NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do people who are totally unaffected by certain issues seem to care about them so passionately? If someone and their spouse aren't harmed or helped by abortion rights, why do they picket? If someone lives in France, why do they oppose the war in Iraq? Whether or not someone is an American, if President Bush's policies haven't harmed them in any way, why hate him? If you don't live in Australia, why judge all Australians to be anti-Lebanese bigots who have no justification for being the way they are?

In my opinion, stressing out about issues that are totally out of your hands is just a great way to add more anxiety into your already f*cked up life. The world has far too many whiney idiots who think that they're opinions are more valid than others because of a mildly subliminal self superiority complex. Knee jerk reactions happen whenever someone brings up politics, religion, economics, race or sex, and all Hell breaks loose when two or more of those subjects mingle. But why?

Why do you even give a damn?

Here's a question that'll make your head hurt:

Why do you give a damn what we give a damn about?

Passion and/or compassion. Not everyone is driven only by their love for self.

Well aren't you the little cynic. :D

Passion and/or compassion. Not everyone is driven only by their love for self.

Even those driven by love of self can appreciate arguing about things that aren't our business. It gives us amusement.

Why do you even give a damn?

Because I can.

Why do you even give a damn?

Because you can do no good with only greed?

Because of compassion?

Because some people are capable of empathy or compasion... or perhaps because some people are able to understand that while they might not be directly affected - they can very well be indirectly affected.

Why do people who are totally unaffected by certain issues seem to care about them so passionately? If someone and their spouse aren't harmed or helped by abortion rights, why do they picket? If someone lives in France, why do they oppose the war in Iraq? Whether or not someone is an American, if President Bush's policies haven't harmed them in any way, why hate him? If you don't live in Australia, why judge all Australians to be anti-Lebanese bigots who have no justification for being the way they are?

In my opinion, stressing out about issues that are totally out of your hands is just a great way to add more anxiety into your already f*cked up life. The world has far too many whiney idiots who think that they're opinions are more valid than others because of a mildly subliminal self superiority complex. Knee jerk reactions happen whenever someone brings up politics, religion, economics, race or sex, and all Hell breaks loose when two or more of those subjects mingle. But why?

Why do you even give a damn?
Two reasons. One is that my life is affected by things that happen to others, evne in other parts of the world, so I care about them. Secondly, my daughter has to live in this world, hopefully longer than I do, so I take it as part of my responsiblity to leave it a better world than it was when I came into it. So I give a damn, and I work to try to make a difference.

Why do people who are totally unaffected by certain issues seem to care about them so passionately? If someone and their spouse aren't harmed or helped by abortion rights, why do they picket? If someone lives in France, why do they oppose the war in Iraq? Whether or not someone is an American, if President Bush's policies haven't harmed them in any way, why hate him? If you don't live in Australia, why judge all Australians to be anti-Lebanese bigots who have no justification for being the way they are?

In my opinion, stressing out about issues that are totally out of your hands is just a great way to add more anxiety into your already f*cked up life. The world has far too many whiney idiots who think that they're opinions are more valid than others because of a mildly subliminal self superiority complex. Knee jerk reactions happen whenever someone brings up politics, religion, economics, race or sex, and all Hell breaks loose when two or more of those subjects mingle. But why?

Why do you even give a damn?
Most people dont have enough to do.

Because noone lives in a vacuum, and everyone wants to change their immediate sphere of influence to suit their morals, ethics, religion, or attitudes of convenience.

Having compassion and empathy are a totally different ballgame from acting on compassion and empathy, or being forced to act on other people's compassion and empathy. I feel sorry when I see a homeless person in Los Angeles, but I don't feel like it's my responsibility to build the guy a house, feed him for nine months, educate him and give him a job. Why should it be?And I still have to pay taxes that go into section eight housing and welfare. That's money I could've spent on things that actually are important to me, like my car insurance or a Christmas gifts for my family.

Charity is stupid, obviously. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not people give a damn, though.

Having compassion and empathy are a totally different ballgame from acting on compassion and empathy, or being forced to act on other people's compassion and empathy. I feel sorry when I see a homeless person in Los Angeles, but I don't feel like it's my responsibility to build the guy a house, feed him for nine months, educate him and give him a job. Why should it be?And I still have to pay taxes that go into section eight housing and welfare. That's money I could've spent on things that actually are important to me, like my car insurance or a Christmas gifts for my family.

We answered that. Most of us accept that our materialistic wants are less important that another person's well-being. That is compassion.

Why do you even give a damn?

Well, I got this here 56-JUMBO-pack O' Damns, and I couldn't find a use for 'em around the house...

Having compassion and empathy are a totally different ballgame from acting on compassion and empathy, or being forced to act on other people's compassion and empathy. I feel sorry when I see a homeless person in Los Angeles, but I don't feel like it's my responsibility to build the guy a house, feed him for nine months, educate him and give him a job. Why should it be?And I still have to pay taxes that go into section eight housing and welfare. That's money I could've spent on things that actually are important to me, like my car insurance or a Christmas gifts for my family.
Compassion and empathy without action produces nothing. Some people feel like being productive, even if it does mean doing a little bit extra.

Volunteering to do that sort of thing when an issue effects someone is rational, but when people are so passionate as to force others to do that little extra bit as well is going too far. Whether they're being forced to help with a physical presence of a tax hike makes little difference to me. My priorities are to myself, my family, and my friends. Why the crap should I care if Hell is breaking loose in Darfur when I'm in friggin' Bakersfield?

Volunteering to do that sort of thing when an issue effects someone is rational, but when people are so passionate as to force others to do that little extra bit as well is going too far. Whether they're being forced to help with a physical presence of a tax hike makes little difference to me. My priorities are to myself, my family, and my friends. Why the crap should I care if Hell is breaking loose in Darfur when I'm in friggin' Bakersfield?

Well, since we insist on being materialistic and see no greater cause than material gain:

"Because some day you may be in a tough spot and they may be able to help."

Because you can do no good with only greed?

Funny, I don't see you throwing your computer out the window or smashing your car to bits with a bulldozer.

Both of those things [and plenty more] were brought to us primarily by greed. You think Henry Ford or Bill Gates made their advances as a public service? Good God man, open your eyes.

Why the crap should I care if Hell is breaking loose in Darfur when I'm in friggin' Bakersfield?
Because one of those guys in that hell in Darfur might decide to become a terrorist and drive a plane into the ground in Bakersfield or wherever you might happen to be at that point in time. The world is small now, and things happening elsewhere can come back to bite you in the ass later on.

You think Henry Ford or Bill Gates made their advances as a public service?


Bill Gates has made advancements?

Bill Gates has made advancements?
Don't be cheeky, you know what I mean.

Don't be cheeky, you know what I mean.

I don't. Microsoft's flagship product is poorly designed and implemented piece of crap. I'll admit that other software like Excel and Word and such are pretty good, but other companies (as well as the Open Source/Free Software community) make comparable products. Again, the only thing I can see Microsoft truely excelling at is convincing people to spend too much for an inferior product. This is hardly an "advancement," however; marketing is something that any successful company does well.

Edit: I'm all for self-interest, and the virtues thereof, but neither Bill Gates nor Microsoft are worth any special admiration.

Funny, I don't see you throwing your computer out the window or smashing your car to bits with a bulldozer.

Both of those things [and plenty more] were brought to us primarily by greed. You think Henry Ford or Bill Gates made their advances as a public service? Good God man, open your eyes.

Meh. Did they really do any particular good though? Was the good mitigated by their greed. Do you think Gates remains in business for monetary gain (besides which, why would he give so much of what he has away if he was interested in material gain)?

The point I was trying to make, however, was that the inherant greed of "Why help?" is neither practical, nor good.

I don't. Microsoft's flagship product is poorly designed and implemented piece of crap. I'll admit that other software like Excel and Word and such are pretty good, but other companies (as well as the Open Source/Free Software community) make comparable products. Again, the only thing I can see Microsoft truely excelling at is convincing people to spend too much for an inferior product. This is hardly an "advancement," however; marketing is something that any successful company does well.
Bashing Microsoft is a more popular pastime nowadays than even fucking, it seems.

Look, the Open Source/Free Software community [which is, as a general rule, vastly superior to Microsoft; a back to back comparison of Linux to any Windows iteration will clearly show this] wouldn't even fucking exist had DOS [or, perhaps even Windows] not been invented. I'm not going to give Gates or Microsoft all of the credit here, but Microsoft did have a lot to do with the spread of computing.

Meh. Did they really do any particular good though?
Oh silly me, of course not. After all, it's not like there's any observable benefits to having things like Ambulances or, say online medical information that you'd have had to pay out the nose for fifty years ago.

Was the good mitigated by their greed. Do you think Gates remains in business for monetary gain (besides which, why would he give so much of what he has away if he was interested in material gain)?
Of course he remains in business for monetary gain. Point?

The point I was trying to make, however, was that the inherant greed of "Why help?" is neither practical, nor good.
Depends on the situation, I suppose. I think you're speaking too broadly here for me to devise an approriate counter.

Because one of those guys in that hell in Darfur might decide to become a terrorist and drive a plane into the ground in Bakersfield or wherever you might happen to be at that point in time. The world is small now, and things happening elsewhere can come back to bite you in the ass later on.

I really have no intentions of living in fear of being killed for the rest of my life. I could walk into the parking lot and to get something out of my trunk later tonight and get splattered across the pavement by a drunken fratboy driving his mom's SUV home from a huge bash. I could drop my weights on my neck while I'm working the bench press. It's far more likely that I'm going to die while recovering from a mild heart attack when I'm in my late seventies than some crazy Muslim deciding to crash his plane into my dorm room blows me into cinders.

Bashing Microsoft is a more popular pastime nowadays than even fucking, it seems.


I wonder why that is.


Look, the Open Source/Free Software community...wouldn't even fucking exist had DOS [or, perhaps even Windows] not been invented.


OSS/Free Software operating systems tend to focus on Unix-like operating systems, for the most part. Unix was being developed at Bell Labs during the 1960's and 1970's. Students at UC Berkeley were (re)writing their own version, the open sourced BSD system, shortly thereafter (Edit: making the system open source was considered vital to the academic tradition; everytime I cite a source in a paper at school, I'm putting open source ideology into practice. So really, OSS has it's origins in centuries of academic process and procedure). Microsoft didn't release MS-DOS until 1981.

Seeing as how the foundation for the OSS/Free Software community was in place long before Microsoft was even a factor, it is not unreasonable to conclude that it would have been just fine had Microsoft not happened.

And besides, Microsoft didn't invent DOS. They bought it.

Edit: If we must worship someone for making the computer possible, make it someone who was actually important to the process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprocessor#The_first_chips

Well, I got this here 56-JUMBO-pack O' Damns, and I couldn't find a use for 'em around the house...
ROFLMAO!!! :D

Because no one lives in a vacuum

Hey, that's a false statement right there. How do you explain all of the liberals in college then?

And really, people give a damn because the Butterfly Chaos Theory is a reality. Every small thing can effect the larger hole, no matter how much it seems like it doesn't.

"Why do you even give a damn?"

Um ... because I realize that I don't live here alone, that my brothers and sisters live here too, and that anything I do has impact, no matter how small on their lives? Because my children and grandchildren will have to live with the results of what I and my contemporaries do? Because, as John Donne pointed out, "No man is an island?"

Ya think? DUH!

A bunch of stuff
Tell me, did it ever occur to you that this has not a goddamn thing to do with my point? So swap out this guy's name with Gates; does it really make any difference? No.

Apparently, Gates got rich doing nothing to hear you and the horde of Microsoft pundits say it. If that's the case fine, then I'll go back and edit out his name from my last post if it's that goddamn important.

Tell me, did it ever occur to you that this has not a goddamn thing to do with my point? So swap out this guy's name with Gates; does it really make any difference? No.

Apparently, Gates got rich doing nothing to hear you and the horde of Microsoft pundits say it. If that's the case fine, then I'll go back and edit out his name from my last post if it's that goddamn important.
[ Reports Melkor Unchained for flaming. ] :D

[ Reports Melkor Unchained for flaming. ] :D

Flaming? On the NS boards? Bwaaaah? :eek:

Flaming? On the NS boards? Bwaaaah? :eek:
Yeah. Silly me. What WAS I thinking? :D

Tell me, did it ever occur to you that this has not a goddamn thing to do with my point?


You asserted that OSS/Free Software would not exist if not for Microsoft products like DOS and Windows. I showed that you are wrong. If this issue is irevelant, why did you bring it up?


Apparently, Gates got rich doing nothing to hear you and the horde of Microsoft pundits say it.


First, I'd like you to show me where I argued any such thing.

Second, I would still like to know how getting rich selling a product that one's company didn't even invent counts as an "advancement." I'd say that the widely recognized poor design and flawed security of his product, coupled with the widespread distribution of such a faulty product (often via cartel-like business practices) leading to serious security problems spread across the internet, is anything but an "advancement."

The idea that activity driven by self-interest can lead to great things is certainly valid. The example/evidence given in defense of that point, however, is seriously flawed.

More shit
Did you pay any attention to what I said in my last post, or did you just decide to tear it down regardless of what I said?

Fine, you're right about everything [and I'm not being sarcastic]; I'm not particularly interested in contesting the details of Microsoft's sordid business history or questionable product quality [XP so far seems to be a decent Operating System, surprisngly enough], as I am not an authority on the computer industry and never pretended to be.

The long and short of it was that i needed a well known name to throw out there, and it seemed I picked one that's not to your liking. It doesn't particularly make a difference to me that Gates wasn't responsible for the changes I had thought he might have had something to do with 2 hours ago; my point is that the advances brought to us in the form of home computing were not done as a public service and that the people responsible for perpetuating them were and are still interested in making money hand over fist.

My point here is that the primary motivating principle [whether you're Gates or whoever] probably wasn't just "to make the world a better place." They wanted to make money, therefore these things were brought to us [broadly speaking] by "greed."

Christ, have you had enough yet or do you want to wander away from my point some more?

The long and short of it was that i needed a well known name to throw out there, and it seemed I picked one that's not to your liking.


It is probably not going to be to the liking of someone who is actually not inclined to agree with your point, either. If I already agree with the conclusion, but still reject the argument, how should we expect someone not inclined to agree with the conclusion to react? It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but I tend to think that the minor details are extremely important, especially as people have a tendency to overlook them in the rush to just throw something out there. I would think that if one wants to make an argument, one should avoid this sort of behavior. Edit: Thinking that one's example might support one's point is not a good way to make an argument.

And besides, most personality quizzes and tests I've taken indicate that I am prone to overanalyzing and picking apart minor details. I can't help it, it's in my DNA. :D

It is probably not going to be to the liking of someone who is actually not inclined to agree with your point, either.

Replace Gates with Edison then. Or with James Watt.

Replace Gates with Edison then.

I'm not the one making the assertion, so it's not my job to make it work.

Alright DC, I'll admit I had not processed the entirety of your most recent post on account of the fact that I saw what appeared to be more pedantry and reacted rather violently. It seems you've actually addressed my point [finally], so allow me to explain myself:

Microsoft is generally [rightly or wrongly] held to be more or less synonymous with home computing, alongside organizations like Apple and IBM. I could have put someone like Federico Faggin or Gary Boone in there, but would anyone really know what I was talking about? No. When I talk about "advances" made "by Gates," I mean to invoke the broader implications of the spread of home computing; I had thought this much was obvious, hence my initial response to your challenge.

The same thing applies to Henry Ford, as my mention of him serves primarily to illustrate the fact that we've got a shit ton of cars in this country rather than the specific business undertakings of Mr. Ford, since a lot of cars are imported. See what I mean now?

Christ, have you had enough yet or do you want to wander away from my point some more?

I don't. I think you have an excellent point and conveyed it in a way that anyone with two brain cells definitely got it on the first try. Thing is, if people can't find a way to argue against a point they emotionally feel is wrong, they scratch at some unimportant scab of a detail in the hope that the rest of a well formed argument will bleed. By all means, continue to rock.

No man is an island, that's true. We have connections to others, and others have connections to others. Fantastic. But if a person is employed, their neighbors are employed, their friends and family don't have any problem finding employment, and there are more jobs available than there are citizens of a country, why do people want to whine about a 5% unemployment rate? If someone isn't going to stop the implementation of the death penalty, ever, and isn't going to stop Tookie from going to Hell, why do they opt to freeze their ass off at midnight? I say they're friggen A) whiney B) delusional C) indoctrinated. That's just my theory.

I had thought this much was obvious, hence my initial response to your challenge.


It was obvious to you and me, but not necessarily to the next guy to come along.

Thing is, if people can't find a way to argue against a point they emotionally feel is wrong...


As I've already said, I agree with the point. I disagree with the argument.

As I've already said, I agree with the point. I disagree with the argument.

You replied while I was replying. I still stand by my point, even if it's no longer relevant to this thread.

I don't. I think you have an excellent point and conveyed it in a way that anyone with two brain cells definitely got it on the first try.
Thus if if i disagree, i musnt have two braincells, right? Do me a favour and die in a horribly painfull way, in the near future, person-i-dont-know-but-got-broad-stroke-insulted-by.
Because you can do no good with only greed?
Funny, I don't see you throwing your computer out the window or smashing your car to bits with a bulldozer.

Both of those things [and plenty more] were brought to us primarily by greed. You think Henry Ford or Bill Gates made their advances as a public service? Good God man, open your eyes.
But you did notice the word "only", did you? With it taken into account your argument isnt valid. Yes, greed can do some good. Pure greed, and nothing else to mellow it, wont.

But you did notice the word "only", did you? With it taken into account your argument isnt valid. Yes, greed can do some good. Pure greed, and nothing else to mellow it, wont.
Yes.

The 'mellowing' factor, as you put it, is quite clearly rationality; seeing as [despite what you may have to say about them] Gates and Ford didn't use their money to hire armed thugs to take monetary resources straight from our pockets, for example. I would be willing to bet that Kinda Sensible People wasn't accounting for this either [as you have also failied to do], denouncing 'greed' in all of its forms simply for the sake of adhering to our standard of morality. He wasn't referring to 'pure greed' or even 'rational greed,' just greed in general; I'd have thought the context would have made that painfully obvious. Silly me.