Perfectly Legal, But Is It Morally Bankrupt?

[kiobe]

Spending your hard earned money on something that you want is something we all do but do people cross a moral and ethical line when they spend $250,000.00 on a birthday party for a 10 year old? Or having the interior of thie home guilded in 22 karat gold. Isn't spending excessive amounts of money on frivolous things a bit like gorging on food in front of someone living in poverty?

[kilted exile]

Nope, if you have money you are entitled to spend it any way you like. I'm sure if any of us was rich we would probably find quite frivolous ways to spend it too.

The only way it would be the same as gorging on food in front of someone who is starving is if they brought people into the house showed off then laughed because the "ordinary" people couldnt afford it.

[papayahed]

I'm gonna say no as well. If it's yours you can spend it any way you please.

Would it be morally ok if in addition too the birthday party/ 24 karat gold interior they spent an equal amount on poor/charity work?

[kiobe]

Nope, if you have money you are entitled to spend it any way you like. I'm sure if any of us was rich we would probably find quite frivolous ways to spend it too.

The only way it would be the same as gorging on food in front of someone who is starving is if they brought people into the house showed off then laughed because the "ordinary" people couldnt afford it.
Isn't that exactly why they do it? What's the point of throwing a $250,000.00 birthday party for a 10 year old, the only people that understand the concept of money at the party are the adults.


I'm gonna say no as well. If it's yours you can spend it any way you please.

Would it be morally ok if in addition too the birthday party/ 24 karat gold interior they spent an equal amount on poor/charity work?

Yes, that or a percentage of the total.

[kilted exile]

Isn't that exactly why they do it? What's the point of throwing a $250,000.00 birthday party for a 10 year old, the only people that understand the concept of money at the party are the adults.


I am going to make no assumptions as to why they did it. Maybe they wanted to buy a lot of stuff for the daughter? At any rate the people at the party were unlikely to be poor by any standards.

[kiobe]

I am going to make no assumptions as to why they did it. Maybe they wanted to buy a lot of stuff for the daughter? At any rate the people at the party were unlikely to be poor by any standards.

As a father of a 13 year old, I have been to every birthday party that my son has been invited to, except the most recent ones. The kids at the parties come from all walks of life as do thier parents. You make no assumptions as to why they did it, but then you then assume that everyone at the party comes from equal economic backgrounds. Just not true.

Ps. You also assume that I am talking about a girl, never mentioned a gender.

[kilted exile]

As a father of a 13 year old, I have been to every birthday party that my son has been invited to, except the most recent ones. .
Perhaps, but I know that every birthday party I ever attended as a child the only parents there were those of the child, however this is nearly irrelevent as I dont think it has been mentioned anywhere that the parents of the other children were not there, if it is inferred anywhere in my previous posts it shouldnt be.



The kids at the parties come from all walks of life as do thier parents. You make no assumptions as to why they did it, but then you then assume that everyone at the party comes from equal economic backgrounds. Just not true.

Reasons I am willing to assume the other people at the party were not from lower class backgrounds:

1) The type of parents who would spend that much on a party are very unlikely to send their child to a state school, I think it incredibly likely that the child is also attending a high fee private school of some kind.

2) The family is incredibly unlikely to live in a poor area, probably in a gated community somewhere

For these reasons I find it very unlikely that the child is going to very often come into contact with/or have friends from deprived backgrounds.

Finally, if it was the case that some of the childs friends were poor (however remote that may be) do you not think the poor children would also have had an immensely enjoyable time at the party as well? Is this wrong?

[manolia]

Spending your hard earned money on something that you want is something we all do but do people cross a moral and ethical line when they spend $250,000.00 on a birthday party for a 10 year old? Or having the interior of thie home guilded in 22 karat gold. Isn't spending excessive amounts of money on frivolous things a bit like gorging on food in front of someone living in poverty?

Well, for me depends how the said person got - earned the money in the first place..if the money trully belongs to them or not.

[kiobe]

Perhaps, but I know that every birthday party I ever attended as a child the only parents there were those of the child, however this is nearly irrelevent as I dont think it has been mentioned anywhere that the parents of the other children were not there, if it is inferred anywhere in my previous posts it shouldnt be.



Reasons I am willing to assume the other people at the party were not from lower class backgrounds:

1) The type of parents who would spend that much on a party are very unlikely to send their child to a state school, I think it incredibly likely that the child is also attending a high fee private school of some kind.

2) The family is incredibly unlikely to live in a poor area, probably in a gated community somewhere

For these reasons I find it very unlikely that the child is going to very often come into contact with/or have friends from deprived backgrounds.

Finally, if it was the case that some of the childs friends were poor (however remote that may be) do you not think the poor children would also have had an immensely enjoyable time at the party as well? Is this wrong?

The reason I started this thread is that I was watching a show called "My Super Sweet 16". A show about people that throw extravagant parties for thier 16 year old daughters' and sometimes sons' that can sometimes cost close to 2 million dollars. I have to say the you are making A LOT of assumptions about the people attending the party based on where the party is. These parties often include as many as 1,000 people from the neighborhood and the high school the person attends. You assume they go to a private school, haven't seen one yet. You assume they live in a gated comminity, but the parties aren't held at the homes of the hosts. Even so, when sending out 1,000 invites your gonna have to include people outside your neighborhood. The odd thing about all these parties is that the person of celebration is never happy. They run around pissed off the whole night. It's a hollow victory, a meaningless act, and I think on some level they realize it. Things don't make them happy.

Taken from NY Times
The show follows a simple but wildly successful formula: (1) kid makes a series of high-priced demands (a fireworks display, a helicopter ride, perhaps a harem of belly dancers); (2) parents capitulate and cough up the cash; (3) kid gleefully humiliates the uninvited; (4) something goes awry; (5) kid has a meltdown and repeatedly refers to self in the third person; (6) party miraculously comes together, and kid is presented with an automobile before his salivating, less fortunate peers. In Marissa's case, her father, who owns three auto dealerships, presented her with two cars: a red convertible for the weekend and a sturdy S.U.V. for the week.

[Pensive]

Spending your hard earned money on something that you want is something we all do but do people cross a moral and ethical line when they spend $250,000.00 on a birthday party for a 10 year old? Or having the interior of thie home guilded in 22 karat gold. Isn't spending excessive amounts of money on frivolous things a bit like gorging on food in front of someone living in poverty?

As a personal choice, it seems extremely silly to me (well, to me, owning so much money also seems strange, danger surrounds wealth as shadow surrounds light, would prefer a carefree life without this much money personally :p) but I do not think that spending it on such parties makes a person immoral if it is lawful earning.

It would be nice of him if he wants to give some of it for charity, but even if he doesn't, I don't think it makes him a bad person.

[Poetess]

250.000$ and i`m spending my birthday today at home :^) no difference ha? lol

[kiobe]

Perhaps, but I know that every birthday party I ever attended as a child the only parents there were those of the child, however this is nearly irrelevent as I dont think it has been mentioned anywhere that the parents of the other children were not there, if it is inferred anywhere in my previous posts it shouldnt be.



Reasons I am willing to assume the other people at the party were not from lower class backgrounds:

1) The type of parents who would spend that much on a party are very unlikely to send their child to a state school, I think it incredibly likely that the child is also attending a high fee private school of some kind.

2) The family is incredibly unlikely to live in a poor area, probably in a gated community somewhere

For these reasons I find it very unlikely that the child is going to very often come into contact with/or have friends from deprived backgrounds.

Finally, if it was the case that some of the childs friends were poor (however remote that may be) do you not think the poor children would also have had an immensely enjoyable time at the party as well? Is this wrong?


As a personal choice, it seems extremely silly to me (well, to me, owning so much money also seems strange, danger surrounds wealth as shadow surrounds light, would prefer a carefree life without this much money personally :p) but I do not think that spending it on such parties makes a person immoral.

It would be nice of him if he wants to give some of it for charity, but even if he doesn't, I don't think it makes him a bad person.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they are 'bad' people. But I wonder what kind of message you are sending to your son/daughter when we celebrate them to such extremes. Are we teaching them to value money or humanity?

[kiobe]

250.000$ and i`m spending my birthday today at home :^) no difference ha? lol

Happy birthday!!

[Poetess]

thankiess *blushes*

[Pensive]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they are 'bad' people. But I wonder what kind of message you are sending to your son/daughter when we celebrate them to such extremes. Are we teaching them to value money or humanity?

That's a good and quite a difficult question, kiobe! :) Umm...well, I guess you would be owning this computer you are working on. If you sell it, you might get enough money to buy food and nice clothes for at least one orphan or a needy child, and might be able to set a good example for your children. And this computer might not be too important for you? I mean without it, you can survive, while there are people in this world who don't have good enough conditions to live in?

Not that I approve of it as I have already mentioned, but human-beings can be really weird and illogical beyong understanding sometimes. Perhaps a father has worked very hard just to see this birthday of his boy? It's all about priorities I guess...

[Lily Adams]

Well, you can spend your money any way you like it, but yes, it does disgust me.

I was watching that Super Sweet 16 show once, (never watched it again after that) and I was so disgusted that I showed my dad, and he said, "Yeah, it is pretty bad, but with all the stuff they consume, they give other people jobs." An added thought. But I still am against it. I wish these people would do a bit more for humanity rather than spend all that money on themselves. I mean, a lot of them can actually still buy a lot of junk and then help others out they're so rich.

Did you make this thread because of that show?

Oh, yes...you did. :D

[papayahed]

I've seen that show a few times and it drives me crazy, not the money that's being thrown around but the behavior of these kids. The carp there kids get away with amazes me and what's worse is the parents allow it.

[kiobe]

That's a good and quite a difficult question, kiobe! :) Umm...well, I guess you would be owning this computer you are working on. If you sell it, you might get enough money to buy food and nice clothes for at least one orphan or a needy child, and might be able to set a good example for your children. And this computer might not be too important for you? I mean without it, you can survive, while there are people in this world who don't have good enough conditions to live in?



well this particular computer I use in my business, but I get your drift. . Who would be happier? An allready spoiled brat expecting a $150,000 Mercedes or 150 underpriveleged kids getting a nice musical instrument they never though they would ever have?;)

[papayahed]

Who would be happier? An allready spoiled brat expecting a $150,000 Mercedes or 150 underpriveleged kids getting a nice musical instrument they never though they would ever have?;)


So are you saying you are more "morally correct"? then the person that gives their kid a Mercedes?

[Video Drone]

I don't think that it is right because it's kind of a waste of resources. But that is kind of inhuman. On the other hand, if you have a lot of money, what can you spend it on but yourself and people you care about? And if you worked hard to get that money you deserve that money. If there is a problem, it's a problem that some people get money too easily. That's where we should look.

[the silent x]

if i had that much money to blow on my kids birthday, he would be going to one of the best colleges in the world, because he would get a present from me, and then 10-15 kids over, that's it, maybe a few decorations, his future is more important than his birthday.

kiobe i know what you are talking about for the show, i think it's more the kids are used to getting that stuff for no reason and they want something special for their birthday, just like the girl from willie wonka, (the old version and the book, why i am sighting this i have no fricken clue) and when the kids don't get something special, then they are unhappy because they want everything their way on their b-day. for my birthday i got a happy birthday song in the morning, a trip to a restaurant and some presents. if i had large amounts of money, i would get an entirely new name and try to live my life under that name

[kiobe]

Who would be happier? An allready spoiled brat expecting a $150,000 Mercedes or 150 underpriveleged kids getting a nice musical instrument they never though they would ever have?;)

It's a simple question looking for an answer. If it helps, you can substatute the instruments for a scholarship or medical insurance.


So are you saying you are more "morally correct"? then the person that gives their kid a Mercedes?

No. What I am saying is this. Without gifts, in any form, money, food, scholarships etc.. from those that have, given to those that do not have, then those that do not have, will most likeky never escape the bonds of poverty, in all it's forms. One might argue that it creates jobs but it doesnt create jobs, it creates income for existing businesses like hotels (Weston) like car rentals (Hertz) that pay thier people as little as they can get away with. The 'trickle down theory' wouldn't apply. You are right, it's thier money they can spend it any way they like, but why not help the needy as well as show your love to your son/daughter. Why not spend a 100,000 dollars for a one day party and spend a 100,000 dollars to help the people of Louisiana, or blow them off....again, and spend it all on yourself. It seems like a wasted oppertunity. Another odd byproduct of the show is the fact that these people allow the crew to film them and portray them as vapid, self centered individules and they don't seem to get that or don't care.

Ps. There is a reason that Saturday Night Live, Mad TV and South Park have all parodied the show.

[Moira]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think they are 'bad' people. But I wonder what kind of message you are sending to your son/daughter when we celebrate them to such extremes. Are we teaching them to value money or humanity?

I know what you mean, I've seen that show twice and it was an awful thing to watch. Kids are never happy, there is too much stress on them to even try to enjoy the party and sometimes they are really mean towards other kids that they end up not inviting to the party.

I don't think they are 'bad' either, nor that what they are doing is morally wrong. It's just sad seeing how parents choose to educate their children. Did you notice that most of the kids are usually rude towards the parents and only smile and behave well when they get something in return? Or they 'worship' the father because that's where the money come from and behave disrespectfuly towards the mother????? Now, that is wrong ......

[kiobe]

I know what you mean, I've seen that show twice and it was an awful thing to watch. Kids are never happy, there is too much stress on them to even try to enjoy the party and sometimes they are really mean towards other kids that they end up not inviting to the party.

I don't think they are 'bad' either, nor that what they are doing is morally wrong. It's just sad seeing how parents choose to educate their children. Did you notice that most of the kids are usually rude towards the parents and only smile and behave well when they get something in return? Or they 'worship' the father because that's where the money come from and behave disrespectfuly towards the mother????? Now, that is wrong ......

I agree with you. I wonder if the lessons learned by the girls, over time, is that money comes from men. That is a lesson that women have been trying for decades to remove completely from society.

[motherhubbard]

I am very strongly opinionated about this matter. I think it is morally wrong, no doubt. It is what I was thinking about when I wrote the poem for picture poetry contest that just ended. I’ll post it here.



Sacrificed Humanity

Proudly they came, bearing meaty offerings of written word,
Laying upon the sardonic alter a sacrifice too great.
Elated with the promise, and hungry for more and more,
They gave over this great treasure without a second thought.
Knowledge, language, symbols, history, philosophy, and religion - cast off.
Humanity blindly forsaking its humanity, with no sense of loss.

Now the heart of man beats cold, unable to comprehend the price that was paid.
All that can be found of the past is discarded like rubbish.
Ruffling pages cry out to deaf ears, quieting only with the stillness of the wind.
The world, in its push for more, forsook what it already had.
Upon the steps of the alter are the last few remains.
Relics of the past left to the elements.

Knowledge exchanged for apathy. Mankind no more than a shell.
Turn away from the volumes; shield your ears from the truth.
Stand before the judgment lost, blinded and deafened by a barren lust.
What is hollow will not be filled; hunger and thirst will not be quenched.
When morning opens wide and the silence of loss screams,
Who will hear the pleading whisper of origins yearning to be understood?



I’m in America, the richest county on earth. Where ten percent or the people hold ninety percent of the wealth. We are very lucky here, only one in five children in America go to bed hungry every night. The middle class is all but gone. Many elderly choose have to choose between food and medicine. I could go on like this, but we really do have it good here compared to many places. It’s easy to look at the super rich and their waste and contrast that against the tremendous need of others and wonder how they can live with themselves knowing they have the power to feed starving children. But, sadly, the poor are often just as wasteful. I can’t tell you how often I see dirty, malnourished children with no shoes walking behind a parent who is smoking or has been drinking. I think it is just as shameful to spend three bucks on a pack of cigarettes when your kids are hungry as it is to spend 250 thousand on a party when millions of kids are hungry. It comes from selfishness and a prevailing belief that pleasure is more valuable than obligation or charity. I believe that this kind of excess is bad for the country, but I also believe that it is bad for the kids getting the party. I think it ruins them. Look at Paris Hilton.

[kiobe]

I am very strongly opinionated about this matter. I think it is morally wrong, no doubt. It is what I was thinking about when I wrote the poem for picture poetry contest that just ended. I’ll post it here.



Sacrificed Humanity

Proudly they came, bearing meaty offerings of written word,
Laying upon the sardonic alter a sacrifice too great.
Elated with the promise, and hungry for more and more,
They gave over this great treasure without a second thought.
Knowledge, language, symbols, history, philosophy, and religion - cast off.
Humanity blindly forsaking its humanity, with no sense of loss.

Now the heart of man beats cold, unable to comprehend the price that was paid.
All that can be found of the past is discarded like rubbish.
Ruffling pages cry out to deaf ears, quieting only with the stillness of the wind.
The world, in its push for more, forsook what it already had.
Upon the steps of the alter are the last few remains.
Relics of the past left to the elements.

Knowledge exchanged for apathy. Mankind no more than a shell.
Turn away from the volumes; shield your ears from the truth.
Stand before the judgment lost, blinded and deafened by a barren lust.
What is hollow will not be filled; hunger and thirst will not be quenched.
When morning opens wide and the silence of loss screams,
Who will hear the pleading whisper of origins yearning to be understood?



I’m in America, the richest county on earth. Where ten percent or the people hold ninety percent of the wealth. We are very lucky here, only one in five children in America go to bed hungry every night. The middle class is all but gone. Many elderly choose have to choose between food and medicine. I could go on like this, but we really do have it good here compared to many places. It’s easy to look at the super rich and their waste and contrast that against the tremendous need of others and wonder how they can live with themselves knowing they have the power to feed starving children. But, sadly, the poor are often just as wasteful. I can’t tell you how often I see dirty, malnourished children with no shoes walking behind a parent who is smoking or has been drinking. I think it is just as shameful to spend three bucks on a pack of cigarettes when your kids are hungry as it is to spend 250 thousand on a party when millions of kids are hungry. It comes from selfishness and a prevailing belief that pleasure is more valuable than obligation or charity. I believe that this kind of excess is bad for the country, but I also believe that it is bad for the kids getting the party. I think it ruins them. Look at Paris Hilton.


Yea, nicely done. Maybe they should have a show that shows what you are talking about.

[kiz_paws]

Spending your hard earned money on something that you want is something we all do but do people cross a moral and ethical line when they spend $250,000.00 on a birthday party for a 10 year old? Or having the interior of thie home guilded in 22 karat gold. Isn't spending excessive amounts of money on frivolous things a bit like gorging on food in front of someone living in poverty?

Well, to answer your original question, I personally feel that it is morally bankrupt. As for this tv show you refer to, I do not watch tv, but reading this thread is proof for me as to why it was good that I gave it up, ha ha...

I have always believed that the things that one comes by through honest hard work, are the things that one treasures. Having food brought via silver spoons often breed discontent, and the desire for more more more.... So, this show I would find shocking. Sorry I sound like I just fell off a turnip truck, but I have made my choice in life, and find joy in my books, my piano, my family and, gulp, this computer (!) ... ahh well... no one is perfect, hee hee! :)

Interesting thread, Kiobe, thanks! :)

[MaryLupin]

I have been reading this thread and thinking about some of the concepts that are being used here and thought I would try to untangle a couple of them to see where it leads. So here goes.

In the first post there was this phrase “hard earned money.” It’s one we hear a good deal and its ideological underpinnings say an enormous amount about the belief system we actually live by. We are, in North America, a mercantile culture. We use financial metaphors to assess the quality and value of things. To say that money is “hard earned” is to say it is valuable and that, by extension, we are valuable because we did what was necessary to possess it. In other words, our work is what made us earn what we received. This link is very important. It is not the money itself, nor even the simple possession of it, it is the fact that we did what was necessary and succeeded in getting the money for ourselves that makes us “valuable” in this system. The corollary of this belief is that “if we work really hard we can have anything we want” then “we get what we deserve.” It is the “Protestant work ethic” as we now live it.

Let me ask a question: do slaves work hard for their “money?” Of course, you answer. But then I have to ask, do they get what they deserve? And, most likely, you are going to say no, since very few of us believe in the righteousness of slavery. So there is no necessary link between what you get and what you deserve. The phrase “hard earned money” is a bit like a tiny 3-word lid on a very big set of assumptions about what it means to be a good human being in our society today. Parents routinely tell their children “if you really want it, if you really work hard you can be anything you want to be.” Of course, it isn’t actually true. How many, for example, black women have been president (or prime minister)? Does that mean no black woman has really wanted to be president; that no black woman has worked really, really hard? No, of course not. It means that despite the assumptions we want to be true (that people who have stuff got it fair and square and that the people who don’t have it didn’t get it because of some personal failing or simple bad luck) society is not built fairly and some of us really don’t get a chance.

But here’s another question: so what? In post #20 there was the term “inhuman” used for the first time in this thread. What does it mean to be human? Are we even capable of “fair play?” As individuals, from time to time, we are. Certain lives, certain moments are a testament to the willingness of some people to give for others. But there is the larger species question. Can we as a group control our need to hoard, to display our power and wealth, to take from those who cannot stop us? Well, I’ve read a little history, and I have to say that as a group we seem incapable of transcending the need to display our “rightness” and “power.” This is even true in those places where poverty becomes the ideal. Then the contest becomes “we are poorer than you” or “we are more devout than you.” We simply don’t seem to be able to think past this need to "display" as a group, despite occasional individuals who can.

Some of the descriptions of the parties in this thread remind me of the potlatch. There are many places in the world that have celebrations of conspicuous consumption. They serve a number of purposes. One thing they do is redistribute wealth: the helicopter pilot got paid, the caterers, the harem dancing girls. Another thing they do is consolidate alliances. Think of all the people who did crazy things to get themselves invited so they could be seen by the “right people.” I bet someone got a job out it. Also the big dude and dudette (mom and dad) got to strut and show how BIG they were. This is really important to maintaining their chieftainships. So displays like this are pretty common in human culture whether it is tribal or otherwise. We here in North America are not nearly as “civilized” as we like to think.

Then in post #27 “morally bankrupt” was used. Here is the thing I really would like you to think about. How can we know what is moral and how come we link a financial term to a moral one?

Many people back up their list of right and wrong with some divine entity as the originator of the “Rules.” They know things are right or wrong because some god or goddess has made it clear (through a book, a priest or a bout of illness in the town) what is expected. The rules (no matter how eternal people think their rules are) change over time to reflect the needs of the people attempting to live by them. Rules must do that to stay alive. They must be user-friendly, so to speak. And for us today, that rule, the code by which we know how to behave is explained to us in financial terms. Mercantile morality. So now, "hard earned money" has taken on an almost sacred cast.

Of course there is the possibility of having a set of rules to live by that are not out-sourced to a divine being. Utilitarianism tried to do that. And now that atheists are more numerous (and not routinely killed for heresy) there have been a few other systems being developed. My personal favorite is the species survival one. In this one the basic deciding factor guiding whether something is right or wrong is whether or not the behavior in a group of human beings supports long-term species survival. So causing mass extinctions becomes morally wrong because life on earth is a group project and if the group is diminished too much the whole lot of us lions and tiger and bears (and I) are going to go poof!

So now let’s go back to the rather expensive party…yes it is clearly human. We love showing off our power and our hoard of “earned” privilege. Even the poorest of us do it…I got better shoes than you got…but is it morally OK? Well in my system, the one where morals are judged by whether a behavior contributes to our long-term survival? What do you think? Based on my evolutionary morality…Good or Bad? And why?

[papayahed]

You are right, it's thier money they can spend it any way they like, but why not help the needy as well as show your love to your son/daughter. Why not spend a 100,000 dollars for a one day party and spend a 100,000 dollars to help the people of Louisiana, or blow them off....again, and spend it all on yourself. It seems like a wasted oppertunity. Another odd byproduct of the show is the fact that these people allow the crew to film them and portray them as vapid, self centered individules and they don't seem to get that or don't care.

That's the problem, we only see that one small aspect, from what you see on TV you have no idea if these people give to charity or how much, they might spend every other weekend building homes for charity you don't know. The point is they take on small event and focus solely on that, don't forget these shows are highly edited -it's all about the shock factor and entertainment.

I'm not defending the show I'm just saying look what station it's on - it's all about the ratings.

[Video Drone]

The problem is the system not the people and since you can't educate people you have to change the system. ;)

[papayahed]

The problem is the system not the people and since you can't educate people you have to change the system. ;)

What's wrong with the system? And why can't we educate people?

The system works perfectly fine for me....and most people I know

[kilted exile]

Ok, kiobe, you are going to clear up a few things about what exactly you are asking.

Firstly you ask about 10 year olds; and suggest it is just the parents showing off to the other parents, because a ten year old doesnt know the value of money. Then you say it is related to a TV show (which I will freely admit to not having seen, not even sure it is on in this country) about celebrating a childs 16th birthday and the parents are teaching them to value money over humanity. Which is it you are asking about, because the criteria you have set out for each contradicts the other?



These parties often include as many as 1,000 people from the neighborhood and the high school the person attends. You assume they go to a private school, haven't seen one yet. You assume they live in a gated comminity, but the parties aren't held at the homes of the hosts. Even so, when sending out 1,000 invites your gonna have to include people outside your neighborhood.

Even if they are not at a private school, the catchment area of the school is not likely to include those living in poverty. Also I really doubt the invites are going to people that they dont know. Are they just picking random addresses and sending invites there? To me that is the only way I can see invites being sent to people outwith their own social strata.


well this particular computer I use in my business, but I get your drift. When I was around 22 I lived in Fairbanks, Alaska. I was a bellhop at a popular hotel. I made A LOT of money. we bellhops made about $2,500 a week in tips. This was a boatload of cash in 1979. About once a month when the hotel was full with tourists and thier kids, I would, in the very early morning, drop about 50 lbs. of change ($300 to $400) on the hallways of the hotel. Then when the guests left thier rooms to get breakfast, I would hang out and watch as the kids ran around picking up money, smiling faces, excited minds. I felt I was creating something that the kids would allways remember as the year they went to Alaska where treasure is found even in the hallways of a hotel. I still give of time, money and things. Recently I sent a guitar to a kid I've never meet in Florida that couldn't afford such a thing. Who would be happier? An allready spoiled brat expecting a $150,000 Mercedes or 150 underpriveleged kids getting a nice musical instrument they never though they would ever have?;)

I really do fail to see the relevance of this anecdote. Are you wanting to be told that you are a good person? Better than the parents of the children who get that amount spent on them? I dont know how much those other people donate to charity, and at any rate I dislike the idea of talking about what charities we donate to & how much we give. To me it is a personal thing and not something to be used as a cudgel to beat others over the head with.


Another odd byproduct of the show is the fact that these people allow the crew to film them and portray them as vapid, self centered individules and they don't seem to get that or don't care.

Ps. There is a reason that Saturday Night Live, Mad TV and South Park have all parodied the show.

Papaya, addresses this point and I agree with her statement however there are also a couple of points I would like to add


That's the problem, we only see that one small aspect, from what you see on TV you have no idea if these people give to charity or how much, they might spend every other weekend building homes for charity you don't know. The point is they take on small event and focus solely on that, don't forget these shows are highly edited -it's all about the shock factor and entertainment.

I'm not defending the show I'm just saying look what station it's on - it's all about the ratings.

The show(from what I have read in this thread)appears to be designed to appeal to quite a few demographics; the kind of children/parents whos would want a party like that, and those who want to be morally outraged at decadence. It is shock jock TV and basing an opinion on the overall people displayed from just that show is a very futile activity

[kiobe]

What's wrong with the system? And why can't we educate people?

The system works perfectly fine for me....and most people I know

That's called the hula hoop theory. As long as everything is fine within 5 feet, (metaphoricly speaking), of a person, then everything is fine.

I don't have an answer to your second q.

[kiobe]

Ok, kiobe, you are going to clear up a few things about what exactly you are asking.

Firstly you ask about 10 year olds; and suggest it is just the parents showing off to the other parents, because a ten year old doesnt know the value of money. Then you say it is related to a TV show (which I will freely admit to not having seen, not even sure it is on in this country) about celebrating a childs 16th birthday and the parents are teaching them to value money over humanity. Which is it you are asking about, because the criteria you have set out for each contradicts the other?

kiobe> Here's exactly what I am saying. The over the top display of watefull wealth is vapid, disgusting, self centered, hollow and vomitus.




Even if they are not at a private school, the catchment area of the school is not likely to include those living in poverty. Also I really doubt the invites are going to people that they dont know. Are they just picking random addresses and sending invites there? To me that is the only way I can see invites being sent to people outwith their own social strata.

kiobe> Assumptions, assumptions.



I really do fail to see the relevance of this anecdote. Are you wanting to be told that you are a good person? Better than the parents of the children who get that amount spent on them? I dont know how much those other people donate to charity, and at any rate I dislike the idea of talking about what charities we donate to & how much we give. To me it is a personal thing and not something to be used as a cudgel to beat others over the head with.

kiobe> You're right and I have removed it. But it interesting that you are more offended by a tale of giving that a tale of self centered hording.

Papaya, addresses this point and I agree with her statement however there are also a couple of points I would like to add



The show(from what I have read in this thread)appears to be designed to appeal to quite a few demographics; the kind of children/parents whos would want a party like that, and those who want to be morally outraged at decadence. It is shock jock TV and basing an opinion on the overall people displayed from just that show is a very futile activity

kiobe> the show is not the issue. The behavour is. The behavour exists without a show about it.

[kilted exile]

kiobe> Here's exactly what I am saying. The over the top display of watefull wealth is vapid, disgusting, self centered, hollow and vomitus.

But nobody is forcing you to watch the display. Also whether it is a party for a ten year old or a sixteenth birthday party is important. A 10th birthday is not a socially relevent event, and spending that amount on a tenth birthday could suggst they are spending that amount on a party every year, whereas a 16th birthday is a milestone in life maybe the parents are of the belief that it should be marked as a special important occassion and being able to afford to spend there money in that way choose to do so. Also the age has relevance to previous points you have raised regarding the children undersatanding the value of the party or whether the money has been used to impress the other parents.



kiobe> Assumptions, assumptions.

You are making plenty of your own, just because it is not mentioned does not mean that the parents do not donate heavily to charity or shows the rest of the childs upbringing you assume that they are doing everything to spoil their children and that what happens at the birthday is a regular occurence.

I have provided the reasons for my thoughts as to why there is likely to be nobody living in poverty at the party, how about you tell me where they would come into contact with people living in poverty to invite them to the party.


kiobe> the show is not the issue. The behavour is. The behavour exists without a show about it.

Yes, but the show is a life condenced into 1hour(which when you take away commercials is probably about 40mins) and is solely focused on what makes good TV. the party itself is longer than 40mins, are you really comfortable deciding everything about a person from an edited TV programme?

[kiobe]

I have provided the reasons for my thoughts as to why there is likely to be nobody living in poverty at the party, how about you tell me where they would come into contact with people living in poverty to invite them to the party.





In the US, schools are located in areas where the population shows a need for one. If the population is of a great one, then many schools are needed and built and paid for by property taxes of the property owners living and working in the county that the school district is in. The school district might be large or small and have as few as 3 schools or as many as 50 or more. The placement of a school, wether it be a primary school, a middle school or a high school is based on available land. The placement of the school will attract students from as far away as 3 to 5 miles. The economic stature, in the US, of the people living within the 3 to 5 mile circle around the school vary greatly. It may be hard to believe but the 'pockets of wealth' neighborhoods are just that, very small pockets, usually less than a square mile in area, most allways surronded by very large areas of low income housing and industrial complexes. With the exception of maybe Beverly Hills and Bel Air, schools are filled, to well over their bursting point by the way, with people from all walks of life, including but not limited to, immigrants to the US, foster children, children of single parents living below the poverty level as well as children of the ever decreasing middle class and children of wealthy parents. In the US the 'pocket of wealth' neighborhoods are almost allways surrounded by large areas of small houses with bars on the windows because of the crime. In living here I make no assumptions about the demoghaphics of a school population, as it is a well known fact. US schools are built to accept a specific number of students. They try to limit elementary and middle schools to 600 students and high schools to between 1,200 and 2,000 students. The amount of wealthy parents of students at a US high school is directly proportionate to the 'pocket of wealth' and it's surronding low income housing contained within the 5 mile ring making up the school's student population. Mathmatically that would be an area of 19.66 square miles vs the less than one square mile of a 'pocket of wealth'.

[kiobe]

I really do fail to see the relevance of this anecdote. Are you wanting to be told that you are a good person? Better than the parents of the children who get that amount spent on them? I dont know how much those other people donate to charity, and at any rate I dislike the idea of talking about what charities we donate to & how much we give. To me it is a personal thing and not something to be used as a cudgel to beat others over the head with.



You are right, and I have removed it. Although it is interesting that you are more offended by a tale of giving than a tale of self centered hording.

[papayahed]

You are right, and I have removed it. Although it is interesting that you are more offended by a tale of giving than a tale of self centered hording.

I think the point is being made that talking about giving; detailing what is given and to whom is a different side of the same coin. It's being done for the same reason as a throwing a lavish birthday party - for show.

[papayahed]

kiobe> the show is not the issue. The behavour is. The behavour exists without a show about it.

Are you sure? How do you know? I'm sure it exists somewhere but that show makes it seem like its more prominent then what in reality it really is, but isn't that what most TV does?

[papayahed]

That's called the hula hoop theory. As long as everything is fine within 5 feet, (metaphoricly speaking), of a person, then everything is fine.

I don't have an answer to your second q.


You haven't answered the question though, What's wrong with the system?

[kiobe]

I think the point is being made that talking about giving; detailing what is given and to whom is a different side of the same coin. It's being done for the same reason as a throwing a lavish birthday party - for show.

I shouldn't have given the information about that but I was attempting, badly I might add, that it is easy to give and the rewards of blind falanthopy (sp?) have a greater impact on the giver as well as the reciever.

[kiobe]

Are you sure? How do you know? I'm sure it exists somewhere but that show makes it seem like its more prominent then what in reality it really is, but isn't that what most TV does?

Well I know because I read the newspaper. They have been doing this kind of thing in Southern California, as well as elsewhere, but usually it's a Bar Mitzvah or a Bat Mitzvah, and running into the millions of dollars per event.

[kiobe]

You haven't answered the question though, What's wrong with the system?

Actually you asked 3 questions. The one above and "Why can't we educate people?" I answered the third one.

Which system?

Educate in exactly what way?

[papayahed]

Me:

What's wrong with the system? And why can't we educate people?

You:

That's called the hula hoop theory. As long as everything is fine within 5 feet, (metaphoricly speaking), of a person, then everything is fine

I don't have an answer to your second q.

Me:

You haven't answered the question though, What's wrong with the system?


You:

Actually you asked 3 questions. The one above and "Why can't we educate people?" I answered the third one.



Educate in exactly what way?

So: "What's wrong with the system?" You explained a theory, but didn't give an answer


Which system?

I don't know. Whichever one Video said needed fixing. Perhaps we need Video to answer that before we can argue about it.

[kiobe]

Me:


You:


Me:



You:


So: "What's wrong with the system?" You explained a theory, but didn't give an answer



I don't know. Whichever one Video said needed fixing. Perhaps we need Video to answer that before we can argue about it.

You posted, "The system works perfectly fine for me and most people I know", to which I replied, "That's called the hula hoop theory, as long as 'everything is fine 5 feet around you,(metaphorically speaking), then everything is fine. I didn't post that there was a problem with the system, nor did I post that we can't educate people, Video did.

[papayahed]

I So now let’s go back to the rather expensive party…yes it is clearly human. We love showing off our power and our hoard of “earned” privilege. Even the poorest of us do it…I got better shoes than you got…but is it morally OK? Well in my system, the one where morals are judged by whether a behavior contributes to our long-term survival? What do you think? Based on my evolutionary morality…Good or Bad? And why?

Mary makes some good points.

I guess we all have different ideas about what's moral maybe that's where the problem comes in, I hold myself to my own standards and don't really worry about what anybody else is doing. We don't know these peoples lives.

[papayahed]

Well I know because I read the newspaper. They have been doing this kind of thing in Southern California, as well as elsewhere, but usually it's a Bar Mitzvah or a Bat Mitzvah, and running into the millions of dollars per event.

Southern California is in a totally different reality then most of the country.

[kiobe]

Southern California is in a totally different reality then most of the country.

Very true but, it is definitly not exclusive to what we are talking about.

[papayahed]

Very true but, it is definitly not exclusive to what we are talking about.

True, but I'm wondering what percentage of the population is actually having these types of parties? and does it matter?

[kiobe]

True, but I'm wondering what percentage of the population is actually having these types of parties?

Well I'm almost sure that it is a very, very small percentage.

[NikolaiI]

Well, I haven't read pages 2 or 3, but my view is that it is morally wrong, I guess, opposed to others on here. I mean, you could say yes, you earned it, legally or whatever, but do you deserve it? Let's say the CEO's of a trucking company like J.B. Hunt or another one of the big ones, they make 5-10 million dollars a year. What makes them worth that, when their drivers make 30-80 thousand? What on earth makes them that much more valuable? Their training? Education? It's bull. According to my morals, if you have that much money you need to give it all away.

[kiobe]

Well, I haven't read pages 2 or 3, but my view is that it is morally wrong, I guess, opposed to others on here. I mean, you could say yes, you earned it, legally or whatever, but do you deserve it? Let's say the CEO's of a trucking company like J.B. Hunt or another one of the big ones, they make 5-10 million dollars a year. What makes them worth that, when their drivers make 30-80 thousand? What on earth makes them that much more valuable? Their training? Education? It's bull. According to my morals, if you have that much money you need to give it all away.

:D I guess we're just a couple of socialists. :D

[Video Drone]

What's wrong with the system? And why can't we educate people?

The system works perfectly fine for me....and most people I know
The system allows people to waste money. I mean capitalism. Also, the system allows people get money they don't deserve, as in NikolaI's example. This will continue until we change the system and we are not doing that any time soon.

We can't educate people because they are not wrong in this case. They were given the money, it is their to spend in any way they deem proper. If they got more money just because they are C.E.O.'s, it's still their money and they don't have to spend it anywhere. And where else could they spend it?

[papayahed]

The system allows people to waste money. I mean capitalism. Also, the system allows people get money they don't deserve, as in NikolaI's example. This will continue until we change the system and we are not doing that any time soon.




A system that doesn't allow people to waste money? I'm wondering how that would work? Is the government gonna tell me what's a waste of money? That's impinging on my personal rights isn't it? An HMO for money?

[Pensive]

The system allows people to waste money. I mean capitalism. Also, the system allows people get money they don't deserve, as in NikolaI's example. This will continue until we change the system and we are not doing that any time soon.

We can't educate people because they are not wrong in this case. They were given the money, it is their to spend in any way they deem proper. If they got more money just because they are C.E.O.'s, it's still their money and they don't have to spend it anywhere. And where else could they spend it?

I think I agree with you. Being more of a socialist rather than a capitalist, I believe on huge taxes on those who deserve it. But if they are given some amount of money, it's their right to spend it the way they like. They are not snatching money from anyone after all, are following the laws, aren't hurting anybody themselves, that's why I don't think there is anything 'immoral' about it. Though I don't see the point of such parties as a personal choice...

Here you can manage an extremely wonderful birthday party in thirty pounds! Even seven pounds are enough for a fine party! :)

[Video Drone]

A system that doesn't allow people to waste money? I'm wondering how that would work? Is the government gonna tell me what's a waste of money? That's impinging on my personal rights isn't it? An HMO for money?Did I propose a system? Did I say we should adapt some other system? Did I? Why are you attacking me? Read my post before you attack, please...

[papayahed]

If you feel like I'm attacking you then I apologize.

[kiobe]

Okeeeeeeeeeee, round of martinis for all.:argue: +:banana: :banana: =:ladysman:

Can't we all just get along...........Rodney King

[Pensive]

Okeeeeeeeeeee, round of martinis for all.:argue: +:banana: :banana: =:ladysman:

And what for those who don't drink? :p

[kiobe]

And what for those who don't drink? :p

Strawberry banana smoothies:D :D

[kiz_paws]

Then in post #27 “morally bankrupt” was used. Here is the thing I really would like you to think about. How can we know what is moral and how come we link a financial term to a moral one?


The term was bounced back from the original thread question, which read: Pefectly Legal, But Is It Morally Bankrupt? :)

But for the records, a family can do whatever it is that shakes their tree, it matters not to I ... I cannot really condemn people for the things that they do, just as I'd expect that no one would do the same to me. The only opinion that I wanted to project was that the recipients of such extravagent gifts may not always realize just what it takes to earn such items ... when they are so freely tossed about. Cash, expensive trips, cars, wardrobes, the list goes on....

People without money trees in their backyard work hours at often jobs that they hate, and cent by cent, save for extravagent things, and possibly appreciate the items more.... well, anyhow that was my point.

[kiobe]

The term was bounced back from the original thread question, which read: Pefectly Legal, But Is It Morally Bankrupt? :)

But for the records, a family can do whatever it is that shakes their tree, it matters not to I ... I cannot really condemn people for the things that they do, just as I'd expect that no one would do the same to me. The only opinion that I wanted to project was that the recipients of such extravagent gifts may not always realize just what it takes to earn such items ... when they are so freely tossed about. Cash, expensive trips, cars, wardrobes, the list goes on....

People without money trees in their backyard work hours at often jobs that they hate, and cent by cent, save for extravagent things, and possibly appreciate the items more.... well, anyhow that was my point.

Just for the record I never actually said the I thought it was immoral......just vomitus. :D

[MaryLupin]

So this is a real question...for anyone here on this thread to answer...how do you know when something is the right thing to do? Do you get a feeling in your gut, do you have a list (like the commandments), do you judge what you are about to do by the law of the land?

Do you ever think about how you "know" what is right and wrong? And if you do are you willing to share with us?

[kiobe]

So this is a real question...for anyone here on this thread to answer...how do you know when something is the right thing to do? Do you get a feeling in your gut, do you have a list (like the commandments), do you judge what you are about to do by the law of the land?

Do you ever think about how you "know" what is right and wrong? And if you do are you willing to share with us?

If my grandma would get mad about it, then it's wrong. Really, though, good q. I'll have to think about that a bit.

[NikolaiI]

I don't know, Mary, I'll get back to you in some years. :)

[MaryLupin]

I mean we all just instantly have feelings, opinions about things but we rarely think about why we have those feelings or opinions.

I remember a study that I read once many years ago that interviewed people about what kind of person they would want to marry. The answers were always things like - a person that loves me, respects me, desires me. People almost always dismissed things like race, class, education levels as reasons for marrying. And yet, as the study showed, the vast majority of people marry within their race, class and education level. It's not that what we believe to be our true motivations (i.e. love, respect etc) are wrong. More it is that there are these driving forces in us that come from the way we were raised (not just our parents but our whole culture) that seem to do more to guide us in our actual behaviors than what we think (assume) guides us. Perhaps all I am saying is that we are less free than we think, but what I do know from years of teaching university students is that the more we think about how we come to believe what we do the freer our actual behavior can be.

[amanda_isabel]

Spending your hard earned money on something that you want is something we all do but do people cross a moral and ethical line when they spend $250,000.00 on a birthday party for a 10 year old? Or having the interior of thie home guilded in 22 karat gold. Isn't spending excessive amounts of money on frivolous things a bit like gorging on food in front of someone living in poverty?


i don't see why they shouldn't. hard earned money, after all. they deserve the right to spend it the way we want. isn't that the pinciple opf freedom of purchase or something like that? (sorry, my economics lessons escape me at the moment.) it would be even better if they spent their cash frivolously after giving to charity...

of course though there are always better things to do with money, like instead of gilding walls wioth gold, why not put up walls for orphans or so? i think the world would truly marvel at that. :)

[kiz_paws]

I mean we all just instantly have feelings, opinions about things but we rarely think about why we have those feelings or opinions....

...the more we think about how we come to believe what we do the freer our actual behavior can be.

Mary this is deep, let me mull it over. :)

[Virgil]

i don't see why they shouldn't. hard earned money, after all. they deserve the right to spend it the way we want. isn't that the pinciple opf freedom of purchase or something like that? (sorry, my economics lessons escape me at the moment.) it would be even better if they spent their cash frivolously after giving to charity...


Quite right Amanda. There is nothing immoral about money legally earned and legally spent. If society has deemed enterprises legal than they have a right to earn money in that fashion and spend their money in whichever manner they want. That is freedom. And if you think it's wrong to spend $250,000 dollars on a birthday party, than you are denying a whole slew of people from earning their living. Money spent by someone is money earned by someone else. Think of all the cooks and waiters and bus boys and party hat makers and clowns and people who make presents that are earning money by someone spending it. I'd rather support a society that allows people to earn money rather than create a society where people are forced to beg or live off the public dole.

[kiobe]

of course though there are always better things to do with money, like instead of gilding walls wioth gold, why not put up walls for orphans or so? i think the world would truly marvel at that. :)

Virgil, you are cherry picking, Amanda also made the statement above.^


Quite right Amanda. There is nothing immoral about money legally earned and legally spent. If society has deemed enterprises legal than they have a right to earn money in that fashion and spend their money in whichever manner they want. That is freedom. And if you think it's wrong to spend $250,000 dollars on a birthday party, than you are denying a whole slew of people from earning their living. Money spent by someone is money earned by someone else. Think of all the cooks and waiters and bus boys and party hat makers and clowns and people who make presents that are earning money by someone spending it. I'd rather support a society that allows people to earn money rather than create a society where people are forced to beg or live off the public dole.

The trickle down theory does work for the first few to recieve it but by the time it gets to the bottom it is merely a tool of bondage. If a 6 dollar an hour job with limited or no benefits for the cooks, waiters, bus boys, party hat makers and clowns sounds good to you, then why did you go to college to get an engineering degree. The fact is, that these jobs will be there whether or not these over the top displays of self involvement exist, because of the extremely low numbers of this type of revenue. In other words, we're not doing them any favors by saying that we will employ you for a day or two at 6dollars per hour while we spend twohundred and fifty thousand on ourselves. Not that there is a law against it, and I am not insinuating that there should be.

[MaryLupin]

There is nothing immoral about money legally earned and legally spent. If society has deemed enterprises legal than they have a right to earn money in that fashion and spend their money in whichever manner they want. That is freedom.

OK. So the equation here is between "legal" and "moral." So, does that mean that in a society that has legal slavery money earned from slave agriculture (as one example) can be morally well spent killing slaves as a form of entertainment? It would be legal to do so since slaves are property and therefore at the discretion of their owners. Would this count as freedom?

[MaryLupin]

trickle down theory... as a tool for bondage. Hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks Kiobe. That will give me something to think about when I ponder the life and means of Mr. Smith.

[EAP]

It's about as immoral as drinking a can of pop when there are millions of people out there who don't have access to clean water.

[kiobe]

as a tool for bondage. Hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks Kiobe. That will give me something to think about when I ponder the life and means of Mr. Smith.

One good turn deserves another. Many thanks to you.:D

[Virgil]

Virgil, you are cherry picking, Amanda also made the statement above.^

Actually i agree with Amanda's statement. But that is a personal choice by the person who's money it is. You have heard of freedom? That is why socialism is unfree. A person works and then is forced to spend the fruits of his labor by the will of others.


The trickle down theory does work for the first few to recieve it but by the time it gets to the bottom it is merely a tool of bondage. If a 6 dollar an hour job with limited or no benefits for the cooks, waiters, bus boys, party hat makers and clowns sounds good to you, then why did you go to college to get an engineering degree. The fact is, that these jobs will be there whether or not these over the top displays of self involvement exist, because of the extremely low numbers of this type of revenue. In other words, we're not doing them any favors by saying that we will employ you for a day or two at 6dollars per hour while we spend twohundred and fifty thousand on ourselves. Not that there is a law against it, and I am not insinuating that there should be.
Obviously you're a socialist. You believe that some utopia exists where everyone is monetarily equal. You seem to think that there is value in everyone having the same wealth. The fact remains that prosperity doesn't exist in socialist countries. Socialism is shared poverty, not prosperity. Free market countries have the best standards of living. Look across the world. Countries such as China, India, Chile, Brazille, Great Britain, even France are moving to free-er markets, not socialism. The reason is that that is what makes people, everyone, more prosperous.


OK. So the equation here is between "legal" and "moral." So, does that mean that in a society that has legal slavery money earned from slave agriculture (as one example) can be morally well spent killing slaves as a form of entertainment? It would be legal to do so since slaves are property and therefore at the discretion of their owners. Would this count as freedom?

You bring up a good point. I am not a libertarian. There may be some legal activities which are inherently immoral. The only example that exists in my country (the US) that I can think of is the pornography industry. There is no difference between that and prostituion. Casino gambling perhaps is another. But society repeatedly endorses such enterprises, despite my chagrin. Perhaps there are others I'm not thinking of. Obviously slavery is immoral under any circumstances.

[MaryLupin]

You bring up a good point. I am not a libertarian. There may be some legal activities which are inherently immoral. The only example that exists in my country (the US) that I can think of is the pornography industry. There is no difference between that and prostituion. Casino gambling perhaps is another. But society repeatedly endorses such enterprises, despite my chagrin. Perhaps there are others I'm not thinking of. Obviously slavery is immoral under any circumstances.

What about the US's reliance on cheap migrant labor?

[Virgil]

What about the US's reliance on cheap migrant labor?

What's wrong with that? They are dying to work here and make out much better by the standards of their country.

[kiobe]

Obviously you're a socialist.
Kiobe>>Wrong. I am a business owner/capitalist/falanthrapist.

You believe that some utopia exists where everyone is monetarily equal.

Kiobe>>Wrong. But exactly what would be the harm in everyone having the economic means to pay for health insurance, a college education, or even a respectful furneral.

You seem to think that there is value in everyone having the same wealth.

Kiobe>>Wrong. Not the 'same' wealth, just enough to acomplish the answer above and a little extra for thier own over the top party.

The fact remains that prosperity doesn't exist in socialist countries.

Kiobe>>Very wrong. Sweden, Norway, Denmark are a few under thier own definition of socialisim.

Socialism is shared poverty, not prosperity.

Kiobe>>Often the prosperity is reserved for the upper eschalon and the rules of redistribution are ignored so the 'test' of wheather or not socialisim 'works' is never actually put to the test.


Free market countries have the best standards of living. Look across the world. Countries such as China, India, Chile, Brazille, Great Britain, even France are moving to free-er markets, not socialism. The reason is that that is what makes people, everyone, more prosperous.

Kiobe>>Some people. Not everyone. Been to Louisiana lately? Almost 36 million people in the US are living below the poverty level including 13 million children, more than 10 percent of our population. This doesn't include the migrant workers, maybe another 5 million.

You bring up a good point. I am not a libertarian. There may be some legal activities which are inherently immoral. The only example that exists in my country (the US) that I can think of is the pornography industry. There is no difference between that and prostituion. Casino gambling perhaps is another. But society repeatedly endorses such enterprises, despite my chagrin. Perhaps there are others I'm not thinking of. Obviously slavery is immoral under any circumstances.

kiobe>>Legalized casino gambeling is immoral? How?

[jon1jt]

which is inherently immoral
1. porn?
2. prostitution?
3. gambling?
4. cheap migrant labor?

answer. war kills. oh, i forgot about that big academic term, "necessary evil." ugh.

[kiobe]

What's wrong with that? They are dying to work here and make out much better by the standards of their country.

What's wrong with that is that the wealthy are using the poor to become wealthier without greater benifits to the poor. First, it takes an immigrant, on average, 10 years to become 'legal'. The immigrants working here, for the most part are here without work visas and because of this take any job at any rate and are very ofter paid well below thier skill level and the minimum wage guarenteed by the individule states and have no recourse. Often times they live together in an apartment with as many as ten people living in an apartment meant for 2 or 3. Great standards.

[Virgil]

kiobe>>Legalized casino gambeling is immoral? How?
I said perhaps. I find it distateful at the least that it is legal for an outfit to provide gaming, which if you understand statistics means that if you gamble long enough, you will lose. They will take your money. But I guess there are people who knowingly do it. And derive enjoyment from it. But it's a sucker's bet.


What's wrong with that is that the wealthy are using the poor to become wealthier without greater benifits to the poor. First, it takes an immigrant, on average, 10 years to become 'legal'. The immigrants working here, for the most part are here without work visas and because of this take any job at any rate and are very ofter paid well below thier skill level and the minimum wage guarenteed by the individule states and have no recourse. Often times they live together in an apartment with as many as ten people living in an apartment meant for 2 or 3. Great standards.
First of all, they are doing there best to sign up. Just like anyone employed, they are earning a living. They are earning more money than back home. Not only do they make ends meet, they for the most part send money back home. They don't have to come here if they don't want to. They see opportunity here. And many settle down and permanently stay here, willingly. So please, the bleeding heart crap doesn't work with me or with most people.

[Virgil]

which is inherently immoral
1. porn?
2. prostitution?
3. gambling?
4. cheap migrant labor?

answer. war kills. oh, i forgot about that big academic term, "necessary evil." ugh.

Is there some drug induced logic in any of that Jon? :lol: Another of the best minds of the generation destroyed?

[kiobe]

I said perhaps. I find it distateful at the least that it is legal for an outfit to provide gaming, which if you understand statistics means that if you gamble long enough, you will lose. They will take your money. But I guess there are people who knowingly do it. And derive enjoyment from it. But it's a sucker's bet.

kiobe>>Gambeling is entertainment, regulated by the state and played voluntarily by hundereds of millions of decent, law abiding people. To attach your morality to it is to judge it by your own terms.

First of all, they are doing there best to sign up.

kiobe>>Still takes an average of 10 years, and in some cases up to 15 years.

Just like anyone employed, they are earning a living.

kiobe>>The hurtfull part of the statement is that a great majority aren't being paid a legal state sanctioned wage and that's ok w/ you.

They are earning more money than back home.

kiobe>> True, but again, less than an American worker from the same skill set.

Not only do they make ends meet, they for the most part send money back home.

kiobe>>True, but again, in order to do this on a wage that is below the state santioned figure, they pack themselves into houses and apartments to bring thier overhead costs down.


They don't have to come here if they don't want to.

kiobe>>Rather flippant, don't you think?



They see opportunity here. And many settle down and permanently stay here, willingly.

kiobe>>Show me the stats on the amount of immigrants that, if thier not killed by the people helping them to get here, stay and how many return to the familys that they have been sending home money to.

So please, the bleeding heart crap doesn't work with me or with most people.

kiobe>>Doesn't work with most people, or most people you know? Do you really believe that a discussion about equal wages and equal rights is something to be scoffed at? It seems your version of capitalism is a bit like the version that built our railroad system....on the backs of the less fortunate.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^actum ne agas ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Virgil]

kiobe>>Still takes an average of 10 years, and in some cases up to 15 years.

i'm not sure what you're talking about. If they are here illegally they cannot ever be citizens under current law. I believe the current administration was trying to set up an avenue for them to get legal status and a path to citizenship. That legislation, which I supported, fell through on a bi-partisan basis. If one is a legal immigrant, then it takes seven years to be eligible for citizenship.


kiobe>>The hurtfull part of the statement is that a great majority aren't being paid a legal state sanctioned wage and that's ok w/ you.
I don't consider it hurtful. They are earning a living for the skills they have. OK with me. I'm an immigrant myself. I had a father and grandfather who earned fairly low wages and built a life here and over time did not do too bad. There is honor and pride in work.


They don't have to come here if they don't want to.

kiobe>>Rather flippant, don't you think?
No not at all. They know the circumstances. Having spoken to some, they are quite proud of their efforts and accomplishments. The one's I've spoken to are actually fairly respectful of this country and its values. I hope that there will be an avenue to citizenship for them. I find them more American than many Americans I know. There biggest dreams are to start their own business. They have real entrepeneral (sp?) values, an unbelievable work ethic, strong family bonds, and religious underpinnings. Model people if you ask me.


kiobe>>Show me the stats on the amount of immigrants that, if thier not killed by the people helping them to get here, stay and how many return to the familys that they have been sending home money to.
Well, I don't have the statistics. Perhaps they are on the internet somewhere. Surely most of them aren't killed. Yes, there are hardships, that's why a legal means of coming here to work needs to be worked out.


kiobe>>Do you really believe that a discussion about equal wages and equal rights is something to be scoffed at? It seems your version of capitalism is a bit like the version that built our railroad system....on the backs of the less fortunate.
I believe one does no good in establishing pay structures. Central planning is a waste of time. Look at the illegals undermining the current system. There are natural pay wages for certain skill sets. If one can't live on those wages, then one doesn't take the job. If one forces wages, then inflation adjusts what things cost. There is a symbiotic relationship.

[jon1jt]

Is there some drug induced logic in any of that Jon? :lol: Another of the best minds of the generation destroyed?


:lol: don't mind me, Virge, i'm in a progressive mood lately, i watched Moore's Sicko film. it'll pass. :lol:

[papayahed]

Some people. Not everyone. Been to Louisiana lately?

I know your talking about katrina, but there's more to it then just that.

As I joked (even though it's really not funny) somewhere else Louisiana is at the bottom in terms of education and #1 in cases of STD's. I've only been here a few months but we have elections coming up and I haven't heard one thing about changing these statistics, where's the protests? Calls for action?



If the people effected are complacent why should I worry about it?

[papayahed]

I said perhaps. I find it distateful at the least that it is legal for an outfit to provide gaming, which if you understand statistics means that if you gamble long enough, you will lose. They will take your money. But I guess there are people who knowingly do it. And derive enjoyment from it. But it's a sucker's bet.



Good thing you're not the Minster of entertainment. Really what's the difference if you spend $100 at a casino in a night or spend $100 for dinner and a movie.

[Virgil]

Good thing you're not the Minster of entertainment. Really what's the difference if you spend $100 at a casino in a night or spend $100 for dinner and a movie.

Yeah I understand if it stops there. But there are an awful lot of people who (a) believe they will strike it rich or (b) are addicted to gambling. I'm not knowledgable in why, but for some people gambling is as addictive as drugs.

[papayahed]

Yeah I understand if it stops there. But there are an awful lot of people who (a) believe they will strike it rich or (b) are addicted to gambling. I'm not knowledgable in why, but for some people gambling is as addictive as drugs.

Kinda like throwing a $100,000 birthay party.

[Virgil]

Kinda like throwing a $100,000 birthay party.

:lol: :lol: Yeah, but one isn't counting on a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. One is spending on one's desires rather than throwing it away. Hey Papaya if you like to gamble go ahead. If you don't have a gambling problem, it's not the worst of vices. I'm sure you understand probablity. :)

[papayahed]

From this thread I am gathering some people want to tell me how much money I can have and others want to tell me where I can spend it.....

[Walter]

From this thread I am gathering some people want to tell me how much money I can have and others want to tell me where I can spend it.....

You are probably right about that! People are great at having opinions about what other people should do.

Back to the original question, I don't see any reason for me to get judgemental about their behavior.
I don't care about them, and they certainly don't care about my opinion.

[kilted exile]

well, this thread has certainly taken a few topic changes since I last posted here.

Firstly (briefly & finally) addressing the likelihood of these children attending the same schools as people living in poverty (note poverty here, not just working class or poor but poverty which is a completely different thing altogether). Sorry Kiobe I just really dont see it happening, if these parent's childrens were attending schools at the lowest end of the economic scale I cant see their parents accepting that, and do believe they would be pulled out and if required bussed to schools outwith their catchment areas.

Secondly, it has annoyed me that it has been suggested in this thread that to be socialist is to disapprove of the way these people have spent their money and/or wish to control how people spend their money. Socialism refers to state ownership of facilities & national infrastructure, and the putting in place of adequate social support networks to assist the population. In fact, in a truly socialist society there would be no need for domestic philanthropy as the monies brought in by taxation would support those within the country to the extent that they do not require handouts from individuals. Of course donating to international charity organisations would still be a necessary thing. Socialism does not tell people how to spend the money remaining in their bank account/pocket after taxation.

Now, gambling. Yes there are some parts of gambling which are a mugs game, in particular dice, roulette, slot machines & lotteries (to be addressed in particular later) which are based solely on chance. There are also some forms of gambling which involve elements of skill (cards, sports wagering(with the exception of some of the "fun" superbowl props) etc) As is the case with alcohol, addictions can also develop to gambling and for those who have issues with an addiction they should not gamble. However for the rest of us it is, in most cases, harmless fun.

The only type of gambling I would do away with is State run lotteries where the government uses part of the collected monies to fund art & culture projects (dodges flying missiles). In most cases I feel these amount to little more than a tax on the poor. Using the British National Lottery as an example, it has been my experience that the majority of players are those who have the least to begin with and the ones who can least afford to give up the money. The art & culture projects which are funded through the lottery however are not things which the average working class family will ever come into contact with however (for an example see the millenium dome - fine for those living in an area near where it was built, but completely inaccesible to anyone living a distance away that cant afford a car or the cost of transportation to see it).

[Virgil]

I may have been the first to bring up socialism and it was not directed at the question at hand, but at something kiobe specifically said. Sorry if I disrupted the flow of the conversation, but a whole bunch of side questions came up.


From this thread I am gathering some people want to tell me how much money I can have and others want to tell me where I can spend it.....

Well, I agree with you. Like I said in my original post, if it's legal then I don't think (except for a very few exeptions that came up, and those are obviously a matter of personal opinions) it's immoral to spend one's money in anyway they want.

[kilted exile]

:lol: :lol: Dont worry Virg, you werent the first to bring up socialism. The part that annoyed me most was posts 51/52 which equated socialism with ideas such as if you have that much money you have to give it all away & nationalised wage for all professions. Ideas which are much more of Communism than Socialism.

Anyway addressing something more on topic:


So this is a real question...for anyone here on this thread to answer...how do you know when something is the right thing to do? Do you get a feeling in your gut, do you have a list (like the commandments), do you judge what you are about to do by the law of the land?

Do you ever think about how you "know" what is right and wrong? And if you do are you willing to share with us?

I am still working on developing my moral code, it is most definitely still a work in progress & will continue to be until the day I die. With every new dilemma I face the code changes slightly, I used to be idealistic until I realised that perfection doesnt exist anywhere in the real world. I base my choices on a number of things in no specific order:

-Gut reaction/conscience
-remnants of when I attended church until 18
-effect of parental outlooks during my upbringing
-personal experiences
-emotions (still trying to conquer this one)
-observances of life while growing up
-habits instilled in me by various teachers & coaches

I am unable to pick out one thing which influences my beliefs more than others, I think for most people it is a combination of things.

[NikolaiI]

I don't think legal and moral are so often in accord with one another. A couple of times I've seen it said that it's moral because it's legal, and I can't really agree with that statement, since I don't think what is legal necessarily has much to do with what is moral.

[Virgil]

Now, gambling. Yes there are some parts of gambling which are a mugs game, in particular dice, roulette, slot machines & lotteries (to be addressed in particular later) which are based solely on chance. There are also some forms of gambling which involve elements of skill (cards, sports wagering(with the exception of some of the "fun" superbowl props) etc) As is the case with alcohol, addictions can also develop to gambling and for those who have issues with an addiction they should not gamble. However for the rest of us it is, in most cases, harmless fun.


You're right. It is different for card games. But I did have a friend who wound up getting hooked and playing poker with some professionals. He thought he was good, and maybe he was, but ultimately he wound up losing his house. He took out all sorts of loans against it and he wound up losing that money. Yeah, you might think you're good, but professionals are really good. It is fun to play poker. I play poker occaisionally with some of my friends I grew up with, but we're playing with nickels, dimes, and occaisionally quarters. The most one loses is 15 to 20 dollars. Of course that's what on may win too, but we're just having fun and drinking some beer.