Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

If your so smart

sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Why is everything so complicated.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:06:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

I'm not that smart, but everything is still complicated.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:22:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:06:27 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

I'm not that smart, but everything is still complicated.

HUh What is complicated to you other than math?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 11:34:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:22:39 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:06:27 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

I'm not that smart, but everything is still complicated.

HUh What is complicated to you other than math?

I'm pretty good at math actually.

But like, do I have an obligation to work hard and better my position in life? Is it wrong to just work enough to keep comfortable or to learn to be content rather than striving for more? I'm not talking about being lazy, just not striving for more.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 12:31:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 11:34:46 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:22:39 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:06:27 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

I'm not that smart, but everything is still complicated.

HUh What is complicated to you other than math?

I'm pretty good at math actually.

But like, do I have an obligation to work hard and better my position in life? Is it wrong to just work enough to keep comfortable or to learn to be content rather than striving for more? I'm not talking about being lazy, just not striving for more.

You get out of life what you put into it. pretty simple
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 1:27:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 12:31:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:34:46 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:22:39 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:06:27 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

I'm not that smart, but everything is still complicated.

HUh What is complicated to you other than math?

I'm pretty good at math actually.

But like, do I have an obligation to work hard and better my position in life? Is it wrong to just work enough to keep comfortable or to learn to be content rather than striving for more? I'm not talking about being lazy, just not striving for more.

You get out of life what you put into it. pretty simple

But do you have an moral obligation concerning what you put in? Roebling went through hell to build the Brooklyn Bridge, people called for his resignation during the process, but he stuck it out. Would it have been wrong for him to simply quit and join his family's lucrative cable business? He probably could have had a good life with a lot less stress if he quit, but would it have been wrong to do so?

I don't think life is simple.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 3:38:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 1:18:41 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

You're*

See this is what I am talking about. Had I spoke the words rather than typed them the question is still the same . But in this case the individual makes it complicated. The individual doesn't understand the question but seems to need clarification because of a spelling error. I can only assume that by the response.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 3:46:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 1:27:53 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 12:31:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:34:46 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:22:39 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:06:27 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

I'm not that smart, but everything is still complicated.

HUh What is complicated to you other than math?

I'm pretty good at math actually.

But like, do I have an obligation to work hard and better my position in life? Is it wrong to just work enough to keep comfortable or to learn to be content rather than striving for more? I'm not talking about being lazy, just not striving for more.

You get out of life what you put into it. pretty simple

But do you have an moral obligation concerning what you put in? Roebling went through hell to build the Brooklyn Bridge, people called for his resignation during the process, but he stuck it out. Would it have been wrong for him to simply quit and join his family's lucrative cable business? He probably could have had a good life with a lot less stress if he quit, but would it have been wrong to do so?

I don't think life is simple.

He got out of life exactly what he put into it. Stress. What you think is moral is what you should look for in other people and forget all the rest. They will pull you down and destroy your life anyway they can. Don't most people know this stuff?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 3:50:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 3:46:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:27:53 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 12:31:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:34:46 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:22:39 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:06:27 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

I'm not that smart, but everything is still complicated.

HUh What is complicated to you other than math?

I'm pretty good at math actually.

But like, do I have an obligation to work hard and better my position in life? Is it wrong to just work enough to keep comfortable or to learn to be content rather than striving for more? I'm not talking about being lazy, just not striving for more.

You get out of life what you put into it. pretty simple

But do you have an moral obligation concerning what you put in? Roebling went through hell to build the Brooklyn Bridge, people called for his resignation during the process, but he stuck it out. Would it have been wrong for him to simply quit and join his family's lucrative cable business? He probably could have had a good life with a lot less stress if he quit, but would it have been wrong to do so?

I don't think life is simple.

He got out of life exactly what he put into it. Stress. What you think is moral is what you should look for in other people and forget all the rest. They will pull you down and destroy your life anyway they can. Don't most people know this stuff?

So morality is just whatever I think it is?

Roebling got a stressful life, but he also got a heroic one. He built a world wonder that has improved the life of millions. How do you weigh the cost of a difficult life with the value of living a heroic life? Is it wrong to be dissatisfied with the failure to live a heroic life?

My question really isn't really about other people putting you down, it's about what standards we should hold ourselves to.
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 3:53:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

*You're
Dude... Stop...
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 3:56:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 3:50:45 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 3:46:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:27:53 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 12:31:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:34:46 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:22:39 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:06:27 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

I'm not that smart, but everything is still complicated.

HUh What is complicated to you other than math?

I'm pretty good at math actually.

But like, do I have an obligation to work hard and better my position in life? Is it wrong to just work enough to keep comfortable or to learn to be content rather than striving for more? I'm not talking about being lazy, just not striving for more.

You get out of life what you put into it. pretty simple

But do you have an moral obligation concerning what you put in? Roebling went through hell to build the Brooklyn Bridge, people called for his resignation during the process, but he stuck it out. Would it have been wrong for him to simply quit and join his family's lucrative cable business? He probably could have had a good life with a lot less stress if he quit, but would it have been wrong to do so?

I don't think life is simple.

He got out of life exactly what he put into it. Stress. What you think is moral is what you should look for in other people and forget all the rest. They will pull you down and destroy your life anyway they can. Don't most people know this stuff?

So morality is just whatever I think it is? : Roebling got a stressful life, but he also got a heroic one. He built a world wonder that has improved the life of millions. How do you weigh the cost of a difficult life with the value of living a heroic life? Is it wrong to be dissatisfied with the failure to live a heroic life?

My question really isn't really about other people putting you down, it's about what standards we should hold ourselves to.

Be honest, do you really not know what is moral? Do you really have to ask someone else for clarification? I suspect you want to make it complicated so as to justify some personal issues that haunt you.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 3:58:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 3:53:09 PM, Fanath wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

*You're
I will just keep reposting this response to the spelling error people;

See this is what I am talking about. Had I spoke the words rather than typed them the question is still the same . But in this case the individual makes it complicated. The individual doesn't understand the question but seems to need clarification because of a spelling error. I can only assume that by the response.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 4:02:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 3:56:26 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 3:50:45 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 3:46:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:27:53 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 12:31:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:34:46 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:22:39 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:06:27 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

I'm not that smart, but everything is still complicated.

HUh What is complicated to you other than math?

I'm pretty good at math actually.

But like, do I have an obligation to work hard and better my position in life? Is it wrong to just work enough to keep comfortable or to learn to be content rather than striving for more? I'm not talking about being lazy, just not striving for more.

You get out of life what you put into it. pretty simple

But do you have an moral obligation concerning what you put in? Roebling went through hell to build the Brooklyn Bridge, people called for his resignation during the process, but he stuck it out. Would it have been wrong for him to simply quit and join his family's lucrative cable business? He probably could have had a good life with a lot less stress if he quit, but would it have been wrong to do so?

I don't think life is simple.

He got out of life exactly what he put into it. Stress. What you think is moral is what you should look for in other people and forget all the rest. They will pull you down and destroy your life anyway they can. Don't most people know this stuff?

So morality is just whatever I think it is? : Roebling got a stressful life, but he also got a heroic one. He built a world wonder that has improved the life of millions. How do you weigh the cost of a difficult life with the value of living a heroic life? Is it wrong to be dissatisfied with the failure to live a heroic life?

My question really isn't really about other people putting you down, it's about what standards we should hold ourselves to.

Be honest, do you really not know what is moral? Do you really have to ask someone else for clarification? I suspect you want to make it complicated so as to justify some personal issues that haunt you.

I am being 100% honest - I do not know if I have a moral obligation to strive for success or if pursuing a more pleasurable life is morally inferior toward pursuing a life of struggle in pursuit of some personal project or goal.

I am not being disingenuous, I think this is something a lot of people struggle with. i frequently play devil's advocate but I think this is a hard ethical question with real bearing on day to day decisions.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 4:09:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:02:19 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 3:56:26 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 3:50:45 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 3:46:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:27:53 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 12:31:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:34:46 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:22:39 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:06:27 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

I'm not that smart, but everything is still complicated.

HUh What is complicated to you other than math?

I'm pretty good at math actually.

But like, do I have an obligation to work hard and better my position in life? Is it wrong to just work enough to keep comfortable or to learn to be content rather than striving for more? I'm not talking about being lazy, just not striving for more.

You get out of life what you put into it. pretty simple

But do you have an moral obligation concerning what you put in? Roebling went through hell to build the Brooklyn Bridge, people called for his resignation during the process, but he stuck it out. Would it have been wrong for him to simply quit and join his family's lucrative cable business? He probably could have had a good life with a lot less stress if he quit, but would it have been wrong to do so?

I don't think life is simple.

He got out of life exactly what he put into it. Stress. What you think is moral is what you should look for in other people and forget all the rest. They will pull you down and destroy your life anyway they can. Don't most people know this stuff?

So morality is just whatever I think it is? : Roebling got a stressful life, but he also got a heroic one. He built a world wonder that has improved the life of millions. How do you weigh the cost of a difficult life with the value of living a heroic life? Is it wrong to be dissatisfied with the failure to live a heroic life?

My question really isn't really about other people putting you down, it's about what standards we should hold ourselves to.

Be honest, do you really not know what is moral? Do you really have to ask someone else for clarification? I suspect you want to make it complicated so as to justify some personal issues that haunt you.

I am being 100% honest - I do not know if I have a moral obligation to strive for success or if pursuing a more pleasurable life is morally inferior toward pursuing a life of struggle in pursuit of some personal project or goal.

I am not being disingenuous, I think this is something a lot of people struggle with. i frequently play devil's advocate but I think this is a hard ethical question with real bearing on day to day decisions.

Being indecisive is not a morality issue. Sounds more like you can't choose between being an artist or Wall street banker.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 4:12:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Maybe this will help "A fool and his money shall soon part"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 4:12:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:09:15 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:02:19 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 3:56:26 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 3:50:45 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 3:46:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:27:53 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 12:31:24 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:34:46 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:22:39 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 11:06:27 AM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

I'm not that smart, but everything is still complicated.

HUh What is complicated to you other than math?

I'm pretty good at math actually.

But like, do I have an obligation to work hard and better my position in life? Is it wrong to just work enough to keep comfortable or to learn to be content rather than striving for more? I'm not talking about being lazy, just not striving for more.

You get out of life what you put into it. pretty simple

But do you have an moral obligation concerning what you put in? Roebling went through hell to build the Brooklyn Bridge, people called for his resignation during the process, but he stuck it out. Would it have been wrong for him to simply quit and join his family's lucrative cable business? He probably could have had a good life with a lot less stress if he quit, but would it have been wrong to do so?

I don't think life is simple.

He got out of life exactly what he put into it. Stress. What you think is moral is what you should look for in other people and forget all the rest. They will pull you down and destroy your life anyway they can. Don't most people know this stuff?

So morality is just whatever I think it is? : Roebling got a stressful life, but he also got a heroic one. He built a world wonder that has improved the life of millions. How do you weigh the cost of a difficult life with the value of living a heroic life? Is it wrong to be dissatisfied with the failure to live a heroic life?

My question really isn't really about other people putting you down, it's about what standards we should hold ourselves to.

Be honest, do you really not know what is moral? Do you really have to ask someone else for clarification? I suspect you want to make it complicated so as to justify some personal issues that haunt you.

I am being 100% honest - I do not know if I have a moral obligation to strive for success or if pursuing a more pleasurable life is morally inferior toward pursuing a life of struggle in pursuit of some personal project or goal.

I am not being disingenuous, I think this is something a lot of people struggle with. i frequently play devil's advocate but I think this is a hard ethical question with real bearing on day to day decisions.

Being indecisive is not a morality issue. Sounds more like you can't choose between being an artist or Wall street banker.

Sure it is. I want to choose whichever is morally superior.

If the cause of indecision is uncertainty about the moral factors involved, then it is a moral issue.

Which should I be, an artist or a Wall Street banker? Why?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 4:13:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 3:38:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:18:41 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

You're*

See this is what I am talking about. Had I spoke the words rather than typed them the question is still the same . But in this case the individual makes it complicated. The individual doesn't understand the question but seems to need clarification because of a spelling error. I can only assume that by the response.

My correction was an ironic response and was meant to be take humorously :P
Nolite Timere
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 4:17:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If you believe what people do for a living has moral superiority over some other kind of work, you have more issues than morality issues. All work has to be done and it is all done by people.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 4:46:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:17:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
If you believe what people do for a living has moral superiority over some other kind of work, you have more issues than morality issues. All work has to be done and it is all done by people.

Why does all work "have" to be done? I don't see why telemarketers or drug dealers have to exist.

And I'm not really trying to make a value claim on professional occupation, but rather on the choices specific individuals make about what they do with their life. For example, is there any moral difference between a brilliant individual who works hard to create a new cure for some disease and a brilliant individual who does just enough to get by at a sales job that does not challenge his abilities?

Or, if it is my dream to become an artist but I am afraid of the risk and the financial hardship, is it immoral to abandon that dream in favor of a more conventional job?
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 4:52:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:46:26 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:17:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
If you believe what people do for a living has moral superiority over some other kind of work, you have more issues than morality issues. All work has to be done and it is all done by people.

Why does all work "have" to be done? I don't see why telemarketers or drug dealers have to exist.

And I'm not really trying to make a value claim on professional occupation, but rather on the choices specific individuals make about what they do with their life. For example, is there any moral difference between a brilliant individual who works hard to create a new cure for some disease and a brilliant individual who does just enough to get by at a sales job that does not challenge his abilities?

Or, if it is my dream to become an artist but I am afraid of the risk and the financial hardship, is it immoral to abandon that dream in favor of a more conventional job?

This all still falls under what you get out of life is what you put into it. The fact that you don't peruse your dream is your problem and no one else's. Your dream position will be filled by someone else. No one is irreplaceable.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 4:55:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:52:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:46:26 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:17:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
If you believe what people do for a living has moral superiority over some other kind of work, you have more issues than morality issues. All work has to be done and it is all done by people.

Why does all work "have" to be done? I don't see why telemarketers or drug dealers have to exist.

And I'm not really trying to make a value claim on professional occupation, but rather on the choices specific individuals make about what they do with their life. For example, is there any moral difference between a brilliant individual who works hard to create a new cure for some disease and a brilliant individual who does just enough to get by at a sales job that does not challenge his abilities?

Or, if it is my dream to become an artist but I am afraid of the risk and the financial hardship, is it immoral to abandon that dream in favor of a more conventional job?

This all still falls under what you get out of life is what you put into it. The fact that you don't peruse your dream is your problem and no one else's. Your dream position will be filled by someone else. No one is irreplaceable.

I know it is my problem. But saying it is my problem doesn't answer what I should do about it or whether there are moral differences to the alternative.

Does something being my dream job outweigh other concerns of happiness?

Are you just saying "do whatever you want, there are no moral factors to consider?"
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 4:59:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:52:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:46:26 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:17:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
If you believe what people do for a living has moral superiority over some other kind of work, you have more issues than morality issues. All work has to be done and it is all done by people.

Why does all work "have" to be done? I don't see why telemarketers or drug dealers have to exist.

And I'm not really trying to make a value claim on professional occupation, but rather on the choices specific individuals make about what they do with their life. For example, is there any moral difference between a brilliant individual who works hard to create a new cure for some disease and a brilliant individual who does just enough to get by at a sales job that does not challenge his abilities?

Or, if it is my dream to become an artist but I am afraid of the risk and the financial hardship, is it immoral to abandon that dream in favor of a more conventional job?

This all still falls under what you get out of life is what you put into it. The fact that you don't peruse your dream is your problem and no one else's. Your dream position will be filled by someone else. No one is irreplaceable.

Not everyone was cut out to have money or be successful. That is a simple fact of life. The fact that you question whether or not you should be successful or not is a pretty good indicator that you wont be. I can't stand working indoors so that pretty much eliminated 80% of the jobs that pay over $100,000. If I live better than 85% of the worlds population am I successful?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:09:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:55:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:52:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:46:26 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:17:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
If you believe what people do for a living has moral superiority over some other kind of work, you have more issues than morality issues. All work has to be done and it is all done by people.

Why does all work "have" to be done? I don't see why telemarketers or drug dealers have to exist.

And I'm not really trying to make a value claim on professional occupation, but rather on the choices specific individuals make about what they do with their life. For example, is there any moral difference between a brilliant individual who works hard to create a new cure for some disease and a brilliant individual who does just enough to get by at a sales job that does not challenge his abilities?

Or, if it is my dream to become an artist but I am afraid of the risk and the financial hardship, is it immoral to abandon that dream in favor of a more conventional job?

This all still falls under what you get out of life is what you put into it. The fact that you don't peruse your dream is your problem and no one else's. Your dream position will be filled by someone else. No one is irreplaceable.

I know it is my problem. But saying it is my problem doesn't answer what I should do about it or whether there are moral differences to the alternative.

Does something being my dream job outweigh other concerns of happiness?

Are you just saying "do whatever you want, there are no moral factors to consider?"

Consider the moral factors of being a street drug dealer and then decide. I can't prevent you from making immoral decisions in your life, no one can. You will do what you are going to do regardless of what anyone says in the end. You get back what you put your efforts into. Be a drug dealer, you know what comes with the territory. Nobody can stop you. There is big money to be made if earning big money is an issue with you. You can morally justify it somehow. All the other drug dealers do.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:10:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:59:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:52:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:46:26 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:17:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
If you believe what people do for a living has moral superiority over some other kind of work, you have more issues than morality issues. All work has to be done and it is all done by people.

Why does all work "have" to be done? I don't see why telemarketers or drug dealers have to exist.

And I'm not really trying to make a value claim on professional occupation, but rather on the choices specific individuals make about what they do with their life. For example, is there any moral difference between a brilliant individual who works hard to create a new cure for some disease and a brilliant individual who does just enough to get by at a sales job that does not challenge his abilities?

Or, if it is my dream to become an artist but I am afraid of the risk and the financial hardship, is it immoral to abandon that dream in favor of a more conventional job?

This all still falls under what you get out of life is what you put into it. The fact that you don't peruse your dream is your problem and no one else's. Your dream position will be filled by someone else. No one is irreplaceable.

Not everyone was cut out to have money or be successful. That is a simple fact of life. The fact that you question whether or not you should be successful or not is a pretty good indicator that you wont be. I can't stand working indoors so that pretty much eliminated 80% of the jobs that pay over $100,000. If I live better than 85% of the worlds population am I successful?

I don't know, it feels like you are just ignoring what I am saying.

I'm not saying I want to be successful. If anything I am saying I think it would be easier and more satisfying to not try to be successful.

I am wondering if you have an obligation to struggle to be successful if you think you have the capacity to be successful.

I am wondering if there is moral value in struggling for any enterprise whatsoever just by virtue of engaging a challenge. Also if opting for a life of ease is immoral, perhaps as an act of cowardice.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:13:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:10:20 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:59:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:52:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:46:26 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:17:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
If you believe what people do for a living has moral superiority over some other kind of work, you have more issues than morality issues. All work has to be done and it is all done by people.

Why does all work "have" to be done? I don't see why telemarketers or drug dealers have to exist.

And I'm not really trying to make a value claim on professional occupation, but rather on the choices specific individuals make about what they do with their life. For example, is there any moral difference between a brilliant individual who works hard to create a new cure for some disease and a brilliant individual who does just enough to get by at a sales job that does not challenge his abilities?

Or, if it is my dream to become an artist but I am afraid of the risk and the financial hardship, is it immoral to abandon that dream in favor of a more conventional job?

This all still falls under what you get out of life is what you put into it. The fact that you don't peruse your dream is your problem and no one else's. Your dream position will be filled by someone else. No one is irreplaceable.

Not everyone was cut out to have money or be successful. That is a simple fact of life. The fact that you question whether or not you should be successful or not is a pretty good indicator that you wont be. I can't stand working indoors so that pretty much eliminated 80% of the jobs that pay over $100,000. If I live better than 85% of the worlds population am I successful?

I don't know, it feels like you are just ignoring what I am saying.

I'm not saying I want to be successful. If anything I am saying I think it would be easier and more satisfying to not try to be successful.

I am wondering if you have an obligation to struggle to be successful if you think you have the capacity to be successful.

I am wondering if there is moral value in struggling for any enterprise whatsoever just by virtue of engaging a challenge. Also if opting for a life of ease is immoral, perhaps as an act of cowardice.

"I am wondering if you have an obligation to struggle to be successful"

No, you are not obligated to do anything other than die and pay taxes.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:13:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:09:47 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:55:30 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:52:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:46:26 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:17:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
If you believe what people do for a living has moral superiority over some other kind of work, you have more issues than morality issues. All work has to be done and it is all done by people.

Why does all work "have" to be done? I don't see why telemarketers or drug dealers have to exist.

And I'm not really trying to make a value claim on professional occupation, but rather on the choices specific individuals make about what they do with their life. For example, is there any moral difference between a brilliant individual who works hard to create a new cure for some disease and a brilliant individual who does just enough to get by at a sales job that does not challenge his abilities?

Or, if it is my dream to become an artist but I am afraid of the risk and the financial hardship, is it immoral to abandon that dream in favor of a more conventional job?

This all still falls under what you get out of life is what you put into it. The fact that you don't peruse your dream is your problem and no one else's. Your dream position will be filled by someone else. No one is irreplaceable.

I know it is my problem. But saying it is my problem doesn't answer what I should do about it or whether there are moral differences to the alternative.

Does something being my dream job outweigh other concerns of happiness?

Are you just saying "do whatever you want, there are no moral factors to consider?"

Consider the moral factors of being a street drug dealer and then decide. I can't prevent you from making immoral decisions in your life, no one can. You will do what you are going to do regardless of what anyone says in the end. You get back what you put your efforts into. Be a drug dealer, you know what comes with the territory. Nobody can stop you. There is big money to be made if earning big money is an issue with you. You can morally justify it somehow. All the other drug dealers do.

So you are saying being a drug dealer is not morally different than being a doctor?

I just don't understand what you are suggesting. I get the feeling you just want to brush off the topic without actually engaging the issues. But if that's the case why are you still replying?

I feel like you are the one not honestly approaching the issue. Do you really think there are no hard moral questions?
Raisor
Posts: 4,459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:14:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 5:13:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 5:10:20 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:59:41 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:52:43 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:46:26 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:17:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
If you believe what people do for a living has moral superiority over some other kind of work, you have more issues than morality issues. All work has to be done and it is all done by people.

Why does all work "have" to be done? I don't see why telemarketers or drug dealers have to exist.

And I'm not really trying to make a value claim on professional occupation, but rather on the choices specific individuals make about what they do with their life. For example, is there any moral difference between a brilliant individual who works hard to create a new cure for some disease and a brilliant individual who does just enough to get by at a sales job that does not challenge his abilities?

Or, if it is my dream to become an artist but I am afraid of the risk and the financial hardship, is it immoral to abandon that dream in favor of a more conventional job?

This all still falls under what you get out of life is what you put into it. The fact that you don't peruse your dream is your problem and no one else's. Your dream position will be filled by someone else. No one is irreplaceable.

Not everyone was cut out to have money or be successful. That is a simple fact of life. The fact that you question whether or not you should be successful or not is a pretty good indicator that you wont be. I can't stand working indoors so that pretty much eliminated 80% of the jobs that pay over $100,000. If I live better than 85% of the worlds population am I successful?

I don't know, it feels like you are just ignoring what I am saying.

I'm not saying I want to be successful. If anything I am saying I think it would be easier and more satisfying to not try to be successful.

I am wondering if you have an obligation to struggle to be successful if you think you have the capacity to be successful.

I am wondering if there is moral value in struggling for any enterprise whatsoever just by virtue of engaging a challenge. Also if opting for a life of ease is immoral, perhaps as an act of cowardice.

"I am wondering if you have an obligation to struggle to be successful"

No, you are not obligated to do anything other than die and pay taxes.

So you just deny that morality exists altogether, there are no obligations only physical consequences?
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:56:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 3:58:22 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 3:53:09 PM, Fanath wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

*You're
I will just keep reposting this response to the spelling error people;

See this is what I am talking about. Had I spoke the words rather than typed them the question is still the same . But in this case the individual makes it complicated. The individual doesn't understand the question but seems to need clarification because of a spelling error. I can only assume that by the response.

Or you could assume that it's a joke, which is much more likely.
Dude... Stop...
Fanath
Posts: 830
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 5:57:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:13:23 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/28/2014 3:38:01 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:18:41 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 6/28/2014 10:54:54 AM, sadolite wrote:
Why is everything so complicated.

You're*

See this is what I am talking about. Had I spoke the words rather than typed them the question is still the same . But in this case the individual makes it complicated. The individual doesn't understand the question but seems to need clarification because of a spelling error. I can only assume that by the response.

My correction was an ironic response and was meant to be take humorously :P

*Taken
Dude... Stop...