people would have lost a lot of money...but the later happened anyway, while the former did not...and some persons, like Warren Buffett earned billions from the use of tax dollars to prop up the system....I think we would have been better of to let it fail and pick up the pieces,,,and that we have only kicked the can down the road to a time when the results will be worse....that is all my personal opinion...I claim to access to facts to back it up...beyond the Warren Buffet part...

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 10 years ago

You may be right. My gut feeling is kinda with you on that. I hope it turns out to be wrong.

[-] 3 points by Coriolanus (272) 10 years ago

I am not sure you are completely correct. Maybe I misinterpret, but you seem to suggest that anyone can be great if he or she takes the right approach. But I don't think that is true. Some people lack the physical or mental requirements to achieve superiority.

As far as evolution, most species cannot change their environments at will, and thus may die out if they do not evolve in the face of a changing environment. But humans can change the environment - that is how a tropical species like us can live anywhere on the planet. Some evolutionary scientists make the argument that human evolution stopped about 1000 years ago.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I think perhaps that is true....we are in what can easily be described as a de-evolution phase now...natural selection has gone from out species, and strength/intelligence are no longer factors in survival...

[-] 2 points by yoss33 (269) 10 years ago

You make the assumption that 'Superior' means accumulating wealth or materials, or status perhaps. You could also say that your country is becoming 'inferior' to China, seeing as, as a whole, it is in extreme debt. So on the macrocosm level, is this not true by your logic? The U.S. is inferior to China, who has risen to superiority?

You also make the assumption that everyone with wealth has earned it by their 'superior' efforts, when a very large percentage, particularly of the super-rich have inherited their fortunes, and were born in to positions of power and influence. Many profit off of the exploitation and harm of others, which i do not see as 'superior' but rather more a long the lines of displaying anti-social personality traits, though they may be well suited for success in competitive 'dog eat dog' type of environments, but humans are not dogs, and even dogs or any animal in the animal kingdom resort to such things of necessity, not greed.

I see sort of where you are trying to come from with it, but there are just too many holes and flaws in your thinking, and it is far too simplistic as well in my opinion.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I don't make any of those assumptions

[-] 2 points by yoss33 (269) 10 years ago

then in what way are you talking about 'superior' and 'inferior'?

Perhaps Occupy is not attempting to change the system, but is in the process of establishing a 'superior' one. Judging from the state of the world economy, the current system could be said to be 'inferior', could it not?

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

Most of the "inferiority" of the current system is based on debt, and on the transfer of wealth, through governments, from those who produce to those who do not.....cultivating a belief that contribution to the system is unnecessary, and that one is entitled, by mere existence, to the right of other men's labor....the idea that you can have your cake, and eat it too...which violates natural laws of cause/effect..

The point missed by those on the "entitlement" side is that money/value/wealth is an effect, not a cause...it is a result of effort that produces result....and when you create an equality in that formula you create debt, and that debt cannot be forgiven or extended for long periods of time, and it cannot be transferred by "wish" to those who did not create the debt, but are, in fact, the principles to whom the debt is owed, by nature of their efforts and results, given, or more aptly..."taken", for the benefit of "need" which has no value and is, actually, the absence of of value...you cannot exchange "need"...need withdraws value from a system and makes the valuation of the system arbitrary, effecting the value exchange within the system itself...thus creating an obligation in excess of the value which the original debt, or an "unfunded mandate" a situation where for lack of a better example is having your cake before you bake it...

The system that the body of OWS seeks to establish is not superior, as it demands inequitable distribution of reward to those who do not earn that reward as the effect of their efforts...the "cause" of value being distributed....

The idea that things are of arbitrary value can only be held by those who do not produce the value themselves, but only plunder it from those who do...it is that simple..

The final question of any system is.....who PROVIDES the benefits, and, who RECEIVES them, and is that exchange equitable to all parties in the exchange, and is it forced, or voluntary.... Some of the idea's, including ANY "free" programs provided for persons not involved in producing the value that creates, and sustains the program...and idea's such as "a living wage" not based on objective valuation of the effort required for the wage earned, are incompatible with true "fairness" as they claim "need", which is an arbitrary assessment, as their fundamental principle....

The problem with "need" as an operating principle is, when need becomes the guideline the "need" expands, but the contribution does not...one side receives an inequitable distribution and creates a lopsided system where the producers are required to surrender more and more of their production to the "need" of the beneficiaries of that production...eventually the producers must be forced to surrender their production, and will seek relief from this inequitable obligation...and will, at first, on the fringes lower the level and value of their contributions, and eventually the inequality of effort will lead to shortage and poverty....but, once the philosophy has taken hold of the system the beneficiaries will continue to demand reward without effort and available value within the system will diminish at every increasing speed....which is EXACTLY what we are seeing in the first failures of the Democratic Socialist countries of Europe...the level of contribution is reaching critical disparity with contribution and the systems are collapsing....for those who think that it cannot happen here, that is the height of gullibility....or, just as likely, a refusal to face the reality of the philosophy until the reality can no longer be ignored....

[-] 2 points by yoss33 (269) 10 years ago

And who is it that created such money/value/wealth? The workers produce the goods. They do the work. The put in the effort, speaking in broad general terms because i see that is what you wish to do.

And banks, what effort or results of effort are they responsible for? Speaking in terms of meaningful, necessary work, nothing. They do not work the land that produces the food that people need to eat in order to live. They do not make the clothes or build the houses that people need to wear to stay warm, or live in. They merely take the representation of this labor (money) and move it hither and thither by slight of hand; maybe printing a few extra of it here, investing it in something there and creating it magically out of thin air through interest. They serve no truly fundamental or necessary purpose. This is where the lack is created in the first place.

See there is such a thing as "need". Try not eating or drinking water for awhile and you will see what i mean. You act as if every person supporting Occupy are bums who have never worked a day in their life for anything, and nothing can be further from the truth. Some of what you say does make sense, in a way, but your aim, so far as i can discern at least, is off target, though i cannot tell because you will not explain in practical terms how it applies or in what way it relates to OWS.

[-] 2 points by yoss33 (269) 10 years ago

To me it is an argument based on a fallacy which is that money itself has value correct me if i'm wrong. If you want to break it down to the very fundamental elements, please define what you mean by "value" and "needs", because clearly, the bottom line is, money in and of itself is no more than numbers on a screen, or pieces of paper with symbols on it. I cannot eat money, or shelter myself in scraps of paper. Survival and meaning as well depends on far more than this, and in reality, not this at all, other than the fact that we have evolved to at this point to collectively agree upon it as having meaning and value, but it by no means necessary for life.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

money itself does have value...it is the value required to produce it, and what that value will achieve in trade with the efforts of other men...money is merely the instrument of exchange of labor between men.

don't get hung up on the semantics of "physical" representation of money...yes, in that definition, you cannot eat it, or shelter yourself with it, but with it a man can trade an auto repair for a meal...or a plane flight for a few days of operating a machine.... It allows you to exchange your labor for things not easily directly bartered

[-] 3 points by yoss33 (269) 10 years ago

wrong. money itself does not have value. It is given value as a representation of real value, in terms of goods, service & labor. It does not in and of itself have value. That is the entire weak leg upon which your argument crumples. Do we agree that is symbolizes value? Yes, of course we do. But we are not simply variables in an equation, we are human beings with real needs. Money is not, in the literal sense, one of them.

I'm sorry, as logical as your thinking may be in a way, which i would still be tempted to dispute, but let's assume for the sake of argument it does; you do not account for what is applicable to the reality of the situation, and your perfect system exists divorced from practical, every day, common sense living. Money only has the amount of value which we give it but no intrinsic value in and of itself. And this is one of the major problems with the global capitalist economic system in fact. We make mountain upon mountain of products we don't need in the name of "profit" assuming there is room for infinite growth in the market when the resources of that market which are taken from the environment, are themselves, finite.

Beyond that, it is empty rhetoric to me. You still have not given me any example of how money is necessary from a survival standpoint or even on any meaningful level. I live on land that can produce food. I can cut down a tree and make shelter. I can trade for anything i may need or want but do not have. Where in that equation does money ever show itself as a necessity?

Short answer? It doesn't. Are we stuck with the monetary system for now? Apparently, but we can regulate the ebb and flow and distribution of money to curb unhealthy financial practices to be more in harmony with the natural world, i'm not arguing for a purely resource based economy, though im not necessarily against it either, i simply wish to point out the flaw in your reasoning.

[-] 2 points by yoss33 (269) 10 years ago

," but with it a man can trade an auto repair for a meal...or a plane flight for a few days of operating a machine..."

and guess what? A man can do that without it as well!

Your entire argument begins with a false premise, money is in essence completely extraneous. Should we immediately do away with now? Not really in my opinion, that would cause untold chaos and destruction to an already very fragile and precarious economic system. But if you are talking in bare bones fundamental hypotheticals, then im sorry your rationale does not hold up at all.

[-] 2 points by pissedoffconstructionworker (602) 10 years ago

What is libertarianism but the conviction that one is a natural aristocrat and the resentment of being tied down by Lilliputians who, individually, one could smite?

[-] 2 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 10 years ago

Your essentially assigning Darwinian evolution to individuals rather than species, which does not make a good stance.

Two wolves existing in different areas are neither one superior to the other. But if the one's area experiences drought or fire, then their chances of survival are lessened. If the herds they eat from experience illness and are thinned, or die out, they'll eventually die. They can travel to a different area, but depending on how wide spread what has occurred is, they will not survive the journey.

How is the first wolf superior to the first? He isn't. He just lucked out that his area didn't experience these happenings.

Sorry, but your viewpoint is flawed.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

we aren't wolves..and don't have the limitations of mind that wolves do...we have the ability to learn from the mistakes of others...without experiencing those mistakes ourselves...that is the benefit of the cerebral cortex.....

and we have the ability to adapt and adjust to a multitude of external circumstances....unlike that of your example...

your example is flawed, not my viewpoint...

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 10 years ago

Metaphors clearly aren't your thing. Funny considering your opening post attempts to metaphor.

The fire or drought is the external factor you are essentially trying to claim doesn't exist. The wolves are us. In the scenario I presented, the wolves were not presented as being required to adapt beyond the means of their species to survive. But the external factors were too great for them to overcome.

To suggest that human intelligence negates the outside factor is naive. As a SPECIES, our ability to adapt and create has aided us in surviving numerous disasters. As INDIVIDUALS, outside influences always have and always will exist that we are not in control of and that will effect us.

Therefore your assumption that there is always something a person could have done to alter what has occurred is inaccurate. My example remains valid.

Furthermore I'll add this:

While the wolf cannot change a drought or decrease of food supply, that does not mean it's incapable of changing things. The building of a den, while simple, enables it to better survive winters. Thus could be said that the wolf "changed" the system.

Your story suggests that the "superior" person changes for the system. The "inferior" person tries to change it. Again, your view if flawed. As many historians can attest to, man has many times "changed the system".

What your post comes down to, stripped of it's metaphors is - If you've been dealt a bad hand, it's your fault. You can't change the system, just learn to work within it. All of which history itself has proven wrong.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

while trying to dispute my point you are proving it....

You are pointing to external situations as the difference between success and failure...calling it naive to think differently...it's not human intelligence that negates the outside factor...it's the mindset, of which intelligence is only a single factor....one, such as your's seems to be, always finds the obstacles, the other the opportunities....

Any circumstance you can name, existing in this country, under this system, will have different outcomes by different persons...NOT based on the external circumstances, but instead on the internal perspective on those circumstances...from the worst poverty, abuse, neglect, lack, physical challenge, mental struggle, to the most ease, love, caring, assistance, preferential treatment, and heritage...you will find both great success and great failure...those with massive amounts of encouragement and facilitation will go down in flames, while those with no reason or momentum will become resounding successes...

You are mistaking "the system" for a specific political, societal, or cultural system's created by men...I am talking about the system that underlies that creation...I am speaking of the natural system where value cannot be created out of thin air, and cannot be gained without effort....nothing is free, everything in the natural system must be earned...even simple breath requires the muscular contractions to inhale and expel air into the lungs...you cannot escape the natural order...no matter what nonsense you blabber on about....and the lives of men are no different...you can create an inequitable system where value is not exchanged, and you can rule it by force, for a time, but..eventually it will fail, as the entitlement mentality, and demand based system that is attempting to take over our culture, begun in the early 20th century, is now failing....too much value out...not enough in.....and yet, those who externalize blame continue to demand that others add value into the system to subsidize their "need" which is the absence of value...hoping that there will be one more person they can rob of effort to sustain them for one more moment...so they do not have to perform the effort themselves.

If you've been dealt a bad hand, it may not be your fault..but your response to it is certainly your burden, and your responsibility and all your whining that it isn't doesn't change the circumstance, and blaming it on the external circumstance doesn't allow you to change the situation...it demands that something external change the situation for you....not a good plan

There is always something a person could have done, and can do, to alter the effect of what has occurred, as long as that person is alive, with a functioning mind, there is always a choice...a personal, individual choice they can make....and others are not responsible for that choice, or for the result of that choice...

In your poor metaphor comparing animals to men, you leave out that animals are driven by instinct..men are not, animals cannot learn by example...men can, and by following the examples of those who have gone before, and associating with those who have overcome obstacles, rather than associating with those who do not believe the obstacles can be overcome....men can rise where others would fall, and can continue on, where others would quit...and the only difference IS internal...the difference between superior and inferior minds....

and, despite your false assertion..history proves my claim correct....and yours wrong....read the stories of great successes, and visit with a few in person...they are all around...you will find they are not successful because someone lined up all the dominoes for them to knock over...they are successful because they refused to go down in failure, against the odds that defeated other inferior men, because those men were searching for an excuse, or making one...rather than searching for a solution....

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 10 years ago

You have contradicted yourself, and proven your own post wrong while attempting to dispute mine.

I have pointed out that certain external situations are beyond our control - disproving your insistence that all blame on external factors is displacement of blame. I never once claim all factors are beyond our control. I provided the example of how the wolf can exert some control, but also point out that it involves "changing the enviornment" to do so.

You admit a person can be "dealt a bad hand", yet in the same post say that "There is always something a person could have done." This is a contradiction. You clearly have no personal experience, or even have spoken to anyone who has, of those who come from the environments you speak of and have ended up in success or ruin. Otherwise you would be aware that remaining in these environments would never lead to either. To change one environment for another is not an internal factor. It is done externally.

Your insistence on men's superiority to animals is both amusing and sad. If you've ever worked with these "inferior" species, you'd be aware that they do indead learn by example. You're belief that man is above instinct is also incorrect, if you've ever read any studies in psychology.

I don't believe there is such a thing as a "superior" and "inferior" man. It reeks of arrogance, segregation, and an excuse for exploitation. But by your own definition, I will phrase it like this:

In your initial post you claimed that "superior" men adjust to the system and "inferior" men want to change the system. In your second post you claim that "superior" men "overcome obstacles" and "inferior" men accept they cannot be changed. These two statements are in direct conflict with one another.

It is all too ironic that you began this conversation with Darwinian Evolution. Darwin, who is an example of refusing to accept the situation. Of telling the "system" that it was wrong.

OWS knows the system is wrong and is attempting to change it. And that is why I support OWS.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I have to say...you are my favorite type of fool, as you make connections that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and your arguments are largely semantic..not substantive....

Now, as for the rest....the wolf cannot "control" it can only react, it cannot "reason", it cannot "think" about circumstance and come to conclusions about those things and choose the best option based on that analysis...reaction and repetition are not "learning" they are mechanical, not analytical....and also, in response to your very foolish assertion that men are not superior to animals, no animal can make and use tools, mine and process the elements of the earth and fashion them into implements and structures...they cannot produce energy to power motors, or create the motors....they haven't mastered transportation not endowed upon them by creation...and they cannot break the bonds of the earth itself....and the single greatest thing they cannot do, that make all the other example possible, is they cannot reason...as, apparently, neither can you...

You make the mistake of semantics...when you say overcoming obstacles is changing the system..it is not, nor is accepting obstacles, and demanding they be removed for you, NOT changing the system....when I speak of the system, I am not talking about the man created system, at all....i m talking about the system that exists beyond the creations of man, the physical reality of gravity, thermodynamics, action/reaction, mathematics, value, etc....the system you advocate violates the laws of the greater system.....laws that cannot be violated.....the difference in inferior and superior is state of mind...circumstance is circumstance...it's neither good or bad but in the mind of the participant....I used "dealt a bad hand" because you did..I don't believe in "bad hands" situations are...period, the judgement of them is in the mind.

and my philosophy is not based on Darwin...it finds it roots, for this discussion..in Emerson, Jung, and Frankl...along with many other great men...who did come from nothing and created great advances and fortunes...men like Carnegie, Ford, Edison, and others too numerous to list.....

You are merely a fool who will create, or accept an excuse for anything that allows your foolishness to remain veiled from reality....I wish you well, but there isn't much hope for that with your attitude..

Look up the etymology of the word educate...because, in its original sense....you are uneducated

[-] 1 points by WorkerAntLyn (254) 10 years ago

“It is especially difficult for modern people to conceive that our modern, scientific age might not be an improvement over the prescientific period.”

Your assertion about man's superiority carries no weight when you then move on to advocate that our discussion is beyond the system man created. You're my least favorite type of fool. The type who cannot think outside the system, will defend it until's it's fall, and will mourn it's loss even when it has been proven to be flawed.

I wish you well as you bury your head in the sand and continue to hide from reality behind the belief that you, as a human, are somehow above the laws of it. May you never know the cruelties from which others seek to escape.

"Their names are Ignorance and Want. Beware of them. For upon their brow is written the word Doom."

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

Ignorance and want....that's the best definition of OWS I've heard so far....Bravo!

[-] 2 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 10 years ago

99% of the people should conform to the views and actions of 1%. Good thing you werent presenting your views in the middle ages....we all would still be bowing down to kings and queens.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

the nonsense hyperbole of 99% vs 1% has nothing to do with it...please stop trying to use that foolishness as some sort of argument...I am in the "actual" 99%, but you, and those who rhetorically call themselves the 99% don't speak for me...or for most of those who are in the top 50% of income earners....you can pretend all yo like that you do, but...we actually hold you fools in contempt for your idiotic idea's

[-] 1 points by gregb325 (133) from Scranton, PA 10 years ago

The only sense to your post is the picture. LOL I dont pretend, intend or plan to defend you. I speak my views. I dont agree with all that is said here, but approx one out of three posts/views/comments do ring true. I know who I am bro. I have owned business' and have/had very sucessful jobs. Just see a major wrong that will eventually be the tools of collapse for the greatest country in the world. I speak for me and my kids, and their future.


[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 10 years ago

So strange, how you see things. What I see going on here is exactly the adjustment you speak of. Adjusting to a rapidly changing world and our place in it. Where you see complaining, I see courage. Where you see neediness and inferiority, I see independence and strength. Where you see people just standing around doing nothing, I see people standing up to bullies.. (and I am rooting for the little guy by the way). Perhaps the world is changing faster than you want to admit?

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I don't root for the weak, to remain weak...I root for the weak to become strong....the protesting is the weak asserting their "right" to remain weak..and to be supported in their weakness by others

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 10 years ago

ok, whatever gets you by.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I get much more than "by"...I get ahead

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 10 years ago

I guess you never learned that when you start believing you are better than other people, you are no longer better than other people. Sorry, you lose. Play again.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I am not better than anyone...I am better than the "I" I was yesterday...and seek to be better tomorrow..but I am not extraordinary...anyone can do that

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 10 years ago

Guess I misunderstood. So, how can anyone be inferior or superior then, since it would be impossible to know if they are better than who they were yesterday?

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

it's the internal/external assignment of responsibility....those willing to take on the capacity to be response-able become superior....but, the thing many of those commenting are missing is the causes are internal...creating the external results

if you want things to change, YOU have to change yourself...not demand that circumstances change

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 10 years ago

But how do you know that the people you are preaching to are not superior already?

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

are they making demands of others?......if so, they're not...

[-] 1 points by ithink (761) from York, PA 10 years ago

Not that I see.. but remember, you and I see things differently. I don't see this forum as a place where people complain and make demands. To me it is more like free thought and brainstorming. I don't see protesters making demands of others. I see them, like I said, standing up to bullies and courageously expressing themselves.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 10 years ago

This topic is more Libertarian crap. They are trying to train the 99% to revere, idolize, and look up to the 1% white Christian males for their "talent" and "wisdom", and certainly not TAX them!

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 10 years ago

The "superior" ones are the people the 1% puts in power to do their bidding. They are at best average IQ. It's like with cops. They like them just smart enought to take orders. So that's why your boss, the politicians are such idiots. The truly brilliant are scientists and such, NOT money-manipulators.

The "I" stuff is the mentality of an egotistical person. Great for a corporation, (until they get caught cheating people) and bad for society.

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

yes..that is always the argument from the "takers"...that keeping your earned wealth rather than surrendering it to those who did not earn it is egoism...sorry, I'm not buying that....I don't grant you permission to define the retention of my own efforts as egoism....

The theft of my effort by "society" for the support of those who do not produce is theft...and immoral

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

interesting on the surface....I'll investigate.....what's your take?

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 10 years ago

There are many perspectives and ways in which to view the existing paradigms that are playing out in society. Focusing on internal dialogues/beliefs/conditions rather than the external factors may benefit social activists looking to pass blame without changing their own behavior. But they will eventually have to reflect on the social implications of their new behavior. And from there they will again have to reflect on the new changes to personal behavior relative to the environment and so on adapting as any changes occur.

This is known as spiral dynamics. (on a personal level)


Each person and society is at a different stage in this spiral reflection process. The more reflection done and incorporated through experience, the more mature a person/society becomes.

Such changes, can potentially arrive at the best result because they include internal and external factors with both the individual as well as the collective in mind. Some refer to the process as consciousness evolution. But it's really just awareness and understanding the relationship between society and self.


A more straightforward explanation. Learn to see the world from multiple perspectives and to act upon the best solutions for all parties involved.


[-] 1 points by smsid (2) 10 years ago
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago
[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

Wow, I like it. Kinda reminds me of Hernando Cortez and his love for money.

[-] 1 points by 99time (92) 10 years ago

In the lofty halls of abstract academia, they analyze philosophies like this one. All disciplines -- psychology, sociology, mathematics, sciences, economics, etc. -- reject them.

Maybe in a 17th century rhetoric class or a think-tank funded "conservative wing" of a formerly great university you would 'learn' this. Even then, I doubt it.

I would not begin to talk in terms of 'inferior' and 'superior,' for what should be obvious reasons.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

Adjusting, superior, inferior...looking back over events, it appears the superior created the situation by the very fact of their supposed superiority.

There is the 'enough factor', it's a sensible concept, an understanding of the fundamental way things work, a understanding that everything is finite and that within the boundaries of finite we all must live.

There is a more factor, the testing of the boundaries of finite, the attempt to push those boundaries outward. The refusal to understand the very definition of finite.

If the entire system fails, it will be the inferior who suddenly become the superior, the scroungers, the scavengers, those who understand the finite of the resources that surround us, those who understand the boundaries and how to live within them.

The 'superior' are dependent upon the 'inferior' and it doesn't matter whether or not the accept it.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

no, the superior will always be so...you are mixing up definitions, and are projecting your definitions upon the two types of people...those who can adjust will (the superior man) they will be fine, and those who cannot adjust, even in the system we have now, the easiest in the history of man, (the inferior) will perish for lack of those to provide for them, and tell them what they should do...

There is no "enough" in a value exchange.....in an equitable system of value for value exchange, "enough" is the end of a value to exchange....as long as there is value to provide and exchange with others THAT is the limit of what can be accrued...not some contrived amount in the mind of an inferior person who thinks they deserve more than they produce...

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 10 years ago

Again, you are incorrect. Enough, indicates an acknowledgement of finite resources and a husbanding of those resources.

Civilizations have risen and fallen throughout history. When a civilization outgrows it's resources the civilization fails. Today the resources are over wider areas but they are still finite.

You misunderstand the concept of superior becoming less in the context of a changing society and world.

The 'battle lines' you see drawn are an attempt by all parties to hold the status quo as much as possible.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

Alright then, I'll adapt.

Time to buy some agricultural commodities.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

Btw OP you're probably going to have to pay more for food because of my speculation. I hope you don't mind. What am I saying? Ofcourse you don't.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

speculation doesn't create prices..the market does, speculators are betting on what the market will bring...not creating prices themselves....I guess you never traded in put/call options...huh?

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

They create prices by decreasing supply.

If there's 10 barrels of oil and I buy 2. Consumers will pay more for the 8 barrels of oil and then I'll sell them the 2 that I'm holding at a higher price.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

hahahahahaha..you really think that is how it works? where are you holding them? in your living room?....options are for delivery orders...so, unless you are a speculator with huge storage tanks...you take the price the market bears, or bear the cost of storage to hold until you get your price....it doesn't just wait, suspended in limbo until you decide to sell...

you should go to the library and do a little reading before you attempt to comment further

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I've seen that piece before..it is incorrect speculation on the causes of the price of oil, it doesn't make the connection between option speculation and price...it only eludes to it as a possibility....they can't make the connection, because it doesn't work that way.....the producing nations can limit the supply, but an options trader, unless they can store and hold it a their price, rather than that the market will bear, cannot...

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 10 years ago

Its too bad I can't use people's saving accounts to make the bet though.

Also it'd be nice if the federal reserve were to print money to increase my cash reserve so I could lend even more money.

It would also be nice if I could have some insider trading information so I could have an edge in the stock market as well.

If only I knew the right people...

Man all this investing is making me tired. Its time to take a brake so I can drink a brandy.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 10 years ago

I guess your just not "superior " enough.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

the superior person cares more about the lot he was born in than he cares about running faster in a hamster wheel.


[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

no, that is just more outward projection...the superior man seeks to improve his lot, as his very nature of existing...and he does not run in hamster wheels, he creates and moves forward...

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

who do you know that does not project. projecting is how we relate. a person living in a world by himself, is the only person who does not project. you share this world with everyone. act that way.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

I don't share...I trade...value for value

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 10 years ago

you have a sick world view - it is a condition of those who are unthinking - caught up it the capitalist system - can't blame you for that. you would fit rigth in with certain groups in the 1700's (nobility) and the 1800's (capitalists) and shouldn't leave out 1938 (need i say more?). yes the well bred men - ruling the unwashed masses. superior and inferior - how do you mean that - do you base it on success or intelligence. in the indian societies the chief was often the poorest person in the tribe - he gave away what he had that others needed. you don't share - says it all don't you think?

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

no flip...the non thinkers are in your group, you are not thinkers you are wishers...you think you can "wish" your contrived systems of value into existence....breeding has nothing to do with it, it is philosophy and education (in the etymological sense of the word, not the modern, and incorrect usage)

You are going to use the example of a conquered and failed civilization as the standard we should emulate? sorry....history already settle the argument on that one...

that is correct, I don't "share" I exchange and trade value with others....everyone benefits from the transaction...no one is forced to give of moments of their life without an equal exchange of moments of mine...

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 10 years ago

now i see - the european barbarians are the superior men. now i get it - they conquered the world and enslaved those they did not kill - they did it through their superiority. that's right - thank you - you exposed yourself - it is a nazi philosophy isn't it - you must be free white and 21? you are right - i do not belong to your group - your group has had it's boot on the neck of mine for a long time now - stop whining and let us out from under - you are more sick than i thought - at least now all can see

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

hahaha..you're an idiot....nice non-sequeter you made there...because I don't accept the the example of a failed society as valid, I must therefore have been supportive of their conquerers? hahaha..hardly, its just a fact of history, neither condoned or condemned by me...I don't have the authority, or feel the necessity to give too much thought as to "why"...I'll leave that to you silly academics....it is just a fact....failed societies are failed societies....history led us to the formation of THIS country....that history can be debated, but it can't be changed, you can whine all you like about what happened..but the results don't change....the results were a society where men were free from the rule of other men, either by force birth and decree as with a monarchy, or by force and oppression as with a barbaric despot, or by force of the mob as with a collectivist regime....they were free to act of their own accord, and do what they chose to do, and bear the consequences and receive the rewards of those choices for themselves...and they were allowed to enter into exchange with other men, on equitable terms, agreed upon by both parties...not contrived or forced by other men...and in that freedom between men, the culture, technology, and the very structure of mankind changed so fast, and so much more positively than it ever changed in any other period of history, or socio-economic reality that ever existed....

and now, that man is fat, lazy and entitled...because of the labors of his forefathers he can't be bothered with effort, or reward....everything must be distributed....we can't be bothered to go get things, or create things...that is unfair,,,they must be provided for us..

here is my question to you: Provided by who? and at what price? Who is to GIVE the jobs, who is to GIVE the advancement, who is to GIVE the comforts to man...and what will be the reward you offer in return for these gifts? Answer that question, my baffoon-ish friend?

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 10 years ago

no friend of yours - thanks anyway - no reason to read your whole shit - just jumped to the end - the jobs you say - well i guess people never worked until your beloved capitalism came along and the superior men told the great beast what to do (if you are unfamiliar with the terms don't feel bad - look them up- your people have called my people many names over the years - unwashed masses, bewilder herd - should i go on) they just sat around and starved. that is why the poor indians were so happy to see the white man. and the settlers on the plains - who gave them a job. you have revealed your white man's burden thinking - does the term ubermensch come to mind or are you too stupid to realize what you are saying - i think the latter

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

You make a perfect point. The same point that is piercing the heart of this nation. The point being that nations come and go. What makes this nation any different? learn to care or be swept a way by the passage of time and a point of order.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

care about what? that is the question...care about "need" which is the absence of value...and doesn't have any rigid form, or build on anything, it only takes and negates....or care about achievement and the added value it produces, which can be built upon and expanded positively ....one will ensure we survive..one will ensure we fail...

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

you are naive if you don't believe capitalism can have a semblance of fairness, while it still produces great people and great workers. Now, it just produces great gamblers.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

what is "fairness"?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

i'm starting to believe you are a bot, or you don't like to read from other sites. there is a link on one of my comments on this post that will take you to a site that will tell you what i believe is a semblance of fair. I'd post it again but Id hate to think you are too lazy to search it out.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

yeah..I read your blog.....that requires inequitable exchange to take place.....providing more in compensation than was tendered in contribution...again..need is not a value you can trade...find something you have, or can produce that has value...and exchange that, if you don't have it, you must take what you can while you develop it....if you want to look your child in the eye with dignity don't blame the lack of it on the nation...look in the mirror...then get to work earning some dignity by becoming a better person, worthy of a higher value...it's that simple

I am sorry that you want what you haven't earned...and sorry that you think I, and other's owe it to you for your mere existence, but we don't...until you have something to trade, other than your time and some muscular contractions....you won't get much in the way of compensation...but there is a way out...start with a library card, learn all you can about practical things...not abstract notions....learn how to repair something, or build something, or something that you can monetize...rather than demanding that other's surrender value to you for your lack of value to exchange for it....

I don't care about your need, unless you can show me something that makes my investment in it worthy....and more need in the future doesn't do it....you cannot have your cake and eat it too, and you cannot eat the cake before you bake it...get your priorities and practicalities in order...don't expect something for nothing...the price of it is too high...for you and everyone else. someday the note will come due...like those who wasted their time in universities being social and pursuing novelty educations, that are now screaming the can't get a job with a degree in nonsense....

if you want things to change for you, you have to change.....

the wind blows on us all, the only difference in some is they set a better sail...don't demand a more favorable wind...we call that naive...

start now, figure out where you want to go, and EXACTLY where you are...then take steps in that direction, and when you find yourself off course, adjust...keep doing that until you reach your objective....

Sounds too simple...right? then do it and debunk me.....if you quit, that is on you...but, if you follow those simple steps, and end up somewhere besides where you intend, and it's not better than your plan.....THEN you can say I'm wrong....not until, because that is the formula that the 99% of successful persons..the ones I call superior, use...and ANYONE can use it...it's an equal opportunity philosophy...pick something simple as first...don't expect to be an overnight success...those usually take 10 years or more....

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

Respect is earned, not given....and demanding it is a sign you don't deserve it....(not you, specifically)


[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

your logic leaves out the fact that mutual respect is priceless. that is probably why owners get doorknobs for employees. and the smartest and brightest game the system. Who would take such a despicable system seriously? I don't want a high paying job, those are for suckers. I want respect.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

"Call me a dreamer, but i'm not the only one" I am paraphrasing a man with great knowledge. I'd never dream of stealing his words.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

no, you are quoting a drug using entertainer....who's fortune created a boredom that he filled with idealistic impractical theory....or in another word: nonsense.....

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

only problem that I have with him is that he took the bait. maybe it was to feed his addiction. kinda like wall street. no?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

I don't produce for a despicable society, and considering I write more clearly than you, I have more value than you.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

value is based on what you produce, your results...and given your attitude, I doubt that you produce very much

Your assertion is an opinion, not a value...you cannot trade your claim of more clear writing for anything....

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

I produce enough to live so take your pseudo economics and peddle them to your equal. I just wish I made enough to procreate.

[-] 1 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

then set a goal and get busy....simple

but..not easy, don't ever expect that...

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

I love the class I was born in too much to climb the ladder. I'd rather sit down here, and watch you all fight over the scraps, than participate in the plunder.

[-] 0 points by fjolsvit (957) from Washington, DC 10 years ago

SNAFU Principle


/sna'foo prin'si-pl/ [WWII Army acronym for "Situation Normal: All Fucked Up"] "True communication is possible only between equals, because inferiors are more consistently rewarded for telling their superiors pleasant lies than for telling the truth." - a central tenet of Discordianism, often invoked by hackers to explain why authoritarian hierarchies screw up so reliably and systematically. The effect of the SNAFU principle is a progressive disconnection of decision-makers from reality. This lightly adapted version of a fable dating back to the early 1960s illustrates the phenomenon perfectly:

In the beginning was the plan,
      and then the specification;
And the plan was without form,
      and the specification was void.

And darkness
      was on the faces of the implementors thereof;
And they spake unto their leader,
"It is a crock of shit,
      and smells as of a sewer."

And the leader took pity on them,
      and spoke to the project leader:
"It is a crock of excrement,
      and none may abide the odor thereof."

And the project leader
      spake unto his section head, saying:
"It is a container of excrement,
      and it is very strong, such that none may abide it."

The section head then hurried to his department manager,
      and informed him thus:
"It is a vessel of fertilizer,
      and none may abide its strength."

The department manager carried these words
     to his general manager,
and spoke unto him
"It containeth that which aideth the growth of plants,
     and it is very strong."

And so it was that the general manager rejoiced
     and delivered the good news unto the Vice President.
"It promoteth growth,
     and it is very powerful."

The Vice President rushed to the President's side,
     and joyously exclaimed:
"This powerful new software product
     will promote the growth of the company!"

And the President looked upon the product,
     and saw that it was very good.

After the subsequent disaster, the suits protect themselves by saying "I was misinformed!", and the implementors are demoted or fired.


[-] 0 points by aahpat (1407) 10 years ago

Sig Heil!!!

[-] 0 points by Slammersworld (210) 10 years ago

They who lack talent expect things to happen without effort. They ascribe failure to a lack of inspiration or ability, or to misfortune, rather than to insufficient application. At the core of every true talent there is an awareness of the difficulties inherent in any achievement, and the confidence that by persistence and patience something worthwhile will be realized. Thus talent is a species of vigor.....Eric Hoffer

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 10 years ago

Keep telling yourself that as you slip into the abyss of mediocrity and take your nation with you.