Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Mike Oxlong]

3 minutes ago, Milo said:

You seem to come across as a fairly bright type - and  I assume that you're familiar with Maslows Hierarchy of Needs theories....I'm not too sure that your statement above fits in to this. Once their D needs are met, then there are a whole group,of people who are entirely satisfied with what they have. 

 

 

[Milo]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

Maslow was right in the absence of powerful external factors which are designed to make us consume shit we don't really need.

But not everyone caves in to the external factors and consumes shit they don't need at the expense of their happiness/sanity, etc. 

 

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 minutes ago, Milo said:

But not everyone caves in to the external factors and consumes shit they don't need at the expense of their happiness/sanity, etc. 

 

 

I have heard that we have more obesity issues than hunger issues in the world now.

 

Not necessarily saying this to counter your point.  Its surely possible to be fat and happy and sane

[Colourmy]

13 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Maslow was right in the absence of powerful external factors which are designed to make us consume shit we don't really need.

So if we are to be rewired to not want shit we don't need, that means shit we no longer need doesn't get produced and if it isn't being produced, someone isn't in a job and isn't paying any tax. 

Can you see where I'm going with this?

More people not paying in but taking out. How do the sums add up that everyone should have a minimum to live on if no-one is paying any tax because people aren't buying anything because nothing is being made and sold?

Edited 21 February 2018 by Colourmy

[Milo]

11 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Its surely possible to be fat and happy and sane

Well I'm certainly 2 out of those three...

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Milo said:

You seem to come across as a fairly bright type - and  I assume that you're familiar with Maslows Hierarchy of Needs theories....I'm not too sure that your statement above fits in to this. Once their D needs are met, then there are a whole group,of people who are entirely satisfied with what they have. 

 

I'm sure there are some people who feel genuinely satisfied having had relatively basic needs met. But I think continuous human progress is evidence that in general people always strive for more.

 

Looking at Maslow's hierarchy again I think 'esteem' is probably the level that most people in modern society struggle with. Modern capitalism manipulates people's esteem; makes them think they need to buy something or achieve something in order to acquire it.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Colourmy said:

So if we are to be rewired to not want shit we don't need, that means shit we no longer need doesn't get produced and if it isn't being produced, someone isn't in a job and isn't paying any tax. 

Can you see where I'm going with this?

More people not paying in but taking out. How do the sums add up that everyone should have a minimum to live on if no-one is paying any tax because people aren't buying anything because nothing is being made and sold?

If nobody is buying anything then they don't need any money.

[ozleicester]

How do we expect capitalism to continue when unemployment (and underemployment) is on the increase. In Oz the national Australia bank announced a $6 BILLION profit....and also announced the loss of 4000 jobs.

 

edit oops should be 6000 jobs gone

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-02/nab-full-year-profit-2017/9109898

 

"As transactions move to digital channels — and this is driven by our customers — we will need fewer people"

 

#peoplebeforeprofits

Edited 21 February 2018 by ozleicester

[Jon the Hat]

21 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

How do we expect capitalism to continue when unemployment (and underemployment) is on the increase. In Oz the national Australia bank announced a $6 BILLION profit....and also announced the loss of 4000 jobs.

 

edit oops should be 6000 jobs gone

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-02/nab-full-year-profit-2017/9109898

 

"As transactions move to digital channels — and this is driven by our customers — we will need fewer people"

 

#peoplebeforeprofits

Australian Banks are pretty unique in their profitability levels.  Their market needs to be opened up to competition. a decent challenger bank based on tech solutions and without the insane banking fees in Australia would quickly eat into their profits.

Edited 21 February 2018 by Jon the Hat

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Milo said:

But not everyone caves in to the external factors and consumes shit they don't need at the expense of their happiness/sanity, etc. 

 

 

Very very very few people are not influenced by external factors in determining their view of themselves.  There are degrees of course, i don't need expensive clothes for example, which is very important to others, but there are things I spend money on but clearly don't need.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

36 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

How do we expect capitalism to continue when unemployment (and underemployment) is on the increase. In Oz the national Australia bank announced a $6 BILLION profit....and also announced the loss of 4000 jobs.

 

edit oops should be 6000 jobs gone

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-02/nab-full-year-profit-2017/9109898

 

"As transactions move to digital channels — and this is driven by our customers — we will need fewer people"

 

#peoplebeforeprofits

 

I'm not having that, there's only about 80,000 people live in Australia

 

[ozleicester]

7 minutes ago, Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo said:

 

I'm not having that, there's only about 80,000 people live in Australia

 

all of them work for the banks.. or play cricket (or both)............ unfortunately... the future for them all is pretty fvcked

[Izzy]

On 20/02/2018 at 11:48, bovril said:

If we're talking about good restaurants, not stodgy stuff from supermarkets or takeaways, I prefer Chinese, Korean or Japanese over Indian. It's a little lighter, goes better with beer or wine, doesn't make me feel like I'm going to give birth for the next few hours. 

In general there are so many bad Chinese and Indian restaurants about. 

Our local Korean takeaway cooked so much dog meat that the owner needed to be Corgi registered 

[David Guiza]

11 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Our local Korean takeaway cooked so much dog meat that the owner needed to be Corgi registered 

It's Gas Safe registered now, Izzy. Get with the times you square. (I only found this out the other day),

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Very very very few people are not influenced by external factors in determining their view of themselves.  There are degrees of course, i don't need expensive clothes for example, which is very important to others, but there are things I spend money on but clearly don't need.

This.

 

Everyone is affected by external factors when it comes to their lives. Don't get why people think that it isn't the case. What other people do, often thousands of miles away, has a bearing on your life.

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, David Guiza said:

It's Gas Safe registered now, Izzy. Get with the times you square. (I only found this out the other day),

I haven’t been called a ‘square’ since secondary scool 

 

A vastly underused put down

[Izzy]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This.

 

Everyone is affected by external factors when it comes to their lives. Don't get why people think that it isn't the case. What other people do, often thousands of miles away, has a bearing on your life.

Depends what you mean by ‘affected’ by external factors Mac. We all have a choice on how we respond to external factors - we’re all responsible for our own reaction (response - able)

 

Something that affects you might not affect me and visa versa - we’re all making our own reality up differently.

 

I’ve recently studied a relatively new psychology movement called ‘The 3 Priciples’ of Mind, Thought and Consciousness and people in this community would argue that external factors have absolutely no bearing on our lives whatsoever. It’s our ‘thinking’ about these events that determine how we feel about them.

 

For me it boils down to if people chose to adopt a victim mentality (being done to, it’s their fault etc.) and leading their lives ‘outside - in’ or if people chose to create their experience from an ‘inside - out’ perspective.

 

* And I know you’ll probably disagree with all this 

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Depends what you mean by ‘affected’ by external factors Mac. We all have a choice on how we respond to external factors - we’re all responsible for our own reaction (response - able)

 

Something that affects you might not affect me and visa versa - we’re all making our own reality up differently.

 

I’ve recently studied a relatively new psychology movement called ‘The 3 Priciples’ of Mind, Thought and Consciousness and people in this community would argue that external factors have absolutely no bearing on our lives whatsoever. It’s our ‘thinking’ about these events that determine how we feel about them.

 

For me it boils down to if people chose to adopt a victim mentality (being done to, it’s their fault etc.) and leading their lives ‘outside - in’ or if people chose to create their experience from an ‘inside - out’ perspective.

 

* And I know you’ll probably disagree with all this 

Interesting.

 

I would agree that the response to such factors is sovereign but consider for a moment the theory that those responses exist in the form of various choices that you can take. What the actions of other people can do is reduce your choices drastically, to the point where you only have a few - and all of them a net negative for you in the long term. When that occurs, is the person then taking a bad choice truly responsible for it and is their feeling a victim honestly not justified?

 

Perhaps I'm looking at this from a too-Postmodernist outlook, but for me almost all human interaction comes back to power, and the more you have, the more choices you have and the more control you have over the choices of other people.

 

It is a difficult one to nail down though and everyone has a different take.

 

[Izzy]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Interesting.

 

I would agree that the response to such factors is sovereign but consider for a moment the theory that those responses exist in the form of various choices that you can take. What the actions of other people can do is reduce your choices drastically, to the point where you only have a few - and all of them a net negative for you in the long term. When that occurs, is the person then taking a bad choice truly responsible for it and is their feeling a victim honestly not justified?

 

Perhaps I'm looking at this from a too-Postmodernist outlook, but for me almost all human interaction comes back to power, and the more you have, the more choices you have and the more control you have over the choices of other people.

 

It is a difficult one to nail down though and everyone has a different take.

 

I guess I'd need an example of this to answer the question.

 

An example off the top of my head would be if the Government suddenly decided to put up Corporation tax on my small Ltd Company. That could reduce reduce my choices (in terms of how I spend my disposable income) and it would undoubtedly be a financial negative to me in the long term. But I'm still responsible for how I respond to this.

 

Rather than bitch and moan and feel 'done to' as a victim, my response would probably be on the lines of, right then:

 

1. What do I need to do to make up the short fall?

2. How can I re-budget and make some savings?

3. What else can I do to increase my revenues/get more customers?

4. Could I change the legal structure of my company and become an LLP or sole trader instead if that's more tax efficient?

5. Do I need to put my prices up and would I really lose customers if I did?

 

etc, etc,

 

Ultimately the government have all the power in this scenario and they've forced these choices on me. But that's fine - I voted for them in the first place. And if they keep pissing me off I'll just vote for the other lot.

 

My view is that over time it all evens itself out anyway. You win some you lose some, good times and bad. Just deal the hand your dealt the best you can I suppose...

 

[TiffToff88]

1 hour ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I haven’t been called a ‘square’ since secondary scool 

 

A vastly underused put down

You're showing your age there. Nobody has been called a square since about 1964!

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I guess I'd need an example of this to answer the question.

 

An example off the top of my head would be if the Government suddenly decided to put up Corporation tax on my small Ltd Company. That could reduce reduce my choices (in terms of how I spend my disposable income) and it would undoubtedly be a financial negative to me in the long term. But I'm still responsible for how I respond to this.

 

Rather than bitch and moan and feel 'done to' as a victim, my response would probably be on the lines of, right then:

 

1. What do I need to do to make up the short fall?

2. How can I re-budget and make some savings?

3. What else can I do to increase my revenues/get more customers?

4. Could I change the legal structure of my company and become an LLP or sole trader instead if that's more tax efficient?

5. Do I need to put my prices up and would I really lose customers if I did?

 

etc, etc,

 

Ultimately the government have all the power in this scenario and they've forced these choices on me. But that's fine - I voted for them in the first place. And if they keep pissing me off I'll just vote for the other lot.

 

My view is that over time it all evens itself out anyway. You win some you lose some, good times and bad. Just deal the hand your dealt the best you can I suppose...

 

4

Interesting example there, and one where you still do have a limited amount of power (like you said, you can vote them out). You do have control over all of those decisions...but again, through the action of others, you are forced into choices that are all a net negative. Is it really free will when someone is imposing on you to the degree that all of the choices you have are negative?

 

For another example, how about a hypothetical where a company pollutes a stretch of water in a far-flung country while extracting resources. What choices do the locals have? What can they do?

 

1. They could take legal action - can they really outlawyer the company in a process that would likely take years and a great deal of money?

2. They could relocate - leaving homes that they have possibly lived in for generations.

3. They could get water from other sources - resulting in much longer journeys and effort to do so.

4. They could stay, drink and otherwise use the polluted water and take their chances.

 

All of those choices, as free will as they are, seem to be a net negative in a pretty big way to me - unless there are some others that I haven't thought of and I'd be happy to hear them. In this case, do they really bear responsibility for the choices placed on them, and are they not victims?

 

I get it, I do - people think that personal action and responsibility is important, and it is, to a degree. But also don't underestimate the importance that power plays in all of this, and the effect it has on personal sovereignty.

 

I also can see where you come from regarding it all evening out, too - but I don't believe that for a second, not unless there is some kind of afterlife judgement which I don't believe in anyway. Sometimes, the "bad guys" win, and that's the end.

 

Interesting discussion this, btw.

[Milo]

13 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

34 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I guess I'd need an example of this to answer the question.

 

An example off the top of my head would be if the Government suddenly decided to put up Corporation tax on my small Ltd Company. That could reduce reduce my choices (in terms of how I spend my disposable income) and it would undoubtedly be a financial negative to me in the long term. But I'm still responsible for how I respond to this.

 

Rather than bitch and moan and feel 'done to' as a victim, my response would probably be on the lines of, right then:

 

1. What do I need to do to make up the short fall?

2. How can I re-budget and make some savings?

3. What else can I do to increase my revenues/get more customers?

4. Could I change the legal structure of my company and become an LLP or sole trader instead if that's more tax efficient?

5. Do I need to put my prices up and would I really lose customers if I did?

 

etc, etc,

 

Ultimately the government have all the power in this scenario and they've forced these choices on me. But that's fine - I voted for them in the first place. And if they keep pissing me off I'll just vote for the other lot.

 

My view is that over time it all evens itself out anyway. You win some you lose some, good times and bad. Just deal the hand your dealt the best you can I suppose...

 

4

Interesting example there, and one where you still do have a limited amount of power (like you said, you can vote them out). You do have control over all of those decisions...but again, through the action of others, you are forced into choices that are all a net negative. Is it really free will when someone is imposing on you to the degree that all of the choices you have are negative?

 

For another example, how about a hypothetical where a company pollutes a stretch of water in a far-flung country while extracting resources. What choices do the locals have? What can they do?

 

1. They could take legal action - can they really outlawyer the company in a process that would likely take years and a great deal of money?

2. They could relocate - leaving homes that they have possibly lived in for generations.

3. They could get water from other sources - resulting in much longer journeys and effort to do so.

4. They could stay, drink and otherwise use the polluted water and take their chances.

 

All of those choices, as free will as they are, seem to be a net negative in a pretty big way to me - unless there are some others that I haven't thought of and I'd be happy to hear them. In this case, do they really bear responsibility for the choices placed on them, and are they not victims?

 

I get it, I do - people think that personal action and responsibility is important, and it is, to a degree. But also don't underestimate the importance that power plays in all of this, and the effect it has on personal sovereignty.

 

I also can see where you come from regarding it all evening out, too - but I don't believe that for a second, not unless there is some kind of afterlife judgement which I don't believe in anyway. Sometimes, the "bad guys" win, and that's the end.

 

Interesting discussion this, btw.

 

Very politely conducted and well reasoned debate, you two!! 

 

Although I'm not sure where the point you are making leaves us, Mac. If I don't think I can influence my life and make a positive impact by the decisions I make on a daily basis, I might as well stay in bed (and claim my UBI). 

 

Not all all power is bad, and not all people are bad. Bad people in power is a bad combination, that's all. 

 

In your example above, if a large multinational company extract resources from a remote area and does it responsibly, then this may create opportunities for the locals that they did not have previously. So it increases their options, not decreases them. 

[Izzy]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Interesting example there, and one where you still do have a limited amount of power (like you said, you can vote them out). You do have control over all of those decisions...but again, through the action of others, you are forced into choices that are all a net negative. Is it really free will when someone is imposing on you to the degree that all of the choices you have are negative?

In my example, the choices all appear negative but could actually turn out to be a positive for me. An increase in tax could be just the thing I need to kick my lazy arse into gear and get more customers. And maybe I put my prices up and no one cares and I end up making more money as a result? Who knows, but sometimes things that initially look negative end up being a positive outcome.

 

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

For another example, how about a hypothetical where a company pollutes a stretch of water in a far-flung country while extracting resources. What choices do the locals have? What can they do?

 

1. They could take legal action - can they really outlawyer the company in a process that would likely take years and a great deal of money?

2. They could relocate - leaving homes that they have possibly lived in for generations.

3. They could get water from other sources - resulting in much longer journeys and effort to do so.

4. They could stay, drink and otherwise use the polluted water and take their chances.

 

All of those choices, as free will as they are, seem to be a net negative in a pretty big way to me - unless there are some others that I haven't thought of and I'd be happy to hear them. In this case, do they really bear responsibility for the choices placed on them, and are they not victims?

Well first of all I’d assume the pollution was an accident and not intentional? Accidents happen to all of us - that’s life.

The locals could do all of the things you’ve mentioned yes, and probably more. Rather than get angry and blame the company, accept what’s done is done and move forward. No point being victims, that doesn’t serve anybody. I’d be asking how do we as a community address this unfortunate event the best we can with all our wisdom and resources? Maybe someone comes up with a choice that could actually benefit the locals in the long run? I believe things happen for a reason and everything is an opportunity to learn and grow - however grim it may appear at the time.

 

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I get it, I do - people think that personal action and responsibility is important, and it is, to a degree. But also don't underestimate the importance that power plays in all of this, and the effect it has on personal sovereignty.

 

I also can see where you come from regarding it all evening out, too - but I don't believe that for a second, not unless there is some kind of afterlife judgement which I don't believe in anyway. Sometimes, the "bad guys" win, and that's the end.

 

Interesting discussion this, btw.

Well funnily enough I do believe in some kind of afterlife judgement 

 

And I’ve no problem with people being in power btw. It brings order to a world of chaos. There’s always been power and hierarchy in the world since time began and I can’t see it changing anytime soon. If people have a problem with power then do something to put yourself in a position of power so you can change the rules.

[Rogstanley]

9 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

In my example, the choices all appear negative but could actually turn out to be a positive for me. An increase in tax could be just the thing I need to kick my lazy arse into gear and get more customers. And maybe I put my prices up and no one cares and I end up making more money as a result? Who knows, but sometimes things that initially look negative end up being a positive outcome.

 

Well first of all I’d assume the pollution was an accident and not intentional? Accidents happen to all of us - that’s life.

The locals could do all of the things you’ve mentioned yes, and probably more. Rather than get angry and blame the company, accept what’s done is done and move forward. No point being victims, that doesn’t serve anybody. I’d be asking how do we as a community address this unfortunate event the best we can with all our wisdom and resources? Maybe someone comes up with a choice that could actually benefit the locals in the long run? I believe things happen for a reason and everything is an opportunity to learn and grow - however grim it may appear at the time.

 

Well funnily enough I do believe in some kind of afterlife judgement 

 

And I’ve no problem with people being in power btw. It brings order to a world of chaos. There’s always been power and hierarchy in the world since time began and I can’t see it changing anytime soon. If people have a problem with power then do something to put yourself in a position of power so you can change the rules.

If everybody took this approach of giving up and conceding power then we'd all still be slaves. Thank goodness there are still some people willing to put up a bit of a fight on this planet, although numbers in this country are depressingly low. 

[Izzy]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

If everybody took this approach of giving up and conceding power then we'd all still be slaves. Thank goodness there are still some people willing to put up a bit of a fight on this planet, although numbers in this country are depressingly low. 

WTF are you on about? I’m not talking about conceding power I’m talking about taking personal responsibility.

 

I didn’t once mention ‘giving up’ either. I was talking about dealing with unexpected situations from a perspective of ‘what can we do?’ rather than ‘who can we blame?’

 

So many on this forum moaning and winging about those in power. Smacks of either jealousy, insecurity, frustration or resentment to me.

 

And what exactly are you personally doing to ‘put up a fight’ btw?