It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That's important, because there isn't just one cake, there are as many cakes as people want to buy. After all,
If there is only one cake what are the other kids suppose to do.
which means the baker has the fat kid's money and can buy the ingredients for the next cake. Were the other kids broke? If not, it was their choice to buy something else. If they were broke, then you have the situation we face in the world today. If people were really concerned about taking care of the poor, we'd be sending our money to Africa, or at least sending our cakes.
He may have bought the cake but how much cake can he really eat
I think Republicans would say that they like helping out and giving money to people, but they don't like it being taken from them for that purpose. There is no moral value in having your money taken from you and given to the poor, but there is much value in donating it freely. I would encourage everyone to do more of the giving, and the government to do less of the taking.
I have noticed this, the Republicans have this attitude of not sharing make the most money at any cost and they are the most religious types yet they do give the most to charity(tax purposes maybe). It seems they are torn.
Originally posted by Sublimecraft
reply to post by charles1952
LOL - great video Charles and it does push home a very good point.
Now, to make things fair - where was the kid with the 4978 trucks full of candy that he refused to share "because he worked hard for it" - the same kid that owns "Cadbury" and "Pepsi-Cola".
We can surely agree that money and candy are 2 different animals when discussing this point.
We both know candy does not buy food, clothing, warmth, shelter of any other necessity - only money does that.
Substitute the candy for Lego, X-box games of any other kids "possession" and they will react the same way.
Redistribution of "Massive" (read 100's of Billions of $$$ with a B) wealth should be considered so this stops..........
Because the vast majority of those that have it most certainly did not work hard for it - unless "working hard" is code for exploiting the many for the benefit of the few.
And I am not talking about the average Joe who happens to earn a good wage either - I am talking about the mega wealthy of this planet whom and owned and controlled money for a very very long time - those are the target of this point I am making
edit on 30-10-2012 by Sublimecraft because: added last comment
The candy giver and the child can better be seen as a business and a customer, or, better yet, as a performer and a customer, certainly not the government.
The candygiver is representative of the government..they give candy to the kids (citizens).
So, the argument then is that no matter who you are, the government is meant to give you stuff.
But you seem to have temporarily forgotten that conservatives give much more money to chariity than other groups. Further, the liberal does not suggest that the solution is for him to give some of his money, the solution is to take it from others.
You want a actual conservative view of halloween? focus on the guy sitting in his car with no candy, and when someone comes up asking for candy, they simply say "get a job you parasite!".
Which is far more accurate.
If even a child can recognize fairness, what have we done to ourselves that we no longer can?
If the philosophy can be summed up by a child.
then chances are, the philosophy is childish.
Originally posted by f4rwest
reply to post by SaturnFX
No, you're wrong. Apply that logic to ANYTHING in life and it doesn't work.
If you want a liberal example, here it is:
All the kids go out trick or treating - they all meet up somewhere and give a certain amount of candy to a centralized candy bucket. The elected leader of that candy bucket then delegates responsibility to an unelected candy beuracracy that will decide how to distribute the candy fairly back to the kids. While they decide, the candy gets old and stale, maybe some ants and mice nibble on the pile. 7 months later, they finally distribute the candy to kids, some are happy, others are upset. The kids who collected the most candy are upset because they got back less while the kids who had less got more. So next year, the kids who had the most candy decide it's not worth getting as much candy if they're going to get so little back. And vice versa, the other kids won't want to collect more candy because they know theyll get a lot back anyways. Year after the year the candy in the pot gets smaller and smaller. until there is nothing left.
So in the end, you have the simple, naive mind which believes people will do the right thing just because it's the right thing to do. Good luck with that.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by SaturnFX
Thanks for the response. My perceptions about the video seem to differ from yours, care to talk about it?
Originally posted by BritofTexas
On a side note. How lazy are those kids parents? Parking in a circle to hand out candy instead of walking their neighbourhoods.edit on 31-10-2012 by BritofTexas because: (no reason given)