Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Cannot kill the kids

Why not? They're not american citizens so they have no rights under the US Constitution. May be with the other black president:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO-q5lI7618

Originally Posted by tcrideshd

Sorry about that. Not bad math just bad typing on a iPhone. And I was on a ranthit the wrong keys it's 347

347/(3.1*12)=9.3 so after 9 years and 4 months your hand would be in other people's pockets

(yes, with adjustment for inflation it's going to be longer, simple calculation but needs the distribution of the contributions through the years)

If people live longer and are healthier in my mind it makes a lot more sense to raise the retirement age or decrease the benefits instead of increasing the tax rate. Even with current levels of productivity working half of one's life span (minus childhood and old age) isn't enough to support full lifetime of high standard of living.

The further back you go in time the more and harder people worked for lower standard of living and had worse life when they stopped/couldn't work anymore.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

They've already done it to a large extent. Without firing a shot.

So True Jim

The world I would love to live in would be caring and loving. We would care for each other and the environment. We would value the environment over money. We would not value possessions over people. We would not judge others by what they had, but who they were. We would not discriminate, we would not pre-judge. We would not punish people for being ill. Be would show empathy to others and we would value the act of love over any other act. We would not be religious but we would be spiritual. The people we elected to govern us would actually be working for us and they would value us. We would not exploit other people, other environments or other creatures for our own gains. We would value our bodies and treat them well. We would not know the words 'work' or 'clock'.

Of course everyone is free to talk about whatever they like (within the rules of the forum) but given the title of the original post, I wonder why there are now pages and pages on a debate on social security benefits? Quite odd in a way, to me...

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

The world I would love to live in would be caring and loving. We would care for each other and the environment. We would value the environment over money. We would not value possessions over people. We would not judge others by what they had, but who they were. We would not discriminate, we would not pre-judge. We would not punish people for being ill. Be would show empathy to others and we would value the act of love over any other act. We would not be religious but we would be spiritual. The people we elected to govern us would actually be working for us and they would value us. We would not exploit other people, other environments or other creatures for our own gains. We would value our bodies and treat them well. We would not know the words 'work' or 'clock'.

Of course everyone is free to talk about whatever they like (within the rules of the forum) but given the title of the original post, I wonder why there are now pages and pages on a debate on social security benefits? Quite odd in a way, to me...

In terms of your description of the world you'd like to live in, I'd be delighted to join you...very well said.

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

Of course everyone is free to talk about whatever they like (within the rules of the forum) but given the title of the original post, I wonder why there are now pages and pages on a debate on social security benefits? Quite odd in a way, to me...

Marie Antoinette syndrome ....... "They do not have bread ? Let them eat cake."

Originally Posted by carlmaloschneider

The world I would love to live in would be caring and loving. We would care for each other and the environment. We would value the environment over money. We would not value possessions over people. We would not judge others by what they had, but who they were. We would not discriminate, we would not pre-judge. We would not punish people for being ill. Be would show empathy to others and we would value the act of love over any other act. We would not be religious but we would be spiritual. The people we elected to govern us would actually be working for us and they would value us. We would not exploit other people, other environments or other creatures for our own gains. We would value our bodies and treat them well. We would not know the words 'work' or 'clock'.

Of course everyone is free to talk about whatever they like (within the rules of the forum) but given the title of the original post, I wonder why there are now pages and pages on a debate on social security benefits? Quite odd in a way, to me...

It's easy to write up an imaginary Utopia - but when you talk about the real world where somebody's 'hard earned wage' is another person's tax, or one person's freedom is another's sign of the doomsday; well then things are not so simple, but to me are more interesting.

One example - somebody posted earlier they'd prefer a world without homosexuality - that's been the general preference for thousands of years and despite all attempts to exterminate it it's still here. So, you can either imagine a rosy picture where homosexuality simply doesn't exist, or you can complain how horrible it is that it exists, but there is absolutely nothing you can do to make it go away.

So, how do you reconcile the imperfect reality with the ideal - one person posted about loving in an abstract sense without having any contact with those they love.

Originally Posted by gugi

It's easy to write up an imaginary Utopia - but when you talk about the real world where somebody's 'hard earned wage' is another person's tax, or one person's freedom is another's sign of the doomsday; well then things are not so simple, but to me are more interesting.

One example - somebody posted earlier they'd prefer a world without homosexuality - that's been the general preference for thousands of years and despite all attempts to exterminate it it's still here. So, you can either imagine a rosy picture where homosexuality simply doesn't exist, or you can complain how horrible it is that it exists, but there is absolutely nothing you can do to make it go away.

So, how do you reconcile the imperfect reality with the ideal - one person posted about loving in an abstract sense without having any contact with those they love.

Both would be me. And Ill answer that question.

You live your life to the best of your abilities and accept that there are things we cannot control and truthfully have no right to control.
And we go about our business and lead the lives we choose.

Why does everyone get so bent out of shape when someone expresses a distaste for homosexuality as if the world HAS to bow their will to the life choices of a specific demographic?

I said a lot and that's a sticking point.

Homosexuality has been the general prefferance?? pls explaine Gugi

Originally Posted by pixelfixed

Homosexuality has been the general prefferance?? pls explaine Gugi

He was implying it been the general preference for their not to be homosexuality.

Originally Posted by gugi

One example - somebody posted earlier they'd prefer a world without homosexuality - that's been the general preference for thousands of years and despite all attempts to exterminate it it's still here. So, you can either imagine a rosy picture where homosexuality simply doesn't exist, or you can complain how horrible it is that it exists, but there is absolutely nothing you can do to make it go away.

If everyone becomes a homosexual then it will go away. There are some things that legislation cannot achieve and procreation is one of them. Still takes a man and a women whether they like it or not.