Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Meh. Who defines what constitutes "positive contribution"?

It's different for everyone.
Has nothing to do with money.
More like "making the world a better place."
Can be as simple as picking up the garbage, or as complex as finding a way to prevent cancer.

Then your statement is meaningless. Unless you can define what is "positive contribution" (which necessarily means religious oppression), "positive contribution" could be anything which is exactly what we have now. Cheers.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What's worse, in my opinion, is that both are a drain on the people involved.The country can handle a little draining, but people have to contribute to be fulfilled in life.

I'm inclined to agree. My plan is to retire in 12 yrs and build Arts & Crafts furniture. If I start soon i'll be actually good at it by then...maybe sell my pieces on consignment. Producing durable goods that could last for 200 yrs...that i'd call contribution.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Your position is consistent. I believe in safety nets and protecting seniors that have worked all their lives and are ready to retire from the capriciousness of the economy. The idle rich and people that just dont want to work are at the very edges of the spectrum and seem to have the same goal of not working and not contributing. For some reason one is vilified and one is celebrated. That is what I don't understand.

I will gladly volunteer to be one of the idle rich, and see how it effects me. I know its a sacrifice, but for the sake of science I am willing to give it a try.

Originally Posted by Dedalus

I will gladly volunteer to be one of the idle rich, and see how it effects me. I know its a sacrifice, but for the sake of science I am willing to give it a try.

Heh. I'll be happy to join you.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Meh. Who defines what constitutes "positive contribution"?

You do. Or I do. Or whoever is doing, does.

What's with you kids and this refusal to think with your own minds? Must everything be handed to you in Official Approved form? What will you do when you finally have to start assuming responsibility for yourselves?

(or will you simply allow there to be formed for you an adult world to follow-through with your childhood one, wherein all responsibility is taken on for you by Authority, and you can simply move through your days snug in the grip of someone else's plans?)

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Meh. Who defines what constitutes "positive contribution"?

You do. Or I do. Or whoever is doing, does.

What's with you kids and this refusal to think with your own minds? Must everything be handed to you in Official Approved form? What will you do when you finally have to start assuming responsibility for yourselves?

(or will you simply allow there to be formed for you an adult world to follow-through with your childhood one, wherein all responsibility is taken on for you by Authority, and you can simply move through your days snug in the grip of someone else's plans?)

Justin, what the hell are you talking about? Are you tryna pick a fight?

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Justin, what the hell are you talking about? Are you trying pick a fight?

Huh? You asked a question that itself fundamentally assumed a radically false (and, more importantly, damaging) worldview. I answered the question and addressed the worldview. If you feel that such a worldview needs defending to the level of 'fighting', then I guess criticizing it would constitute a fight.

Otherwise, it's just plain criticism. Adults give and take that without fighting.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I think she was saying beware of authority, or of becoming authoritative about it.

I would think that, except that your implication was very clear that 'positive contribution' isn't a thing that needs defining by authority. She introduced a need for authority by insisting on a Definition.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Justin, what the hell are you talking about? Are you tryna pick a fight?

Huh? You asked a question that itself fundamentally assumed a radically false (and, more importantly, damaging) worldview. I answered the question and addressed the worldview. If you feel that such a worldview needs defending to the level of 'fighting', then I guess criticizing it would constitute a fight.

Otherwise, it's just plain criticism. Adults give and take that without fighting.

In other words, yes, you are tryna pick a fight.

Just in case you wanted to know, The Rani's answer adequately expresses the meaning behind the question.

Hence the response:

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Justin, what the hell are you talking about?

I would go into the whole "reading for comprehension" or "skimming for dickery" bit, but I think I've already proven my point...

Cheers.

I actually agree with this. I don't know about the bad karma bit, but in an ideal world everyone should contribute something positive.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Well, I'll probably get slammed by EVERYONE for this, but here goes ...

I happen to believe that both forms of idle income are bad karma, whether it's sitting on your ass collecting welfare or sitting on your ass playing the stock market.
Everyone needs to make a positive contribution to society to feel good about him/herself.
You don't need to get paid for it either, you just need to do it.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Alright. I'm not playing games with you. I answered that question already in my previous post. And then you came back with this incomprehensible response. I asked you if you understood what I wrote and you said you did but refuse to say what it is. Hutch, sweetie, when you are ready to engage in a discussion, let me know. But I really don't have time for this. I got better things to do. Cheers.

Oh good. Mission accomplished.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I would go into the whole "reading for comprehension" or "skimming for dickery" bit, but I think I've already proven my point...

Hmm ... I wanted to go back and quote something you said which helped me figure out what you meant, but now I see that you have deleted it.
I don't think you can blame Justin for the misunderstanding.

Something about "thou shalt make a positive contribution" ...

Well...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Meh. Who defines what constitutes "positive contribution"?

It's different for everyone.
Has nothing to do with money.
More like "making the world a better place."
Can be as simple as picking up the garbage, or as complex as finding a way to prevent cancer.

Then your statement is meaningless. Unless you can define what is "positive contribution" (which necessarily means religious oppression), "positive contribution" could be anything which is exactly what we have now. Cheers.

All he had to do was scroll down a bit and see that I was not asking the question literally. Either he didn't want to see where the conversation was going...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

"skimming for dickery"

or he didn't understand....

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

"reading for comprehension"

or he was tryna pick a fight.

Best...

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Alright. I'm not playing games with you. I answered that question already in my previous post. And then you came back with this incomprehensible response. I asked you if you understood what I wrote and you said you did but refuse to say what it is. Hutch, sweetie, when you are ready to engage in a discussion, let me know. But I really don't have time for this. I got better things to do. Cheers.

Oh good. Mission accomplished.

Your welcome. [though why it took you a whole day to thank me is beyond me.] Best...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Your welcome. [though why it took you a whole day to thank me is beyond me.] Best...

Mission not quite accomplished:

I'll note that you've misunderstood 2 things here. 1) that I was thanking you (which I was not) and 2) that somehow I ought to be on your posting schedule. I am not and will not post replys based on someone elses preferred schedule. Get used to it.
Actually you misunderstood a 3rd thing as well. But I'll let you try to figure out it.

Give it up.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Mission not quite accomplished:

I'll note that you've misunderstood 2 things here. 1) that I was thanking you (which I was not) and 2) that somehow I ought to be on your posting schedule. I am not and will not post replys based on someone elses preferred schedule. Get used to it.
Actually you misunderstood a 3rd thing as well. But I'll let you try to figure out it.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Give it up.

Now I'm confused.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Give it up.

Now I'm confused.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

...I really don't have time for this. I got better things to do...

..........

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

..........

Ok, not confused any longer. You just like having the last word. Because when someone says they don't have time for this and have better things to do, they usually stop responding...unless keeping it going is 'better things to do'.

So apparently this is all entertaining to you. Got it. I've dealt with your types before.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Ok, not confused any longer. You just like having the last word. Because when someone says they don't have time for this and have better things to do, they usually stop responding...unless keeping it going is 'better things to do'.

So apparently this is all entertaining to you. Got it. I've dealt with your types before.

You got me. Now...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

...when you are ready to engage in a discussion...

which in case you forgot is...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Tell me what it is you think I wrote (and how that was tangential) and then maybe we can figure out what your reply was trying mean.

then...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

let me know...

Best...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

... or he was tryna pick a fight.

I think you can nail him for "tryna pick a fight" but not "reading for comprehension."

...and/or "skimming for dickery"

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You asked a question that itself fundamentally assumed a radically false (and, more importantly, damaging) worldview. I answered the question and addressed the worldview. If you feel that such a worldview needs defending to the level of 'fighting', then I guess criticizing it would constitute a fight.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

...What's with you kids and this refusal to think with your own minds? Must everything be handed to you in Official Approved form? What will you do when you finally have to start assuming responsibility for yourselves?

The only way he could have made these two statements is if he hadn't read (or comprehended) this...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Then your statement is meaningless. Unless you can define what is "positive contribution" (which necessarily means religious oppression), "positive contribution" could be anything which is exactly what we have now. Cheers.

But why you are defending someone so obviously tryna pick a fight is beyond me. Best...

Wow, summer. The only way? You kids and your self-assuredness....

I'd point out, by the way, that your comment calling Rani's thing 'meaningless' is exactly what I was talking about. You insist that, without some sort of authoritative Definition, there can be no possible general comprehension of the concept 'positive contribution'. This flies in the face of the observable fact that there indeed is a general comprehension of the term 'positive contribution', and that it arises from a relatively wide diffusion of the individual capacity to engage in critical judgment. Not from a stated Definition.

And again, it's only picking a fight if you assume that any and all criticism of ideas is picking a fight.

as an aside, I'm glad my turn-of-phrase amuses you. I'm rather proud of its lyricism, myself. But it would be better if it were used in some sort of accord with its actual meaning -- otherwise we risk it getting spoiled.

Whatever, Justin. You didn't understand what I wrote. I don't want to fight with you (because it's pointless). So sure. You da man! Now find someone else to play with. Best...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Wow, summer. The only way? You kids and your self-assuredness....

I'd point out, by the way, that your comment calling Rani's thing 'meaningless' is exactly what I was talking about. You insist that, without some sort of authoritative Definition, there can be no possible general comprehension of the concept 'positive contribution'. This flies in the face of the observable fact that there indeed is a general comprehension of the term 'positive contribution', and that it arises from a relatively wide diffusion of the individual capacity to engage in critical judgment. Not from a stated Definition.

And again, it's only picking a fight if you assume that any and all criticism of ideas is picking a fight.

as an aside, I'm glad my turn-of-phrase amuses you. I'm rather proud of its lyricism, myself. But it would be better if it were used in some sort of accord with its actual meaning -- otherwise we risk it getting spoiled.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Whatever, Justin. You didn't understand what I wrote.

Then how about, instead of bitching about how I can't possibly have misunderstood what you wrote, or how I unquestionably am just trying to be a jerk, you like... um...

try to explain better what you were trying to say?

Remember what I said, way back in the day, about my default assumption when confronted with a miscommunication being that I must not have done my part right? And that I should try to understand where things had broken down and restate clarify or otherwise correct my error?

That's a good tactic for anyone. Plus, it's polite.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

But why you are defending someone so obviously tryna pick a fight is beyond me. Best...

Defending? Picking sides isn't my style, and besides both of you are quite capable of defending yourselves.
You deleted a post which clarified your earlier comment, so I thought it was important to point that out.

Then I stand corrected, you were not "defending" you were instigating. I deleted the earlier post (that you would have learned had you PMed) because I understood where you were coming from and didn't want to derail the momentum of your stated objective by going all philosophical and confusing readers here who could not carry two competing thoughts in their heads at the same time. (Looks like I failed in that endeavor...) At any rate, the issue is effectively over for me. Best...

Sorry for the interruption.

In the scene from Analyze This that David was talking about, Billy Crystal's character, a psychiatrist, loses his temper and viciously lays into one of his patients in the midst of a session. However, it quickly becomes clear that the outburst is just a fantasy that he has conjured up, presumably because he is growing bored with his job. There's no killing involved; Crystal's character just fantasizes about what he'd really like to say to her.

Given that The Rani is a psychiatrist, it's obvious that David was suggesting that she takes out her frustrations with her job on the other posters here. I don't believe that at all, but it's obvious that's what he was getting at. It wasn't a death threat.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.