The Next World Order and Social Justice

[boxer]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Simples. Corrupt elections. The intimidation, imprisonment and even murder of the opposition. I am sure if you google you will find plenty of evidence of such.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Yeap exactly what I said a culture built on theft robbery that is what corruption is. I'm glad we can agree.

[2ndRateMind]

Hmmm. In civilised nations, theft is a crime. Robbery is a crime. Corruption is a crime. But they are not all the same crime, though there may be some overlap.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[boxer]

33 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. In civilised nations, theft is a crime. Robbery is a crime. Corruption is a crime. But they are not all the same crime, though there may be some overlap.

Best wishes, 2RM.

And in uncivilized nations they pass laws to steal your land... legally...

Exactly my point. 

[2ndRateMind]

I'm not sure you have entirely comprehended the unfortunate truth that what society lends us, society has every right to remove. And the other truth, perhaps a more fortunate one for those of us in the developed world, that aside from some trivial efforts on our part, pretty much all we have is by virtue of the society we happen to live in. If you doubt this, consider how your fortunes might have varied, had you been born a Dalit (Untouchable) in India. Or a Manchurian peasant. Or, perchance, an African day labourer.

Indeed, I am tempted to think that the whole edifice of private property is no more than a convenient convention, designed by the wealthy to legitimise their wealth, which has no moral foundation at all. Nevertheless, I will admit that it is a convention that works reasonably well, for those with at least some wealth. And that it is bound to work reasonably better, if everyone had at least some wealth.

And that is before we take into account any religiously inspired considerations, such as the idea that we do not own property at all, only hold it in stewardship on behalf of God for the benefit of each other.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[boxer]

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I'm not sure you have entirely comprehended the unfortunate truth that what society lends us, society has every right to remove. And the other truth, perhaps a more fortunate one for those of us in the developed world, that aside from some trivial efforts on our part, pretty much all we have is by virtue of the society we happen to live in. If you doubt this, consider how your fortunes might have varied, had you been born a Dalit (Untouchable) in India. Or a Manchurian peasant. Or, indeed, an African day labourer.

Indeed, I am tempted to think that the whole edifice of private property is no more than a convenient convention, designed by the wealthy to legitimise their wealth, which has no moral foundation at all. Nevertheless, I will admit that it is a convention that works reasonably well, for those with at least some wealth. And that it is bound to work reasonably better, if everyone had at least some wealth.

And that is before we take into account any religiously inspired considerations, such as the idea that we do not own property at all, only hold it in stewardship on behalf of God for the benefit of each other.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Oh so society lends us stuff.... Good to know you support theft robbery murder.

I'm not being hyperbolic or trying to get a rise out of you.

You support theft robbery murder. I don't. Your moral preening is a facade 

[2ndRateMind]

1 hour ago, boxer said:

Oh so society lends us stuff...

Of course it does. Societies persist. People don't. 100 years from now, someone else will be borrowing the resources you are currently enjoying.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[anatess2]

21 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

In the developing world, the situation is somewhat different. Here, the major problem really is related to the lack of money alone. And here I think the judicious investment in people, and their resources, skills and training really would make a significant difference to the sustainability of their futures. At least, I hope so. It is where the bulk of my charity budget goes.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I live in a Third World Country.  The bolded above, I can guarantee you, is false.

[2ndRateMind]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

22 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

In the developing world, the situation is somewhat different. Here, the major problem really is related to the lack of money alone. And here I think the judicious investment in people, and their resources, skills and training really would make a significant difference to the sustainability of their futures. At least, I hope so. It is where the bulk of my charity budget goes.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I live in a Third World Country.  The bolded above, I can guarantee you, is false.

By all means, elucidate. All perspectives and points of view are welcome here, provided only that they can be substantiated by reason or experience.

Best wishes, 2RM. 

Edited December 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

By all means, elucidate. All perspectives and points of view are welcome here, provided they can be substantiated by reason or experience.

Best wishes, 2RM. 

I live in the Philippines.  Rich natural resources, amazing year-round tropical weather with low occurrence of natural disasters, and a strategic trade route.  The lack of money is not what makes the Philippines poor.

The Spanish-legacy of graft and corruption is imbedded in the culture.  This is the same problem with why many Latin America countries and their rich resources cannot rise above the Third World.

[2ndRateMind]

Interesting. I am not sure many Spanish would agree with you! But I have never been to the Philippines, though I would love to visit, and so I will take your word for it.

But I will make the same point I made to @boxer, that in the grand scheme of things, corruption makes no difference as to whether we succour the hungry, only to what is the most effective way to do that, and how to ensure the solutions we provide are sustainable over the long term.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[LePeel]

Telling minority groups that they're oppressed and kept from success by the society at large is immoral and evil. I doubt the Lord of the vineyard will accept "b-b-but, I was oppressed!" as an excuse for having wasted the talents he gave you.

There is nothing stopping anyone in the United States from working and succeeding. Unless the person is a white Christian male, then it's okay to discriminate, and they can be passed over for employment or education because of the color of their skin.

Edited December 15, 2018 by LePeel

[2ndRateMind]

23 minutes ago, LePeel said:

Telling minority groups that they're oppressed and kept from success by the society at large is immoral and evil. I doubt the Lord of the vineyard will accept "b-b-but, I was oppressed!" as an excuse for having wasted the talents he gave you.

There is nothing stopping anyone in the United States from working and succeeding...

Raising impossible expectations amongst minority groups, and then blaming them for the failure to meet those expectations due to the discriminations and disadvantages they face is also immoral and evil, I think. Somewhere, between these two conceptions of immoralities and evils there must lie a middle ground where the truth of the matter is to be found.

So, with a little googling, I came up with the following figures. Black African Americans account for 12.7% of the population of the US. There are three Black African American CEO's of fortune 500 companies. Were there no social biases at play, one would expect more than 60.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, LePeel said:

Telling minority groups that they're oppressed and kept from success by the society at large is immoral and evil. I doubt the Lord of the vineyard will accept "b-b-but, I was oppressed!" as an excuse for having wasted the talents he gave you.

There is nothing stopping anyone in the United States from working and succeeding. Unless you're a white male Christian, then it's okay to discriminate, and you can be passed over for employment or education because of the color of your skin.

Yup. It's the leftist who thinks that minority groups can't achieve anything without their help. It's incredibly offensive and yes, racist to think that way. 

[boxer]

33 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, with a little googling, I came up with the following figures. Black African Americans account for 12.7% of the population of the US. There are three Black African American CEO's of fortune 500 companies. Were there no social biases at play, one would expect more than 60.

This is one of those logical inconsistencies that belies their true goal. The assumption is that in the "evil" capitalistic society all that matters is "making money"-helping the poor, those other things must be "forced" by government in order to ensure that the "evil capitalist" pays "his fair share" (whatever that means).

Yet when when confronted with facts they don't like they say well those evil companies they are just "biased". If the goal is to make money, do you not think that these companies would hire the person who can make them the MOST money regardless of race, sex, blah, blah, blah.  No, it can't be that for whatever reason that proportion to their population size black are less qualified for those CEO positions . . .it MUST BE BIAS!!!

Dude-you overplay your hand-do you really think in 2018 with all the push for "diversity" the reason why there aren't more black CEOs is b/c of bias.  I know that's not the case, b/c I am personally been passed over for promotions or big jobs b/c I was not the right skin color and I don't have ovaries.  It's happened to me at least twice. It's always put in the nicest of terms, something like "this would be a good opportunity for a woman to gain skills" . . .except when you compare my background to hers-I'm much more qualified.  I know this b/c I was passed over for the lead on an engineering project where I had at least 5 years of background in that specific field-the gal who took the lead-yeah she was a new hire who had a completely different engineering skill set and who was learning this technology from scratch-whereas I had 5 years of experience in it.  Who got the lead role-she did.

And I didn't moan about it, complain oh poor me-bias.  No, I said screw you to the job-quit and found a different place who would value my skill set making 10% more.

Edited December 15, 2018 by boxer

[2ndRateMind]

2 minutes ago, boxer said:

No, it can't be that for whatever reason that proportion to their population size black are less qualified for those CEO positions

Even if true, and it may be, why do you think it is that African Americans are less qualified for those CEO positions? 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[boxer]

4 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Even if true, and it may be, why do you think it is that African Americans are less qualified for those CEO positions? 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Now that is a good question.  Yes why indeed would that be?

According to your worldview of oppression Olympics, it's b/c the white man has them under their thumb. Maybe, just maybe there is something more to this than who is the most "oppressed", maybe there is a lot more than that. But you won't even attempt to think about it b/c it violates your worldview. And your worldview is that anyone can be anything they want to be and that the only thing holding them back from being what they want to be is other people.

Again, when I was "oppressed", I didn't moan and complain-I said screw you, I'll find someplace where my work is valued and I'm not passed over b/c I don't have ovaries.

Edited December 15, 2018 by boxer

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, boxer said:

 anyone can be anything they want to be

That's true, at least in America. 

[2ndRateMind]

10 minutes ago, boxer said:

Now that is a good question.  Yes why indeed would that be?

According to your worldview of oppression Olympics, it's b/c the white man has them under their thumb. Maybe, just maybe there is something more to this than who is the most "oppressed", maybe there is a lot more than that. But you won't even attempt to think about it b/c it violates your worldview. And your worldview is that anyone can be anything they want to be and that the only thing holding them back from being what they want to be is other people.

Hmmmm. I'm not interested in my world view. I already know what it is. I'm even less interested in your interpretation of my world view, which has consistently been inaccurate.

I'm interested in your world view. Why do you think it the case that African Americans are so under-represented at CEO level in fortune 500 companies? And if that is because they are unqualified, why do you think they are unqualified?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited December 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[boxer]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's true, at least in America. 

Really . . .wow that's some interesting fantasyland thinking.  Can I be a professional NFL player?

[boxer]

11 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmmm. I'm not interested in my world view. I already know what it is. I'm even less interested in your interpretation of my world view, which has consistently been inaccurate.

I'm interested in your world view. Why do you think it the case that African Americans are so under-represented at CEO level in fortune 500 companies? And if that is because they are unqualified, why do you think they are unqualified?

Best wishes, 2RM.

If my interpretation of your world-view is wrong. Please explain to me how.

I don't say blacks are under-represented-you did. I don't care about someone's skin color-I want the best person for the job.  I'm interested why you are so fixated on skin color. Shouldn't we judge people based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin?

I'd be more interested in the individual story of each Fortune 500 CEO and how they made it to the top.  If I really wanted to be a CEO-rather than be interested in who you think they represent as a group, I'd be interested in their individual story.  I'd find that much more fascinating as I bet each story contains wisdom about how they made it so far.

Edited December 15, 2018 by boxer

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, boxer said:

Really . . .wow that's some interesting fantasyland thinking.  Can I be a professional NFL player?

Cute. 

In America you can largely be whatever you want to be. Are there limitations? Sure. But there are more doors open in America than any other country in the world.   I'm sure you knew what I meant. 

Are you American? 

Edited December 15, 2018 by MormonGator

[2ndRateMind]

Dupe.

Edited December 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[boxer]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Cute. 

In America you can largely be whatever you want to be. Are there limitations? Sure. But there are more doors open in America than any other country in the world.   I'm sure you knew what I meant. 

Are you American? 

No you can't be whatever you want to be.  Each person has a certain set of skills and aptitudes.  The people who know what their aptitude is, hone that skill become good at it-enjoy life and make money.  Some people don't have the temperament to own a business, some people don't have the temperament to be a sales rep.  The biggest lie we tell kids is "you can be whatever you want".  Sure you can try and be a sales rep-but if you suck at dealing with people you'll get left behind in the job market.  Sure you can develop that skill-but it takes time, energy and effort and some people just plainly don't have the right skill set for it-their brain just doesn't work the way it needs to in order to be successful.

The best thing a kid can do is find a skill set that they have a natural aptitude for, hone it, develop it and learn to enjoy it.  Then you can be successful.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, boxer said:

but if you suck at dealing with people you'll get left behind in the job market. 

Indeed. Getting along with people and not being abrasive/argumentative is huge in life. Glad you understand this. 
 

[boxer]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I can't. It would take too much space. But, as we discuss, it may eventually come clearer.

 

 

And why are you so fixed on skin color?  Just b/c you provide a stat doesn't mean they are "under-represented".  Being a CEO isn't a democratic position.  If it were an elected position, then sure I'd agree with you that they are under-represented.  But a CEO doesn't "represent" anyone-he is he head of the company.  "representation" doesn't have anything to do with being a CEO.

I can make the claim house-wives are "under-represented" as CEOs  .. .why is that?  Grouping people by skin color when the job requirement is about competency is idiotic.