I'm Really Trying to be Understanding

[estradling75]

21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 I'm simply handing over the responsibility to the guy who got my $5B to do good with that money...  

Why is it acceptable to pass the responsibility of wise spending on to someone else?

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I don't agree. If I worked really hard in life (or yes, just got really lucky) and I want to buy a Ferrari and a house in the Caymans, it's none of your affair. You have no right whatsoever to force me to do something with my money. 

It's not a question of force.  It's not a question of rights.  I'm not saying I want to take that right away from him.  He can do it and I won't call for legislation or anything like that.  But is it wrong for me to think it is folly to do A or B or consider it an extreme extravagance even while I respect his right to do so?

It's the same as homosexuality.  It makes me cringe to think of such behavior.  But I absolutely respect a person's right to engage in whatever personal behavior he wishes.  I'm still going to cringe if the thought comes up.(my spidey-sense detects a threadjack coming).

Edited December 15, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hmmm. The Lord had unencouraging things to say about those who adorn themselves with finery, especially while their fellow beings are not well-provided for. I tend to think a five-billion-dolar gold toothpick, or even a thirteen-thousand-dollar pen, qualify.

I edited my post to be more clear.

The problem with your statement is you are looking at the STUFF.  What does a $5B gold toothpick mean?  That's just STUFF.  It means nothing by itself.  Like Carb said... "it's just a freaking pen".  Read my edited post so you can see what a $5B toothpick means to me.

Edited December 15, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Why is it acceptable to pass the responsibility of wise spending on to someone else?

What is tithing, fast offering, any charitable contribution, but simply passing the responsibility of wise spending on to someone else?

Other people - mostly Democrats - think tax is the same way.  Republicans of course don't think government can be trusted with wise spending...

If I have $5B to spend on a toothpick, it's more than likely I worked my butt off building a company, being responsible for the livelihood of a whole bunch of people, to make that $5B that I can then give to someone else to do more with.  Or, I'm a trust fund baby who has a whole bunch of $5B that I have no idea what to do with, so I'm getting me a toothpick to divest some of that to someone else.

Edited December 15, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

Who mentioned force?

Not directed towards "You", universal usage. Like I add 90% of the time "Not you meaning Vort" 

[omegaseamaster75]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hmmm. The Lord had unencouraging things to say about those who adorn themselves with finery, especially while their fellow beings are not well-provided for. I tend to think a five-billion-dolar gold toothpick, or even a thirteen-thousand-dollar pen, qualify.

This is the kind of talk that bothers me it's very judgmental.  Define finery? how much is to much for a nice pen? how much is to much for a nice watch? or a nice car? 

I own several Montblac pens, I own a luxury watch but you know what so does President Uchdorf.  I'll follow the prophets, when he unstraps his Breitling Navitimer I'll follow suit.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It's not a question of force.  It's not a question of rights.  I'm not saying I want to take that right away from him.  He can do it and I won't call for legislation or anything like that.  But is it wrong for me to think it is folly to do A or B or consider it an extreme extravagance even while I respect his right to do so?

It's the same as homosexuality.  It makes me cringe to think of such behavior.  But I absolutely respect a person's right to engage in whatever personal behavior he wishes.  I'm still going to cringe if the thought comes up.(my spidey-sense detects a threadjack coming).

 Wrong for you to think that way? Depends on your motivating factor. Are you jealous or envious of a person more wealthy than you? Then yes, it IS wrong for you to think that way. 

And come on gentlemen. I know you and @Vort are extremely jealous of someone as wonderful, handsome and wealthy as I am. 

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

This is the kind of talk that bothers me it's very judgmental.

Yes, I understand that this offends your Inner Snowflake. But rather than merely voice how much you dislike my opinion, why not actually respond to the content?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 Wrong for you to think that way? Depends on your motivating factor. Are you jealous or envious of a person more wealthy than you? Then yes, it IS wrong for you to think that way. 

And come on gentlemen. I know you and @Vort are extremely jealous of someone as wonderful, handsome and wealthy as I am. 

Yes, I'll admit it.  I'm jealous of the handsome part.  But not so much the wealth.

No, I'm not jealous of a person who's that rich.  I still think it is foolish to do something like that with such wealth.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Guest

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Yes, I'll admit it.  I'm jealous of the handsome part.  But not so much the wealth.

No, I'm not jealous of a person who that rich.  I still think it is foolish to do so.

You forgot about my humility too, but I'll allow it this time pal. 

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

What is tithing, fast offering, any charitable contribution, but simply passing the responsibility of wise spending on to someone else?

All of those aren't giving you a $5B gold toothpick...  If you want to donate $5b to tithing, fast offering or any charitable organization then by all means do so..  If you want toothpicks then by all means get some...  But it seems very self deceptive say... "I'm going to buy a $5b toothpick but it is only because someone else will spread that wealth around."  Instead say.. "I am going to buy a $5b toothpick, because I want a $5b toothpick and I can afford to buy one."  Don't try to cloak it in false ideas of charity. 

[omegaseamaster75]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Yes, I understand that this offends your Inner Snowflake. But rather than merely voice how much you dislike my opinion, why not actually respond to the content?

Your something else, I did respond to the content, but as per usual you only see what you want to see. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

You forgot about my humility too, but I'll allow it this time pal. 

Since when have you been humble?

[Vort]

1 minute ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Your something else, I did respond to the content,

What? That it's "judgmental"? That's not a response, that's like calling someone "racist" for disagreeing with Obama.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Since when have you been humble?

It's hard to be humble when you are as wonderful as I am. :: throws hair back and basks in his own glory :: 

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

But it seems very self deceptive say... "I'm going to buy a $5b toothpick but it is only because someone else will spread that wealth around."  Instead say.. "I am going to buy a $5b toothpick, because I want a $5b toothpick and I can afford to buy one."  Don't try to cloak it in false ideas of charity.

A common idea I have found among fiscal conservatives is that capitalism itself is virtuous -- as if heaven itself runs on the principles of capitalism. I don't know that anatess buys into that, but I have certainly heard a lot of John Galt lovers extolling the existential virtues of the capitalist economy.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

A common idea I have found among fiscal conservatives is that capitalism itself is virtuous -- as if heaven itself runs on the principles of capitalism. I don't know that anatess buys into that, but I have certainly heard a lot of John Galt lovers extolling the existential virtues of the capitalist economy.

It's because John Galt lovers (like me) understand how human nature works.  Socialism will always fail no matter what it's called because you can't legislate and force people into virtuous behavior. 

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

A common idea I have found among fiscal conservatives is that capitalism itself is virtuous -- as if heaven itself runs on the principles of capitalism. I don't know that anatess buys into that, but I have certainly heard a lot of John Galt lovers extolling the existential virtues of the capitalist economy.

I consider capitalism to be the best we are going to get in a Mortal/Fallen world... But the scriptures don't have Christ saying "Stimulate the Economy" when it comes to the poor and needy, and we should not equate such simulations with fulfilling the commands of God

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Socialism will always fail no matter what it's called because you can't legislate and force people into virtuous behavior.

I would guess that the majority on this venue agree with this. I do. That does not mean that capitalism is virtuous. It is not.

[Guest]

I'm doing nothing more than comparing this to furrowing my brow at millennials being enamored with Justin Beiber and wondering why some young men today choose to dress like him.

What if you saw someone throwing money away in the ocean?  I certainly wouldn't tell him he couldn't.  I am not going to ask that he be arrested or committed.  But forgive my arrogance and judging him if I think that was a waste.

To me it's not about what is legal or moral.  It about wisdom.  Yes, I'm judging.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I consider capitalism to be the best we are going to get in a Mortal/Fallen world... But the scriptures don't have Christ saying "Stimulate the Economy" when it comes to the poor and needy, and we should not equate such simulations with fulfilling the commands of God

Where you are missing is that you think the totality of one's work began and ended with the purchase of a $5B toothpick.  You don't expand that to think that a person does A WHOLE LOT MORE than just buying a $5B toothpick.

So yes, Christ did not specifically say "Stimulate the Economy".  Neither did he say "Thou shalt not stimulate the economy".  Rather,  he said, feed my sheep.  Stimulating the economy is a completely valid contribution to feeding sheep.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I would guess that the majority on this venue agree with this. I do. That does not mean that capitalism is virtuous. It is not.

It actually is, because it doesn't require force, which makes it virtuous because you are then free. You think being forced to bake a cake for a gay couple is bad? Wait until they enforce socialism and you'll be forced to to all sorts of things you disagree with. 

[estradling75]

26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Where you are missing is that you think the totality of one's work began and ended with the purchase of a $5B toothpick.  You don't expand that to think that a person does A WHOLE LOT MORE than just buying a $5B toothpick.

So yes, Christ did not specifically say "Stimulate the Economy".  Neither did he say "Thou shalt not stimulate the economy".  Rather,  he said, feed my sheep.  Stimulating the economy is a completely valid contribution to feeding sheep.

 

No... feeding the sheep is a valid contribution to feeding the sheep...  Buying an expensive doodad... it is not feeding the sheep, it is is buying an expensive doodad.  (it might be wise to buy an expensive doodad I am not arguing that) but trying to justify buying an expensive doodad as "feeding the sheep" is self delusional.

Edited December 15, 2016 by estradling75

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 but trying to justify buying an expensive dodad as "feeding the sheep" is self delusional.

But it isn't. When you go out for a nice steak dinner you are also feeding the waiter. The host. The chef. The manger of the place. The owner. The valet. The bartender (even if you only drink coke and virgin drinks). The farmer who raised the cattle. The driver who transports things. The veterinarian who treats the animals. The farmers kids. That's about ten people right there without even thinking about it hard. 

So in a way, you actually are feeding the sheep. 

Edited December 15, 2016 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

33 minutes ago, Vort said:

A common idea I have found among fiscal conservatives is that capitalism itself is virtuous -- as if heaven itself runs on the principles of capitalism. I don't know that anatess buys into that, but I have certainly heard a lot of John Galt lovers extolling the existential virtues of the capitalist economy.

No, I don't buy into that.  I don't buy into any thing or ideology is by itself virtuous.  A knife can't be virtuous/non-virtuous.  The person wielding the knife can be virtuous/non-virtuous.  Capitalism nor Socialism, by themselves, are neither virtuous nor non-virtuous.  The people exercising capitalist or socialist principles can be virtuous or non-virtuous.  So, it doesn't matter how good/bad the design is of a certain principle, it's application by a person can make it either virtuous or non-virtuous.