Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Better heartless than brainless.
False dichotomy/dilemma
That's definitely not a comparative value conclusion I'd make. The best choices are those informed by pathos, logos and ethos. Finding a way to incorporate the aims of all three is what is meant by "balanced thinking." Extremely rare are the real life circumstances where one is called to act as one must in a "trolley dilemma" wherein one is forced to choose one of the three as the basis for determining whom to save.
Better heartless than brainless.
False dichotomy/dilemma
That's definitely not a comparative value conclusion I'd make. The best choices are those informed by pathos, logos and ethos. Finding a way to incorporate the aims of all three is what is meant by "balanced thinking." Extremely rare are the real life circumstances where one is called to act as one must in a "trolley dilemma" wherein one is forced to choose one of the three as the basis for determining whom to save.
Nice try, but this is not a dichotomy or dilemma of any sort. It is a statement of preference between two alternatives; not having a heart or not having a brain. I could also have stated that not having a sense of smell is better than not having sight. Would this also cause a dilemma for you?
This is getting tiresome...
I absolutly agree, though my range of experience is somewhat shorter. How we go about exacting this change is beyond me.From all I've observed, the only way we'll significantly improve the way things be is to revise the paradigm under which we, as individuals, are willing to conduct our affairs, independently as well as in relation to others. In my mind that comes down to integrity, and, quite frankly, I don't see much of it in our culture. Indeed, it seems to be on the decline overall in comparison to how I saw the world, say, 40 years ago
I can only assume you are speaking in a sort of "parable" format, and will respond with this in mind.I think I might be guilty of giving things away and letting people know they can always have it like that.
Of course, as you can imagine, I have to eventually move myself away from those people I had so faithfully given whatever it was they were crying for or even harming themselves and others for.
(serious gritty gutters, be warned)
Now, I completely recognize my mistakes as you have so eloquently described, OP, but I still don't know how to effectively ammend for them.
What to do, for instance when the people you are "parenting" (teaching) are not really your children (and very strongly so in their own minds because of extended life long abuse from their biological parents NOT giving them anything and maybe even feeding them the dry hook with no bait or pond, instead of the fish?)
I have plenty of fish, you see. I am versed in fishing. I never lack and never will because I know exactly how to fish and can therefore teach anyone who is able and willing to pay attention to fish and fishing, but these people I have been dealing with, people that are indeed Americans but that not only cannot recognize it but also have a tendecy to despise America in all its diversity, they cannot believe in fish even with the fish feeding them. It's not simply an educational issue at this point, but it's the very picture of insanity. It's not even sickly insanity (except for myself becoming sick if I spend too long with these people trying to figure out the solution for them to get off the ditch). It's the kind of insanity where they believe so firmly in nothing at all or otherwise a looming, inevitable and awful fate that everything they do is at the end only an act with no relevant effects whatsoever. They use drugs believing it to help them, but the drugs have no effect (I am an experienced drug user, and I know exactly what a drug should be doing to a person - which is why I now avoid the heavy drugs these people are using, from alcohol to cigarrettes to MDMA and LSD - you can see the range - but they consume heavily and nothing really happens except by them feeling they are now righteously busy - it's like placebos for self worth that tend to run out with their placebo tolerance increasing accordingly, but they cannot recognize that also and then become self harming believing they are now the right kind of busy even with no self worth). Insanity!!! And I'm talking about A LOT of people, many who would never actually touch a ditch with their bare skins and would instead drive around the city with their cars or join at clubs and even at nice and clean house gatherings with expensive suits. My entire life I have been attempting to figure this out because I could not comprehend their abject neglect for the wonders America has provided for two entire centuries! It has nothing to do with racism or even any kind of segregation. These are widely diverse people with perhaps the only thing joining them as a group being the rough outlines of a human anatomy. Skin, muscles, bones, clothing and accessories, all these change from one to another, and evem drastically, but all of them have those features in their own unique individual ways.
They can't tell the difference between fresh and rotten fish and no matter what they are given their behavior does not change, and also very little of their "rough outlines of human anatomy" changes too. It's like they are all plastered and unaware of the life they are. I see myself change in the mirror, they all tell me I have changed from last seeing them, and are always surprised when they see me again, hardly recognizing it is me, but I see no change in them, except perhaps for some topical skin obtrusions, a bigger or smaller bone or muscle, a longer or shorter hair, or a more expensive or cheaper outfit, or a different companion. Often I meet eye with eye with these people I know on the street and if I didn't stop them and ask how they are doing they wouldn't really recognize me or know that I was there at all! They are very forgetful and seem to already be living in partial deluded oblivion. They cannot enjoy the streets, but they use them for getting from one place to another. They cannot enjoy the weather, or the climate, or any part of nature for what it actually is, but they secretely trust it under their automatic protective disgust to get their placebos again, even if these aren't tiny pieces of fabrication such as drugs but entire buildings made of concrete, wood, bricks, whatever it may be that assists them in feeling some sort of relief for that absolute nothing and the looming, inevitable awful fate they so firmly believe in.
I don't think they have put themselves in this situation. I don't think anyone would. The cause of all that may not be very important for discussion anymore, but perhaps to know the true cause might elucidate the matter further, although I think at this time it is already excessively stark and needs no more emphasis.
All I would like to know is if perhaps anyone in this thread would have an idea as to teach these people to fish. I don't think they can destroy America or anything of the sort, I just know they can destroy themselves and that really bothers me because I have not been able to really help, even as I have also given my self and the entire earth with all the instructions and examples for fishing. I know there must still be some effective teaching to make charity consistently worthy and valuable. Would anyone like to throw the bait on this one? Maybe a bait won't do it, but the right place and a net?
I feel ashamed for having continuously failed after so many years, but I don't feel guilty.
I absolutly agree, though my range of experience is somewhat shorter. How we go about exacting this change is beyond me.From all I've observed, the only way we'll significantly improve the way things be is to revise the paradigm under which we, as individuals, are willing to conduct our affairs, independently as well as in relation to others. In my mind that comes down to integrity, and, quite frankly, I don't see much of it in our culture. Indeed, it seems to be on the decline overall in comparison to how I saw the world, say, 40 years ago
As MLK once said, “Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.”
So, laws are pretty much out, that leaves us with somehow changing the way the majority of people think. Not an easy task. There are only two ways of doing this that I can think of, religion (we cannot force people to beleive), and education. The former is a non-starter for obvious reasons. So we are left with the education system, we would have to, somehow, change the system to insill certain values into those who we mean to educate. By that I mean, we (our society) would have to change the educational system to promote certain values so as to bring about the change in attitude we would seek.
Off topic?:
It suddenly occurs to me that this is starting to sound like a conspirancy in the making...
and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.
In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.
and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.
In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.
It's funny, because free college tuition (liberal proposal) is teaching the person to fish, and handing out huge wads of cash each spring, through the tax code (GOP legislation) is giving the person a fish.
and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.
In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.
It's funny, because free college tuition (liberal proposal) is teaching the person to fish, and handing out huge wads of cash each spring, through the tax code (GOP legislation) is giving the person a fish.
And therein you have given a very fine illustration of how some folks say "stuff" but truly have no governing principles that drive their stances. In other words, they want to "have their cake and eat it too."
Another cliche that applies is "be careful of what you ask for; you may get it." For me it's not so much a matter of whether one is liberal or conservative. It's a matter of whether one has the intelligence and integrity to recognize that no matter how well developed be one's principles, one will unavoidably be called to accept and admit that as a person of principle and integrity one must take "the good with the bad." If one opposes "handing out fish," for whatever reason, then one needs to oppose doing so consistently.
I find myself wondering how many of the folks who insist on "teaching a man to fish" also refrain from accepting Pell Grants or government subsidized education loans when they or their kids want to go to college? The Pell Grant is a straightforward handout; Stafford loans are indirect gifts, namely the gift of money in the form of lower interest rates, i.e., a discount on the price of money (interest).
I'd wager not one person who was awarded a Pell Grant and attended the school for which it was granted refused to accept it on the basis of their principle that handouts denude motivation, are redistributions of income, etc. Similarly, I bet that rather than feel any sympathy toward a "one-percenter" who gripes that his/her kids didn't qualify for a Stafford loan or Pell Grant, damn near every one of those who oppose handing out "fish" would to such a person say, "Yes, well, you don't need them. You have the money to pay for college." Does that cross their mind when someone less fortunate than they doesn't "have the money" to feed, house or clothe themselves? I suspect it does not, yet they deign to think of themselves as principled. Yeah, right....
and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.
In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.
It's funny, because free college tuition (liberal proposal) is teaching the person to fish, and handing out huge wads of cash each spring, through the tax code (GOP legislation) is giving the person a fish.
And therein you have given a very fine illustration of how some folks say "stuff" but truly have no governing principles that drive their stances. In other words, they want to "have their cake and eat it too."
Another cliche that applies is "be careful of what you ask for; you may get it." For me it's not so much a matter of whether one is liberal or conservative. It's a matter of whether one has the intelligence and integrity to recognize that no matter how well developed be one's principles, one will unavoidably be called to accept and admit that as a person of principle and integrity one must take "the good with the bad." If one opposes "handing out fish," for whatever reason, then one needs to oppose doing so consistently.
I find myself wondering how many of the folks who insist on "teaching a man to fish" also refrain from accepting Pell Grants or government subsidized education loans when they or their kids want to go to college? The Pell Grant is a straightforward handout; Stafford loans are indirect gifts, namely the gift of money in the form of lower interest rates, i.e., a discount on the price of money (interest).
I'd wager not one person who was awarded a Pell Grant and attended the school for which it was granted refused to accept it on the basis of their principle that handouts denude motivation, are redistributions of income, etc. Similarly, I bet that rather than feel any sympathy toward a "one-percenter" who gripes that his/her kids didn't qualify for a Stafford loan or Pell Grant, damn near every one of those who oppose handing out "fish" would to such a person say, "Yes, well, you don't need them. You have the money to pay for college." Does that cross their mind when someone less fortunate than they doesn't "have the money" to feed, house or clothe themselves? I suspect it does not, yet they deign to think of themselves as principled. Yeah, right....
For my part, it seems to me that the Pell Grants are a corrupted middle-way, that does little to affect the market price of education, as it seems the grant amount just gets tacked on to tuition premium.
I worked at a Jesuit college a few years back, doing some menial labor, and it seemed that they were always telling us that our raises were dependent on whether congress extended Pell Grants as part of their "fiscal cliff" and debt-ceiling negotiations.
Meanwhile they were quite content to keep absorbing more and more of the surrounding neighborhoods into mortmain, because of course there was always money for that.
and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.
In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.
It's funny, because free college tuition (liberal proposal) is teaching the person to fish, and handing out huge wads of cash each spring, through the tax code (GOP legislation) is giving the person a fish.
And therein you have given a very fine illustration of how some folks say "stuff" but truly have no governing principles that drive their stances. In other words, they want to "have their cake and eat it too."
Another cliche that applies is "be careful of what you ask for; you may get it." For me it's not so much a matter of whether one is liberal or conservative. It's a matter of whether one has the intelligence and integrity to recognize that no matter how well developed be one's principles, one will unavoidably be called to accept and admit that as a person of principle and integrity one must take "the good with the bad." If one opposes "handing out fish," for whatever reason, then one needs to oppose doing so consistently.
I find myself wondering how many of the folks who insist on "teaching a man to fish" also refrain from accepting Pell Grants or government subsidized education loans when they or their kids want to go to college? The Pell Grant is a straightforward handout; Stafford loans are indirect gifts, namely the gift of money in the form of lower interest rates, i.e., a discount on the price of money (interest).
I'd wager not one person who was awarded a Pell Grant and attended the school for which it was granted refused to accept it on the basis of their principle that handouts denude motivation, are redistributions of income, etc. Similarly, I bet that rather than feel any sympathy toward a "one-percenter" who gripes that his/her kids didn't qualify for a Stafford loan or Pell Grant, damn near every one of those who oppose handing out "fish" would to such a person say, "Yes, well, you don't need them. You have the money to pay for college." Does that cross their mind when someone less fortunate than they doesn't "have the money" to feed, house or clothe themselves? I suspect it does not, yet they deign to think of themselves as principled. Yeah, right....
For my part, it seems to me that the Pell Grants are a corrupted middle-way, that does little to affect the market price of education, as it seems the grant amount just gets tacked on to tuition premium.
I worked at a Jesuit college a few years back, doing some menial labor, and it seemed that they were always telling us that our raises were dependent on whether congress extended Pell Grants as part of their "fiscal cliff" and debt-ceiling negotiations.
Meanwhile they were quite content to keep absorbing more and more of the surrounding neighborhoods into mortmain, because of course there was always money for that.
The school for which you worked is a, well, a school/college. As such, it must manage funds differently than what you may be used to. I don't expect you to understand fund accounting and how it differs from bases of accounting and money management driven by , but if you expect me to accept as telling your anecdote about the college you noted, you'll need to clarify it with regard to actually understanding the differences between accounting to optimise budgetary management, comparison and measurement vs. accounting to optimize financial analysis, measurement and comparison.
For a "quick and dirty" overview of fund accouting, see the following:
The first two bullets above should cover the basic concepts you need to understand, the others are a bit more in depth.
- Differences Between Profit and Nonprofit Accounting
- Different Types of Nonprofit Funds | Restricted Funds Temporary Permanent
- https://www.clemson.edu/ccit/softwa...ubs/media/word/Chart_of_Accounts_Overview.doc
- Fund Accounting Software is Different: Why, How? Frey & Co Since 1974; Government, Nonprofit; Software
- The differences between nonprofit and for-profit accounting?
From reading the content found at the linked websites noted above, you'll have observed that non-profit entities, including but not limited to colleges, have funds/money that is restricted in terms of how it can be used. It's entirely possible that the capital improvement and acquisition funds the college in question used to buy ever more real property was expressly restricted for doing just that.
FWIW, governments have a similar constraints. Governments have all manners of "special funds" that are little other than restricted use sources/pools of money. The Highway Trust Fund is (or at least it's supposed to be; I can't say what "waivers" the clowns in Congress have granted to "get around" the restrictions) one such pool of money that is restricted in how the money it holds is used.
There is literally no limit the nature and extent of limitations that may exist on how monies collected from any source can be used. If you were to go to a college and offer to donate money to them to be used to fund "whatever" provided they only use the money to finance construction events that commence on first day of years that share a common factor other than one, two or four with the duration of the duration of the Age of Aquarius, the college president will
Way Off Topic but interesting and a bit funny:
- instruct the schools lawyers work with your lawyers to have the terms of the arrangement drawn up,
- if your gift is big enough and you want the school to do so, he'll agree to name whatever is constructed however you wanted it named (within the limits of "decency," trust me, you can push those limits quite far)
- thank you for your generosity, and
- make sure that someone works on January 1st of "whatever" year to commence the construction, even if that means he has to crawl out of bed and trudge through four foot snow drifts to with his own hands dig the first shovelful of dirt just to be sure the terms of the restriction are met.
Years ago I was auditing a school and as part of the audit, I had to interview a member of the alumni fundraising department. The person relayed to me a story of a donor who, along with his daughter, was a huge James Bond fan. The alumnus was donating $5M for the construction of a women's dorm and he wanted to have the dorm named Pussy Galore Hall.
I was told that for at least some duration the school entertained complying with his request. He was finally informed that the school couldn't give that name to the dorm because it couldn't get the rights to use the name. I have no idea whether they could, needed to or tried to or if it's just what they told him. Also, I wasn't told who the donor is, but I wish I knew him. I love his sense of humor. LOL
Pussy Galore character from Goldfinger
If you don't recall Bond's first dialogue with her:
Last I checked, and correct me if I am wrong, the spring "wad of cash" to which you refer is called a "tax refund" is it not? Therefore, it would be safe to say the vast majority of the "wad of cash" was mine to begin with, the govt. is merely giving me back what is already mine.and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.
In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.
It's funny, because free college tuition (liberal proposal) is teaching the person to fish, and handing out huge wads of cash each spring, through the tax code (GOP legislation) is giving the person a fish.
Last I checked, and correct me if I am wrong, the spring "wad of cash" to which you refer is called a "tax refund" is it not? Therefore, it would be safe to say the vast majority of the "wad of cash" was mine to begin with, the govt. is merely giving me back what is already mine.and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.
In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.
It's funny, because free college tuition (liberal proposal) is teaching the person to fish, and handing out huge wads of cash each spring, through the tax code (GOP legislation) is giving the person a fish.
Last I checked, and correct me if I am wrong, the spring "wad of cash" to which you refer is called a "tax refund" is it not? Therefore, it would be safe to say the vast majority of the "wad of cash" was mine to begin with, the govt. is merely giving me back what is already mine.and so does leading by example. For almost 200 years, America represented ideals for the rest of the world to emulate. Not perfect, but striving for perfection. This was not done by preaching, but by example. We did not rely on foreign governments or trade our sovereignty for their assistance. Instead, we went about solving our own problems as best we could, showing others how it could be done. But actually doing it is up to them.
In the same way, the most effective way to help others is to set an example for them to follow. Catch your own fish (and explain it t others if they are interested), but don't give it away. If you do, you will be teaching them not to fish. And for Heaven's sake, don't tell them that not fishing is a legitimate alternative if they want to eat.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we have been telling people for the past 50 years. We now have generations of people who think fish (or cash) grow on (government) trees. Instead of condescending reinforcement of this myth, we should be teaching our children that there are specific steps to success as well as to failure. It may be uncomfortable to talk about drugs, crime and unwed pregnancy to those who have grown up with it, but not addressing these issues only serves to perpetuate them.
It's funny, because free college tuition (liberal proposal) is teaching the person to fish, and handing out huge wads of cash each spring, through the tax code (GOP legislation) is giving the person a fish.
Some refunds are just that. But if you have a family of five living off $25K a year, the refund can be like $8K yearly. Some set it up their W4 form to put a portion of that into each paycheck instead.
So I was generalizing a bit, but there is a yuuge giveaway that goes on through the tax code, and how this is spent is left to the discretion of the recipient, unlike most means-tested social programs. It is basically keynesian spending that is mandatory and not discretionary.
Earned income tax credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Child tax credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
