Ummm... Lets jsut say that he doesnt exist, and be done with it, ok?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Wednesday, December 24, 2008 7:49:25 AM)| |  | Head banger wrote: | | no, his job is apearing in comercials, thats a volenteer spot, if you are a volenteer, how can you be exploited
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | No, he is exploited. He has to circle the globe in a single night, and give presents to little brats, and gets only milk and cookies in return.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, not exploited, the image of santa in red was created by coke, they spent money developing the image santa has today, shouldnt they be able to profit from that?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | He does, and he is being exploited by the Coca Cola corporation to appear in their adds. Ever wondered why he is all derssed up in red? Comrade Clause will be the leader of the new world revolution!
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Oh my dear friend, I did not mean to appear misleading ( two "L"'s in fallacious, by the way...HA!!!!!) . I am simply aware that this is an impasse for us. Would not be the first time and certainly will not be the last! We could continue to debate and counter but it is really a study in futility. I will accept that you have your opinion and I will have mine and we can let it go at that.
So, NEW topic. .... ? Does Santa Claus really exist?? HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Ok, leave if you want, but I will still answer this, and maybe someone else will pick up the flag...
THAT is terribly falacious. The whole point that I was making about the subject of capitalism is that we (or you or me, whichever way you put it), should be getting what we earn. Not to share it with the upper classes that get ridicilously more than they earn, since more often than not they earn nothing at all. What "greater good"? What "plight of the struggling labourer"? Sure, both these things could be used to describe socialism, as something which aims to achieve the "greater good" of all by fighting the "plight of the struggling labourer", but its really down to we getting what we earn. The difference between the two of us here would be that you think that capitalism can give that opportunity, while I do not, and I think I listed plenty of reasons for that. "Spreading the wealth" is imo a part of this, for reasons that I have already presented as well.
"Stiffling greatness"... Why the fuck not? If the great cannot be great without the help of mediocre ( as is the case)... Should they be great at all? And of course, how do you generaly define "better"? Is someone that is prepared to take risks that endanger him/herself and tons of other people really great... Or just plain irresponsible and dumb? And, when does one accomplish greatness? Is it when one has a huge corporation? What is so great about that?
| | | Deep Freeze wrote: | | Well, I believe I will jump out of this now. Does not seem to be getting anywhere and I think BS hit it right on the head. You see, I do not care about the "greater good", either! I care about me. I went to school for me. I spent twenty years in business for me. I sacrificed for me. The thing about all this talk on socialism is that it stifles greatness. Spreading the wealth is a fine sentiment but it give no incentive to the great to be great. I could not care less about the "plight of the struggling laborer". We all have our lot in life.
Now, I realize that last comment opens me up for a bunch of nastiness but I suppose I will accept that. The truly great men (and women) in the world are better. They strive to be more. To accomplish more. They strive for greatness. Some people do not have these lofty aspirations. They are content to be mediocre. Worse, there are those that would have the few be great and the mediocre be allowed to reap the benefits. No thank you. I do not care for what one person believes is "right". That makes NO difference to me. Fairness can go that way as well. If I am better, and I produce more and I accomplish greatness, I do not see why I should share that with a slug. I want more. I earned every bit. I stood above the others. I took the risk. That is how it is. If a company recognizes that and rewards me, that is just as it should be.
I do not advocate "firing" someone because I find a guy that can do his job "10 minutes faster". I advocate hiring that faster guy, too! Now I have TWO guys working and , with any luck, the slower one will find motivation in competition. If not, he can stay in his position so long as he DOES HIS JOB!! The faster guy may get promoted, who knows? I suppose it depends on how valuble time is to my company! As long as you are doing what you are paid to do, you should feel relatively safe. In difficult times, the faster guy might be more valuble? This is business not a contest to save people's feelings. Don't like that? OPEN YOUR OWN BUSINESS and do it YOUR way.
Edited at: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 8:32:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
