Philosophy Now Forum

never mind...

Obvious Leo wrote: Travel broadens the mind.

The ability to travel depends a lot on time and opportunity and being able to afford it, or having someone who will pay for you. I've had none of those.

Gary Childress wrote:

What exactly do you think I "do not understand"?

I think you don't understand why the homeless person in the story mentioned may possess wisdom.

You're a idiot.

thedoc wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote: Travel broadens the mind.

The ability to travel depends a lot on time and opportunity and being able to afford it, or having someone who will pay for you. I've had none of those.

I wasn't intending to sneer at you, doc, and I apologise without reservation if I've given that impression. I'm well aware of the fact that I've lived most of my life in two different countries where one's opportunities in life are determined by one's own efforts and not by an accident of birth, as is the case in your country.

Obvious Leo wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote: Travel broadens the mind.

The ability to travel depends a lot on time and opportunity and being able to afford it, or having someone who will pay for you. I've had none of those.

I wasn't intending to sneer at you, doc, and I apologise without reservation if I've given that impression. I'm well aware of the fact that I've lived most of my life in two different countries where one's opportunities in life are determined by one's own efforts and not by an accident of birth, as is the case in your country.

I agree that one's opportunities are determined by one's own efforts and I would add making the right choices, and I admit that I have not always made the right choice. I don't understand your comment about an "accident of birth"? I am aware that in some European and Asian countries the social position of your parents can be quite limiting or can offer many opportunities, but I was born in America and live here, and I am not aware of a lot of social advantage to who your parents were. I agree that parents with money and social standing can be an advantage, but even those without that advantage can do well with hard work and luck.

My only objection to your posts is the suggestion that if I haven't been there I shouldn't express an opinion. VT especially has made some very derogatory comments about Americans, and it is my impression that you might share some of those opinions, though I'm not going to go looking for them now, but correct me if I am wrong.

What you say is quite ridiculous, doc. People born into the American economic underclass are doomed from birth to a life of squalor, poor health, almost no education, slave wages for menial work if they're lucky enough to get work at all, crime, substance abuse, domestic violence, sexual exploitation etc etc etc. It's quite true that in principle a single individual can rise above this but this has always been the case in all societies at all times in history and such cases are exceedingly rare. Your society is a plutocracy which enslaves whomever it can.

Having said that I love America and I love the American people. You just have a sick and corrupt system of government which entrenches wealth and power in the hands of the few and thus exploits the many. This is by new means a new phenomenon in human history but for some reason your propagandists seem to find a virtue in this which is worth exporting around the world. This is what makes me puke, doc, because most countries of the world harbour the utopian fantasy that it should be possible to make the world a better place for EVERYBODY. I doubt if it's true but I reckon it's worth a go.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

What exactly do you think I "do not understand"?

I think you don't understand why the homeless person in the story mentioned may possess wisdom.

You're a idiot.

Takes one to know one, eh? According to "proper" English you should use the indefinite article "an" instead of "a" before a word beginning in a vowel. You're cute when you get mad, though.

Joking aside, I posted "never mind" above (after editing and deleting a longer post I had written instead) because I had decided that it wasn't worth arguing over an ambiguous news story anyway. You have your interpretation and I have mine. Apparently they differ.

Gary Childress wrote:
Joking aside, I posted "never mind" above (after editing and deleting a longer post I had written instead) because I had decided that it wasn't worth arguing over an ambiguous news story anyway. You have your interpretation and I have mine. Apparently they differ.

If you were more willing to engage in debate, rather than accuse someone of a lack of understanding, then run, we'd not be here.
But fuck you anyway, coward.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:
Joking aside, I posted "never mind" above (after editing and deleting a longer post I had written instead) because I had decided that it wasn't worth arguing over an ambiguous news story anyway. You have your interpretation and I have mine. Apparently they differ.

If you were more willing to engage in debate, rather than accuse someone of a lack of understanding, then run, we'd not be here.
But fuck you anyway, coward.

Calling someone an "idiot" and "fuck you" are "debate"?

Gary Childress wrote: Calling someone an "idiot" and "fuck you" are "debate"?

Gary when you are done responding to the degenerates, I'd be interested in a civil dialogue.

thedoc wrote:

Gary Childress wrote: Calling someone an "idiot" and "fuck you" are "debate"?

Gary when you are done responding to the degenerates, I'd be interested in a civil dialogue.

Sure, thedoc. What about?

Gary Childress wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Gary Childress wrote: Calling someone an "idiot" and "fuck you" are "debate"?

Gary when you are done responding to the degenerates, I'd be interested in a civil dialogue.

Sure, thedoc. What about?

The current topic is suitable for now, perhaps other topics in other threads. I have made some posts on this thread that will do as a start.

Gary Childress wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:
Joking aside, I posted "never mind" above (after editing and deleting a longer post I had written instead) because I had decided that it wasn't worth arguing over an ambiguous news story anyway. You have your interpretation and I have mine. Apparently they differ.

If you were more willing to engage in debate, rather than accuse someone of a lack of understanding, then run, we'd not be here.
But fuck you anyway, coward.

Calling someone an "idiot" and "fuck you" are "debate"?

Duh.

thedoc wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Gary when you are done responding to the degenerates, I'd be interested in a civil dialogue.

Sure, thedoc. What about?

The current topic is suitable for now, perhaps other topics in other threads. I have made some posts on this thread that will do as a start.

Sure. I'm not familiar with New Zealand. I've never been outside the US, other than a trip to the Bahama Islands once upon a time.

What do you think of the actions of the homeless person mentioned in the OP? Maybe it's just wishful thinking or some sort of romanticism on my part to imagine him a very wise person?

Gary Childress wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Gary Childress wrote: Sure, thedoc. What about?

The current topic is suitable for now, perhaps other topics in other threads. I have made some posts on this thread that will do as a start.

Sure. I'm not familiar with New Zealand. I've never been outside the US, other than a trip to the Bahama Islands once upon a time.

What do you think of the actions of the homeless person mentioned in the OP? Maybe it's just wishful thinking or some sort of romanticism on my part to imagine him a very wise person?

I was referring to the OP, not the derailment to New Zealand, I'm sure there are others who will comment on that country.

The story of the homeless man brings up several possibilities, perhaps he felt that there were others more in need than he was, so felt that he should pass the money on to those with more need. That all he wanted was a job, perhaps indicated that he wanted to provide for himself by his own means rather than accepting charity. If he was capable of working and providing for himself, it seems that he wanted the money to go to those who were not capable of doing so. I know this is all speculation, but these ideas should be considered. I apologize if my comments about New Zealand threw you off.