havoc said:Money is the devil
Wasnt looking for that answer.Prometheus said:what else could it revolve around?
No it does not.Cornholio said:
...but it leads you down the path of true enlightenment....
Which is the same thing in a way.spentagn said:greed is the devil. money is a means of attempting to satisfy greed.
You need to take your ass back to an English 101 class ya non spelling phonics fossilWODIN said:I think we should go back to the fuedal system. I would make a kick ass fuedal lord, carry around a big mase and wack people with it. Good times.
havoc said:
No it does not.
Which has nothing to do with enlightenment. Most enlightened persons are attachment free, they seperate themselves from everything, especially money. peaceCornholio said:
....sure it does. Money allows you to broaden you mind via herb and allows you to travel to places you never knew existed
havoc said:
Which has nothing to do with enlightenment. Most enlightened persons are attachment free, they seperate themselves from everything, especially money. peace
Venturing into ridiculous with this arguement. Bottom line, money has nothing to do with enlightenment, thats my opinion. peaceCornholio said:
True - but money is what alows people to become unattached in some way or another....gotta pay the bills off first....so is a homeless person enlightened?
havoc said:reason I have to deal with my coworkers is because of cash,
havoc said:
Wasnt looking for that answer.
Prometheus said:
havoc - sorry but does that mean you don't like it or that you don't find it useful (the answer)?
its human nature - if man is a self-preserving and competititive animal by instinct, then he has to compete for something - money is the most efficient thing to compete over. you could use real estate like the feudal days or cattle or some other property, but that's the same idea, just more difficult to transact with.
and non-competition systems (communism, socialism) have been tried and have all failed - there's a reason they had to put a containment wall around the USSR.
Prometheus said:
havoc - sorry but does that mean you don't like it or that you don't find it useful (the answer)?
its human nature - if man is a self-preserving and competititive animal by instinct, then he has to compete for something - money is the most efficient thing to compete over. you could use real estate like the feudal days or cattle or some other property, but that's the same idea, just more difficult to transact with.
and non-competition systems (communism, socialism) have been tried and have all failed - there's a reason they had to put a containment wall around the USSR.
Warik said:
Progress.
-Warik
casavant said:Yes, but defining "progress" in a way that people will agree on can be pretty hard, so they resort to money because it is a definite, tangible thing.
Warik said:
Not at all. What is progress? Progress is achiving something bigger than what we've achived thus far.
* Finding a cure for AIDS.
* Eliminating poverty.
* Finding a way to travel outside our Solar System.
* Developing some kind of machine to automatically rerack other people's weights.
Shit, I'd probably make a good teacher or something - but I NEED TO EAT!
Warik
spentagn said:greed is the devil. money is a means of attempting to satisfy greed.
Warik said:
Have you ever called in sick so you could go out and do something else instead? Well, you didn't get paid for going out instead of going to work, so why'd you do it? You probably have a passion for whatever it is you did.
-Warik
WODIN said:I think we should go back to the fuedal system. I would make a kick ass fuedal lord, carry around a big mase and wack people with it. Good times.

MattTheSkywalker said:That's why the world revolves around money. Because Warik, like all of us, needs to eat.-
Burning_Inside said:What would a cripple do if he couldn;t tend a farm? He's got passion, but there's no way to release it and put it to use. That's why money in this case would be more of a benefit to this person, to pay someone to help him. I seriously doubt passion would drive Mr.Smith to help crippled Mr. Rogers tend his farm and make his food, etc., when Mr. Smith wouldn't be tending to his own needs. See, passion's a nice theory, but money still comes out on top when you look at it this way, it offers more flexibility with a wider variety of people.
Warik said:
Aren't there people around today who have a passion for helping those who cannot help themselves? ]yes but these people are volunteers, they have jobs also because they need money. What I mean is (because of course I can never explain something well enough the first time around) that if passion was the only driving factor for survival, meaning no money, if someone was crippled, I'm sure there would be people who would help them, but can you always count on it 100%? Probably not. Money always talks however. We're trained in this society to believe that money is it, and charity only gets you so far. People are of course, because of our egoes, out for ourselves, we individually want to be the best. Now as for those people helping the person out, the reason I think it wouldn't always work is because humans are pretty lazy in nature. That's nature I mean, now for those who want to get ahead in modern life, of course those people aren't lazy, but in nature face it, we're lazy bums when it comes down to thinking of someone else who isn't friend nor family. If it's to benefit to ourselves then of course we get in gear. These people helping the cripples out of passion still need time to themselves and will get lazy and eventually say fuck it for a day sometime or another, and put that time into furthering themselves. Where's the incentive to help this person out today instead of calling off? Possibly he could give him some food in return as incentive, but that's if the food was plentiful enough that he could spare some. Otherwise, there is none. Or maybe sex with a doughter or wife. Otherise, you got money, which will in turn allow you to help someone out, and of course help yourself out as well. I just think that money is more failsafe than the whole passion thing, I eman I'm not saying the money way is foolproof, if it was, then people wouldn't be calling off work, however I think the money way like we have today is better than something like you're saying. I used to think like this a while back that everything should be free until I realized about human nature and incentives, and egoes. For this system of yours to be sucessfully implemented, people would have to be eased into it over a span of generations. Then it "may" work, but I still don't think it would work as well as having money.
There are probably much more of them out there who often decide against seeking a life dedicated to charity because of its lack of reward. Those who are disabled or unable to work for some other reason would be cared for by those who want to care for them. Those who want to grow food for everyone else, will. Those who want to provide medical service to people, will. Those who want to develop advanced technologies to make everyone's life easier, will.
I don't see how that's worse than "shit, it's 7am... let me wake up and quickly get ready to go to that job I hate so much so I can sit there for 8 hours listening to my dumb boss's shit only to drive home for 2 hours in horrendous traffic and then quickly go back to bed since I don't have time to do jack shit during the week because I have to go to this stupid job every day!"
Wouldn't "woohoo.... 7am. Time to go to work! I love sitting in my medical office helping patients become healthier, especially since there aren't so many patients demanding healthcare nowadays due to the recent advancements in medicine made possible by the fact that they aren't out of anyone's price range since they don't cost anything. Ahhh time to go home. Can't wait to do some more of what I love tomorrow" be much better? I guess not... #2 doesn't involve "yay... it's a paycheck."
#2 also doesn't involve anymore free time than #1,meaning you'd have to just accept your work as your life. Now, here's a question, let's say if you were a baker, and 2 people came in wanting bread. You only had 5 loaves. The first person was working all day doing what you said, and the second person was busy helping a cripple cut meat for himself. They both NEED 5 loaves for some reason. You can't make anymore loaves. How do you decide who gets what? How will anyone decide who gets what and how much of whatever it is that they make? How are you to even believe the person who tells you what they did to deserve this bread? See you need standards, if you don't have standards, then everything gets messy. It's kinda like communism what you're talking about. Not exactly, but along the lines. And that didn't work.
-Warik
Warik said:
You eat money?
Think about it more open-mindedly. What's the difference between a doctor working for free in a small town and a doctor working in a hospital in a larger city? Why would doctor A be denied service at a grocery store while doctor B would be welcomed with open arms? Is it because doctor B is a better doctor? Does doctor B have more patients? Is doctor B's value to society somewhat higher than that of doctor A?
No... just that doctor B has money and doctor A doesn't.
The fact is that it's very hard, if it's even possible, to realize justify the need for money in this supposedly civilized day and age.
-Warik
Burning_Inside said:
Then what is necessity? You NEED money to survive.
spentagn said:
Ok. Don't see how this refutes what I said. Then again, some homeless people survive w/o money.
Burning_Inside said:
Well you said money is a means of attempting to satisfy greed. I just think you didn't realize that for most, they're not satisfying their greed, but their necessity.
spentagn said:
Is this why lower classes play the lotto more frequently than others? Or buy tobacco products?
This page contains mature content. By continuing, you confirm you are over 18 and agree to our TOS and User Agreement.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 










