These kids are in for a rude awakening...

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
You were never a GOP er.

You were just registered that way.
Not true. It was only a few years ago that Larry was a *hard* right-winger. Against abortion, against same-sex marriage, and not particularly interested in paying for illegal immigrants and their educational endeavors. He also felt that everyone should get a bill for their taxes instead of having them taken out of their paycheck; the idea being that if we actually had to *pay* that bill, we would be more interested in making our Congresstards stop taxing us to death.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Not true. It was only a few years ago that Larry was a *hard* right-winger. Against abortion, against same-sex marriage, and not particularly interested in paying for illegal immigrants and their educational endeavors. He also felt that everyone should get a bill for their taxes instead of having them taken out of their paycheck; the idea being that if we actually had to *pay* that bill, we would be more interested in making our Congresstards stop taxing us to death.
I have not been against abortion since Alex was born. You talked me out of being against gay marriage. Taxes are a construct used to control the middle class. The rich will just make more, the poor can't afford 'em. I've long said illegals earned there way and I saw it first hand every day for 20 years. I was the only fool that didn't hire them. So, here I am.
 

Kyle

Having a Beer while the world burns!
PREMO Member
Not true. It was only a few years ago that Larry was a *hard* right-winger. Against abortion, against same-sex marriage, and not particularly interested in paying for illegal immigrants and their educational endeavors. He also felt that everyone should get a bill for their taxes instead of having them taken out of their paycheck; the idea being that if we actually had to *pay* that bill, we would be more interested in making our Congresstards stop taxing us to death.
Did Donald Sutherland sneak a pod into the house and replace him?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Thank you.
You're welcome.

I never disagreed with this part of your point. The part with which I disagree is whether or not liking parts of the past means you must embrace everything about that time. From my first post in this thread I said most of the kids today are ok - but I also said those who aren't are worse every generation. Like most generations, it seems, the people pushing and pulling the wagon outnumber and accept those who are going for the ride in the wagon.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
You're welcome.

I never disagreed with this part of your point. The part with which I disagree is whether or not liking parts of the past means you must embrace everything about that time. From my first post in this thread I said most of the kids today are ok - but I also said those who aren't are worse every generation. Like most generations, it seems, the people pushing and pulling the wagon outnumber and accept those who are going for the ride in the wagon.
I don't mean to argue that if you liked the westward expansion, that the US ended up dominating the middle of the continent, that you then must like genocide. Nor do I argue that if you like the polio vaccine that you must also embrace the destruction of 1,000's of monkey's to develop it or that you must think that the segregation Brown v. Board of Ed ended the year before was just peachy. What I am saying, in direct response to this ongoing, old as time theme of todays kids are useless, pale comparisons to their hearty forbearers is complete, utter nonsense. I mean to put things into context. It was NOT necessary to due mass murder on the natives to take over. It was simply expeditious for mean men looking to make their fortune. It WOULD have happened with out without that. The segregation of Alabama may well have long been a thing of the past, died of it's own weight, had the North and South not been lead by people who saw war as the way to end slavery, an institution expanded by the cotton gin and doomed by it, were it only given time. The war was the way to long term anger and division, not national progress.

This blanket analogy of 'things were better in the good old days' is dumb, thoughtless balderdash and it's annoying because it's the core tripe of the Trump era. You can't say 'make America great again' and be about all the good things absent the context of the bad. For white men, the world was a better place, in general, in the 1950's because women and blacks were not part of the competition for jobs, promotions, raises, respect and wealth accumulation. If you, not you, generic 'you' say things were better then BECAUSE of that, as I personally know one Trump fanatic thinks, that could at least be discussed and not swept away. Even Noam Chomskey understands WHY whites and white men, the blue collar, are threatened by today; they're the ones who've lost the most to immigrants and blacks. It only makes sense that those who pay for it, and have not seen it replaced by other opportunities, would object.

And there have ALWAYS been lazy, useless people in large numbers. This is nothing new. Rome collapsed of it. Prohibition was built on the fear of it. Teddy wanted specifically for us to build our military and threaten to use it because he thought the nation had grown soft. Human nature changes no more than the nature of snakes and snails and monkeys and bears. I will conceded that what has changed over the years, starting in the industrial revolution, is tools, the direct impact on needing less people to push and pull. But, again, that has nothing to do with human nature. A steam shovel IS going to outwork 100 men. A plane is going to beat a wagon. A combine is going to feed more people. Computers do make many other jobs obsolete.

Lack of need for work is a central theme of mine to one of the, perhaps THE, major challenge we face; a world without work. We do NOT need all these people for food, shelter and clothing. More people, less need for them, is not something the majority is going to work their way out of. It's just not. Our culture has LONG been formed around things we don't need to survive. Most of what we do is useless other that as a vehicle for the few to get rich and to keep as many as possible occupied and on a financial leash. That's not good or bad in and of itself. It simply is an observation. FDR's grand economic plan was war. Kids today probably aren't gonna fall for that.

:buddies:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I don't mean to argue that if you liked the westward expansion, that the US ended up dominating the middle of the continent, that you then must like genocide. Nor do I argue that if you like the polio vaccine that you must also embrace the destruction of 1,000's of monkey's to develop it or that you must think that the segregation Brown v. Board of Ed ended the year before was just peachy. What I am saying, in direct response to this ongoing, old as time theme of todays kids are useless, pale comparisons to their hearty forbearers is complete, utter nonsense. I mean to put things into context. It was NOT necessary to due mass murder on the natives to take over. It was simply expeditious for mean men looking to make their fortune. It WOULD have happened with out without that. The segregation of Alabama may well have long been a thing of the past, died of it's own weight, had the North and South not been lead by people who saw war as the way to end slavery, an institution expanded by the cotton gin and doomed by it, were it only given time. The war was the way to long term anger and division, not national progress.

This blanket analogy of 'things were better in the good old days' is dumb, thoughtless balderdash and it's annoying because it's the core tripe of the Trump era. You can't say 'make America great again' and be about all the good things absent the context of the bad. For white men, the world was a better place, in general, in the 1950's because women and blacks were not part of the competition for jobs, promotions, raises, respect and wealth accumulation. If you, not you, generic 'you' say things were better then BECAUSE of that, as I personally know one Trump fanatic thinks, that could at least be discussed and not swept away. Even Noam Chomskey understands WHY whites and white men, the blue collar, are threatened by today; they're the ones who've lost the most to immigrants and blacks. It only makes sense that those who pay for it, and have not seen it replaced by other opportunities, would object.

And there have ALWAYS been lazy, useless people in large numbers. This is nothing new. Rome collapsed of it. Prohibition was built on the fear of it. Teddy wanted specifically for us to build our military and threaten to use it because he thought the nation had grown soft. Human nature changes no more than the nature of snakes and snails and monkeys and bears. I will conceded that what has changed over the years, starting in the industrial revolution, is tools, the direct impact on needing less people to push and pull. But, again, that has nothing to do with human nature. A steam shovel IS going to outwork 100 men. A plane is going to beat a wagon. A combine is going to feed more people. Computers do make many other jobs obsolete.

Lack of need for work is a central theme of mine to one of the, perhaps THE, major challenge we face; a world without work. We do NOT need all these people for food, shelter and clothing. More people, less need for them, is not something the majority is going to work their way out of. It's just not. Our culture has LONG been formed around things we don't need to survive. Most of what we do is useless other that as a vehicle for the few to get rich and to keep as many as possible occupied and on a financial leash. That's not good or bad in and of itself. It simply is an observation. FDR's grand economic plan was war. Kids today probably aren't gonna fall for that.

:buddies:
It did seem as if the points you say you weren't making you actually were trying to make. But, I take you at your word that you weren't making them.

In the context of believing our parents worked harder, we work(ed) harder than our kids, our grandparents worked harder than our parents, etc., you make the great point that all of that is true due to innovation. I certainly didn't need enough money for a cell phone when I was a young adult - because there was no such thing except on Charlie's Angels in their all-Ford Mustang line-up. My dad didn't need a computer or calculator - no such (home-sized version) of the things existed. So, life is more expensive, and more easy. Philosophically, most of the kids "get" that they have to earn their keep, but in some ways justifiably believe it is more difficult for them. We don't think so, because what they "NEED" they don't really need - be it "safe spaces" for the tiny minority of them or the latest Android/iPhone doodad that are neat but not needed (by us).

I agree with you that this same technological expansion means we don't need the same numbers of workers doing the same things. I counter that we simply need them doing different things.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I have faith prayers, by definition, are always answered and that sometimes the answer is 'no'. Or 'maybe' or 'please restate your wish' or 'yes'. Or 'get the #### out of here'.
[video=youtube;Il4qOQGUGbo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il4qOQGUGbo[/video]
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Philosophically, most of the kids "get" that they have to earn their keep, .
Ah, but they do NOT have to earn their keep. If we start with a farm, no store in reach, as the basis for life, you have to grow it, kill it, process it, make it, store it, take care of it or you don't have it, then, by that standard, kids today do not need to earn their keep. MOST of us do not. Food, shelter, clothing, we have WAY more than enough for everyone. In the past, migration or a technological advance or some combination of the two has kept that need, those abilities, more or less intact. But, no more. No one on this planet is starving or without clothing or shelter BECAUSE we don't have enough. We have plenty and want is purely artificial now. Everywhere.
 
Ah, but they do NOT have to earn their keep. If we start with a farm, no store in reach, as the basis for life, you have to grow it, kill it, process it, make it, store it, take care of it or you don't have it, then, by that standard, kids today do not need to earn their keep. MOST of us do not. Food, shelter, clothing, we have WAY more than enough for everyone. In the past, migration or a technological advance or some combination of the two has kept that need, those abilities, more or less intact. But, no more. No one on this planet is starving or without clothing or shelter BECAUSE we don't have enough. We have plenty and want is purely artificial now. Everywhere.
Let's see if I can simplify... you see the world as having plenty but you do not acknowledge the world only has the tangibles because there are those to work to provide. I think at some point you have to go back and read "The Little Red Hen" again.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Let's see if I can simplify... you see the world as having plenty but you do not acknowledge the world only has the tangibles because there are those to work to provide. I think at some point you have to go back and read "The Little Red Hen" again.
That's the example you wanna use, really? That a highly successful, independent chicken makes enough bread to feed everyone on the farm but was unable or unwilling to negotiate to get some help, help, clearly, she didn't need in the first place, and then, sits there, smugly, feeding her babies while watching everyone else starve to death? Because they, ostensibly, did absolutely NOTHING the entire time, from planting to harvest to processing to eating? They did NOTHING. No cow #### to create manure? No worm aerated the soil? No bee pollinated anything? No insects were consumed by the hen until the bread was ready? No companionship? No keeping the hawks away from her while she worked? No music or entertainment?

Maybe this is what I really don't get around here; this is how you people actually think. Like children.

The little red hen CAN feed everyone. And chooses not to. Because she's a narrow minded, entirely self interested entity that sees NO value in anyone or anything else UNLESS they are doing specifically what she wants them to do.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Ah, but they do NOT have to earn their keep. If we start with a farm, no store in reach, as the basis for life, you have to grow it, kill it, process it, make it, store it, take care of it or you don't have it, then, by that standard, kids today do not need to earn their keep. MOST of us do not. Food, shelter, clothing, we have WAY more than enough for everyone. In the past, migration or a technological advance or some combination of the two has kept that need, those abilities, more or less intact. But, no more. No one on this planet is starving or without clothing or shelter BECAUSE we don't have enough. We have plenty and want is purely artificial now. Everywhere.
Well, they DO have to earn their keep, because all of that stuff belongs to someone else. If they want it for themselves, they need to earn it.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
That's the example you wanna use, really? That a highly successful, independent chicken makes enough bread to feed everyone on the farm but was unable or unwilling to negotiate to get some help, help, clearly, she didn't need in the first place, and then, sits there, smugly, feeding her babies while watching everyone else starve to death? Because they, ostensibly, did absolutely NOTHING the entire time, from planting to harvest to processing to eating? They did NOTHING. No cow #### to create manure? No worm aerated the soil? No bee pollinated anything? No insects were consumed by the hen until the bread was ready? No companionship? No keeping the hawks away from her while she worked? No music or entertainment?

Maybe this is what I really don't get around here; this is how you people actually think. Like children.

The little red hen CAN feed everyone. And chooses not to. Because she's a narrow minded, entirely self interested entity that sees NO value in anyone or anything else UNLESS they are doing specifically what she wants them to do.
So, if I read you correctly, you believe that we will continue to create and innovate, produce and cultivate, supply and restock, and everyone will be equal in those distributions of supplies while no one needs to actually do the work for it? The workers will simply do it out of the goodness of their hearts (since they don't HAVE to work, just like the people they're supplying)? Or, will we have a team that determines who must perform the slave labor?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Well, they DO have to earn their keep, because all of that stuff belongs to someone else. If they want it for themselves, they need to earn it.
Let's put this in context. For the first time in world history, we have the material ability to provide food, clothing and shelter for everyone on the planet, ever cheaper and with ever LESS need for more workers to do it. That is what success looks like.

However, now what? We keep adding people...that we don't need.

Further, and I think this is the thing that hangs up many people, including Kwil, we live in a fiat economy. There is no cash being exchanged, no gold, no goods or services. You don't sweep the floor for the grocery store, you don't do oil changes for the car dealer, you don't provide yarn for the sweater store. And you don't physically help some Super Chicken to make bread. You swipe a card, a transaction occurs. Period. It's not real other than because we all agree to it being real. That right there is hard to grasp if you think about it in terms of handing the bread guy a physical coin someone else gave you for working a field and it's only made worse by using a child's economic tale that presupposes that no one does ANYTHING at all in the vacuum of the story except the Super Chicken who, herself, like everyone else, can live, magically, off of nothing until that bread grows and is harvested.

If we use that kids story, we could say, about today, to make my point for 6 years olds, "Yeah, plenty of bread CAN be made by ONE chicken, more than enough to feed EVERYONE else but the right thing to do is watch them starve to death because, if they do not help work the bread process, they DESERVE to die." OR we could say, yeah, one chicken CAN make it all, feed everyone and all the others can do other things, things that have NOTHING to do with survival because we're so successful, we got that covered SO well that ONE chicken can feed a farm.

That opens up a moral can of worms.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
So, if I read you correctly, you believe that we will continue to create and innovate, produce and cultivate, supply and restock, and everyone will be equal in those distributions of supplies while no one needs to actually do the work for it? The workers will simply do it out of the goodness of their hearts (since they don't HAVE to work, just like the people they're supplying)? Or, will we have a team that determines who must perform the slave labor?
Nope. I said NOTHING about equality. I got NO problem if Super Chicken gets the master bedroom and gets to take vacations and have an airplane and yacht and all sorts of stuff. Maybe THAT is what the others can do instead of the chicken watching them starve to death?
 
Top