Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:10 am
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 2:40 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am
Please respond to the thread's context by supplying what you believe is the alternative. I know that you are both religious and conservative and that you are deflecting what you don't want others to pay attention to.
Well that's your whole problem. I am not only not religious and totally a-political, I subscribe to no ideology and do not promote or support any program or agenda. Please see my article, "
What I Don't Believe," posted on PN just for folks like you who make judgments about my beliefs without having the slightest idea what they are.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am
... But this is a philosophy site and my topic IS fit for this discussion and DEBATE, if you disagree.
Then I suggest you stick to discussing ideas instead of attempting to psychologize others and judge their motives. Perhaps that's your idea of philosophy.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:13 am
... voicing your emotional feelings is itself NOT relevant nor necessary; challenge the view. How am I expected to be convinced of "you're wrong" feelings without an argument?
What feelings? Nothing I think, believe, choose, say, or do is ever determined by any feelings. I have no use for feelings as a basis for any behavior or choices, especially not mine, and certainly not anyone else's
sentimental nonsense.
It was you who responded to a comment I made to vegetariantaxidermy that expressed a similar view of success, which I regard as based on political prejudice, not an objective or rational understanding of what success is. Financial success is just one kind of success but hardly the whole of what success means. I certainly would not regard someone who had accumulated lots of wealth, but led a miserable and unhappy life a success.
My bad on the mixup of who you are.
Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering what you were basing your very judgmental views of "rcsaunders" on, EXACTLY, as I NEVER saw just about ANY 'thing' that you were saying here.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:10 am
I know you are presenting a biased stance against discussing 'success' as some other(s) have.
AGAIN, what are 'you' basing this VERY JUDGMENTAL view on, EXACTLY?
1. I ENVISION it is 'you', "scott mayers", who is the one WITH the VERY BIASED STANCE here. And, as such 'you' "SEE/IMAGINE" 'this' in "others". 'Projection' as some call this phenomena.
2. HOW and WHY would ANY one "take a stance against' 'success', itself?
'Success', in a more basic form, is
just achieving or accomplishing what one sets out to achieve or accomplish. So, with that definition, WHO could possibly 'take a stance against' 'that'?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:10 am
So I know you are not exactly being cordial by your derailment. How does it matter whether one excludes trivial emotional evaluation about what one interprets is 'success'? Everyone knows that monetary value IS at least THE major measuring units describing one's WORTH and by the implicit value of very meaning of "worth" as it is used in economics describes 'success' in terms of dollars.
Using 'monetary value' as ANY 'measuring unit' for one's WORTH, SHOWS and REVEALS just how TWISTED and DISTORTED the adult human being REALLY BECAME back in those days when this was being written.
"vegatariantaxidermy's" 'tongue in cheek and sarcasm' comment in that first response here could NOT be MORE RELEVANT and CORRECT. As PROVED True by your response here now.
EVEN AFTER "rcsaunders" POINTED OUT and SHOWED just how Wrong, (and REALLY IDIOTIC), it was to have a view of 'success' in relation to 'money', itself, 'you' STILL go and SAY what 'you' did here "scott mayers".
Now, either 'you' are REINFORCING "vegetariantaxidermy's" views of "americans", or 'you' REALLY ARE BLINDED by your OWN ALREADY GAINED and WELL MAINTAINED BELIEFS about 'money' and human beings' self-worth.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:10 am
Thus, Forbes describes Bill Gate's "worth" as 134.1 billion USD, and is the standard of 'success' that Veritasium's host was understood to be talking about.
"derek muller" might have been talking about 'success', and how much of 'success' is related to ACTUAL 'hard work' or 'luck' and HOW the people with 'more success' in relation to money. But, the gist of the video was about how the people who have obtained 'more money', or are 'successful', IN REGARDS TO 'money', have DELUDED "themselves" that it was because of 'hard work' MORE than it was to 'luck'. But, the WHOLE POINT of the video had NOTHING to do with 'success' in relation to ANY so-called "standard" of how much money one human being called "bill gates" has GREEDILY acquired AT ALL.
The so-called "standard" within that video in regards to 'success' MIGHT HAVE BEEN in relation to 'money', itself. But this is PROBABLY BECAUSE the one presenting the video is:
1. An adult human being. And,
2. An adult human being, from what is called "the americas". Which was the VERY POINT "vegetariantaxidermy" MADE. And, who had NEVER even had to watch the video to have arrived at the true, right, AND correct conclusion.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:10 am
[Note that as of yet, there is no thumbs down to 440K "likes". If it was a contentous political argument rather than fact, we'd at least see SOME disagreement. But we don't and you are the one in opposition.
To me, there is absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to DISAGREE WITH nor ARGUE AGAINST.
That person was just PRESENTING some views. They NEVER presented them as if there was ANY to 'argue' AGAINST nor FOR.
And, as "commonsense" POINTED OUT it was some 'thing' that was ALREADY UNDERSTOOD ANYWAY.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:10 am
As to the topic's derailment, you are expressing 'feelings' when you merely assert something you believe without substance or proof.
1. This is NOT correct AT ALL.
2. It is 'you', "scott mayers", who WANTS to 'assert' some 'thing', but which 'you' will NOT just come out and ASSERT 'it'. And, the reason 'you' will NOT is because 'it' is some 'thing', which 'you' BELIEVE without ANY ACTUAL PROOF FOR.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 3:10 am
You merely expressed your disagreement as though it were matter-of-factly
obvious. So what function are you serving other than to smear any debate by an innoculous insult to ward off anyone daring to take this serious? YOU are thus being 'political' restrictively, not caring about the context of the actual presentation's argument one way or the other.