Total Posts:99|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Whats wrong with being wealthy?

reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2011 11:53:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Whats wrong with:
-never having to worry about bills
-putting your kids through college
-Having a big home
-having a nice car
-not having to work
-Financially helping your kid become whatever they want to be

why do people hate the rich?
Not saying love them but dont hate
Not all rich people are A$$holes ,they are people too

They act just the same as other people:
poor-gotta look out for myself
rich-Dont care

poor-lets go party
rich-lets go party

poor-WEED!!!
rich-WEED!!!
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:04:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Because a list of people who work the hardest and the people with the most money would be completely mutually exlusive.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:18:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:12:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy.

Nope, the wrong comes from what you do or don't to with your wealth. Money in general.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:20:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:18:57 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:12:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy.

Nope, the wrong comes from what you do or don't to with your wealth. Money in general.

Well, if you want the entirety of my argument, there's nothing right or wrong about anything. But there are some ways of getting money which we might classify as being more dickish than others.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:30:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
One of the nicest and probably most generous man I've ever met was wealthy.

You Know what I really hate though is when liberals call the capitalists all greedy for not wanting to pay for other peoples welfare. And then the poor are liberal for that reason and love to thank the government and Obama for their wonderful generosity.

I mean give me a break the capitalists are paying for their welfare and they support socialism or whatever because it makes the capitalists pay for them. And then thank the government when the governments giving them absolutely nothing. They're just forcing other people to give. And what's worse is that often they're paying drugs.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:47:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:18:57 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:12:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy.

Nope, the wrong comes from what you do or don't to with your wealth. Money in general.

but then people say" well rich should give extra money to charity" (while they drink a Starbucks coffee(venti))
Haven't we all bought a luxury item at some point in time?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:48:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:20:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:18:57 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:12:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy.

Nope, the wrong comes from what you do or don't to with your wealth. Money in general.

Well, if you want the entirety of my argument, there's nothing right or wrong about anything. But there are some ways of getting money which we might classify as being more dickish than others.

I know your stance on right and wrong.

You mentioned getting money and the wrong in some ways.

How about what we do with it?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 12:58:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:48:57 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:20:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:18:57 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:12:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy.

Nope, the wrong comes from what you do or don't to with your wealth. Money in general.

Well, if you want the entirety of my argument, there's nothing right or wrong about anything. But there are some ways of getting money which we might classify as being more dickish than others.

I know your stance on right and wrong.

You mentioned getting money and the wrong in some ways.

How about what we do with it?

I would have a problem with somebody spending money on a contract killer hired to assassinate me.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 1:17:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:58:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:48:57 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:20:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:18:57 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:12:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy.

Nope, the wrong comes from what you do or don't to with your wealth. Money in general.

Well, if you want the entirety of my argument, there's nothing right or wrong about anything. But there are some ways of getting money which we might classify as being more dickish than others.

I know your stance on right and wrong.

You mentioned getting money and the wrong in some ways.

How about what we do with it?

I would have a problem with somebody spending money on a contract killer hired to assassinate me.

How about someone spending money to hire a contract killer to assassinate me?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 1:22:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 1:17:42 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:58:22 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:48:57 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:20:09 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:18:57 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:12:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy.

Nope, the wrong comes from what you do or don't to with your wealth. Money in general.

Well, if you want the entirety of my argument, there's nothing right or wrong about anything. But there are some ways of getting money which we might classify as being more dickish than others.

I know your stance on right and wrong.

You mentioned getting money and the wrong in some ways.

How about what we do with it?

I would have a problem with somebody spending money on a contract killer hired to assassinate me.

How about someone spending money to hire a contract killer to assassinate me?

I dunno. We've never really met in person, and I don't think we even discuss much on here.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 1:27:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 1:22:13 AM, Cody_Franklin
How about someone spending money to hire a contract killer to assassinate me?

I dunno. We've never really met in person, and I don't think we even discuss much on here.

No we haven't talk much.

So is that how you would go about deciding if it would be wrong for someone to spend their money? The worth of a person according to you?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 1:47:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 1:27:48 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:22:13 AM, Cody_Franklin
How about someone spending money to hire a contract killer to assassinate me?

I dunno. We've never really met in person, and I don't think we even discuss much on here.

No we haven't talk much.

So is that how you would go about deciding if it would be wrong for someone to spend their money? The worth of a person according to you?

Since I don't have any moral principles, I have no way of determining whether it would be "wrong" of a person to spend their money.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 1:56:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 1:47:12 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:27:48 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:22:13 AM, Cody_Franklin
How about someone spending money to hire a contract killer to assassinate me?

I dunno. We've never really met in person, and I don't think we even discuss much on here.

No we haven't talk much.

So is that how you would go about deciding if it would be wrong for someone to spend their money? The worth of a person according to you?

Since I don't have any moral principles, I have no way of determining whether it would be "wrong" of a person to spend their money.

Well you mentioned "dickish" as a term for judging such things. Would that do?

And you mentioned having a problem with someone hitting an assassin to murder you. Would have a "problem" with someone doing the same to me?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 1:59:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 1:56:48 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:47:12 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:27:48 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:22:13 AM, Cody_Franklin
How about someone spending money to hire a contract killer to assassinate me?

I dunno. We've never really met in person, and I don't think we even discuss much on here.

No we haven't talk much.

So is that how you would go about deciding if it would be wrong for someone to spend their money? The worth of a person according to you?

Since I don't have any moral principles, I have no way of determining whether it would be "wrong" of a person to spend their money.

Well you mentioned "dickish" as a term for judging such things. Would that do?

Sure thing.

And you mentioned having a problem with someone hitting an assassin to murder you. Would have a "problem" with someone doing the same to me?

I dunno. I think that the idea of being able to hire contract killers in general is problematic for any society--I can't decidedly say I have a problem with someone taking out a contract on you (or anyone else I don't have a close relationship with), though. It's the difference between someone killing my girlfriend and killing a casual, yet distant acquaintance.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:13:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 1:59:03 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:56:48 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:47:12 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:27:48 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:22:13 AM, Cody_Franklin
How about someone spending money to hire a contract killer to assassinate me?

I dunno. We've never really met in person, and I don't think we even discuss much on here.

No we haven't talk much.

So is that how you would go about deciding if it would be wrong for someone to spend their money? The worth of a person according to you?

Since I don't have any moral principles, I have no way of determining whether it would be "wrong" of a person to spend their money.

Well you mentioned "dickish" as a term for judging such things. Would that do?

Sure thing.

And you mentioned having a problem with someone hitting an assassin to murder you. Would have a "problem" with someone doing the same to me?

I dunno. I think that the idea of being able to hire contract killers in general is problematic for any society--I can't decidedly say I have a problem with someone taking out a contract on you (or anyone else I don't have a close relationship with), though. It's the difference between someone killing my girlfriend and killing a casual, yet distant acquaintance.

Alright, now that the semantics are out of the way.

Is that how you go about deciding if you have a problem with someone hiring an assassin to murder someone? Worth or value to you?

I think you pretty much answered with your last post, but I don't want assume too much. And the "I dunno" left me wondering.

Do you have a problem with "I dunno" being your stance on issues like this?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 2:20:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 2:13:49 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:59:03 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:56:48 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:47:12 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:27:48 AM, jharry wrote:
At 4/28/2011 1:22:13 AM, Cody_Franklin
How about someone spending money to hire a contract killer to assassinate me?

I dunno. We've never really met in person, and I don't think we even discuss much on here.

No we haven't talk much.

So is that how you would go about deciding if it would be wrong for someone to spend their money? The worth of a person according to you?

Since I don't have any moral principles, I have no way of determining whether it would be "wrong" of a person to spend their money.

Well you mentioned "dickish" as a term for judging such things. Would that do?

Sure thing.

And you mentioned having a problem with someone hitting an assassin to murder you. Would have a "problem" with someone doing the same to me?

I dunno. I think that the idea of being able to hire contract killers in general is problematic for any society--I can't decidedly say I have a problem with someone taking out a contract on you (or anyone else I don't have a close relationship with), though. It's the difference between someone killing my girlfriend and killing a casual, yet distant acquaintance.

Alright, now that the semantics are out of the way.

Is that how you go about deciding if you have a problem with someone hiring an assassin to murder someone? Worth or value to you?

Or the threat of losing something I value. If I knew for a fact that a murderer was running loose, but wouldn't harm anyone of value to me, anyone I cared about, me personally, etc. (essentially, wouldn't harm any of my interests), it wouldn't matter to me. But the reason we have bans on murder now, and the reason that private firms would take up security in an anarchist society, is because we aren't omniscient, and we all have a shared interest in survival and such. That's why we generally don't just kill each other to get what we want: we'd end up getting killed or imprisoned ourselves.

I think you pretty much answered with your last post, but I don't want assume too much. And the "I dunno" left me wondering.

Yeah, one can't really judge something with regard to anything other than what one values.

Do you have a problem with "I dunno" being your stance on issues like this?

I mean "I dunno" because you aren't actually dead, and psychology shows us that we often act differently when a situation manifests in reality than when it is a mere hypothetical. Based on what I know about myself, I wouldn't be horribly distraught, but I can't say that I wouldn't feel some sense of loss, however small, if something were to happen to you.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 4:58:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 12:12:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy.

So long as you worked for the money and earned it honestly.

However, here in Britain, 76% of the country's marketable wealth is owned by the landed gentry who constitute less than 1% of the population - and most of these parasitic aristocrats have never done a day's work in their lives.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 5:12:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 4:58:19 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:12:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy.

So long as you worked for the money and earned it honestly.

What about cases of inheritance? If some individual A earns their money honesty, and chooses to pass it on to B, would you declare such a transfer illegitimate?

However, here in Britain, 76% of the country's marketable wealth is owned by the landed gentry who constitute less than 1% of the population - and most of these parasitic aristocrats have never done a day's work in their lives.

I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here. Are you talking about inherited wealth that the benefactors just sit/live on their whole life?
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 5:21:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 5:12:00 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 4:58:19 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:12:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy.

So long as you worked for the money and earned it honestly.

What about cases of inheritance? If some individual A earns their money honesty, and chooses to pass it on to B, would you declare such a transfer illegitimate?

However, here in Britain, 76% of the country's marketable wealth is owned by the landed gentry who constitute less than 1% of the population - and most of these parasitic aristocrats have never done a day's work in their lives.

I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here. Are you talking about inherited wealth that the benefactors just sit/live on their whole life?

No. They do spend it. But their income from rent (most of the people who have inherited wealth here also inherit large amounts of land) tends to cover their expenditure so that they don't need to work. I have nothing against people not working if they don't need to or want to. We don't live in a completely authoritarian country.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 5:36:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 5:12:00 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 4:58:19 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:12:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy.

So long as you worked for the money and earned it honestly.

What about cases of inheritance? If some individual A earns their money honesty, and chooses to pass it on to B, would you declare such a transfer illegitimate?

However, here in Britain, 76% of the country's marketable wealth is owned by the landed gentry who constitute less than 1% of the population - and most of these parasitic aristocrats have never done a day's work in their lives.

I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here. Are you talking about inherited wealth that the benefactors just sit/live on their whole life?

My objection is that a few aristocratic families just get wealthier and wealthier, generation after generation, until the vast majority of the nation's land and convertible assets are owned by a tiny minority of people.

I'm not the only one to object to this system of patronage and privilege.

Some peasants in France weren't too keen on it either and in 1789 they did something about it, the result was those aristocrats who did not abandon their property and flee ended up with their heads on spikes.

Personally, I'm not that ruthless and would favour higher inheritance taxes to be imposed on the most valuable estates as a measure to redistribute the wealth from the most privileged members of society to the more economically-disadvantaged.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 5:44:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 5:36:25 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 4/28/2011 5:12:00 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 4:58:19 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:12:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy.

So long as you worked for the money and earned it honestly.

What about cases of inheritance? If some individual A earns their money honesty, and chooses to pass it on to B, would you declare such a transfer illegitimate?

However, here in Britain, 76% of the country's marketable wealth is owned by the landed gentry who constitute less than 1% of the population - and most of these parasitic aristocrats have never done a day's work in their lives.

I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here. Are you talking about inherited wealth that the benefactors just sit/live on their whole life?


My objection is that a few aristocratic families just get wealthier and wealthier, generation after generation, until the vast majority of the nation's land and convertible assets are owned by a tiny minority of people.

I'm not the only one to object to this system of patronage and privilege.

Some peasants in France weren't too keen on it either and in 1789 they did something about it, the result was those aristocrats who did not abandon their property and flee ended up with their heads on spikes.

Personally, I'm not that ruthless and would favour higher inheritance taxes to be imposed on the most valuable estates as a measure to redistribute the wealth from the most privileged members of society to the more economically-disadvantaged.

This is the part I have a problem with.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 5:50:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 5:44:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 5:36:25 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 4/28/2011 5:12:00 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/28/2011 4:58:19 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 4/28/2011 12:12:10 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
There's nothing inherently wrong with being wealthy.

So long as you worked for the money and earned it honestly.

What about cases of inheritance? If some individual A earns their money honesty, and chooses to pass it on to B, would you declare such a transfer illegitimate?

However, here in Britain, 76% of the country's marketable wealth is owned by the landed gentry who constitute less than 1% of the population - and most of these parasitic aristocrats have never done a day's work in their lives.

I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here. Are you talking about inherited wealth that the benefactors just sit/live on their whole life?


My objection is that a few aristocratic families just get wealthier and wealthier, generation after generation, until the vast majority of the nation's land and convertible assets are owned by a tiny minority of people.

I'm not the only one to object to this system of patronage and privilege.

Some peasants in France weren't too keen on it either and in 1789 they did something about it, the result was those aristocrats who did not abandon their property and flee ended up with their heads on spikes.

Personally, I'm not that ruthless and would favour higher inheritance taxes to be imposed on the most valuable estates as a measure to redistribute the wealth from the most privileged members of society to the more economically-disadvantaged.

This is the part I have a problem with.

Yeah. Theft is normally looked down upon by most people.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 5:51:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also Brian, your example isn't a great one. Look at Britain (with all its flaws), now look at France, now back to Britain, now back to France. Doesn't it make you doggammed glad that you aren't French?!
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 6:22:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
But it's not theft! The government could increase the rate of inheritance tax on the most valuable estates and use that income to increase the income tax threshold: which would benefit everybody that works for a living, although the extra cash in the pay packets of those on lower incomes would be represent a higher proportion of their income than those of high earners.

Of course, if those who don't work won't benefit, so there will be an extra incentive for those people receiving welfare payments to get a job if they can.

Maybe, one day, even some of the parasitic aristocrats will decide they need to seek employment in order to fund their lavish lifestyles? No, probably not, they'll make sure that enough of their assets are beyond the reach of the taxman to carry on living their lives of obscene decadence come what may.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 6:32:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
My objection is that a few aristocratic families just get wealthier and wealthier, generation after generation, until the vast majority of the nation's land and convertible assets are owned by a tiny minority of people.:

And you're envious that you aren't in on the score... Gotcha...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 6:50:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 6:32:55 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
My objection is that a few aristocratic families just get wealthier and wealthier, generation after generation, until the vast majority of the nation's land and convertible assets are owned by a tiny minority of people.:

And you're envious that you aren't in on the score... Gotcha...

Not really, people would hate me because I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth and never had to work for a living like everybody else!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2011 10:22:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/28/2011 6:50:58 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 4/28/2011 6:32:55 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
My objection is that a few aristocratic families just get wealthier and wealthier, generation after generation, until the vast majority of the nation's land and convertible assets are owned by a tiny minority of people.:

And you're envious that you aren't in on the score... Gotcha...

Not really, people would hate me because I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth and never had to work for a living like everybody else!

You are horrible