What's Better? Greed? Giving? Or Government?

[bigrebnc1775]

Well I'll accept that this is clear to you. I'm just not getting it as responsive to the OP. It still looks to me like you are rejecting all these options as none of them are more likely to be the most beneficial to society.

short answer To much of one thing does not benefit society

So you see all three options as being too much of one thing? I don't see anything about too much government or too much charity or too much private enterprise included in the concept.

Greed to a point is good without sharing or creating is bad
Charity to a point is good/ without personal responsibility of the receiver creates moochers lazy free loaders
Big government is never good.

 

[Foxfyre]

short answer To much of one thing does not benefit society

So you see all three options as being too much of one thing? I don't see anything about too much government or too much charity or too much private enterprise included in the concept.

Greed to a point is good without sharing or creating is bad
Charity to a point is good/ without personal responsibility of the receiver creates moochers lazy free loaders
Big government is never good.

Okay. This still makes no sense to me as to how it relates in any way to the three options I asked folks to choose between. But perhaps you can enlighten us with your reasoning of how your response repeated again and again does relate to choosing between those three options?

It would be helpful if you would phrase it that giving $100 million to the government in taxes is my choice because. . . .

or giving $100 million to a good charity is my choice because. . . .

or using the $100 million to start up a new successful business or grow or expand an existing on is my choice because. . . .

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you see all three options as being too much of one thing? I don't see anything about too much government or too much charity or too much private enterprise included in the concept.

Greed to a point is good without sharing or creating is bad
Charity to a point is good/ without personal responsibility of the receiver creates moochers lazy free loaders
Big government is never good.

Okay. This still makes no sense to me as to how it relates in any way to the three options I asked folks to choose between. But perhaps you can enlighten us with your reasoning of how your response repeated again and again does relate to choosing between those three options?

It would be helpful if you would phrase it that giving $100 million to the government in taxes is my choice because. . . .

or giving $100 million to a good charity is my choice because. . . .

or using the $100 million to start up a new successful business or grow or expand an existing on is my choice because. . . .

Neither greed nor charity left alone are good.
TOO MUCH OF ONE THING IS NOT GOOD.

I

t would be helpful if you would phrase it that giving $100 million to the government in taxes is my choice because. . . .

Is not good wasteful spending

or using the $100 million to start up a new successful business or grow or expand an existing on is my choice because.

To much charity creates freeloaders unless they have the personal responsibility to keep from taking charity every week.

 

[Foxfyre]

Greed to a point is good without sharing or creating is bad
Charity to a point is good/ without personal responsibility of the receiver creates moochers lazy free loaders
Big government is never good.

Okay. This still makes no sense to me as to how it relates in any way to the three options I asked folks to choose between. But perhaps you can enlighten us with your reasoning of how your response repeated again and again does relate to choosing between those three options?

It would be helpful if you would phrase it that giving $100 million to the government in taxes is my choice because. . . .

or giving $100 million to a good charity is my choice because. . . .

or using the $100 million to start up a new successful business or grow or expand an existing on is my choice because. . . .

Neither greed nor charity left alone are good.
TOO MUCH OF ONE THING IS NOT GOOD.

I

t would be helpful if you would phrase it that giving $100 million to the government in taxes is my choice because. . . .

Is not good wasteful spending

or using the $100 million to start up a new successful business or grow or expand an existing on is my choice because.

To much charity creates freeloaders unless they have the personal responsibility to keep from taking charity every week.

Is that a roundabout way of saying that you are going with Option #3?

 

[RKMBrown]

Okay. This still makes no sense to me as to how it relates in any way to the three options I asked folks to choose between. But perhaps you can enlighten us with your reasoning of how your response repeated again and again does relate to choosing between those three options?

It would be helpful if you would phrase it that giving $100 million to the government in taxes is my choice because. . . .

or giving $100 million to a good charity is my choice because. . . .

or using the $100 million to start up a new successful business or grow or expand an existing on is my choice because. . . .

Neither greed nor charity left alone are good.
TOO MUCH OF ONE THING IS NOT GOOD.

I
Is not good wasteful spending

or using the $100 million to start up a new successful business or grow or expand an existing on is my choice because.

To much charity creates freeloaders unless they have the personal responsibility to keep from taking charity every week.

Is that a roundabout way of saying that you are going with Option #3?

ROFL
fox: pick a, b, or c there is no d, do not pass go do not collect 200 go directly to jail if you don't agree to pick a, b, or c

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Okay. This still makes no sense to me as to how it relates in any way to the three options I asked folks to choose between. But perhaps you can enlighten us with your reasoning of how your response repeated again and again does relate to choosing between those three options?

It would be helpful if you would phrase it that giving $100 million to the government in taxes is my choice because. . . .

or giving $100 million to a good charity is my choice because. . . .

or using the $100 million to start up a new successful business or grow or expand an existing on is my choice because. . . .

Neither greed nor charity left alone are good.
TOO MUCH OF ONE THING IS NOT GOOD.

I
Is not good wasteful spending

or using the $100 million to start up a new successful business or grow or expand an existing on is my choice because.

To much charity creates freeloaders unless they have the personal responsibility to keep from taking charity every week.

Is that a roundabout way of saying that you are going with Option #3?

TO MUCH OF ANYTHING IS NOT GOOD
You can't have one without the other and it work and be good for society
And big government is even worse.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW?
in other words I disagree with your position of choosing one for the other.

 

[Foxfyre]

Neither greed nor charity left alone are good.
TOO MUCH OF ONE THING IS NOT GOOD.

I
Is not good wasteful spending


To much charity creates freeloaders unless they have the personal responsibility to keep from taking charity every week.

Is that a roundabout way of saying that you are going with Option #3?

TO MUCH OF ANYTHING IS NOT GOOD
You can't have one without the other and it work and be good for society
And big government is even worse.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW?
in other words I disagree with your position of choosing one for the other.

So you're saying it is possible to have too much private enterprise too?

You see in a concept of critical thinking you don't have to focus on any specific function of government, good or bad, or on any particular charity or on any particular buisness. It is possible to make a big picture judgment of whether the use of $100 million dollars is more likely to benefit society, as a whole, more if it is paid in taxes for the government to use, if it is donated for a good charity to use, or if it is used to create a new successful business or grow or expand an existing one. It isn't a matter of what is too much or whether any of these things are not necessary.

It is a matter of evaluating how much society overall will most likely benefit depending on how the $100 million is used when limited to those three choices.

Now some may think society may benefit more through government initiatives.
Some may think society will be benefitted more by the the activities of a good charity.
And some may think society will benefit more from that business.

From the straw poll options so far, it is obvious that most opt for #3. That does not mean there is no benefit in the other two thngs. It only means that the busness will provide more benefit overall than the other two things.

 

[RKMBrown]

Is that a roundabout way of saying that you are going with Option #3?

TO MUCH OF ANYTHING IS NOT GOOD
You can't have one without the other and it work and be good for society
And big government is even worse.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW?
in other words I disagree with your position of choosing one for the other.

So you're saying it is possible to have too much private enterprise too?

sigh

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Is that a roundabout way of saying that you are going with Option #3?

TO MUCH OF ANYTHING IS NOT GOOD
You can't have one without the other and it work and be good for society
And big government is even worse.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW?
in other words I disagree with your position of choosing one for the other.

So you're saying it is possible to have too much private enterprise too?

Foxy you aren't dumb nor are you stupid, stop playing the part.

 

[Foxfyre]

TO MUCH OF ANYTHING IS NOT GOOD
You can't have one without the other and it work and be good for society
And big government is even worse.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS NOW?
in other words I disagree with your position of choosing one for the other.

So you're saying it is possible to have too much private enterprise too?

Foxy you aren't dumb nor are you stupid, stop playing the part.

Sorry. I may be quite dumb. I may be quite stupid. But I have yet to figure out exactly what you are saying other than you reject that any of the options are likely to be beneficial to society. And since you used 'too much' government or 'too much' charity as your reason, it logically followed that you also think there an be too much private enterprise. But I was giving you a chance to clarify that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you're saying it is possible to have too much private enterprise too?

Foxy you aren't dumb nor are you stupid, stop playing the part.

Sorry. I may be quite dumb. I may be quite stupid. But I have yet to figure out exactly what you are saying other than you reject that any of the options are likely to be beneficial to society. And since you used 'too much' government or 'too much' charity as your reason, it logically followed that you also think there an be too much private enterprise. But I was giving you a chance to clarify that.

No foxy you are not dumb nor are you stupid, you're just playing it for what ever reason.
You cannot have one over the other and it benefit society. One keep everything for itself, the other creates freeloaders and the other is bad for everybody.
Just one does not work good at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxy you aren't dumb nor are you stupid, stop playing the part.

Sorry. I may be quite dumb. I may be quite stupid. But I have yet to figure out exactly what you are saying other than you reject that any of the options are likely to be beneficial to society. And since you used 'too much' government or 'too much' charity as your reason, it logically followed that you also think there an be too much private enterprise. But I was giving you a chance to clarify that.

No foxy you are not dumb nor are you stupid, you're just playing it for what ever reason.
You cannot have one over the other and it benefit society. One keep everything for itself, the other creates freeloaders and the other is bad for everybody.
Just one does not work good at all.

Okay. Then I think you ARE saying you don't believe any one by itself benefits society unless it works together with the otherr three. And therefore I think you are saying that none of the three benefit the society any more than any of the others. That's a valid opinion. Previously in this thread I laid out my rationale for why I think you are wrong about that, and why one of the three is clearly the best choice. But oh well.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sorry. I may be quite dumb. I may be quite stupid. But I have yet to figure out exactly what you are saying other than you reject that any of the options are likely to be beneficial to society. And since you used 'too much' government or 'too much' charity as your reason, it logically followed that you also think there an be too much private enterprise. But I was giving you a chance to clarify that.

No foxy you are not dumb nor are you stupid, you're just playing it for what ever reason.
You cannot have one over the other and it benefit society. One keep everything for itself, the other creates freeloaders and the other is bad for everybody.
Just one does not work good at all.

Okay. Then I think you ARE saying you don't believe any one by itself benefits society unless it works together with the otherr three. And therefore I think you are saying that none of the three benefit the society any more than any of the others. That's a valid opinion. Previously in this thread I laid out my rationale for why I think you are wrong about that, and why one of the three is clearly the best choice. But oh well.

What I said was pretty clear stop thinking to hard.

 

[Foxfyre]

No foxy you are not dumb nor are you stupid, you're just playing it for what ever reason.
You cannot have one over the other and it benefit society. One keep everything for itself, the other creates freeloaders and the other is bad for everybody.
Just one does not work good at all.

Okay. Then I think you ARE saying you don't believe any one by itself benefits society unless it works together with the otherr three. And therefore I think you are saying that none of the three benefit the society any more than any of the others. That's a valid opinion. Previously in this thread I laid out my rationale for why I think you are wrong about that, and why one of the three is clearly the best choice. But oh well.

What I said was pretty clear stop thinking to hard.

I'm sorry. Not clear to me at all. And I'm not thinking hard at all. It isn't a difficult concept for me. It apparently is for some of you.

To me, as I have previously said, for me the correct answer is a no brainer. But you have to be able to think in big picture concepts and have a sense of probabilities to see it. A number of folks posting in this thread have gotten it right away. Others not so much.

But trying to have a discussion in riddles just doesn't do it for me. Sorry.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Okay. Then I think you ARE saying you don't believe any one by itself benefits society unless it works together with the otherr three. And therefore I think you are saying that none of the three benefit the society any more than any of the others. That's a valid opinion. Previously in this thread I laid out my rationale for why I think you are wrong about that, and why one of the three is clearly the best choice. But oh well.

What I said was pretty clear stop thinking to hard.

I'm sorry. Not clear to me at all. And I'm not thinking hard at all. It isn't a difficult concept for me. It apparently is for some of you.

To me, as I have previously said, for me the correct answer is a no brainer. But you have to be able to think in big picture concepts and have a sense of probabilities to see it. A number of folks posting in this thread have gotten it right away. Others not so much.

But trying to have a discussion in riddles just doesn't do it for me. Sorry.

Being clear is not making a riddle.

ok let's try this
I will ask you a few question
Does being greedy benefit society or the individual?
Does charity create dependence?
Does big government benefit or over reach it's power?

 

[Foxfyre]

What I said was pretty clear stop thinking to hard.

I'm sorry. Not clear to me at all. And I'm not thinking hard at all. It isn't a difficult concept for me. It apparently is for some of you.

To me, as I have previously said, for me the correct answer is a no brainer. But you have to be able to think in big picture concepts and have a sense of probabilities to see it. A number of folks posting in this thread have gotten it right away. Others not so much.

But trying to have a discussion in riddles just doesn't do it for me. Sorry.

Being clear is not making a riddle.

ok let's try this
I will ask you a few question
Does being greedy benefit society or the individual?
Does charity create dependence?
Does big government benefit or over reach it's power?

The answer to your second question is that it is not inevitable that charity will create dependence but it is possible and should always be a consideration if charity is to be done responsibily.

The answer to your third question is yes, big government can provide some benefit and yes big government can (and often does) use its power to overreach in a way that can produce far more negatives than any benefit.

The answer to your first question is that the nature of the greed would determine who would benefit and what the benefit would be.

This exercise, however, did not focus on 'greed' but did allow for the possibility that greed was the motivation behind a person's decisionn to use his $100 million to start a new business or grow or expand an existing one. And in that case, the most likely probability is that the person's choice, even based on greed, would most benefit society as a whole more than the $100 million going to either of the other two options. And the fact that the person was greedy would have no significant affect whatsoever on the benefit that would result.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm sorry. Not clear to me at all. And I'm not thinking hard at all. It isn't a difficult concept for me. It apparently is for some of you.

To me, as I have previously said, for me the correct answer is a no brainer. But you have to be able to think in big picture concepts and have a sense of probabilities to see it. A number of folks posting in this thread have gotten it right away. Others not so much.

But trying to have a discussion in riddles just doesn't do it for me. Sorry.

Being clear is not making a riddle.

ok let's try this
I will ask you a few question
Does being greedy benefit society or the individual?
Does charity create dependence?
Does big government benefit or over reach it's power?

The answer to your second question is that it is not inevitable that charity will create dependence but it is possible and should always be a consideration if charity is to be done responsibily.

The answer to your third question is yes, big government can provide some benefit and yes big government can (and often does) use its power to overreach in a way that usually produces far more negatives than any benefit.

The answer to your first question is that the nature of the greed would determine who would benefit and what the benefit would be.

This exercise, however, did not focus on 'greed' but did allow for the possibility that greed was the motivation behind a person's decisionn to use his $100 million to start a new business or grow or expand an existing one. And in that case, the most likely probability is that the person's choice, even based on greed, would most benefit society as a whole more than the $100 million going to either of the other two options. And the fact that the person was greedy would have no significant affect on that whatsoever.

Well there you go you can't have greed alone nor can you have charity alone both by themselves is not good. Thanks for answer your question for me.

 

[Foxfyre]

Being clear is not making a riddle.

ok let's try this
I will ask you a few question
Does being greedy benefit society or the individual?
Does charity create dependence?
Does big government benefit or over reach it's power?

The answer to your second question is that it is not inevitable that charity will create dependence but it is possible and should always be a consideration if charity is to be done responsibily.

The answer to your third question is yes, big government can provide some benefit and yes big government can (and often does) use its power to overreach in a way that usually produces far more negatives than any benefit.

The answer to your first question is that the nature of the greed would determine who would benefit and what the benefit would be.

This exercise, however, did not focus on 'greed' but did allow for the possibility that greed was the motivation behind a person's decisionn to use his $100 million to start a new business or grow or expand an existing one. And in that case, the most likely probability is that the person's choice, even based on greed, would most benefit society as a whole more than the $100 million going to either of the other two options. And the fact that the person was greedy would have no significant affect on that whatsoever.

Well there you go you can't have greed alone nor can you have charity alone both by themselves is not good. Thanks for answer your question for me.

Well I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything like that, but okay. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The answer to your second question is that it is not inevitable that charity will create dependence but it is possible and should always be a consideration if charity is to be done responsibily.

The answer to your third question is yes, big government can provide some benefit and yes big government can (and often does) use its power to overreach in a way that usually produces far more negatives than any benefit.

The answer to your first question is that the nature of the greed would determine who would benefit and what the benefit would be.

This exercise, however, did not focus on 'greed' but did allow for the possibility that greed was the motivation behind a person's decisionn to use his $100 million to start a new business or grow or expand an existing one. And in that case, the most likely probability is that the person's choice, even based on greed, would most benefit society as a whole more than the $100 million going to either of the other two options. And the fact that the person was greedy would have no significant affect on that whatsoever.

Well there you go you can't have greed alone nor can you have charity alone both by themselves is not good. Thanks for answer your question for me.

Well I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything like that, but okay. Whatever floats your boat.

You said the same thing I have said about charity.

The answer to your second question is that it is not inevitable that charity will create dependence but it is possible and should always be a consideration if charity is to be done responsibily.

So greed without charity is not a good thing?

The answer to your first question is that the nature of the greed would determine who would benefit and what the benefit would be.

Big government never benefits any thing effective government does.

The answer to your third question is yes, big government can provide some benefit and yes big government can (and often does) use its power to overreach in a way that usually produces far more negatives than any benefit.

 

[RKMBrown]

Well there you go you can't have greed alone nor can you have charity alone both by themselves is not good. Thanks for answer your question for me.

Well I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything like that, but okay. Whatever floats your boat.

You said the same thing I have said about charity.


So greed without charity is not a good thing?

The answer to your first question is that the nature of the greed would determine who would benefit and what the benefit would be.

Big government never benefits any thing effective government does.

The answer to your third question is yes, big government can provide some benefit and yes big government can (and often does) use its power to overreach in a way that usually produces far more negatives than any benefit.

Bigreb, I would not assume she understands. She has shown a decided ability to exhibit cognitive dissonance when confronted with facts that explain why the world is not always black and white. Some folks just can't handle complex issues that do not always have simple answers, so they spit out platitudes and sound bites and start calling everyone stupid that disagree with their simple sound bite answers.