Degeneration Of Morals

[righturnonred]

Let's please get back on topic.

I agree. Hardner, you've made your point numerous times about the plagiarism issue and you're point has been ceded. Craig made a bad choice and the consequences be what they may, but you're incesent hand ringing is turning these threads into a circus. You're obsession is reminiscent of news converage of Chandra Leavey, or Scott Peterson, or Elisabeth Smart, or Jean Bonet Ramsey: old news, and not relavant to any important discussion.

Rasputin, I suggest you stop butting heads with Hardner over this. You're only feeding fuel to the fire.

[Michael Hardner]

.. is turning these threads into a circus

I've dropped the issue since Greg took action on this.

Cheers.

[KrustyKidd]

To quote Michael Douglas, Greed is good.  It works.  It is certainly not immoral.  What is immoral is self satisfied rights expectations and whimsical victim fantasies.

KK good post on the inferiority of socialist nations on crime and other stats in total in relationship to population vs. the US.

Libs hate facts, they prefer crying, shouting or telling you that they are right and that's that.

Libs should read about how economies work - you can't regulate, control or monitor human behaviour in the marketplace.  Price points, supply, demand attributes and creative destruction are too complex to control.  Socialist countries like Canada have more petty and total crime than the US - but of course the media never reports this. 

Ambition is the engine of the modern world.  Capitalism is not only an economic program but a moral/philosophical one.  Novak and others have laid out the moral imperative for capitalism and small gov't.  Given the corruption, rot and waste of money in Canada and elsewhere i would assume that most thinking people would recognise that big gov't is not their friend.  BTW the US has far too much gov't spend and gov't interference/pork barreling.

"The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice."  — Ayn Rand

Moral degeneracy can be traced in all ages to the time when life became too easy, money too free and expectations too political. Is it moral to run up massive debts and unfunded liabilities which in Canada total 2x the GNP ?? Who will pay for this ?

Less gov't more self reliance and perforce, by necessity, higher standards of living. 'Grants' and 'Entitlements' break morality not enhance it.

Can you imagine the ninnies in Canada today fighting WW2 ? No way. Moral rot is too pervasive and moral rot is endemic in many levels;

-personal

-business

-gov'tl

-media bias

My daughter wants me to be ambitious. Wants me to make things better. I feel that if there is a politician who is greedy enough to keep their job, they will make the world better. I will them vote for him or her. Guess that they would have to be greedy too.

Apathy is the opposite of greed. Lonius would rather that we all live in a mud hut and pick our noses all day? We would not be greedy, hungry perhaps. A minor Dictator could come along and force us to mine Maple Syrup so he could trade it for our wives favors in the winter months, but us geing greedy? No way. No stinking way! I'm not greedy, do whatever you want to me, I don't want a thing other than to serve everybody, even if it means better providing for my family or community. Gaining their respect or freeing up my time so I can persue higher callings like art or religion.

I don't want to end up like the USA where

Freedom, equality, justice etc have long ago taken a back seat to greed.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

Apathy is the opposite of greed. Lonius would rather that we all live in a mud hut and pick our noses all day?

Actually, sharing would be the opposite of greed. Perhaps being greedy on behalf of all mankind would be an acceptable form of greed, but in the US it is solely individual greed that is their 'foundation'.

I have wondered about the founding fathers of North America, those that lived in 'mud huts'. Sod houses were the first dwellings of yours and my farmer great++grandparents, (after they killed off those pesky 'indians' who had no idea what property ownership meant) so I wouldn't be too quick to judge those that succeded despite conditions.

[KrustyKidd]

Lonius

Actually, sharing would be the opposite of greed. Perhaps being greedy on behalf of all mankind would be an acceptable form of greed, .

Well said Lonius! Anybody with two cents in their pocket is guilty as they can give one to another who has none. Now that you have identified the entire planet save those with absolute nothing as being selfish, I take it the remaining 99.99999999999999999% have to rip the sofa apart for change to give away. So how is the US different than you, I, and the rest of the percentage quota I gave here? I mean, you finished with this:

but in the US it is solely individual greed that is their 'foundation'

Do you have two cents in your pocket?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

Do not forget that there are theoretically only 2 people in the world, "you' and 'the one who is not you'.

Sharing is to greed as inertia is to ambition.

[Charles Anthony]

lassooed back into the corral from

Outside of Alberta, Canada is cheap -- Another indication of a distinct society?

I can't imagine a Christmas without presents?

With all due respect, I honestly think that is too bad for you.

I do agree CA, I've never had to really do without, so it's hard for me to imagine what others go through. I come from a rather privledged upbringing, never were super rich... I still went to public school... but I've never gone hungry or didn't have Christmas/birthday presents. I'm likely a shallower, more materialistic person because of it.

I think it's just devasting to think that a child could see that. Maybe it makes people stronger, a year possibly. But if it's a consistant occurance for the kid, they lose sight that their life can be better and later on follow the same path as their parents. If you give them a taste of success, I truly believe they will chase it.

I really like that last sentence. I believe it is a perfect focus for successful charity.

The problem with a Toy Mountain is that, at best, it does NOT provide a taste of success and at worst, it provides a taste of dependence.

You can't be successful in school if your worried about kids teasing you because you wear many generations old clothes or don't eat a proper lunch in my opinion (actually a reason why I strongly believe in school uniforms and lunch programs).

Some people succeed at overcoming those obstacles. However, I concede that not everybody does and thus, I understand the benefits of uniforms and lunches.

Maybe that's my background speaking, but I can't imagine someone finding it enjoyable to go to school while being teased or bullied. If you don't enjoy school, your not going to try, your going to quit and your going to suffer for it. It's not good.

You are right, such conditions are not enjoyable. However, do not make the mistake of believing it is a one-way course to failure.

The cycle of poverty is a real thing.

The cycle of financial-poverty does not have to be real.

Success isn't always material though. I saw on the CBC a program about bringing team sports to aboriginal communities... so that the kids could experience success from a team effort. It was highly successful in increasing self-esteem and ambition of these kids. Where they used to say they had nothing special about them and few had future goals... they now have great ambition and self-worth.

Anything really to provide hope and foster ambition I believe is the most worthwhile investment that anyone could make.

Based on post #56 above, I am sure TheLone&Us-FleaBag would agree too.

[Figleaf]

I think the US has been acting far more conscientuously of late and this is one thing that ticks me off about leftists - they will not admit this.

What do you mean "of late"? Certainly not the Bush regime, I hope?

[cybercoma]

I thought I would start a thread here using a statement by a respected member. He feels it is valid in this context but I feel that people are people wherever they are. Subsequently, if true , I believe that it transends societies and is common to all the West if not the world.

Lonius reffering to the USA:

Freedom, equality, justice etc have long ago taken a back seat to greed.

Comon. Back this one up.

It's tough to say that morals are degenerating when it's plain to see that women, blacks and homosexuals are being treated infinitely better than they were even 50 years ago. Society is not perfect, but we're far better than we were when religious belief was higher than it is today.