It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Its hypothetical - dont get your interweb panties in a bunch...

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   
A needs to work smart , not hard .
... and shouldn't overcommit himself to
a loan he can ill afford.
B told A NOT to drink shampoo '
... you blow too many bubbles !




posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
If I see someone driving a nice car, the last thing I think about is how they make the means to afford it. None of my damn business. Such breeds covetous mentality and I'd rather not step in that pile.

Usually I'm too busy admiring the lines and construction of the machine.

Pretty things shouldn't be the cause of petty whining and comparing salaries.
Defeats the purpose of beauty.

Too many comparative reflections that lead to nothing good the other way 'round.


If I am reading between the lines correctly, you would be the person who paid no attention to either the value of the car or the crying wolf, figuratively speaking. Its nice to be able to do that. But what would your approach be if you found yourself as either A or B?



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma
I find this distasteful, as it begins talking about two people, but then switches to groups of people.

If A is a person who is on tv every week, they must be a celebrity...they must be a talk show host or something.
Which indicates they are probably making a good salary doing that.

But what you didn't specify is that the person driving the car is not A... it is someone who has something in common with A.


My distaste for the meshing of one person with others that have something in common with them,
The honest truth is that this IS the type of assumption people make when they're brains are lazy.

What would most likely be assumed is that this other A beat the system one way or another- that they found a way to get around the obstacles. Could be stealing the car, could be using bribery, blackmail or lies to get a job, or it could be putting on make up or a mask each day to pretend to be someone like B. Even in these scenarios which could come to mind, beating the crap out of them is not acceptable.

You do have a point I think is valid though I think your delivery here is clumsy-

What you choose to focus on grows.... what you place your belief and emotional energy in is reinforced.
Victimization beliefs reinforce, sustain and spread victimization.

Just ask any woman that has been accused of having gotten her position at work through sleeping her way up.
Thank those who cry patriarchy and systematic female victimization for such assumptions of beating the system in some immoral way.



I never implied that A was a single person. That was an assumption on your part. A is anyone. I will say that again. Anyone. Regardless of any of the social distinctions we use to divide people. A is anyone. The reason I specifically denied the use of social class, net worth, annual income, race, gender, sexual preference, or their choice of hair care products was to focus the attention on the actions of A, not who A is. Who is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. Your finding this distasteful is the result of you asserting group qualities, which I specifically left out of the equation, and then blamed it on me.

People do have things in common. All people do. And it is obvious that people find a way to group other people together in an unflattering way, even when instructed not to. "YOU choose whomever you want for the purposes of this discussion."

Your objection to my method is based entirely on assumptions you chose to make. But reading between the lines I see something else though. You suggested that A found a way to beat the system, stealing, blackmail, bribery, etc. I didn't see anything in your post that suggested that maybe the A in the car just worked really hard and was successful.

It is very interesting to me, and was a keynote purpose in this thread, to see that even though A and B are completely nondescript except for their actions, people insist on lumping together in typical divisive ways. It is natural to see things from a personal perspective. As you indicated you see the woman who achieved success as being accused of sleeping her way to the top. But what about the things you don't see or have personal experience with?

I started out with A crying wolf all the time and hurting himself in the process. And then eluded to what happens when B starts doing the same thing. You saw the woman accused of sleeping her way to the top. I saw the guy who has no degree, but is better at his job than most of the degreed people, still getting paid far less and has far fewer opportunities for advancement. His work is good and his loyalty unwavering. Yet he is overlooked when raises and promotions are handed out. The more he complains about his situation, the more other people tend to look at him as less educated, not as smart. and begin to treat him that way.

Do you see it yet?

edit on 23-9-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: radarloveguy
A needs to work smart , not hard .
... and shouldn't overcommit himself to
a loan he can ill afford.
B told A NOT to drink shampoo '
... you blow too many bubbles !


It is interesting that you said A overextended himself on a loan he cant afford. Are you suggesting predatory lending victimization? Or that A is not a victim of anything but his own mistakes?

And never, ever drink the shampoo.



posted on Sep, 23 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
This thread is an off-shoot of this current discussion. Please continue the conversation there.

Closed.



new topics

 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join