Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

My Beef with "Social Responsibility"

Page 7 of 9 [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

24 May 2012, 11:40 pm

Burzum wrote:
Sweetleaf stated that ruveyn does not deserve his private property because the collective does not find him friendly or pleasant.


"I would hate to have someone all about 'me me me' in charge of where the tax money goes"

... is that what you're drawing your fantastically warped translation from? It's just not there. There's nothing in there about a collective liking or disliking anyone, or anybody deserving property. That's just something you pulled out of your rear end - there's nothing even vaguely suggestive of any of that. It's simply about not wanting those who put their own good ahead of everyone else's in charge of public spending, which is only logical.

This leap of logic reminds me of that sound effect they used to do for the Six Million Dollar Man doing a jump. "tch-tch-tch-tch-tch"



Keniichi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jul 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 617
Location: Spokane, WA

25 May 2012, 12:04 am

CSBurks wrote:
The only goal for a company should be to make profit.

Giving money away to charity or other such things may be noble for an individual, but a companies job is to sell its products and turn a profit. "Social responsibility" only lowers profit margins, which in turn, can cause customers to have to pay more for such products.

On the other hand sometimes by doing this they get more customers because they are giving to a "good cause"


_________________
Keniichi


Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

25 May 2012, 12:29 am

edgewaters wrote:
... is that what you're drawing your fantastically warped translation from?

Says the person that somehow interpreted my post as inferring that the collective taxes people it doesn't like. :lol:

I don't understand how such a simple comment has gotten your panties up in a twist, but since you want to turn this puerile exchange into a full blown argument then I will oblige.

edgewaters wrote:
There's nothing in there about a collective liking or disliking anyone

"I imagine the other kids didn't find you very friendly or pleasant to be around"

Is that too big of a leap for you?

edgewaters wrote:
or anybody deserving property

"would we want the tax money in the hand of such a child?"
"I would hate to have someone all about 'me me me' in charge of where the tax money goes"

Allow me to explain, because I already know you're going to gripe about this one. "I would hate for [ruveyn] to be in charge of the collective's share of his private property" and "I think [ruveyn] deserves to be in charge of the collective's share of his private property" seem like mutually exclusive statements to me. "we do not want the tax money in the hands of such a child" and "we think the tax money deserves to be in the hands of such a child" also seem like mutually exclusive statements. Am I wrong in my logic? If so, then it is a simple matter of changing my original quote from "you don't deserve your hard-earned private property because the collective doesn't like you" to "we would hate for you to be in charge of your hard-earned private property because we don't like you".

Massive leap, I know. Not really.

edgewaters wrote:
there's nothing even vaguely suggestive of any of that. It's simply about not wanting those who put their own good ahead of everyone else's in charge of public spending, which is only logical.

That's kind of funny, dude. I would like to know where there was something that was even vaguely suggestive of ruveyn being in charge of public spending. Tax money is created and spent after it is taken from someone. If you are taking tax money from someone you are taking their private property. If someone's private property is never taken from them, then how can they be in charge of public spending? I would love to know how you made that leap. :lol:



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

25 May 2012, 12:36 am

Burzum wrote:

Allow me to explain, because I already know you're going to gripe about this one. "I would hate for [ruveyn] to be in charge of the collective's share of his private property" and "I think [ruveyn] deserves to be in charge of the collective's share of his private property" seem like mutually exclusive statements to me. "we do not want the tax money in the hands of such a child" and "we think the tax money deserves to be in the hands of such a child" also seem like mutually exclusive statements. Am I wrong in my logic? If so, then it is a simple matter of changing my original quote from "you don't deserve your hard-earned private property because the collective doesn't like you" to "we would hate for you to be in charge of your hard-earned private property because we don't like you".

Massive leap, I know. Not really.

edgewaters wrote:
there's nothing even vaguely suggestive of any of that. It's simply about not wanting those who put their own good ahead of everyone else's in charge of public spending, which is only logical.

That's kind of funny, dude. I would like to know where there was something that was even vaguely suggestive of ruveyn being in charge of public spending. Tax money is created and spent after it is taken from someone. If you are taking tax money from someone you are taking their private property. If someone's private property is never taken from them, then how can they be in charge of public spending? I would love to know how you made that leap. :lol:


Oh now I've specified Ruven specifically should not be in charge, even though I only really implied his attitude would not be good for someone in charge of the public funds or tax money? I know my imput about my own words is irrelevant and all but, hey I gotta do my best to not defend these crazy ideas you're convinced I'm having. If you didn't get it I apologize but I did not imply anything you've said, also I have a feeling you picked up the conversation after my quote and did not actually read the full conversation or see what all was going on.

As I said quit trying to cause trouble that doesn't even exist.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

25 May 2012, 12:47 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
Oh now I've specified Ruven specifically should not be in charge, even though I only really implied his attitude would not be good for someone in charge of the public funds or tax money?

I would like for you to explain to me how ruveyn would be in charge of public funds or tax money. You may notice I already asked the same question at the bottom of the post you're replying to.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

25 May 2012, 12:56 am

Burzum wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Oh now I've specified Ruven specifically should not be in charge, even though I only really implied his attitude would not be good for someone in charge of the public funds or tax money?

I would like for you to explain to me how ruveyn would be in charge of public funds or tax money. You may notice I already asked the same question at the bottom of the post you're replying to.


ands that has what to do with what now?

sweetleaf expressed his sentiment that people whose motivation is first and foremost their own gain above the wellbeing of others wouldnt be ideal for managing tax funds in certain areas according to his views, thats all.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

25 May 2012, 1:01 am

Oodain wrote:
sweetleaf expressed his sentiment that people whose motivation is first and foremost their own gain above the wellbeing of others wouldnt be ideal for managing tax funds in certain areas according to his views, thats all.

What?!? Where are you getting this from?



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

25 May 2012, 1:08 am

Burzum wrote:
Oodain wrote:
sweetleaf expressed his sentiment that people whose motivation is first and foremost their own gain above the wellbeing of others wouldnt be ideal for managing tax funds in certain areas according to his views, thats all.

What?!? Where are you getting this from?


sweetleaf wrote:
Oh now I've specified Ruven specifically should not be in charge, even though I only really implied his attitude would not be good for someone in charge of the public funds or tax money?


read please, it would become you.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

25 May 2012, 1:17 am

ruveyn wrote:
I have not the right to sequester other people's property and I never believed that I did even when young.

I grew up believing what is Mine is Mine, what is Yours is Yours and what is His is His.


Read please, and point me to where ruveyn claims he wants to manage tax funds. Before you tell me this isn't relevant, this is the post that Sweetleaf replied to, and in turn the reply that I replied to. How you people are getting management of public spending out of this is beyond me.



Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

25 May 2012, 1:53 am

Sweetleaf wrote:
even though I only really implied his attitude would not be good for someone in charge of the public funds or tax money?

Hold on, you're telling me that "would we want the tax money in the hand of such a child?" is supposed to mean "would we want such a child to work in public administration where he can influence public spending?", and not "would we want such a child to spend his taxable income in the way he so desires?" despite the context the quote was originally written in?



CSBurks
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2012
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 766

25 May 2012, 2:01 am

Keniichi wrote:
CSBurks wrote:
The only goal for a company should be to make profit.

Giving money away to charity or other such things may be noble for an individual, but a companies job is to sell its products and turn a profit. "Social responsibility" only lowers profit margins, which in turn, can cause customers to have to pay more for such products.

On the other hand sometimes by doing this they get more customers because they are giving to a "good cause"


Yes, but I imagine those people are probably in the minority. People usually shop places for quality/price issues.

I know that Walmart gives millions to charity every year, but that's not why most people shop there.

Someone who 100% hates Walmart isn't going to change his mind because of Walmart's donations.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 May 2012, 4:48 am

Burzum wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I would hate to have someone all about 'me me me' in charge of where the tax money goes

Tax money doesn't go anywhere or even exist until it is taken from someone. And in this very sentence you have admitted that you believe ruveyn doesn't deserve his private property (or the collective's fair share of it, if you will).


The collective does not have a "fair share" of what is mine. What it has is what is taken from me by force or threat of force.

What is mine is mine. What is yours is yours. What is his is his. And the only rightful of transferring assets is by voluntary exchange (trade, sale, donation, etc.).

Any other arrangement is theft or extortion.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 May 2012, 4:57 am

[quote="Sweetleaf"]

Oh now I've specified Ruven specifically should not be in charge, even though I only really implied his attitude would not be good for someone in charge of the public funds or tax money?/quote]

You are well told. I would not work for or in government. I quit working for government back in 1968, having had it up to my nostrils with government evil and corruption. Only a gun pointed at my head could get me to work for government.

I am the last person in the world you would want in government. Why? The first thing I would do is abolish the government. I detest and loath government and put up with it to the extent that it is a necessary evil and not in any good. Government is a lesser evil than anarchy. Both are evil and neither is good.

ruveyn



Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

25 May 2012, 5:24 am

ruveyn wrote:
The collective does not have a "fair share" of what is mine.

Yes, I probably should not have used that expression.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

25 May 2012, 6:40 am

Burzum wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Oh now I've specified Ruven specifically should not be in charge, even though I only really implied his attitude would not be good for someone in charge of the public funds or tax money?

I would like for you to explain to me how ruveyn would be in charge of public funds or tax money. You may notice I already asked the same question at the bottom of the post you're replying to.


wait what? I don't imagine he'd bee in charge of public funds or tax money at all...


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

25 May 2012, 6:42 am

Oodain wrote:
Burzum wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Oh now I've specified Ruven specifically should not be in charge, even though I only really implied his attitude would not be good for someone in charge of the public funds or tax money?

I would like for you to explain to me how ruveyn would be in charge of public funds or tax money. You may notice I already asked the same question at the bottom of the post you're replying to.


ands that has what to do with what now?

sweetleaf expressed his sentiment that people whose motivation is first and foremost their own gain above the wellbeing of others wouldnt be ideal for managing tax funds in certain areas according to his views, thats all.


well technically her...as my body dictates that I am female, but no matter. But yes my point was someone who would put themselves first in all situations would not be good to have in charge of public funds. I am confused where some of these ideas of things I supposedly said or indicated are coming from.


_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.