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.
Originally posted by Honor93
no, i addressed your points, all of them, however, you are avoiding participating in the basic concept of a conversation. claiming my points are invalid does not invalidate them.
actually, i asked questions, how does that infer anything ?
your refusal to address them or even answer does not lend well to a conversation.
? cooperation you say ?? a demonstration would be nice
workers are workers, whether they get a paycheck or not ... that IS the point.
no group of workers are more important, more valued or more dismissed than that of "mothers".
so, in this society, why are they not compensated at all for their efforts ?
the above was my first response to your posting.
reply to post by daskakik
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[color=amber] i said ... "Actually necesity forces one to work in one way or another.
labors of love and labors of an IOU are not comparable under any paradigm"
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik
the above was my first response to your posting.
reply to post by daskakik
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[color=amber] i said ... "Actually necesity forces one to work in one way or another.
labors of love and labors of an IOU are not comparable under any paradigm"
then, in a following post, i proceeded to ask several questions ... from there, it's been downhill.
like i said before, cooperation is a two-way street.
you don't want to cooperate, fine, now multiply that times 4 billion or so ppl and what do ya get ?
fortunately, for our sake, Rand was seeing the same principles being exercised today in a much smaller population ... remarkably, the fictional characters in her story were able to overcome their personal selfishness.
In today's world, personal selfishness rules and until that changes, Rand's vision of what may come is more accurately, already in practice in many places upon the Earth.
this policy is less than beneficial to the employer, so, how is the employer jeopardizing the employee's opportunity to advance him/herself ?
On the government side it's crazy. For every $1.00 an employee pays to unemployment insurance we pay $1.50 on their behalf. We're not entitled to unemployment benefits. If there's no work, too bad for us. For every $1.00 an employee pays into CPP (Canadian Pension Plan) we have to match their $1.00. That is for their retirement, not ours. If the employees destroy things, lose contracts, etc. that's just risk, we have no recourse.
they are all work.
even those who do something to survive that is not considered a "job" are still working. Being a stay at home mom, dumpster diving, panhandling, engaging in crime, etc. are all work
if you would explain why you equate self-interest to selfishness, then perhaps, i could respond to this fallacy. (remember, i said i dismissed Rand's assertion here)
I don't understand how you can say that selfishness is bad and at the same time give credit to someone who wrote a book titled The Virtue of Selfishness, where she tries to put across that thinking of selfisness as something bad had caused "the arrested moral development of mankind" and needed to be rejected. Quite a contradiction.
Is Ayn Rands “Atlas Shrugged” a prophecy
while the jobs in those fields aren't as plentiful these days, they are certainly far from obselete or antiquated.
When I say they are antiquated I mean there isn't a lot of people that are needed for those fields in this country any more
yes, some are old and some older models are still being constructed, what's your point here ?
I mean you started with trains. Our trains are old. We don't use modern train technology.
yes, this is absolutely true and if we were to proceed with new construction, which of those engineers would NOT be involved ?
Our electrical grid is week in many places and simply needs to be replaced
quite a few but since names aren't appropriate, let me list them this way ...
How many people do you know that work in those fields off the top of your head. I don't know any, at all
Originally posted by Thepump
Her philosophy is that greed and self interest should be championed, not frowned upon.
i've checked my posts and the closest i could find was the following ... "without self-interest, why would anyone put forth the extra effort to improve themselves ? why bother ?"
your statement that "without incentive, why would one work?
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik
actually, you sure are ... working for a paycheck = labors of an IOU
whereas working because you ENJOY it = labor of love.
(some labors of an IOU are also labors of love but not many)
what makes you think your points are the only valid ones ?
are you suggesting the questions i posed aren't worthy an answer ?
icmom is correct.
perhaps you missed this ... quoting icmom ...this policy is less than beneficial to the employer, so, how is the employer jeopardizing the employee's opportunity to advance him/herself ?
On the government side it's crazy. For every $1.00 an employee pays to unemployment insurance we pay $1.50 on their behalf. We're not entitled to unemployment benefits. If there's no work, too bad for us. For every $1.00 an employee pays into CPP (Canadian Pension Plan) we have to match their $1.00. That is for their retirement, not ours. If the employees destroy things, lose contracts, etc. that's just risk, we have no recourse.
it is not the business that stifles the employee, rather the government that stifles both employer & employee.
yes, i understand that self-interest seldom translates to selfishness.
(except in Rand's interpretations)
don't you ?
if you would explain why you equate self-interest to selfishness, then perhaps, i could respond to this fallacy. (remember, i said i dismissed Rand's assertion here)
however, for as long as you equate the two, there will never be an answer.
did it ever occur to you that both pieces are "fictional" for a reason?
government has never been an equal opportunity anything, what is your point ?
so government isn't an equal opportunity stifler
www.merriam-webster.com...
synonym -> one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by daskakik
if you don't wish to discuss details of the piece, then why are you in this thread at all ?
government has never been an equal opportunity anything, what is your point ?
according to the MW definition of a synonym ... the two words are not synonymous.
so, now that both definitions are before you, please explain how they are the same in any way, shape or form (both sourced from MW)
imho, it is your inability to clearly define the two, which is enabling your continued confusion and understanding of the material presented in the book.