Global Capitalism

[Immanuel Can]

The early Christian communities were quasi-socialist. Jesus wasn't really a socialist per se, but if the rich listened to Jesus, there'd be less need for a call for legislative redistribution.

I edited the above. That's what I meant to write. The rich would be redistributing their own wealth voluntarily.

Yes, they would.

Given that you and I are in the top 10% of the world's wealthy, given that we have access to a computer of our own, a bit of disposable income, clothing, basic health care...all more than most of the world has...how are you doing on that?

Fine, and you?

It's never enough, actually.

...is it only the humbler rich like myself that you challenge? and only for rhetorical reasons?

Well, I spent a lot of years talking to young people who were very affluent -- first world, mostly, all well-fed, well-groomed, provided for in every way. And yet they talked about "the rich" and regarded themselves as "poor." They all had iphones, home computers...some had cars and swimming pools. Most had college paid for from home.

So why did they hate "the rich," since the truth, on a world scale, is that "the rich" is they?

And I saw the answer: that they were defining all the massive privileges they had already as entitlements, and whatever anybody had beyond them as "rich" and "oppressive" and "unjust." And they never tired of bellyaching about Social Justice and "redistribution," and "giving the poor a fair wage," and whatnot.

I've also walked among the very poorest, especially in other countries. And I've seen what real poverty is, and how 2/3 of the world actually lives. And I know that all the loud bellyaching in the West about "the rich" is really nothing more than petty envy. And "justice" means, to these kids, "I get more," and "the real poor, the poor downtown or overseas, can be damned."

So when somebody starts in about Socialism, or redistribution, or "the rich," I like to know where they're coming from. Usually, it's not actually anything about the poor; it's about them, the Western middle-rich, getting more. And it's about their green-eyed slavering at the achievements of others, not about fairness, or justice or anything like that.

And I don't join them in that.

[Immanuel Can]

First, such sharing of resources as the early disciples opted to practice was entirely voluntary and personal, and had no political coercion involved.

So you're saying

Hello, Cathy Newman!

No, I'm saying whatever I'm actually putting in print, not anything anybody else writes for me.

that the sharing of resources is not the will of God.

Show me where I said that.

[phyllo]

I took the shortcut by skipping the standard confirmation phrases since I figured you would get what was going on without their explicit use. Apparently you don't get it so I will use the phrases in the future.

Confirming what was said involves verifying, rephrasing, or summarizing information to ensure mutual understanding, often using phrases like "Just to make sure we’re on the same page" or "Let me reiterate to ensure I’ve got this right". It creates an email trail, avoids confusion, and confirms accuracy.

Key Phrases for Confirming Understanding (Meetings & Verbal)

Rephrasing: "Can I rephrase what you said?" or "So, if I understand correctly, you’re proposing...".
Direct Verification: "Let me reiterate to ensure I’ve got this right" or "I want to double-check my understanding of this".
Alignment Check: "Can we confirm that we all agree on this?" or "Let’s recap to ensure we’re aligned".
Clarification: "Could you repeat that?" or "I'm afraid I don't understand".

Common Phrases for Confirming Information (Email/Written)

"Just confirming that...".
"I confirm receipt of your email" or "I acknowledge receipt of your message regarding [topic]".
"For the record, confirming that...".
"To be clear, I am stating that...".

Tips for Effective Confirmation

Be Concise: Keep confirmation messages brief and direct to avoid misinterpretation.
Restate Key Points: Summarize fundamental facts rather than repeating everything word-for-word.

Use Clear Subject Lines: For emails, use "Confirmation of [Topic]" to ensure it is seen.

[Immanuel Can]

Apparently you don't get it

Well, somebody doesn't.

[phyllo]

I will use "Can I rephrase what you said?" or "So, if I understand correctly, you’re proposing...".

instead of "So you're saying ... "

[Immanuel Can]

I will use "Can I rephrase what you said?" or "So, if I understand correctly, you’re proposing...".

instead of "So you're saying ... "

How about just quoting the things people actually said, in the same words they said it, rather than making up something and attributing it to them?

[Gary Childress]

I will use "Can I rephrase what you said?" or "So, if I understand correctly, you’re proposing...".

instead of "So you're saying ... "

How about just quoting the things people actually said, in the same words they said it, rather than making up something and attributing it to them?

You do the same thing to others. Why can't they do it to you.

[Immanuel Can]

I will use "Can I rephrase what you said?" or "So, if I understand correctly, you’re proposing...".

instead of "So you're saying ... "

How about just quoting the things people actually said, in the same words they said it, rather than making up something and attributing it to them?

You do the same thing to others. Why can't they do it to you.

If I ever do, I assure you it's inadvertent. But I'm not aware of any such. Maybe you can quote.

[Gary Childress]

How about just quoting the things people actually said, in the same words they said it, rather than making up something and attributing it to them?

You do the same thing to others. Why can't they do it to you.

If I ever do, I assure you it's inadvertent. But I'm not aware of any such. Maybe you can quote.

When I post things, you often say, "so you think" or "in other words" even though I did not say what you claimed I had said. You must do it inadvertently if you're not aware of it, but you do. So, if you think we shouldn't do it to you, then maybe you should become more diligent at not doing it to us.

[Gary Childress]

BTW, an atheist can determine something they are doing is wrong to do against someone else because they can imagine how they would feel if someone did it to them. That easily serves as a basis for morality and is generally how I think of morality (with or without a God).

[Immanuel Can]

You do the same thing to others. Why can't they do it to you.

If I ever do, I assure you it's inadvertent. But I'm not aware of any such. Maybe you can quote.

When I post things, you often say, "so you think" or "in other words" even though I did not say what you claimed I had said.

Please quote where I did this, so I can see.

[Immanuel Can]

If I ever do, I assure you it's inadvertent. But I'm not aware of any such. Maybe you can quote.

When I post things, you often say, "so you think" or "in other words" even though I did not say what you claimed I had said.

Please quote where I did this, so I can see.

Hmmm...it's gone quiet.

[phyllo]

I will use "Can I rephrase what you said?" or "So, if I understand correctly, you’re proposing...".

instead of "So you're saying ... "

How about just quoting the things people actually said, in the same words they said it, rather than making up something and attributing it to them?

You do the same thing to others. Why can't they do it to you.

Actually, I'm using a technique for getting confirmation, clarity and understanding.

Repeating exactly the same words defeats the point of the technique because it doesn't show that the person doing the repeating has understood/misunderstood what the original statement was intending to convey.

[Immanuel Can]

How about just quoting the things people actually said, in the same words they said it, rather than making up something and attributing it to them?

You do the same thing to others. Why can't they do it to you.

Actually, I'm using a technique for getting confirmation, clarity and understanding.

Repeating exactly the same words defeats the point of the technique because it doesn't show that the person doing the repeating has understood/misunderstood what the original statement was intending to convey.

Ah. Well, that's convenient. It turns putting words in people's mouths into a kind of virtue.

But of course, they are always free to refuse to accept your paraphrases...even in their entirety, because they don't necessarily even represent a partial implication of what they actually said.

I'll keep that in mind.

[FlashDangerpants]

You have to admire the audacity I suppose.