Why do we live in a culture (1 Viewer)

[perry147]

Thoughts?

 

[Moe Green]

Because the irresponsible can vote for politicians who enact laws/policy redistributing wealth from the responsible to the irresponsible.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Didn't timschochet just do this?

 

[perry147]

Didn't timschochet just do this?

Link me.

 

[adonis]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Didn't timschochet just do this?

Link me.

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=459136

 

[jonessed]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

People are selfish in general, not irresponsible. Only when you take away the cost/benefit proposition of using one's own money does selfishness turn to irresponsibility.

 

[adonis]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

People are selfish in general, not irresponsible. Only when you take away the cost/benefit proposition of using one's own money does selfishness turn to irresponsibility.

I disagree, I think people are irresponsible in general.For instance, how many people put significant thought and effort into choosing who to vote for in elections? Not many, and in most cases, very few. That's irresponsible because through a lack of preparation and consideration, we're putting people into positions of power basically, on a whim, in many cases, or just based on parties in others. I think that's irresponsible.It's also irresponsible to sign for a loan on a house that is more that you can afford. It's also irresponsible for banks to loan money to people who clearly can't pay it back. Certainly selfishness drives the greed that justifies their irresponsibility in some cases, but the irresponsibility is there.

 

[17seconds]

all I tell myself is that their irresponsibility causes them so many other problems in life that in the end I'm happier than them

 

[BigJohn]

s.o.c.i.a.l.i.s.m.

 

[Two Deep]

Because we have no criteria of who should be allowed to breed.

 

[Socrates11]

Because the irresponsible can vote for politicians who enact laws/policy redistributing wealth from the responsible to the irresponsible.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.That and women. Giving women the right to vote doomed this country. Women by nature depend on others for food and security.

 

[Pots]

Because the irresponsible can vote for politicians who enact laws/policy redistributing wealth from the responsible to the irresponsible.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.

That and women. Giving women the right to vote doomed this country. Women by nature depend on others for food and security.

You sir, are a wise man.

 

[OC Zed]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

X

That kind of mentality only promotes further justification for Big Brother.

 

[jonessed]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

People are selfish in general, not irresponsible. Only when you take away the cost/benefit proposition of using one's own money does selfishness turn to irresponsibility.

I disagree, I think people are irresponsible in general.For instance, how many people put significant thought and effort into choosing who to vote for in elections? Not many, and in most cases, very few. That's irresponsible because through a lack of preparation and consideration, we're putting people into positions of power basically, on a whim, in many cases, or just based on parties in others. I think that's irresponsible.It's also irresponsible to sign for a loan on a house that is more that you can afford. It's also irresponsible for banks to loan money to people who clearly can't pay it back. Certainly selfishness drives the greed that justifies their irresponsibility in some cases, but the irresponsibility is there.

All those instances seem to back my point. People are greedy with their own earnings/wealth, but when you are using someone else's earnings/wealth the risk factor goes away and they simply become irresponsible.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Thoughts?

Name a culture where people are responsible. Then tell me that you would actually want to live in that culture.

 

[perry147]

Because the irresponsible can vote for politicians who enact laws/policy redistributing wealth from the responsible to the irresponsible.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.

That and women. Giving women the right to vote doomed this country. Women by nature depend on others for food and security.

You sir, are a wise man.

My wife had more money than me when I married her, she can go out today and get a job making more than me, she has two college degrees and has successfully ran her own business in one of the toughest markets in the world (New York City), her family has lines to Dutch royalty (these is even a castle with her mothers maiden name on it), moreover my wife understands concepts that make my head spin and has invested our money very wisely even in this market. Maybe I am just lucky or you are dating the wrong type woman.

 

[adonis]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

X

That kind of mentality only promotes further justification for Big Brother.

X

Big Brother is irresponsible too.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Didn't timschochet just do this?

Yeah, but you could say that about any topic.

 

[HoldSteady]

Because liberalism is not only taken seriously but is also advanced by the government bureaucracy. Pretty much regardless of party in power.

 

[perry147]

Thoughts?

Name a culture where people are responsible. Then tell me that you would actually want to live in that culture.

So being irresponsible equals a more desirable culture? Because responsibility is less fun?

 

[5Rings]

Can anyone tell me why I should not change my name to Jose Jose and present no ID or Insurance information the next time I go to the ER?

Free!

 

[Pots]

Because the irresponsible can vote for politicians who enact laws/policy redistributing wealth from the responsible to the irresponsible.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.

That and women. Giving women the right to vote doomed this country. Women by nature depend on others for food and security.

You sir, are a wise man.

My wife had more money than me when I married her, she can go out today and get a job making more than me, she has two college degrees and has successfully ran her own business in one of the toughest markets in the world (New York City), her family has lines to Dutch royalty (these is even a castle with her mothers maiden name on it), moreover my wife understands concepts that make my head spin and has invested our money very wisely even in this market. Maybe I am just whipped.

Fixed.

 

[perry147]

Didn't timschochet just do this?

Yeah, but you could say that about any topic.

I did not think Tims was the same, his was more about running a business and ethics.Mine has to do with the how and why did the culture evolved the way it did.

 

[Moe Green]

Didn't timschochet just do this?

Yeah, but you could say that about any topic.

 

[Socrates11]

Because the irresponsible can vote for politicians who enact laws/policy redistributing wealth from the responsible to the irresponsible.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.

That and women. Giving women the right to vote doomed this country. Women by nature depend on others for food and security.

You sir, are a wise man.

My wife had more money than me when I married her, she can go out today and get a job making more than me, she has two college degrees and has successfully ran her own business in one of the toughest markets in the world (New York City), her family has lines to Dutch royalty (these is even a castle with her mothers maiden name on it), moreover my wife understands concepts that make my head spin and has invested our money very wisely even in this market. Maybe I am just lucky or you are dating the wrong type woman.

The exception to the rule does not disprove the rule.But if your wife is so smart, why'd she marry you instead of some European prince?

/I keed, I keed

 

[perry147]

Because the irresponsible can vote for politicians who enact laws/policy redistributing wealth from the responsible to the irresponsible.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.

That and women. Giving women the right to vote doomed this country. Women by nature depend on others for food and security.

You sir, are a wise man.

My wife had more money than me when I married her, she can go out today and get a job making more than me, she has two college degrees and has successfully ran her own business in one of the toughest markets in the world (New York City), her family has lines to Dutch royalty (these is even a castle with her mothers maiden name on it), moreover my wife understands concepts that make my head spin and has invested our money very wisely even in this market. Maybe I am just lucky or you are dating the wrong type woman.

The exception to the rule does not disprove the rule.But if your wife is so smart, why'd she marry you instead of some European prince?

/I keed, I keed :X

I am just lucky.Not all women are simple minded consumer whores.

It has a lot to do with hwe they are brought up.

 

[apalmer]

Blame it on those Christian values the right wing keeps saying the country was founded on.

Matthew 25:40-45

 

[H.K.]

People who think they are helping often times are actually doing more damage.

 

[Death Bytes]

Because liberalism is not only taken seriously but is also advanced by the government bureaucracy. Pretty much regardless of party in power.

Liberalism would be fine, and the ideology should be taken seriously, if it wasn't so readily infused with socialistic fiscal policy. Socialism only works at the micro level. It hasn't, and never will work on a macro level. But other liberal ideals should be defended at the macro level. The problem is with socialism, not with liberalism.

 

[perry147]

People who think they are helping often times are actually doing more damage.

This is very true.Welfare was set up to help those who had no other way to survive, but then after awhile people started to exploit it.By rewarding bad behavior you will encourage bad behavior.

 

[HoldSteady]

Because liberalism is not only taken seriously but is also advanced by the government bureaucracy. Pretty much regardless of party in power.

Liberalism would be fine, and the ideology should be taken seriously, if it wasn't so readily infused with socialistic fiscal policy. Socialism only works at the micro level. It hasn't, and never will work on a macro level. But other liberal ideals should be defended at the macro level. The problem is with socialism, not with liberalism.

I don't see the difference between socialism and liberalism in the past thirty years. One in the same, IMO.

 

[videoguy505]

We used to say "responsibility" as if we meant "dealing with the consequences of our decisions". Now we use responsibility in phrases like "Take responsibility for our community and our economy" and it means "making sure others don't have to deal with the consequences of their bad decisions".

 

[HoldSteady]

We used to say "responsibility" as if we meant "dealing with the consequences of our decisions". Now we use responsibility in phrases like "Take responsibility for our community and our economy" and it means "making sure others don't have to deal with the consequences of their bad decisions".

 

[Zot]

We all choose our own reality. If the responsible people refuse to fight for what they believe in, and the irresponsible people DO fight for what they want, then you get an irresponsible culture. Its nice to sit around and chat on a message board or listen to speeches. But that's just venting. To get what you want you really DO need to organize, rally, and mobilize people. There is no substitute for that.

 

[H.K.]

People who think they are helping often times are actually doing more damage.

This is very true.Welfare was set up to help those who had no other way to survive, but then after awhile people started to exploit it.By rewarding bad behavior you will encourage bad behavior.

To take the welfare example a step further, the system pays more to those with children....have more kids, get more money. This makes sense on a short term compassionate level, but it can create a lot of long term societal complications. I doubt many would disagree with the concept of helping those in need, but the problems come from helping those who don't or shouldn't have to need it, or need it as much.Obviously identifying the issues is simple, solutions are the tricky part.

 

[perry147]

People who think they are helping often times are actually doing more damage.

This is very true.Welfare was set up to help those who had no other way to survive, but then after awhile people started to exploit it.By rewarding bad behavior you will encourage bad behavior.

To take the welfare example a step further, the system pays more to those with children....have more kids, get more money. This makes sense on a short term compassionate level, but it can create a lot of long term societal complications. I doubt many would disagree with the concept of helping those in need, but the problems come from helping those who don't or shouldn't have to need it, or need it as much.Obviously identifying the issues is simple, solutions are the tricky part.

We could even extend this to corporate welfare. If Ford can't make and sell cars at a profitable margin they need to close.If you work for Ford or rely on Ford for your business , guess what? Time to find something new.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

Because liberalism is not only taken seriously but is also advanced by the government bureaucracy. Pretty much regardless of party in power.

Liberalism would be fine, and the ideology should be taken seriously, if it wasn't so readily infused with socialistic fiscal policy. Socialism only works at the micro level. It hasn't, and never will work on a macro level. But other liberal ideals should be defended at the macro level. The problem is with socialism, not with liberalism.

I don't see the difference between socialism and liberalism in the past thirty years. One in the same, IMO.

don't equate liberalism with democrat

 

[jaybebo]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

People are selfish in general, not irresponsible. Only when you take away the cost/benefit proposition of using one's own money does selfishness turn to irresponsibility.

I disagree, I think people are irresponsible in general.For instance, how many people put significant thought and effort into choosing who to vote for in elections? Not many, and in most cases, very few. That's irresponsible because through a lack of preparation and consideration, we're putting people into positions of power basically, on a whim, in many cases, or just based on parties in others. I think that's irresponsible.It's also irresponsible to sign for a loan on a house that is more that you can afford. It's also irresponsible for banks to loan money to people who clearly can't pay it back. Certainly selfishness drives the greed that justifies their irresponsibility in some cases, but the irresponsibility is there.

Thank you, adonis...you just proved why Obama is in the White House and why we have a Democratic Congress.Those that do not want to take responsibility for their needs and wants are looking to the current government to provide these needs and wants...via those that already took responsibility for those needs and wants.

 

[shake zula]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

People are selfish in general, not irresponsible. Only when you take away the cost/benefit proposition of using one's own money does selfishness turn to irresponsibility.

I disagree, I think people are irresponsible in general.For instance, how many people put significant thought and effort into choosing who to vote for in elections? Not many, and in most cases, very few. That's irresponsible because through a lack of preparation and consideration, we're putting people into positions of power basically, on a whim, in many cases, or just based on parties in others. I think that's irresponsible.It's also irresponsible to sign for a loan on a house that is more that you can afford. It's also irresponsible for banks to loan money to people who clearly can't pay it back. Certainly selfishness drives the greed that justifies their irresponsibility in some cases, but the irresponsibility is there.

Thank you, adonis...you just proved why Obama is in the White House and why we have a Democratic Congress.Those that do not want to take responsibility for their needs and wants are looking to the current government to provide these needs and wants...via those that already took responsibility for those needs and wants.

This would make perfect sense if every person in the U.S. was born with the same abilities and resources.

 

[adonis]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

People are selfish in general, not irresponsible. Only when you take away the cost/benefit proposition of using one's own money does selfishness turn to irresponsibility.

I disagree, I think people are irresponsible in general.For instance, how many people put significant thought and effort into choosing who to vote for in elections? Not many, and in most cases, very few. That's irresponsible because through a lack of preparation and consideration, we're putting people into positions of power basically, on a whim, in many cases, or just based on parties in others. I think that's irresponsible.It's also irresponsible to sign for a loan on a house that is more that you can afford. It's also irresponsible for banks to loan money to people who clearly can't pay it back. Certainly selfishness drives the greed that justifies their irresponsibility in some cases, but the irresponsibility is there.

Thank you, adonis...you just proved why Obama is in the White House and why we have a Democratic Congress.Those that do not want to take responsibility for their needs and wants are looking to the current government to provide these needs and wants...via those that already took responsibility for those needs and wants.

Unfortunately for your position, it also explains why Bush won and we had a republican controlled congress for many years recently, and why clinton was elected, and then bush before him, then reagan....on and on...jfk...on and on.

 

[Abraham]

There are no votes in telling people "no."

 

[Death Bytes]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

People are selfish in general, not irresponsible. Only when you take away the cost/benefit proposition of using one's own money does selfishness turn to irresponsibility.

I disagree, I think people are irresponsible in general.For instance, how many people put significant thought and effort into choosing who to vote for in elections? Not many, and in most cases, very few. That's irresponsible because through a lack of preparation and consideration, we're putting people into positions of power basically, on a whim, in many cases, or just based on parties in others. I think that's irresponsible.It's also irresponsible to sign for a loan on a house that is more that you can afford. It's also irresponsible for banks to loan money to people who clearly can't pay it back. Certainly selfishness drives the greed that justifies their irresponsibility in some cases, but the irresponsibility is there.

Thank you, adonis...you just proved why Obama is in the White House and why we have a Democratic Congress.Those that do not want to take responsibility for their needs and wants are looking to the current government to provide these needs and wants...via those that already took responsibility for those needs and wants.

Unfortunately for your position, it also explains why Bush won and we had a republican controlled congress for many years recently, and why clinton was elected, and then bush before him, then reagan....on and on...jfk...on and on.

The farther back you go, the less your argument applies. When "the great experiment" first started back in 1776, pretty much everyone who could vote took voting seriously. Who knew if such a radically new form of government could actually work? As time has progressed irresponsibility within voting has steadily increased.

 

[perry147]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

People are selfish in general, not irresponsible. Only when you take away the cost/benefit proposition of using one's own money does selfishness turn to irresponsibility.

I disagree, I think people are irresponsible in general.For instance, how many people put significant thought and effort into choosing who to vote for in elections? Not many, and in most cases, very few. That's irresponsible because through a lack of preparation and consideration, we're putting people into positions of power basically, on a whim, in many cases, or just based on parties in others. I think that's irresponsible.It's also irresponsible to sign for a loan on a house that is more that you can afford. It's also irresponsible for banks to loan money to people who clearly can't pay it back. Certainly selfishness drives the greed that justifies their irresponsibility in some cases, but the irresponsibility is there.

Thank you, adonis...you just proved why Obama is in the White House and why we have a Democratic Congress.Those that do not want to take responsibility for their needs and wants are looking to the current government to provide these needs and wants...via those that already took responsibility for those needs and wants.

This would make perfect sense if every person in the U.S. was born with the same abilities and resources.

I do not think anyone would want to throw a dieing man out on the street from a hospital if he could not pay his bill, just like we do not want a mother with four kids collecting welfare checks, just like we do not want the elderly left neglected and malnourished; there are degrees to which the rational applications of government assistance is needed.

 

[perry147]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

People are selfish in general, not irresponsible. Only when you take away the cost/benefit proposition of using one's own money does selfishness turn to irresponsibility.

I disagree, I think people are irresponsible in general.For instance, how many people put significant thought and effort into choosing who to vote for in elections? Not many, and in most cases, very few. That's irresponsible because through a lack of preparation and consideration, we're putting people into positions of power basically, on a whim, in many cases, or just based on parties in others. I think that's irresponsible.

It's also irresponsible to sign for a loan on a house that is more that you can afford. It's also irresponsible for banks to loan money to people who clearly can't pay it back.

Certainly selfishness drives the greed that justifies their irresponsibility in some cases, but the irresponsibility is there.

Thank you, adonis...you just proved why Obama is in the White House and why we have a Democratic Congress.Those that do not want to take responsibility for their needs and wants are looking to the current government to provide these needs and wants...via those that already took responsibility for those needs and wants.

Unfortunately for your position, it also explains why Bush won and we had a republican controlled congress for many years recently, and why clinton was elected, and then bush before him, then reagan....on and on...jfk...on and on.

The farther back you go, the less your argument applies. When "the great experiment" first started back in 1776, pretty much everyone who could vote took voting seriously. Who knew if such a radically new form of government could actually work? As time has progressed irresponsibility within voting has steadily increased.

Was the cause of this irresponsibility greed or the idea that is I am paying tax I should be allowed to vote, or what?

 

[adonis]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

People are selfish in general, not irresponsible. Only when you take away the cost/benefit proposition of using one's own money does selfishness turn to irresponsibility.

I disagree, I think people are irresponsible in general.For instance, how many people put significant thought and effort into choosing who to vote for in elections? Not many, and in most cases, very few. That's irresponsible because through a lack of preparation and consideration, we're putting people into positions of power basically, on a whim, in many cases, or just based on parties in others. I think that's irresponsible.It's also irresponsible to sign for a loan on a house that is more that you can afford. It's also irresponsible for banks to loan money to people who clearly can't pay it back. Certainly selfishness drives the greed that justifies their irresponsibility in some cases, but the irresponsibility is there.

Thank you, adonis...you just proved why Obama is in the White House and why we have a Democratic Congress.Those that do not want to take responsibility for their needs and wants are looking to the current government to provide these needs and wants...via those that already took responsibility for those needs and wants.

Unfortunately for your position, it also explains why Bush won and we had a republican controlled congress for many years recently, and why clinton was elected, and then bush before him, then reagan....on and on...jfk...on and on.

The farther back you go, the less your argument applies. When "the great experiment" first started back in 1776, pretty much everyone who could vote took voting seriously. Who knew if such a radically new form of government could actually work? As time has progressed irresponsibility within voting has steadily increased.

In american politics, perhaps. In politics in general, probably not. In humanity, certainly not.

 

[flufhed]

irresponsible is the new responsible.

duh

 

[shake zula]

Because people are irresponsible in general, and our culture is a reflection of our people.

People are selfish in general, not irresponsible. Only when you take away the cost/benefit proposition of using one's own money does selfishness turn to irresponsibility.

I disagree, I think people are irresponsible in general.For instance, how many people put significant thought and effort into choosing who to vote for in elections? Not many, and in most cases, very few. That's irresponsible because through a lack of preparation and consideration, we're putting people into positions of power basically, on a whim, in many cases, or just based on parties in others. I think that's irresponsible.It's also irresponsible to sign for a loan on a house that is more that you can afford. It's also irresponsible for banks to loan money to people who clearly can't pay it back. Certainly selfishness drives the greed that justifies their irresponsibility in some cases, but the irresponsibility is there.

Thank you, adonis...you just proved why Obama is in the White House and why we have a Democratic Congress.Those that do not want to take responsibility for their needs and wants are looking to the current government to provide these needs and wants...via those that already took responsibility for those needs and wants.

This would make perfect sense if every person in the U.S. was born with the same abilities and resources.

I do not think anyone would want to throw a dieing man out on the street from a hospital if he could not pay his bill, just like we do not want a mother with four kids collecting welfare checks, just like we do not want the elderly left neglected and malnourished; there are degrees to which the rational applications of government assistance is needed.

Agreed. People just disagree on the level of duty the state should have as it pertains to individual citizens. I think citizens should be entitled to more than just the bare minimum needed to keep them alive at a hospital. I think this because the state can do it without any difficulty if the money received from taxes was used differently. That same people that say taxes are too high are the same people that say sure "buy another 25 raptors jets" but then turn around and say that medicaid and medicare is overfunded.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

That same people that say taxes are too high are the same people that say sure "buy another 25 raptors jets" but then turn around and say that medicaid and medicare is overfunded.

i say taxes are too high and i most definitely do not support overspending on the military.do not equate fiscally conservative with republican.

 

[shake zula]

That same people that say taxes are too high are the same people that say sure "buy another 25 raptors jets" but then turn around and say that medicaid and medicare is overfunded.

i say taxes are too high and i most definitely do not support overspending on the military.do not equate fiscally conservative with republican.

I don't agree. Taxes are fine. It costs money to run this country. I think spending is too high. Especially military spending, but thats just the tip of the iceberg.