Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Wealth Destruction Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2013 11:57:25 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Kristind wrote:
Like I said earlier guys...you can debate this guy until the cows come home or until the clock chimes in the new year. A legend in his own mind is just that. Devoid of any rational potential to consider any one's reality. If he had a rifle and a perch to sit in I think they'd call him a sniper. This thread is not an exercise in critical thinking. It's just another mans bully pulpit. IMHO.


noted appropriately, as well as earlier.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:00:23 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
LadyX wrote:
noted appropriately, as well as earlier.


Sorry, sometimes I just can't shut my mouth.
Monocle
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 6:10:32 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
1ball wrote:

That wasn't a given for the scenario, just a personal statement on how I see the issue of entitlements. Does that change your answer?


And I stated I'd take that for example, so no.
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:16:24 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:


We don't know what the cultural, demographic, political, and otherwise specific givens are in this scenario, as monocle had mentioned a few times. Culture in general, plus specific details, have everything to do with it. It's a very general question youve offered, and presumably on purpose. As such, we can't answer for "anybody" and "anything", based on the info given. General questions like this are well shaded by personal politics, but the all encompassing "anybody/anything" kind of throws intellectual honesty out the window. Under what circumstances can any one person speak for "anybody"?


Moral relativist bullshit. Can anybody claim a right to mutilate the genitals of their daughter just because their culture has that practice? Is anybody entitled to sell their children into sexual slavery just because their culture allows it? Are the Russians entitled to keep gays in the closet? Are there not basic human rights regardless of culture? If a culture can write its own rules, then the massacres and genocides can be written into those rules, correct? I expected better of you by now.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
sprite
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:21:58 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,656
Location: My Tower, United States
1ball wrote:


Moral relativist bullshit. Can anybody claim a right to mutilate the genitals of their daughter just because their culture has that practice? Is anybody entitled to sell their children into sexual slavery just because their culture allows it? Are the Russians entitled to keep gays in the closet? Are there not basic human rights regardless of culture? If a culture can write its own rules, then the massacres and genocides can be written into those rules, correct? I expected better of you by now.


We don't know what the cultural, demographic, political, and otherwise specific givens are in this scenario, as monocle had mentioned a few times. Culture in general, plus specific details, have everything to do with it. It's a very general question youve offered, and presumably on purpose. As such, we can't answer for "anybody" and "anything", based on the info given. General questions like this are well shaded by personal politics, but the all encompassing "anybody/anything" kind of throws intellectual honesty out the window. Under what circumstances can any one person speak for "anybody"?

she was addressing your specific scenario, nothing more. next time, read more carefully. even the blonde girl got it. :)

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:26:51 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Kristind wrote:
Like I said earlier guys...you can debate this guy until the cows come home or until the clock chimes in the new year. A legend in his own mind is just that. Devoid of any rational potential to consider any one's reality. If he had a rifle and a perch to sit in I think they'd call him a sniper. This thread is not an exercise in critical thinking. It's just another mans bully pulpit. IMHO.


Is anybody holding a gun to your head and making you read or comment? Is anybody holding a gun to anybody else's head and making them read or comment? Everybody is getting a chance to say whatever they want, correct?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:46:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
sprite wrote:


We don't know what the cultural, demographic, political, and otherwise specific givens are in this scenario, as monocle had mentioned a few times. Culture in general, plus specific details, have everything to do with it. It's a very general question youve offered, and presumably on purpose. As such, we can't answer for "anybody" and "anything", based on the info given. General questions like this are well shaded by personal politics, but the all encompassing "anybody/anything" kind of throws intellectual honesty out the window. Under what circumstances can any one person speak for "anybody"?

she was addressing your specific scenario, nothing more. next time, read more carefully. even the blonde girl got it. :)


They both know what all the specific givens are. They were as stated in the scenario. The belief that anything culturally relevant has been omitted is insupportable.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
sprite
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 9:50:17 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,656
Location: My Tower, United States
1ball wrote:


They both know what all the specific givens are. They were as stated in the scenario. The belief that anything culturally relevant has been omitted is insupportable.


to you, perhaps. obviously, not to them. btw, why do you assume that the world's richest person is a "he"? :)

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:04:20 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:


Moral relativist bullshit. Can anybody claim a right to mutilate the genitals of their daughter just because their culture has that practice? Is anybody entitled to sell their children into sexual slavery just because their culture allows it? Are the Russians entitled to keep gays in the closet? Are there not basic human rights regardless of culture? If a culture can write its own rules, then the massacres and genocides can be written into those rules, correct? I expected better of you by now.


LOL. Sorry my progress is unsatisfactory, sensei. But you're right: morals are relative. I'm still left unable to answer for the collective and anonymous anybody.
sprite
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:32:04 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,656
Location: My Tower, United States
LadyX wrote:


LOL. Sorry my progress is unsatisfactory, sensei. But you're right: morals are relative. I'm still left unable to answer for the collective and anonymous anybody.


he's not anonymous. it's Andrew A. Anybody, Esq - richest man in the world. get with the program, woman. :)

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Magical_felix
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 10:32:26 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,913
Location: California
sprite wrote:


btw, why do you assume that the world's richest person is a "he"? :)


Because if a woman would somehow - miraculously - become the world's richest person she'd immediately proceed to blow it on Louis Vuitton purses and other ridiculous shit making her time as the world's richest person so short lived it would go unnoticed and wouldn't register in the record books.

The world's richest person is always a he. Always has been and always will, silly girl.



Dani
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:45:16 AM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,720
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
Wealth Construction:

A Critical Thinking Test


The Situation

The world's wealthiest person decides to convert his wealth to precious metals. He announces doesn't announce his retirement and slowly and carefully sells buys all of his shares in his company and in all other companies that he wants an interest in, while slowly and carefully buying gold, silver, and platinum. He's careful not to rock the markets and he complies with all laws and fulfills all contracts while doing so. In numerous trips, he then takes these metals out on his yacht and doesn't scatter them far offshore around the world's oceans. He distributes doesn't distribute them so widely that recovery of them would cost more than their value. The process takes years but he manages to keep the true nature of his activity undiscovered by the markets and governments of the world until all he has left is enough money in zero-interest checking accounts to live out his years in mere luxury. He never again pays income tax or social security tax and when he reaches the eligibility age, he draws social security and medicare benefits. After his death the treasure hunters learn the fate of his vast fortune from records he kept detailing the ocean journeys.


The Effects


The net wealth of his society has not been decreased by one vast fortune. The supply of precious metals in the metals markets has been reduced. The fortune used to purchase his company shares and other equities has become unavailable for other investment, causing a cascade of possible secondary effects from the lack surge of investment of that capital in other places.


The Question

Has he deprived anyone of anything they are entitled to?




Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

elitfromnorth
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 3:31:56 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,620
Location: Burrowed, Norway
One thing you didn't consider; the change in market price of gold, silver and platinum once it gets revealed that a massive amount is now gone forever.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Monocle
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:05:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
1ball wrote:

Moral relativist bullshit.


So. You believe in an absolute morality. You dismiss as bullshit the converse. Whether you admit it or not, you've been judging answers to (and the answerers of) your scenario on this foundation (and not just the general assertion of moral absolutes, but certain specific moral absolutes), as opposed to engaging with moral relativism as an avenue of critical thinking.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:10:22 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
1ball wrote:
Is anybody holding a gun to your head and making you read or comment? Is anybody holding a gun to anybody else's head and making them read or comment? Everybody is getting a chance to say whatever they want, correct?


No, no gun held to my head. You can keep your half-cocked Ayn Rand mentality but don't get pissed off because someone points it out to you. T-r-y to learn something yourself...as I have learned that a Rand-minded individual will never understand a concept other than their own. Forgive me for trying.
.
Agrippa
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:54:20 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 7/29/2013
Posts: 50
Location: United Kingdom
I've read this thread with great interest. I like critical thinking questions as a purely intellectual/theoretical exercise. I believe there are moral, ethical, political and social aspects to this particular scenario which would all bear examination.

The situation as posed is hypothetical in the extreme and my two cents worth is equally hypothetical but, perhaps, gives some constructive perspective on the core question: ' Has he deprived anyone of anything they are entitled to?'.

Consider this: Whilst we are alive (each and every person on Earth) we all have possessions. That may be as little as the clothes we stand up in or may be as great as the unimaginable fortunes a few people have amassed, most of us are somewhere in between. Let us suppose each of us decided to destroy, or make unavailable to our heirs, those possessions we have. Every single one of us, every single possession.Would that be fair? I would suggest not. It cannot be right that we can deprive future generations of the resources we have ourselves been fortunate enough to be able to gather together.

And whatever anyone may think, the richest among us have benefited from more than their fair share of good fortune, the right place at the right time, the right family, the right opportunities even the natural talents they have can be considered as fortunate. I would suggest that does not confer upon them the right to effectively destroy what they have and thereby preventing others from benefiting too.

So if all of us collectively destroying/making unavailable what we have now is wrong, logic would dictate that would also count for each of us individually.

Irrespective of whether something belongs to us absolutely (at this moment), we must be mindful of our responsibilities to the rest of the human race whether alive now or yet to be born.

Now if we return to the initial question, the individual described is not just destroying/making unavailable his own property, he is preventing others from accessing it too, now and long after he is dead. Therefore my contentions is: Yes, he is depriving the human race of something they are entitled to.

I think that's enough for this post, I do have other thoughts on what has been said here but, perhaps, they can wait until another time.




1ball
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:07:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
sprite wrote:
btw, why do you assume that the world's richest person is a "he"? :)


I write the scenario. I choose what to put into it. If you want to Critical Feeling exercise your way, I won't have a problem with that.


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:10:07 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,656
Location: My Tower, United States
1ball wrote:


I write the scenario. I choose what to put into it. If you want to Critical Feeling exercise your way, I won't have a problem with that.


COOL!

critical thinking exercise time... oh, and really, yes i did catch the "Feeling" crack. totally beneath you, or... maybe not. :) ok, now i just have to come up with a premise. hmm.... give me a few, ok? not usually my realm of expertise!

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:28:14 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
I'm still left unable to answer for the collective and anonymous anybody.


Requiring a change to the scenario so you don't have to face a situation you don't want to face displays the same wishful magical thinking that you try to use for real life. I asked "What exactly has culture got to do with it?" You babble about ungiven givens when the scenario has all the givens that matter. What could "culture" change about that?



My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 6:39:36 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:


Requiring a change to the scenario so you don't have to face a situation you don't want to face displays the same wishful magical thinking that you try to use for real life. I asked "What exactly has culture got to do with it?" You babble about ungiven givens when the scenario has all the givens that matter. What could "culture" change about that?



Perhaps you've deluded yourself if you've arrived at the conclusion that I don't want to 'face' this scenario. I've already said how I felt personally about it, but that's not the question you've asked us. The scenario you gave only has all the givens that matter to you. I answered your question, then you babble about how you don't like the answer.

My suggestion would be to not ask questions to which there is only one acceptable answer as far as you're concerned, since there's nothing to that which resembles the critical thinking you claim to encourage.

Besides, I don't just try to use magical thinking, I succeed quite well, and recommend it highly. Weed helps.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:01:13 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
LadyX wrote:
My suggestion would be to not ask questions to which there is only one acceptable answer as far as you're concerned, since there's nothing to that which resembles the critical thinking you claim to encourage.

Besides, I don't just try to use magical thinking, I succeed quite well, and recommend it highly. Weed helps.


Couldn't have said it better myself, Madame. The mentality 1-Ball displays in this thread is called Unilateral Paralysis. The by-product of Unilateral Paralysis in a "discussion" is called suffocation. Which, by the way, is at the very least an intellectual hindrance when trying to have a "discussion". Which is why, methinks, this thread fell apart so rapidly.

I bow to Monocle. An exemplary "critical thinker" even in the face of unilateral paralysis.
Dani
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 7:05:14 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,720
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
5...4...3...2...1





Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

Guest
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:48:07 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,778
Magical_felix wrote:
The world's richest person is always a he. Always has been and always will, silly girl.


Is that the same as "A black man or a woman will never be President?" I could go on ad nauseam but I think by now you understand how chauvinist a statement that is.

Always has been and always will be? Shame on you.
MadMartigan
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:01:56 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 6/17/2013
Posts: 2,123
Location: United States
Kristind wrote:


Is that the same as "A black man or a woman will never be President?" I could go on ad nauseam but I think by now you understand how chauvinist a statement that is.

Always has been and always will be? Shame on you.


Ahh, I could kiss you. But...you know. dontknow

Anyway, I was going to contribute, but as always, you do the heavy lifting for me Kristin. Though I'm amazed you've had the fortitude to put up with 1ball's trolling ways.
Dani
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:06:23 PM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 4,720
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
Kristind wrote:


Is that the same as "A black man or a woman will never be President?" I could go on ad nauseam but I think by now you understand how chauvinist a statement that is.

Always has been and always will be? Shame on you.


I could be wrong, but I think that was kinda the point.



Baby put your arms around me, tell me I'm a problem...

1ball
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:08:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
elitfromnorth wrote:
One thing you didn't consider; the change in market price of gold, silver and platinum once it gets revealed that a massive amount is now gone forever.


And your answer to the question is?

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:15:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
Agrippa wrote:
I've read this thread with great interest. I like critical thinking questions as a purely intellectual/theoretical exercise. I believe there are moral, ethical, political and social aspects to this particular scenario which would all bear examination.

The situation as posed is hypothetical in the extreme and my two cents worth is equally hypothetical but, perhaps, gives some constructive perspective on the core question: ' Has he deprived anyone of anything they are entitled to?'.

Consider this: Whilst we are alive (each and every person on Earth) we all have possessions. That may be as little as the clothes we stand up in or may be as great as the unimaginable fortunes a few people have amassed, most of us are somewhere in between. Let us suppose each of us decided to destroy, or make unavailable to our heirs, those possessions we have. Every single one of us, every single possession.Would that be fair?


Fair? What's fairness got to do with it and who gets to decide what fair means?

Quote:
I would suggest not. It cannot be right that we can deprive future generations of the resources we have ourselves been fortunate enough to be able to gather together.

And whatever anyone may think, the richest among us have benefited from more than their fair share of good fortune, the right place at the right time, the right family, the right opportunities even the natural talents they have can be considered as fortunate. I would suggest that does not confer upon them the right to effectively destroy what they have and thereby preventing others from benefiting too.

So if all of us collectively destroying/making unavailable what we have now is wrong, logic would dictate that would also count for each of us individually.

Irrespective of whether something belongs to us absolutely (at this moment), we must be mindful of our responsibilities to the rest of the human race whether alive now or yet to be born.

Now if we return to the initial question, the individual described is not just destroying/making unavailable his own property, he is preventing others from accessing it too, now and long after he is dead. Therefore my contentions is: Yes, he is depriving the human race of something they are entitled to.

I think that's enough for this post, I do have other thoughts on what has been said here but, perhaps, they can wait until another time.


What is the root of this obligation to future generations?


My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
1ball
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:26:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/13/2011
Posts: 970
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
Besides, I don't just try to use magical thinking, I succeed quite well, and recommend it highly. Weed helps.


There's a difference between succeeding, which is what you want to believe you're doing, and denying responsibility for the adverse results, which is what you're actually doing.

My latest story is too hot to publish. My most recent story before that is Even Stranger In Lust
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:31:50 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
1ball wrote:


There's a difference between succeeding, which is what you want to believe you're doing, and denying responsibility for the adverse results, which is what you're actually doing.


If you want to question the magical effects of high quality bud, that's on you, Chuck. There are really very few adverse results...if you do it right.

Regaeman Man
Monocle
Posted: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:38:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
You're certainly good at asserting you know what other people want, believe and do, 1ball. Blatant assertion, however, is not critical thinking.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.