Worry not my love if others see us as Skew lines, i will shatter the Pillars that separate us so that we can be in each others path. . Worry not my love if we really are Parallel, Please Remember that our world is Round, So we can still meet somewhere. . Worry not my love if others say that we are Tangent Lines, I will cut it in half and make it into an angle So we will never be apart. . Worry not my loves if others see us as Asymptotes, No, we are just the inner part of the Lemniscate because our love will last forever.
Mathematicians in love
What would be the worst thing to use instead if you ran out of toilet paper?
Happy Fat Cat day. Today marks the day when the average CEO has already earned as much this year as the average worker will earn during the rest of the year. January 4th. Fantastic!
People who brag may think it makes them look good, but it often backfires, new research suggests. Self-promoters may continue to brag because they fundamentally misjudge how other people perceive them, according to a study published online May 7 in the journal Psychological Science.May 15, 2015
Thanks again. But frankly I don't care what you think of me.
One of the measures of whether a thing is worth doing is if you feel the need to brag about it. Bragging shows that perhaps you didn't get as much out of it as you were hoping. You can stop the bragging anytime you want by eliminating the negative self-esteem beliefs and the survival strategy beliefs that cause it.
Thanks Dr. Freud.
Just because you found a .gif or a meme, doesn't make you right.
Life is not fair. Inequality of wealth is a manifestation of humanness and it is not clear that societies can or should do anything to change that. It is clear to me however that inequity is //not// a paradigm of virtue nor a source of pride. Human beings have failed to rise above the level of common beasts and this brings mankind shame not honor.
You are correct only to the point that the majority of us don’t eat Eachother. :)
We eat other species. Dogs don't eat dogs very often either.
Well, how about that!
I'm a worker bee. I don't make as much as your math error ($5.7 Million. Or $15k a day. - NOT).
Does it make you feel better when you give your money away? Or, do you need to tell people about your generosity to 'get the buzz'?
I helps to brag
Those who are taken from, the ones that worked for what they have - they complain.
Still not a virtue
The bird has a job. The child is a victim of socialism.
It your own fault if you are not in the big bux. Why aren't you in the 1%? Socialism?
Screw socialists and communists. Those who know how to make money should, and have good right to, go out and make it. It’s your own fault if your not in the big bux.
Yep **** this lazy sumnabitch, get a job.
Does that bother you?
Do you think you should have some of that money?
I am the CEO. And no I don't, which is why I give it away.
Animals fighting for resources (food typically) is not at all uncommon.
Inequity is not a paradigm of virtue.
OK. Government taking from one to give to another isn't either.
Neither is complaining about them taking from one to give to another.
Do Markets Produce a Fair Distribution of Wealth?
Yea, poor people made some of the greatest contributions to music. Blues, folk, and reggae jump to mind. From an economic point of view though, unemployed people typically consume more goods and services than they produce.
So do I. I produce only ideas and I consume food, drink, and cars, appliances, etc. etc. - I produce none of that. I produce only intangible concepts.
By contribution I meant nothing more than one's contribution to the organization to which she's employed. No doubt measuring performance is subjective.
In the context of this post I was referring to people who collect welfare, yet are not required to work. These people do not directly produce anything for the marketplace. I do not denounce any hard-working person on public assistance. Quite the opposite.
And I argue that the contribution to society by people on welfare are generally ignored. I don't think (like a butterfly effect) we could ever calculate their contribution with any accuracy, and I suspect it is immense, and greatly misunderstood.
To me a meritocracy would distribute wealth fairly. In a meritocracy people who produce more - because their talents and efforts - are compensated more than those who contribute less. Also everyone would start our with the same opportunities. This is idealistic, but so is the concept of fairness.
Clearly these conditions do not exist. A child born into poverty has more obstacles to overcome than one who is not. On the opposite end of the spectrum are people who society supports who are not required to contribute anything.
That is not to say that things are completely unfair. In general people are compensated based on their productivity.
My concern is how you are going to measure 'contribution'? Heck, some of the conversation I have here are worth more to me than a Spielberg movie.
You talk about those "who are not required to contribute anything."? I call ****. Just because you or I don't recognize their contribution doesn't mean it is not incredibly important.
In a fair system, outcomes will never be equal, because people aren't equal. Some of that is the result of our personalities and our choices, and some of it is a result of our circumstances, but those things will never be truly equal. Whether that's a source of pride, shame or indifference for you is irrelevant, that's how it is and it will never change.
You can help people, or offer them the tools to help themselves, that's virtuous, so is being fair, but you can't make people equal. Like animals, we may look similar, but we are all unique.
Could not agree more.
Depends on your definition of fair.
Equal distribution of wealth will not occur, even under Smiths unrealistic assumptions, however equal doesn't mean fair as this overused illustration so aptly demonstrates.
Nor does 'equitable' necessarily result in a fair result if we define fair as greatest overall utility. I think we need some rich and some poor in order to provide inducements for progress.
Take it up with the manufacturer.
Recently I saw a video on youtube where it was suggested what if Earth was just one giant country, with all the continents and all the countries under 1 union, I immediately brushed off the idea. The problem here is not that we can't think of a system that can be fair to everyone where people can live well and happy. The problem is that humans are easily corrupt and unreliable, so many have fallen into the trap of greed for power and wealth. Just look at the world now, there is so much hatred that even countries have trouble staying as the same country.
Life is not fair. ohh I know
just look at all this elbow room I got
I don't believe you understand the word Wealth
the socialist pigs could take all my coin
I'd still be richer then they... why?
because I don't need their permission to LIVE MY LIFE in accordance to their needs
What do you guys think? This is my first drawing (and post) on this website! I didn't use colour because some areas on the horse were a bit small, and my fingers are quite large. I know the horse is missing the right hand-side eye and brow, but other than that, I am rather satisfied! I would be grateful if you could leave a comment, because they always make my day bright and sunny!
Is having a beard a good idea, after all?
A beard makes a nice seat cushion.
People have different potentials, talents, desires, ambitions and opportunities. The sum of these is what makes them who they are, valued individuals and integral members of society. That you have trouble recognizing someone's value does not diminish them, it diminishes you.
"That you have trouble recognizing someone's value does not diminish them, it diminishes you."
I don't think, for example, that many of those who have trouble recognizing Trump's value would agree that it diminishes them.
Far from it.
They'd be wrong.
You can never ban abortions, you can only ban safe abortions. You can never stop women from making their own choices.
I'm not trying to make you look bad - just your argument. Because it's a very bad argument. There is objective right and wrong - and infanticide is objectively wrong.
"What don't you understand in stopping life before it occurs"
The only way you can stop it before it occurs is thru abstinence. Once the sperm fertilizes the egg, life has begun and must be protected.
Of course I see physical and mental differences between a man and a baby, but we're not debating whether or not the baby can vote, drive a car or smoke - we're debating whether it's life has any value at all.
The Nazis were an excellent example of subjective morality - which is what you seem to be relying on for your argument right now (i.e. better to die as a baby rather than be raised by parents who don't love you, etc.).
Wars, juries, welfare, all examples of subjective morality. There are few if any examples of truly objective morality.
no you are against murdering older people.
that is pure BS propaganda you have their viczinc, somethign that is not living does not grow. a fetus is human, any science will tell you that, but choose emotionally based propaganda if you so choose. it makes you no better then a nazi who said jews where not human
A fingernail clipping is human. It is not "a human" an acorn is alive. It is not "a life".
Comparing those arguments to Nazism might serve your emotional needs but It is not logical.
For help please contact us here.
You're using the touch version of Amirite, you can switch to the full site.
© amirite.com 2018. Icons by DryIcons.