posted August 13, 2009 05:31 PM         

I'm sure that if you had read the whole thread you would be the first to speak out against librarising for calling me "an irrational douche", since you are so objective about these matters, and so quick to speak up against this sort of thing. You know I will be criticized sharply by numerous people for saying anything of the sort and, no doubt, you will want to keep it somewhat fair. Yes, I speak out against the kind of greed that keeps millions of people living, and dying, below the poverty line. It must be my unconscious frustrations, lol. Or maybe its my highly conscious frustration, directed at the people most responsible for the most heinous injustices in the world, and not at the people who provoke insight into said social injustices? Just a thought.

librarising,

posted August 13, 2009 05:42 PM         

If you are going to convict me of arrogance, don't forget to indict Jesus, the Buddha, Vivekenanda, Mother Teresa, and anybody who ever made a claim to exceptional insight, intelligence, or compassion, and who dared to speak honestly about it.

Do I know any billionaires? No, kat. I don't. Few people who are not insanely wealthy do know them. That's what happens when you are insulated by billions of dollars. But if you know one, by all means, send them on down and lets hear what they have to say. I would love to hear how they justify hanging on to more than ten million dollars. Maybe if somebody calls them out on it, they will make their voices heard on this issue. What do you think?

quote:

---

mother theresa depended on people with money to do her work.

---

Exactly.
People who gave their money
to feed, heal, clothe,
and educate the sick.
Not people who hoarded it.

And, you know what? --
Even though she is gone,
the work is still going on,
and it still takes money.

Please, tell me,
how do YOU justify
hoarding a billion dollars
while children are starving?

Let's not beat around the bush.
I dare you to answer this question.

posted August 13, 2009 05:49 PM         

To keep a lamp burning,
we have to keep putting oil in it.

posted August 13, 2009 06:43 PM         

quote:

---

I'm sure that if you had read the whole thread you would be the first to speak out against librarising for calling me "an irrational douche", since you are so objective about these matters, and so quick to speak up against this sort of thing. You know I will be criticized sharply by numerous people for saying anything of the sort and, no doubt, you will want to keep it somewhat fair.

---

I think I had my laugh of the day...

Sorry Valus but like always you have disappointed me once again by representing and co-relating your views with greats who actually took action and showed the world that they were indeed qualified and worthy to lead their given causes.

posted August 13, 2009 07:17 PM         

look, after the original post, this is really what i thought. "wow this guy is incredibly naive. but then he is probably young and hasn't seen the world yet". not to sound condescending, and i am not into being rude to others, who am i to judge, i am not that intelligent myself.

but if you are calling me a moron, fool, pea-brains, whatever you said, i think there is no reason to stay the dumb and keep smiling at ya.

go in front of the houses of George Cloony or Mel Gibson or that millionaire you saw on TV, start a hunger strike. break into their house and steal the money, hire a jet to fly to the poverty zone and start distributing water, please. and see for yourself how much change you can make in this world as it is. then i will really respect you for your brave action for the sake of your bravery.

your idealism is admirable, but only as long as you count in the reality and keep "others" within that frame, too.

there is an Asian saying. "a frog within a small pond does not know the vast of ocean". i gladly apply that to you right now.

posted August 13, 2009 10:54 PM         

most rich people put a large portion of that money back into their businesses so they can continue with whatever their work is. and they have ALL heard plenty from people who assume they are all jerks for being rich. not all of them are!

you can rail all you want. i know you mean well. but you do not know everything or the hearts of all rich people. i haven't condemned you here but WE ALL HAVE PLENTY OF LEARNING TO DO INCLUDING YOU. so spare me the condescension.

i wasn't complaining about your original point, but i don't think you know enough about me to judge me.

if you have seen me in GU you know i am not in favour of people hoarding. neither am i in favour of damning groups of people i don't know much about.

posted August 13, 2009 11:25 PM         

On one hand, I agree that these 'Noveau' money folks (haha @ borrowing a 'Great Gatsby' term) can sometimes spend money unwisely but I can easily throw my hands up in the air and say its their money, they can do whatever they want with it.

On the other hand, how can we be sure that they already don't give out to charities? Its like that parable about the rich man who tithed so much for show, and the woman who tithed a penny....that happened to be her life savings. Sometimes people would prefer their efforts to remain anonymous because lets face it: when your rich you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. When you do give, people believe its a publicity stunt.

Michael Jackson made the Guiness Book of World Records almost half a dozen times for most charitable, I believe, so they can't be all douches.

The only thing that really annoys me is when they start investing in sh!t they know little about . Like I'm East African and I HATE it when I see various celebrities investing in loads of diamonds. Who's to say that atleast 50% of the pieces they were aren't blood ones? Do they realize how many hands were probably chopped off for those 'shiny thingabobbers' before they made it to the shady Western Jewel Company that finally profited the most from it? Idiots.

At the end of the day though: alot of these people are self-made, meaning they worked for what they have now so what can I gain from resenting them? Its not like they're obligated to give handouts to me or smt.

posted August 14, 2009 12:04 AM         

as i said before the FIRST principle is to pay your workers WELL if you want a clean conscience with your profit. the second is to share your wealth.

i merely wanted to point out that despite what may SEEM obvious, most rich people whether they made their own or inherited it, are just people with more money than the rest of us. they have hearts and blood and kids and they do the best they can.

the nouveau riche frequently spend on obvious things. that doesn't mean they aren't also plowing it back into the 'hood or whatever their hearts tell them to. not everyone resents paying their taxes so others can have a better life, either.

but it is ignorant to condemn all rich people for the sins of the minority, just as it is ignorant to blame the poor for their condition or for wanting better.

and do-gooding is a tricky subject too. i saw an infomercial recently, a pastor whose church has been going to africa for at least a decade to feed the starving children..lovely, except they are still going with their corn to feed those kids, all of whom have lost their starvation look but now look bloated, and none of whom have been given the wherewithal to grow their own. so they stand in line, grateful but dependent...this saddens me too! meanwhile pastor john gives himself a pat on the back and asks you for your money for more corn...

posted August 14, 2009 04:38 AM         

If everyone just concentrated on their own lives and the lives of their family and friends then they would be none the wiser lol

Instead of making your lives SO complicated by filling your heads with strangers existences! When you are $100m up, sitting on your own beach and have no financial worries then you can read "HELLO" to your hearts content and b1tch about other peoples money!

posted August 14, 2009 12:51 PM         

I'm too lazy to read all the responses here thoroughly right now, but I dont see where you answered my question. What justifies keeping more than 10 million dollars for yourself? I am not saying that wealthy people do not give to charity -- far, far from it. It would be great if you could confine yourself to arguing against my actual position. Thanks.

quote:

---

if you don't use your money for the good of people less wealthy than you, you are poor in spirit.

---

Well said.

posted August 14, 2009 01:05 PM         

I understand your objection to the comparisons to great men, many of whom were men of action, and not merely thinkers and polemicists. The reason I use such stark exaamples is not because I consider myself their equal, but, because the characters of such people are relatively beyond reproach. In other words, if this is how the best among us behaved, why do we condemn it in the least among us? Rather than zero-in on the differences, try to see the similarities. The actions taken by MLK Jr. include, primarily, the exposition of ethical matters -- in other words, he wrote and argued, and took the backlash. If you think that speaking up for an unpopular cause is not taking action, just try to imagine for a moment how difficult it is to be unpopular, and to continue to argue for the truth in the face of an onslaught of insults and character assasinations. King was murdered as much for his words as for his actions -- and his most obvious actions, in my view, involved the fearless pronouncement and exposition of his perspective. Many people protested, but we remember and honor MLK Jr. for his words, while the countless people who "merely" protested are anonymous by comparison. Lastly, the action of protest, which involves, as one activist put it, "throwing ourselves beneath the gears", are even more infuriating to those unsympathetic to them than the preaching of ideas. If you disagree with my words, do you honestly think you would support my actions? If you see my words as inflamatory, how much more so would you see it, if I marched down Madison Avenue with a sign that reads: "Billionaires starve children"? King did not simply practice racial equality, he placed himself in the way of people who practiced its opposite.