When has the US ever done anything for other than material gain/.
-
Merely stating things doesn't make them true. I provided evidence, you provide the "you suck because I'm right" argument - as you always do.
RichardM1 wrote:
Why did we do it, then?
Material gain and a nice shield against the commies. Very noble. Now excuse me, but I have better things to do than discuss history with trolls.
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
That is your quote. You don't provide support for it. You say it is true because everyone who has been a super power has had material wealth (except, or course, the USSR). That shows linkage, but not causality. You believe it. I believe you do. I also don't see that that matters. I don't say you suck, I said you are only willing to look from one viewpoint, even when someone tries to show you another.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
That is your quote. You don't provide support for it. You say it is true because everyone who has been a super power has had material wealth (except, or course, the USSR). That shows linkage, but not causality. You believe it. I believe you do. I also don't see that that matters. I don't say you suck, I said you are only willing to look from one viewpoint, even when someone tries to show you another.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Nice try. It's true that linkage does not imply causality. The other viewpoint seems to be "ignore the obvious conclusions". You probably have something better to do than this too, though.
-
And this is compared to whom? To Great Britain’s bunny-hugging foreign politics during the last few hundred years? Or to any other former or present superpower?
The narrow specialist in the broad sense of the word is a complete idiot in the narrow sense of the word. Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
You're comparing two bad acts to each other and saying one isn't as bad as the other. The degree of bad doesn't matter when addressing the question of when has the US not done something for material gain. You're not answering the question or the point. This is pretty common, but not even saying you don't know anywhere in your post would have at least addressed the point of the thread.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans Americans ever done for us?
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC League Table Link CCC Link[^]
I don't think we gave you any of those things. You pretty much did that on your own. We worked together along with other countries in WW1 and WW2 for our very countries existence.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
So if i call someone's mom a whore, it's ok if I don't say that nobody else's mom isn't one? Piss off. you said "When has the US ever done anything for other than material gain" not stripping europe. marshal plan. now, when has fat_boy ever admitted he was wrong?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Piss off.
I'll ignore that and meerly state that when prompted I stated the British, my particular breed of human, went to war to protect their opium market. I am fully aware what makes the world go round. Just dont pretend the US is any different.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Piss off.
I'll ignore that and meerly state that when prompted I stated the British, my particular breed of human, went to war to protect their opium market. I am fully aware what makes the world go round. Just dont pretend the US is any different.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
I'm not pretending the US is different. You're putting down the US, in particular. You are pretending you're not. Your saying "OK, look, Britain screwed up once, too" as an afterthought that shows how fair you are is BS. You said the US has never done anything for any other reason than greed. You are demonstrably wrong, even by Bush's AIDs aide to Africa. Even Bush shows you wrong. I don't know if you don't understand, are ignorant, or are ignoring the truth. Now you you are no longer ignorant.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
I'm not pretending the US is different. You're putting down the US, in particular. You are pretending you're not. Your saying "OK, look, Britain screwed up once, too" as an afterthought that shows how fair you are is BS. You said the US has never done anything for any other reason than greed. You are demonstrably wrong, even by Bush's AIDs aide to Africa. Even Bush shows you wrong. I don't know if you don't understand, are ignorant, or are ignoring the truth. Now you you are no longer ignorant.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
OK, Rhodes, Mr famous English guy, conquered vast chunks of Africa, even gave his name to a country, Rhodesia, was had up before all this for running a protection racket in the UK. SO there is plenty of meat in the UKs past which I am aware of and demonstrates exactly the same kind of behaviour as the US. As for aid, its a bit of PR isnt it. After all, if you are going to fuck the world over, its a good idea to make some gestures here and there.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
OK, Rhodes, Mr famous English guy, conquered vast chunks of Africa, even gave his name to a country, Rhodesia, was had up before all this for running a protection racket in the UK. SO there is plenty of meat in the UKs past which I am aware of and demonstrates exactly the same kind of behaviour as the US. As for aid, its a bit of PR isnt it. After all, if you are going to fuck the world over, its a good idea to make some gestures here and there.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Yes, plenty of stuff in the past of every nation. But you choose only to attack the US. When confronted, you say 'yeah but my country sucks too'. Well, yeah, I don't care if you say your country is a whore. You said mine is a whore who won't give a sympathy lay now and then, when demonstrably, it does. You need to join a 12 step program on 'can't say I'm wrong' You think Bush was doing that as a PR stunt? Go back and show me where Bush actually gave enough of a shit about what the rest of the world thought to make a $15 billion gesture. He didn't care, he did what he thought was right, it didn't matter what you thought. You seem to live in a world where altruism isn't scarce, it is non-extant. Do you really live in a place like that? Where everything is driven by greed and deception? If you do, I'm sorry. It must suck to be there. :~
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Yes, plenty of stuff in the past of every nation. But you choose only to attack the US. When confronted, you say 'yeah but my country sucks too'. Well, yeah, I don't care if you say your country is a whore. You said mine is a whore who won't give a sympathy lay now and then, when demonstrably, it does. You need to join a 12 step program on 'can't say I'm wrong' You think Bush was doing that as a PR stunt? Go back and show me where Bush actually gave enough of a shit about what the rest of the world thought to make a $15 billion gesture. He didn't care, he did what he thought was right, it didn't matter what you thought. You seem to live in a world where altruism isn't scarce, it is non-extant. Do you really live in a place like that? Where everything is driven by greed and deception? If you do, I'm sorry. It must suck to be there. :~
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Oh come on, surely you dont believe what you write! If the US consistently did what it though it was right it wouldnt have invaded Iraq. It would have done more in Bosnia, it would have done more in Ruanda, it would not have got involved in Kosovo. Face facts, altruism exists only as an ideal. Given the choice between altruiam and personal gain, we, and every single person on earth, will choose personal gain. If you really think that the most important motivation in the world of man is NOT money and power then you are living in a dream. I could give money to charity, I do sometimes, but not that much, and not as much as I spend on my own life. So do you. And if it came down to your last 1000 dollars you would sure as fuck spend it on you and your familly before giving it to someone elses familly. Altruism is a luxuray, and a small gesture. When its up against reality, it is discarded as easilly as any other ideal.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Yes, plenty of stuff in the past of every nation. But you choose only to attack the US. When confronted, you say 'yeah but my country sucks too'. Well, yeah, I don't care if you say your country is a whore. You said mine is a whore who won't give a sympathy lay now and then, when demonstrably, it does. You need to join a 12 step program on 'can't say I'm wrong' You think Bush was doing that as a PR stunt? Go back and show me where Bush actually gave enough of a shit about what the rest of the world thought to make a $15 billion gesture. He didn't care, he did what he thought was right, it didn't matter what you thought. You seem to live in a world where altruism isn't scarce, it is non-extant. Do you really live in a place like that? Where everything is driven by greed and deception? If you do, I'm sorry. It must suck to be there. :~
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
That bubble around you seems nice. Inside of it, altruism actually exists!
That bubble around you seems like it sucks. Inside of it, people make no sacrifice for others. People don't hold doors open for people they don't know. Don't share food and supplies in emergencies. Soldiers don't die to protect their fellows. It may be projection, but it is not reality. I'm not saying that everyone is altruistic all the time, or even often. You are saying that no one is, ever. I have seen people make personal sacrifices others. People they did not know and who would never be able to thank them. I have even had people make sacrifices for me, for no good reason. Do you just write it off as an endorphin addiction on their part?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Nice try. It's true that linkage does not imply causality. The other viewpoint seems to be "ignore the obvious conclusions". You probably have something better to do than this too, though.
harold aptroot wrote:
It's true that linkage does not imply causality. The other viewpoint seems to be "ignore the obvious conclusions".
The obvious conclusion is that only the wealthiest countries can afford to become superpowers. That might indicate why superpowers stop being superpowers when their economies decline. Russia was resource rich before it became a superpower. It lost it's superpowers when it's economy could not keep up with the costs. The US was resource rich before it became a superpower. Economy and internal strife are what is kicking our butt. It may cost us superpower status as Russia's did. I don't know about England. Did its superpower status follow or lead colonial acquisitions? What about its military? I know it kept it by always having a navy more powerful than it top (2 or 3?) enemies, combined. I recall that started being allowed to slip at some point. I don't know if it lead economy & decolonization or not. China's economy is driving their military expansion, not the other way around. But, Brazil is resource rich, it may get there, but not with people like Lula driving. North Korea, big military, not a superpower. France, killed by it's culture. And Germany. Germany took on most of the western world, by itself, and only went on rationing late in the war. I'm going with "the economy drives", not the other way.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
That bubble around you seems nice. Inside of it, altruism actually exists!
That bubble around you seems like it sucks. Inside of it, people make no sacrifice for others. People don't hold doors open for people they don't know. Don't share food and supplies in emergencies. Soldiers don't die to protect their fellows. It may be projection, but it is not reality. I'm not saying that everyone is altruistic all the time, or even often. You are saying that no one is, ever. I have seen people make personal sacrifices others. People they did not know and who would never be able to thank them. I have even had people make sacrifices for me, for no good reason. Do you just write it off as an endorphin addiction on their part?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I've never seen, nor experienced in any other way, any real altruism. If it exists at all, it's so rare that it managed to completely escape my notice. That is no proof of anything, but it's strong evidence. Altruism exists in moralistic stories designed to indoctrinate kids.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you just write it off as an endorphin addiction on their part?
Who knows, maybe they had a motivation you're just not aware of. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly for a moment, and did it by accident. But anyway, if it made them feel good then it wasn't really altruism, because they got something in return. So then you get this situation: - nice people sometimes pretend to be altruistic for kicks. Doesn't count. - ássholes like me sometimes pretend to be altruistic when it suits them. Doesn't count. - other people do a bit of both. Doesn't count.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It's true that linkage does not imply causality. The other viewpoint seems to be "ignore the obvious conclusions".
The obvious conclusion is that only the wealthiest countries can afford to become superpowers. That might indicate why superpowers stop being superpowers when their economies decline. Russia was resource rich before it became a superpower. It lost it's superpowers when it's economy could not keep up with the costs. The US was resource rich before it became a superpower. Economy and internal strife are what is kicking our butt. It may cost us superpower status as Russia's did. I don't know about England. Did its superpower status follow or lead colonial acquisitions? What about its military? I know it kept it by always having a navy more powerful than it top (2 or 3?) enemies, combined. I recall that started being allowed to slip at some point. I don't know if it lead economy & decolonization or not. China's economy is driving their military expansion, not the other way around. But, Brazil is resource rich, it may get there, but not with people like Lula driving. North Korea, big military, not a superpower. France, killed by it's culture. And Germany. Germany took on most of the western world, by itself, and only went on rationing late in the war. I'm going with "the economy drives", not the other way.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Oh come on, surely you dont believe what you write! If the US consistently did what it though it was right it wouldnt have invaded Iraq. It would have done more in Bosnia, it would have done more in Ruanda, it would not have got involved in Kosovo. Face facts, altruism exists only as an ideal. Given the choice between altruiam and personal gain, we, and every single person on earth, will choose personal gain. If you really think that the most important motivation in the world of man is NOT money and power then you are living in a dream. I could give money to charity, I do sometimes, but not that much, and not as much as I spend on my own life. So do you. And if it came down to your last 1000 dollars you would sure as fuck spend it on you and your familly before giving it to someone elses familly. Altruism is a luxuray, and a small gesture. When its up against reality, it is discarded as easilly as any other ideal.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Oh come on, surely you dont believe what you write!
I do believe what I write. But you don't seem to read what I write, or even what you write. I never said the US was always the good guy, you said it never is. Money and power can be motivators, you said altruism never is. I never said people or countries are ideal. People have screwed me for no other reward than doing it People have helped me for no reward. People risk death to help others, and knowingly die for others. I've put my job at risk so the right thing would happened for people, haven't you? You've never ever taken a risk for someone else when you didn't have to? Sure, altruism is also a resource driven. :rolleyes: If I am down to my last bucks, I will feed those I love, before a stranger. And my expectation is I would feed my kids and wife before me. My wife would feed the kids, before herself (or me :-D ). That is altruism. Why do you think it isn't? Altruism doesn't require some big hoopla. You don't have to be sure everyone in the world is taken care of before you are. It is trying to help when you can, stewarding your resources so you can continue to. Burning yourself out in an instant can be the easiest approach, but isn't the best. It's easier to eat a grenade to save people than it is to help other POWs keep faith for years. What about all those US liberals who say we should get out of the ME? They are giving up all that free oil we are pumping out of there. Isn't that altruistic? OK, your right, it's just stupid. :laugh: Do you really live a life where you don't see people help other, just to help?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
I've never seen, nor experienced in any other way, any real altruism. If it exists at all, it's so rare that it managed to completely escape my notice. That is no proof of anything, but it's strong evidence. Altruism exists in moralistic stories designed to indoctrinate kids.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you just write it off as an endorphin addiction on their part?
Who knows, maybe they had a motivation you're just not aware of. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly for a moment, and did it by accident. But anyway, if it made them feel good then it wasn't really altruism, because they got something in return. So then you get this situation: - nice people sometimes pretend to be altruistic for kicks. Doesn't count. - ássholes like me sometimes pretend to be altruistic when it suits them. Doesn't count. - other people do a bit of both. Doesn't count.
Wow. That is hosed. Helping people doesn't have to hurt. By your own definition, someone has to not be thinking right to be altruistic. They have to not know there is altruism, and not know what they are doing is altruistic. Because, as soon as they know what they are doing is altruistic, it isn't anymore. Unless they hate being altruistic. So, to be altruistic: ..You have to help other people. ..You have to not want to help other people. ....Wanting to means it is for you, so it doesn't count. ..you have to not know you are helping ....you could not care: ......I have no feeling one way or the other, here is my food ..You can hate yourself: ....Giving yourself any pleasure pisses you off ....helping people gives you pleasure which pisses you off ......But then you are doing it to get pissed off, so it doesn't count ..You can die doing it ....You weren't thinking clearly at the time, it doesn't count ....You were thinking clearly at the time, it doesn't count[
al·tru·ism (ltr-zm):
n. 1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. 2. Zoology Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives.
](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/altruism)[^] I don't see anything in the definition that says "An ideal, perfect and unattainable action or state, which, once aware of, destroys itself." Pretend 2 applies, if you make yourself believe 1 can't happen.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Wow. That is hosed. Helping people doesn't have to hurt. By your own definition, someone has to not be thinking right to be altruistic. They have to not know there is altruism, and not know what they are doing is altruistic. Because, as soon as they know what they are doing is altruistic, it isn't anymore. Unless they hate being altruistic. So, to be altruistic: ..You have to help other people. ..You have to not want to help other people. ....Wanting to means it is for you, so it doesn't count. ..you have to not know you are helping ....you could not care: ......I have no feeling one way or the other, here is my food ..You can hate yourself: ....Giving yourself any pleasure pisses you off ....helping people gives you pleasure which pisses you off ......But then you are doing it to get pissed off, so it doesn't count ..You can die doing it ....You weren't thinking clearly at the time, it doesn't count ....You were thinking clearly at the time, it doesn't count[
al·tru·ism (ltr-zm):
n. 1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. 2. Zoology Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives.
](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/altruism)[^] I don't see anything in the definition that says "An ideal, perfect and unattainable action or state, which, once aware of, destroys itself." Pretend 2 applies, if you make yourself believe 1 can't happen.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
The "unselfish" part sums "my" definition up quite nicely. There is still 2, which comes down to not thinking clearly and letting instincts get the better of you. I suppose it happens from time to time. It's not really a good thing though, more of a loss of self-control.
-
The "unselfish" part sums "my" definition up quite nicely. There is still 2, which comes down to not thinking clearly and letting instincts get the better of you. I suppose it happens from time to time. It's not really a good thing though, more of a loss of self-control.
So, you are saying it is impossible to be unselfish, and that makes altruism impossible? All definitions from the free dictionary[^]
un·self·ish (n-slfsh):
adj. Generous or altruistic.
Well that was a freaking helpful definition! :laugh: :laugh: :~
gen·er·ous (jnr-s):
adj. 1. Liberal in giving or sharing. See Synonyms at liberal. 2. Characterized by nobility and forbearance in thought or behavior; magnanimous. 3. Marked by abundance; ample: a generous slice of cake. 4. Having a rich bouquet and flavor: a generous wine. 5. Obsolete Of noble lineage.
So, altruistic and selfish are circular that has a tail off to generous. Generous doesn't say you have to hate yourself. (It says my generous waist line makes me altruistic. :) ) You are reaching too far. It does not require perfection. It does not require lack of reward. It is possible for people to be altruistic.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
So, you are saying it is impossible to be unselfish, and that makes altruism impossible? All definitions from the free dictionary[^]
un·self·ish (n-slfsh):
adj. Generous or altruistic.
Well that was a freaking helpful definition! :laugh: :laugh: :~
gen·er·ous (jnr-s):
adj. 1. Liberal in giving or sharing. See Synonyms at liberal. 2. Characterized by nobility and forbearance in thought or behavior; magnanimous. 3. Marked by abundance; ample: a generous slice of cake. 4. Having a rich bouquet and flavor: a generous wine. 5. Obsolete Of noble lineage.
So, altruistic and selfish are circular that has a tail off to generous. Generous doesn't say you have to hate yourself. (It says my generous waist line makes me altruistic. :) ) You are reaching too far. It does not require perfection. It does not require lack of reward. It is possible for people to be altruistic.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
No I never said you had to hate yourself.. But saying that generous equal altruistic is not quite right. According to wikipedia, "altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others". Later in the same article: "Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward" Great, incompatible definitions.