Be a person...

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by MaggieL


Dunno, but apparently LadySyc thinks--oops, I mean *feels* that how Jag feels about it is more important.

Hrm...did I actually SAY that? "More important"? Feelings ARE and CAN BE important..after all, it IS important to be a human being.

After all, everybody has feelings, everybody's feelings are just as important as everybody else's, and nobody can dispute them.

Well, if you do not like to constantly be underminded and marginalized, then those words ring very true. Being "pigeonholed" by individuals and/or society sucks to high heaven.

I don't doubt for a minute that Jag *feels* business is immoral--after all, he *said* so, and there's absolutely no resaon why he should be called to account for, explain or justify a feeling. That would be mean-spirited and disresepectful.

Explaining WHY one felt the way they did is one thing. To say they should be "called to account for" or "justify" a feeling comes across like, "Well, you need to justify WHY you feel this way to ME in order for your feeling(s) to be valid". Oh please...NO ONE is "all that" to even pretend to have that kind of power over someone.

Don't know what I was thinking of. Or rather, what I was *feeling*. We'll all just emote away here--maybe even write some poetry

AH, but I thought you didn't come here to read poetry. :p

--and commentary, analysis or discussion will be competely superfluous.

"Do what you gotta do to get where you need to be". If that's what gets you through the night...*shrugs*

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by jaguar
Once again you've shown you don't understand my key point - this is not an essay, this is a conversation. If you want I can post some of my essays I’ve done in the past, maybe that'll clear things up because nothing else seems to be to get though to you.

It's pointless to argue anymore about it Jag. You should not be made to feel like you need to justify or explain yourself until you are blue in the face about it all. No one has that power over you (of course, unless you allow them to have that power over you). Basically, it's starting to sound like someone's jerking your chain: you state your case, someone undermines your position, you react, they try to tear apart your typos, mispellings and God knows what else, you react again...and the vicious cycle continues. As they say, "Don't fall for the okie doke". It's just not worth it in the grand scheme of things.

For what it's worth, *I* understood you perfectly, and I RESPECT what you had to say, and I don't think of you as any less of a HUMAN BEING, typos, mispellings and all. (smiles) You don't have to (at least, SHOULD NOT have to) "change" your language to be understood. After all, SOME people are just so damned intelligent, you'd think they'd be able to read, and understand, any and everything. Mm..."my bad", I guess. Oh well.

Rock on.

[juju]

<b>Juju, you must realise I was trying to stir things up a bit, this is how the logic works.

As we've perviously hammered out - all business is exploitative, because it is taking advantage of the needs of others to make money, or, more money than you need(far more ambigious, so i prefer number 1). I think we can safely say exploitation is immoral, therefore busniess is immoral. Of course there is more to it than that but, it is, form an objective sense, an entirely logical train of thought.</b>

lol... well, from that description I can safely disagree. Neither party experiences harm, therefore there can be no immorality.

Maggie obviously ditched this thread, which is alright... it's just a shame she didn't respond to my post a few pages back. I'd really like to hear her take on that.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
I'd really like to hear her take on that.

I *am* done with this thread--but I'll see if I can clarify about this age thing, since you've asked, dham.

Jag has now said outright that his aim here is to "shake things up", by which as far as I can see means to troll around making outrageous statements, and then enjoy the fireworks. Perhaps he fancies himself a puckish cultural guerrilla ushering in the new order. Maybe he just likes the attention, and doesn't care whether it's positive or negative. Whatever; I won't be feeding that appetite anymore here.

I suppose a lot of my frustration with him arises from being led around in circles over quite a long period, trying to engage him in some earlier threads, before reading his profile and realizing he was a minor child. "My bad" on that, I suppose--the Cellar *used* to be a place where--for the most part--adult standards of discourse were maintained (with perhaps a few transient exceptions), mostly because it took a signifcant investment in time and energy to participate here.

I did extend respect to Jag initially, as I did any other Cellar user--on a benefit-of-the-doubt kind of basis. After a few rounds of wild-goose-chase logic and outright abuse on other threads here, that respect was eroded away. Then I found out his age, and just felt *silly* for having expected anything better.

I do hold clear and correct use of our language to be of great importance. Unfortunately I allowed myself to be be baited about it, and Jag correctly saw it as an excellent diversion to pull the thread away from focusing on his postion that "business for profit is immoral", probably because his supporting rationale for *that* was already exhausted. "Mean old Maggie is picking on me just 'cuz I'm just a kid" worked pretty well too, and a number of other folks here have taken up that refrain as well.

That Jag is 16 years old is only indirectly relevant to the standing his opinions of the morality of business. Since he's still letting his parents supply his necessitites (such as providing a roof over his head), his sneering at those who engage in business for profit as "immoral" irritates me no end. The same opinion expressed by someone older who had no need to dirty his hands with work--perhaps because he had inherited great wealth--would get up my nose just as much, for about the same reason.

It is of course entirely proper for a minor child to accept the support of his parents, as I support my children today. But for Jag to then hold forth from the safe shelter of that support that he's entitled to judge busnesspeople because he *is* one, only accepting Mom and Dad's support so he can get into a good school and arrive there with nice toys and tools is, in my opinion, the height of hypocrisy.

I think that if Jag wants to speak among adults, and express opinions about the morality of what adults do to survive in a world that doesn't have Mom and Dad to go home to when you're hungry, tired or cold, he should be held to the same standards of discourse and discussion as an adult would, without complaining that "it's too hard" or he "doesn't have the time". If he wants to call those of us who must support ourselves and others "immoral", I think he should have a better explanation for that than what he's shown us.

True, adults don't always rise to that level of discourse either...but then such an adult would earn my distain too.

Jag will likely chime in now that I've completely distorted what he said, and that I'm bullying him again..That may earn him some sympathy, especially from those who haven't heard it before . What it won't earn him is any further attention from me here.

It saddens me greatly to see the Cellar morph from something akin to an editorial page to something much more like a graffiti wall. With global reach, and near-zero cost-of-entry, I suppose it was inevitable. But--pardon the nostalgia--it just plain sucks to see how some parts of the old neighborhood have hit the skids. Jag has been delighted to say that the Internet is a great equalizer. I'm just dismayed how low the common denominator can be.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but now it's almost if we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black. You lament how "low the common denominator can be", but you've actively engaged in that, by making personal remarks about intelligence, age, etc. You call jag a hypocrite about the whole business ordeal, but then you show us that you are too by tossing out personal attacks, then, a few days later, lamenting that same low standard of conversation.

I'm not trying to flame you, or get a rise out of you. I'm just trying to help you see why <b>your</b> opinion isn't as valid, in the eyes of many here, as it used to be. By the liberal usage of personal attacks, you've eroded a lot of the confidence others have in what you say, much like how you feel about jaguar.

So I read your last post and I <b>want</b> to buy into it, but I can't, because I know that you haven't practiced what you preach regarding a very significant pillar of that philosophy. That's dismaying as well.

[juju]

Well, one thing's for sure -- I don't see any logic to the "business is immoral" argument at all. :] It's my opinion that it's basically unprovable.

[jaguar]

Jag has now said outright that his aim here is to "shake things up", by which as far as I can see means to troll around making outrageous statements, and then enjoy the fireworks. Perhaps he fancies himself a puckish cultural guerrilla ushering in the new order. Maybe he just likes the attention, and doesn't care whether it's positive or negative. Whatever; I won't be feeding that appetite anymore here.

Before anything else it has to be said that’s a sinking pile of crap. Every statement I’ve made here that’s drawn ire I’ve backed up, I state my opinions like anyone else I never intend purely to "stir things up". My opinions often differ with many peoples here, often they agree (look at the 50 year war thread under politics for a good example.

I suppose a lot of my frustration with him arises from being led around in circles over quite a long period, trying to engage him in some earlier threads, before reading his profile and realizing he was a minor child. "My bad" on that, I suppose--the Cellar *used* to be a place where--for the most part--adult standards of discourse were maintained (with perhaps a few transient exceptions), mostly because it took a significant investment in time and energy to participate here.

Well this *minor* child (I love it) is telling you, that you are an old fart, who's opinions are worthless you are so out of touch with reality living in another age with no experience in how the world has changed. Oops I sound like you now.

I do hold clear and correct use of our language to be of great importance. Unfortunately I allowed myself to be baited about it, and Jag correctly saw it as an excellent diversion to pull the thread away from focusing on his position that "business for profit is immoral", probably because his supporting rationale for *that* was already exhausted. "Mean old Maggie is picking on me just 'cuz I'm just a kid" worked pretty well too, and a number of other folks here have taken up that refrain as well.

I've stated previously, and now again, the entire logical train of thought, if you think that your stupid comments that caused this war in the first place had nothing to do with its diversion you are either a: very stupid b: purposely ignoring the truth. You can dismiss it but it comes down to who you define your morals, so it’s a personal thing. (That applies to juju's comment too). I’m not going to deny its smartarse argument but the logic is undeniable. Even to a two faced hypocritical bitch like you. I deal with a daily basis with obnoxious people, but never someone so bigoted on the internet. Try dropping the status shit and treating people equally for a start. If you don't like my arguments, fine, if you want to call my logic baseless, prove it instead of bitching. If you want to assault my language, pick some examples and ill either concede or defend, but this politics of personal destruction is just getting on my nerves.

That Jag is 16 years old is only indirectly relevant to the standing his opinions of the morality of business. Since he's still letting his parents supply his necessitites (such as providing a roof over his head), his sneering at those who engage in business for profit as "immoral" irritates me no end. The same opinion expressed by someone older who had no need to dirty his hands with work--perhaps because he had inherited great wealth--would get up my nose just as much, for about the same reason.

That logic was originally explained to be by a 28y.o professional doing aquarial studies. I’m not SNEERING at anyone, I never said they are evil, I was merely stating a train of thought, stop adding things to what I say and take it for face value instead of reading what you want between the lines.

I love it - you'll state a pile of shit, then refuse to listen to what I have to say - entirely validating my previous argument of acting like a 5 year old. You ARE distorting what I said, I never looked own in any way on businesspeople, Christ I am one, I wish you could get past your overwhelming prejudices and see that.

Look, if anyone here, this is open, thinks every arguement i've posted is blowing smoke i'd like to hear form them ,i'm not going to agure, i've had enough, if there's more than 4 il leave, i've got better things to do with my time. The logic is simple, while i have or no doubt will butt heads over something with everyone here over time, mostly i get on with the crowd, even the usual debate suspects liek dham and honestly beleive is make a worthwhile contribution, if a decent volume think otherwise, its probably itme to move on anyway.

[jeni]

jag, sweetie, maggie can't be a "bitch", medical science won't allow it.

[jaguar]

gender changes, species change, bah its all the same
for refrence i *am* joking.

[jeni]

for reference, i am not.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by jeni
jag, sweetie, maggie can't be a "bitch", medical science won't allow it.

Priceless...