• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Maggie

religion is just about the most selfish thing there is, even when you do things for other people its solely to score points for the afterlife, its a system built on fear of punishment

a system that was built don't forget, by aforementioned tribal leaders to keep their people toeing the line
 
galeforce said:
That doesn't sound like luck DubaiSpur, they don't pick scholarships out of a hat, you must have impressed them.

I do think selfishness is the natural human condition though, look at mankind's recorded history, from day one, war after war after war, to take something that was wanted from someone who had it.
Click to expand...

Wars pre-Enlightenment were largely king-versus-king affairs, or religious conflicts. People: ordinary joes, didn't have a say in anything, just a belief that contentment with one's station would gain you a place in the afterlife.

The concept of selfishnes driving human development came around during the Enlightenment, at the same time as fellows like Rousseau who postulated that humans once shared a natural empathy with one another that private property and settled society destroyed.

As for the scholarship, thank you for the thought, but a discussion with the academic advisor over a cup of coffee dispelled my notions of my having done something to deserve it. She told me quite frankly that the scholarship system at the University of Toronto operated on an international bias; I.e, international students paid (much) more in fees, and were thus worth more to the university. Correspondingly, scholarships were given to international students over domestic students. A quick bit of research via the Registrar revealed I was sixth on the list for that particular scholarship, but the five people ahead of me were all domestic students and were thus overlooked.

It was a shock, I can tell you.
 
DubaiSpur said:
Wars pre-Enlightenment were largely king-versus-king affairs, or religious conflicts. People: ordinary joes, didn't have a say in anything, just a belief that contentment with one's station would gain you a place in the afterlife.

The concept of selfishnes driving human development came around during the Enlightenment, at the same time as fellows like Rousseau who postulated that humans once shared a natural empathy with one another that private property and settled society destroyed.

As for the scholarship, thank you for the thought, but a discussion with the academic advisor over a cup of coffee dispelled my notions of my having done something to deserve it. She told me quite frankly that the scholarship system at the University of Toronto operated on an international bias; I.e, international students paid (much) more in fees, and were thus worth more to the university. Correspondingly, scholarships were given to international students over domestic students. A quick bit of research via the Registrar revealed I was sixth on the list for that particular scholarship, but the five people ahead of me were all domestic students and were thus overlooked.

It was a shock, I can tell you.
Click to expand...

being in the right place at the right time is a skill
 
galeforce said:
religion is just about the most selfish thing there is, even when you do things for other people its solely to score points for the afterlife
Click to expand...

But you don't harm someone else at your expense, correct? If you do a good thing to gain points for the afterlife, the other person doesn't correspondingly lose points and get sentenced to hell.

It's a win win, something that can't be selfish because you're doing something that mutually benefits you and the receiver of your actions. You get afterlife points :)D) and your recipient of aid gets succour on Earth.

In regular society devoid of the religious angle, you do something, but someone else loses out.

As for the family being most important and thus a form of selfishness, again, new concept, as evidenced by Jesus' disavowal of his family in the Bible.
 
that depends, if the good thing was helping out your local lord in the crusades for example, someone was losing
 
galeforce said:
don't agree with this at all
Click to expand...

I'd say that in any society you do something, someone loses out. Doesn't matter what it is. You go to a movie at the cinema you have a good time, but the people working there lose a few hours of their lives! And time is the biggest thing to lose of all, so don't waste it like I am on this forum at 1.15am :lol: I need bed!
 
Old Bill said:
And 9/11?
Click to expand...

9/11 operated on the same concept, at least in warped minds. Everyone in those buildings was going to Muslim hell, so speeding that up wasn't going to make any difference. Their relatives would join them in hell anyway, when they died.

Never said religion was perfect, or even all that good.

Sigh. Posting is an addiction, much like smoking. ;)

Now, let me try again; off with myself!
 
scaramanga said:
That's nothing but myth and rhetoric invented by those who see being anything other than working class as inherently wrong an those who failed to take the opportunities Thatcher gave them.

The working class were finally able to own homes and shares - something never possible before. They were also able to make huge amounts of money - literally millions in the City - something that had previously been the reserve of the upper class, not even middle class.

My parents are the perfect example of what Thatcher created. When I grew up my parents were incredibly poor. We probably wouldn't have been described as in poverty, but we were about as close as it gets. Thanks to the work Thatcher did my parents are now in a position where they'll be extremely comfortable for the rest of their lives - a lifestyle my grandparents wouldn't even recognise.

I'm fortunate enough never to have had to work in a pre-Thatcher Britain, but I'm constantly glad of the work she did for those of us that want to work now.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that is absolute rubbish. I have no objection to a difference of opinion, but to wildly state that Dubai's stated point is 'invented myth and rhetoric' is disrespectful and wholly inaccurate.

As for the second bold portion, this required a shift in social and peripheral society conscience. It required a shift from 'us' to 'me' and it required into an almost Darwinian state of gleeful accumulation with no regard for others. Her wonderful privatization policies have led to a housing crisis and public services that are worse than ever. We can each go back and forth digging up facts here and facts there, but the bottom-line truth is people want more for less. And when you transfer that outlook to things such as (former) public services, well, they will suffer. That is a fact. The cheapest bid more often than not wins, and in most cases, you get what you pay for. It might not be seen at first as it involves services for the elderly and elements of the education system too. But this could be a long long conversation, perhaps best saved for the inevitable GG dinner-and-tinkle up sometime before the end of 2013!

I will address one more comment you made, about 'those of us who want to work'...thanks to Thatcher, we are now a country whose major export is in the financial services sector. Internally, our job market is made up of thousands upon thousands of low-wage 'service' positions. Kids are being sold university places as a guarantee of a good job only to find there really aren't enough jobs out there. Thus they have to scrap it out whilst saddled with huge debts. Our industry, our physical productivity, was sold out because we can 'get it cheaper abroad' which is a collective decision on the part of a society which is now conditioned to want everything instantly and as cheap as possible. We reap what we sow in that regard. We won't touch her foreign affairs or her Falklands re-election, we won't touch her support of dictatorial scum who ruled their countries with violent police states, we won't touch her belief in police states and we'd best not even touch Northern Ireland. What she did at the Maze was a disgrace. Bobby Sands was elected to the House of Commons yet was refused negotiative powers, let alone political recognition because Thatcher said 'crime is crime is crime, it is not political'...just like the football stadium full of people who disappeared in Chile under her friend's rule. Just like the police state she imposed on Northern Ireland. Just like the protection her son got for running arms and trying to stage a coup in Equatorial Guinea...

Ah well. I'll stop there mate. Just to say, she was not 'the messiah, she was a very naughty boy'!

In the spirit of debate Scara mate...
 
thfcsteff said:
Sorry, that is absolute rubbish. I have no objection to a difference of opinion, but to wildly state that Dubai's stated point is 'invented myth and rhetoric' is disrespectful and wholly inaccurate.

As for the second bold portion, this required a shift in social and peripheral society conscience. It required a shift from 'us' to 'me' and it required into an almost Darwinian state of gleeful accumulation with no regard for others. Her wonderful privatization policies have led to a housing crisis and public services that are worse than ever. We can each go back and forth digging up facts here and facts there, but the bottom-line truth is people want more for less. And when you transfer that outlook to things such as (former) public services, well, they will suffer. That is a fact. The cheapest bid more often than not wins, and in most cases, you get what you pay for. It might not be seen at first as it involves services for the elderly and elements of the education system too. But this could be a long long conversation, perhaps best saved for the inevitable GG dinner-and-tinkle up sometime before the end of 2013!

I will address one more comment you made, about 'those of us who want to work'...thanks to Thatcher, we are now a country whose major export is in the financial services sector. Internally, our job market is made up of thousands upon thousands of low-wage 'service' positions. Kids are being sold university places as a guarantee of a good job only to find there really aren't enough jobs out there. Thus they have to scrap it out whilst saddled with huge debts. Our industry, our physical productivity, was sold out because we can 'get it cheaper abroad' which is a collective decision on the part of a society which is now conditioned to want everything instantly and as cheap as possible. We reap what we sow in that regard. We won't touch her foreign affairs or her Falklands re-election, we won't touch her support of dictatorial scum who ruled their countries with violent police states, we won't touch her belief in police states and we'd best not even touch Northern Ireland. What she did at the Maze was a disgrace. Bobby Sands was elected to the House of Commons yet was refused negotiative powers, let alone political recognition because Thatcher said 'crime is crime is crime, it is not political'...just like the football stadium full of people who disappeared in Chile under her friend's rule. Just like the police state she imposed on Northern Ireland. Just like the protection her son got for running arms and trying to stage a coup in Equatorial Guinea...

Ah well. I'll stop there mate. Just to say, she was not 'the messiah, she was a very naughty boy'!

In the spirit of debate Scara mate...
Click to expand...

I can't let it go! Too addictive!! How old are you? The whole me and us thing is just wrong wrong wrong! It existed heavily BEFORE the 80's man. The unions were all about themselves and couldn't give a fudge about the rest of whatever country they were in. They were all about me me me, hidden in the context of a unionised us us us. I don't blame them, people were always looking out for number one and still are. It's just the way we are.
 
Old Bill said:
I can't let it go! Too addictive!! How old are you? The whole me and us thing is just wrong wrong wrong! It existed heavily BEFORE the 80's man. The unions were all about themselves and couldn't give a fudge about the rest of whatever country they were in. They were all about me me me, hidden in the context of a unionised us us us. I don't blame them, people were always looking out for number one and still are. It's just the way we are.
Click to expand...

The unions certainly got fat, and reform as necessary. Reform. Not a total annihilation of worker's rights and pulling the plug on British industry. Ultimately the unions could not have interfered with things such as decent social housing, decent healthcare and education systems, and decent social services. With regards to your boldface point mate, it is not 'just the way we are', it is something which has been bred into us over the past few decades. IMO. Age? 46!!!! ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back