And before the "welcome to the internet" BS starts, I'd say welcome to Paizo's corner of the internet, where they kindly ask people not to be jerks.
that they ask means the world to me.
Now, back to the thread, polite and neat, already in progress.
Let's avoid jerkitude on all levels, including funny tag lines.
Alright, I hear you and Kryz -- I'll chill. Just had a pot/kettle moment there that about stunned me, but I'm OK now.
Jerkiness is subjective. I can only be me.
Adjust your expectations.
I love you too, Meatrace.
Then why compare them to an international business? What is the point to it? Compare apples to applesThen again exxon is a business selling a product. what does green peace do to earn money?Greenpeace: total donations €268,000,000 ($370,000,000)
Exxon-Mobil: net income $32,000,000,000
Greenpeace took in slightly over 1% of Exxon's profits. If you're going to run a conspiracy, environmentalism isn't the most profitable area to consider.
Also, Exxon's profits don't include the CEO's salary, which was over $40,000,000 last year, or about 15% of Greenpeace's total donations.
Asks people to voluntarily contribute their money to a cause that can't have a profit motive attached... you know, the way you want every non profit creating enterprise to work.
Because people refer to the money that Greenpeace or other environmentalists as a motive for a grand conspiracy.
If you look at Exxon's gross revenue, it's north of $300,000,000,000.
If you were looking to conduct a global conspiracy to make yourself rich, which enterprise would you pursue:
a) $300,000,000
or
b) $300,000,000,000
If I accept that Greenpeace is open to conspiracy due to it's financial standings, then it has to be accepted that Exxon is literally 1000 times more vulnerable to the same thing
Exxon reports to a board of directors and it's shareholders.
Who does Greenpeace report to?
Exxon reports to a board of directors and it's shareholders.
Who does Greenpeace report to?
Its donors.
I don't buy the idea that, hey, because corporations are beholden to shareholders that they never do anything illegal or unethical, because I think recent history is replete with facts contrary to that. Does this mean that the shareholders signed off on illegal/unethical activity? Or does it just mean that corporations are huge and not all information on their functions are germane to the shareholders/BoD and thus information gets withheld.
Exxon reports to a board of directors and it's shareholders.
Who does Greenpeace report to?
Its donors.
I don't buy the idea that, hey, because corporations are beholden to shareholders that they never do anything illegal or unethical, because I think recent history is replete with facts contrary to that. Does this mean that the shareholders signed off on illegal/unethical activity? Or does it just mean that corporations are huge and not all information on their functions are germane to the shareholders/BoD and thus information gets withheld.
That wasn't where I was going with that.
I'd rather have the 300 mil with way less oversight and legal entanglements than the 300 bil with them.
Horsepucky.
Exxon reports to a board of directors and it's shareholders.
Who does Greenpeace report to?
I'm not saying that Greenpeace is free of corruption.
I'm waiting for an explanation that says $300,000,000,000 is less of an incentive for corruption than $300,000,000. Because that's part of the argument against environmental groups, that their "access to money" corrupts the science and/or motives.
I'm not saying some people don't get into environmental causes as a way to make/scam money. I think the evidence is pretty clear though that you're going to make/scam much more money going into non-environmental causes though.
Highest compensation:
Greenpeace: $100,000
Exxon: $40,000,000
Also, US donations to Greenpeace only equaled $12,268,497 in 2012. Or about 30% of what the CEO of Exxon made, which is just a single person.
If we're looking at incentives for greed, I don't think the environmental groups are the best examples.
Horsepucky.
Well, it depends on which part you're looking at.
Exxon does have to deal with a whole host of regulations regarding their product itself. But that's the nature of their industry and isn't directly related to financial reporting, but rather environmental and worker safety regulation. So, the number of regulations is probably in Exxon's favor.
There's also a lot of SEC regulations that Exxon is subject to, because it is publicly traded.
At the same time, Greenpeace is subject to all standard workplace laws. In addition there is a lot of regulation on what they can and cannot do and they have to provide proof to the IRS to maintain their 501(c)(3) status.
Not being a lawyer who deals with financial regulation or tax law, I couldn't really tell you which is more stringent. Unless you are one, I doubt you can either.
|
You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" partFreehold, if someone like Fakey or Kruelaid invokes "don't be a jerk," it's pretty clear it's time to straighten up one's act. But when Madame Cruella de Sissyl (tag line: "Let me help hold this one down while you cut his throat") invokes that rule, it rises to high comedy. It's like Citizen R telling people not to sound racist.
And it is still funny as &^%$ to me that you find my position that all people should be treated equally to be racist.
And it is still funny as &^%$ to me that you find my position that all people should be treated equally to be racist.You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" partFreehold, if someone like Fakey or Kruelaid invokes "don't be a jerk," it's pretty clear it's time to straighten up one's act. But when Madame Cruella de Sissyl (tag line: "Let me help hold this one down while you cut his throat") invokes that rule, it rises to high comedy. It's like Citizen R telling people not to sound racist.
Because your claim to that position erodes the moment it hits the real world. If all people were treated equally, black men wouldn't be profiled as criminals. But you're okay with that, because, statistically, it's more common.
Anyway, that's something for another thread.
And it is still funny as &^%$ to me that you find my position that all people should be treated equally to be racist.You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" partFreehold, if someone like Fakey or Kruelaid invokes "don't be a jerk," it's pretty clear it's time to straighten up one's act. But when Madame Cruella de Sissyl (tag line: "Let me help hold this one down while you cut his throat") invokes that rule, it rises to high comedy. It's like Citizen R telling people not to sound racist.
Nope, that isn't why we think that.
It's what you tell yourself to make yourself feel better though.
Also, your concern for the poor is palpable.
It trickles off my screen like a rain with golden rays of sunshine sparkling through them.
|
I love my cat. My cat has personality. Personality goes a long way.I loved my cats too. But they are an ecologist's nightmare. They're so good at surviving in multiple environments, they've wreaked devastation on native biomes as humans introduced them to new environments.
I have never loved a cat, because all cats everywhere are the devil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Buried in the 13th Age equipment list:
Cat 5cp
Cat guaranteed free of fleas and demonic possesion 30gp
|
|
Also, your concern for the poor is palpable.
It trickles off my screen like a rain with golden rays of sunshine sparkling through them.
They need opportunity, not bleeding hearts to give to them. teach a man to fish, not steal one from the fishermen to give to them. If you had any real desire to help the poor you would want them to have jobs not welfare.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They need opportunity, not bleeding hearts to give to them. teach a man to fish, not steal one from the fishermen to give to them. If you had any real desire to help the poor you would want them to have jobs not welfare.Also, your concern for the poor is palpable.
It trickles off my screen like a rain with golden rays of sunshine sparkling through them.
Oddly enough the instructional fishermen need to be paid too.
And then you need to give them a net, a boat, and some fishing equipment OR have someone with a fleet of ships willing to hire them despite a lack of experience.
Then of course there's the problem that you can't make a living in a row boat if the market is inundated with cheaper fish from someone using a drag net off of a schooner.
They need opportunity, not bleeding hearts to give to them. teach a man to fish, not steal one from the fishermen to give to them. If you had any real desire to help the poor you would want them to have jobs not welfare.Also, your concern for the poor is palpable.
It trickles off my screen like a rain with golden rays of sunshine sparkling through them.
Are you in favor of government jobs programs?
I thought it was: "Give a man a fish, that's socialism. TEACH a man to fish, THAT'S SOCIALISM!"
|
|
Are you in favor of government jobs programs?They need opportunity, not bleeding hearts to give to them. teach a man to fish, not steal one from the fishermen to give to them. If you had any real desire to help the poor you would want them to have jobs not welfare.Also, your concern for the poor is palpable.
It trickles off my screen like a rain with golden rays of sunshine sparkling through them.
When done right
What's the right way?
I was just wondering, Citizen R., about what you did for a living?
Last time I noticed, you were working graveyard shift at a convenience store, which, last I checked, constituted being poor. But maybe you've got another job or have money coming in elsewhere.
Not that it's any of my business, I just wonder when others make comments about your concern for the poor, 'cuz I always got the feeling that you were poor.
|
|
I was just wondering, Citizen R., about what you did for a living?
Last time I noticed, you were working graveyard shift at a convenience store, which, last I checked, constituted being poor. But maybe you've got another job or have money coming in elsewhere.
Not that it's any of my business, I just wonder when others make comments about your concern for the poor, 'cuz I always got the feeling that you were poor.
By all standards i am poor, but i make no excuses nor blame anyone for it. I live simply by the means i have and do not expect anything from anyone. My contempt for many poor people comes from living among them and particularly from working in such a store.
To make long lasting positive change without waste of taxpayer money and without it turning into a gift for some politician's business buddies.What's the right way?
And you do realize that according to republicans you are a leech for not paying your fair share of federal income taxes, right?
The republicans ONLY idea is to cut regulations, cut funding, cut taxes and let private businesses do whatever they want to do. The thing is that we have been doing this for 30 years and it does. not. work.
|
|
To make long lasting positive change without waste of taxpayer money and without it turning into a gift for some politician's business buddies.What's the right way?
And you do realize that according to republicans you are a leech for not paying your fair share of federal income taxes, right?
The republicans ONLY idea is to cut regulations, cut funding, cut taxes and let private businesses do whatever they want to do. The thing is that we have been doing this for 30 years and it does. not. work.
There is a reason im not a repulican and also see the huge mistakes they make
When done right
Which to you is the same as saying that you don't want them done because no program, public or private, has EVER been done to your standards. You make an engine, you accept losses to friction and heat. You enact a large program - for profit, non profit, or governmental, you accept that things will be wasted. Insisting on perfect or nothing is insisting on nothing.
When done rightAre you in favor of government jobs programs?They need opportunity, not bleeding hearts to give to them. teach a man to fish, not steal one from the fishermen to give to them. If you had any real desire to help the poor you would want them to have jobs not welfare.Also, your concern for the poor is palpable.
It trickles off my screen like a rain with golden rays of sunshine sparkling through them.
That's a brave stance, standing in opposition to people who want to do it the wrong way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And it is still funny as &^%$ to me that you find my position that all people should be treated equally to be racist.You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" partFreehold, if someone like Fakey or Kruelaid invokes "don't be a jerk," it's pretty clear it's time to straighten up one's act. But when Madame Cruella de Sissyl (tag line: "Let me help hold this one down while you cut his throat") invokes that rule, it rises to high comedy. It's like Citizen R telling people not to sound racist.
|
|
not in favor of the political labels, but still relevantAnd it is still funny as &^%$ to me that you find my position that all people should be treated equally to be racist.You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" partFreehold, if someone like Fakey or Kruelaid invokes "don't be a jerk," it's pretty clear it's time to straighten up one's act. But when Madame Cruella de Sissyl (tag line: "Let me help hold this one down while you cut his throat") invokes that rule, it rises to high comedy. It's like Citizen R telling people not to sound racist.
How much do you consider appropriate to take from one and give to another in your plan for equality? How much do you willingly give? Or is this the usual case of the guy in the middle calling taking from the other guy fair as long as he doesn't feel it?
How much do you consider appropriate to take from one and give to another in your plan for equality?
The European model seems about right to me. People don't pay higher taxes than we do, and get FAR more services in return.
Andrew R: Everyone should be treated equally!
Us: Okay, but in order to ensure that everyone is equal it will cost money.
Andrew R: WHOA WHOA WHOA!
How much do you consider appropriate to take from one and give to another in your plan for equality?The European model seems about right to me. People don't pay higher taxes than we do, and get FAR more services in return.
That sort of thing is only possible if we divert funds from defense to bolster infrastructure and education.
Why do you hate America?
How much do you consider appropriate to take from one and give to another in your plan for equality? How much do you willingly give? Or is this the usual case of the guy in the middle calling taking from the other guy fair as long as he doesn't feel it?not in favor of the political labels, but still relevantAnd it is still funny as &^%$ to me that you find my position that all people should be treated equally to be racist.You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" partFreehold, if someone like Fakey or Kruelaid invokes "don't be a jerk," it's pretty clear it's time to straighten up one's act. But when Madame Cruella de Sissyl (tag line: "Let me help hold this one down while you cut his throat") invokes that rule, it rises to high comedy. It's like Citizen R telling people not to sound racist.
So, you think taking away from someone who has millions of dollars to help someone who has hundreds of dollars is unfair?
|
|
How much do you consider appropriate to take from one and give to another in your plan for equality?The European model seems about right to me. People don't pay higher taxes than we do, and get FAR more services in return.That sort of thing is only possible if we divert funds from defense to bolster infrastructure and education.
Why do you hate America?
Thats exactly what we need, of course to cut our defense spending we need to stop being world police and bankrolling the UN
|
|
How much do you consider appropriate to take from one and give to another in your plan for equality? How much do you willingly give? Or is this the usual case of the guy in the middle calling taking from the other guy fair as long as he doesn't feel it?not in favor of the political labels, but still relevantAnd it is still funny as &^%$ to me that you find my position that all people should be treated equally to be racist.You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" partFreehold, if someone like Fakey or Kruelaid invokes "don't be a jerk," it's pretty clear it's time to straighten up one's act. But when Madame Cruella de Sissyl (tag line: "Let me help hold this one down while you cut his throat") invokes that rule, it rises to high comedy. It's like Citizen R telling people not to sound racist.So, you think taking away from someone who has millions of dollars to help someone who has hundreds of dollars is unfair?
Taking from a man what he has earned is wrong, yes.
Taking from a man what he has earned is wrong, yes.How much do you consider appropriate to take from one and give to another in your plan for equality? How much do you willingly give? Or is this the usual case of the guy in the middle calling taking from the other guy fair as long as he doesn't feel it?not in favor of the political labels, but still relevantAnd it is still funny as &^%$ to me that you find my position that all people should be treated equally to be racist.You're forgetting the "don't be a jerk, keep it friendly" partFreehold, if someone like Fakey or Kruelaid invokes "don't be a jerk," it's pretty clear it's time to straighten up one's act. But when Madame Cruella de Sissyl (tag line: "Let me help hold this one down while you cut his throat") invokes that rule, it rises to high comedy. It's like Citizen R telling people not to sound racist.So, you think taking away from someone who has millions of dollars to help someone who has hundreds of dollars is unfair?
why does it have to be taking? While the picture has captions, it doesn't explain how the boxes were divided. Could not the charity that you trumpet so heavily have been involved? Or is it only taking because of how Irontruth phrased it?
Why do you assume equality is only a matter of money?In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread.That's the equality we're talking about here.
money, both in corporeal status and theoretical access, plays a major role here, yes.
Forced or coerced charity is not charity. It's taking. We could redefine charity to include that, but it's currently not in the definition.
You don't pay less taxes than in Europe??? What kind of taxation do you have, then, pray tell? As average taxation on income...
If you're rich you pay way less taxes than in most of Europe. Capital gains are only taxed at 15%, and the rich dodge even that. A presidential candidate, Mittens Romney, disclosed (after months of badgering) that he paid some 13% taxes on his income some years and his net worth is upwards of a quarter billion.
The desperately poor pay about 9% for Social Security and Medicare, when I was working full time (and I was well below the median income) I paid about 15%, and if you're anywhere in the "middle-class" you pay between 25 and 40%.