 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Don't work on a relationship , just find a new one! Oh wait, there is no such thing as role models. |
That's not the idea of polyamorous relationships—of course you still work on your relationships if you're having problems, just like you would in a monogamous relationship. The friends I talked about are just as committed to each other long-term as any other serious couple, which is why they got married. The key thing here is not to see new relationships as a replacement—that would very much be doing it for the wrong reasons—but simply as another valuable, complementary relationship that can exist at the same time.
I guess the analogy is that you have a really close friend and then you meet another person who you start hitting it off with. Do you ring your old friend up and say "goodbye, I've found someone else"? No, you simply have another friendship that will stand or fall on its own merits. I've never heard anyone argue that this is a bad idea.
(I think we've strayed from the topic a bit here—how did we get on to alternative relationships again?)
Edit: Oh, I should say that I do believe parents are role models. Very much so. I just don't think AFL players, actors and musicians are.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Sun Apr 13, 2014 2:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | Don't work on a relationship , just find a new one! Oh wait, there is no such thing as role models. |
That's not the idea of polyamorous relationships—of course you still work on your relationships if you're having problems, just like you would in a monogamous relationship. The friends I talked about are just as committed to each other long-term as any other serious couple, which is why they got married. The key thing here is not to see new relationships as a replacement—that would very much be doing it for the wrong reasons—but simply as another valuable, complementary relationship that can exist at the same time.
I guess the analogy is that you have a really close friend and then you meet another person who you start hitting it off with. Do you ring your old friend up and say "goodbye, I've found someone else"? No, you simply have another friendship that will stand or fall on its own merits. I've never heard anyone argue that this is a bad idea.
(I think we've strayed from the topic a bit here—how did we get on to alternative relationships again?) |
If that situation actually works for the primary couple, good luck to them.
It usually doesn't because eventually one or the other gets jealous.
The analogy with the best friends is a good one, but even there I've seen quite often how first friend can feel threatened, rejected and jealous when person starts spending time with new friend.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yep, I agree. I think that's why it's good to try to recognise and overcome jealousy in all aspects of life, whether you believe in polyamory, monogamy or avoiding relationships altogether. It's a natural emotion, but it's also a destructive one that's basically just born out of possessiveness and insecurity. The more we're conscious of it, the more we can deal with it healthily, imho.
In that respect, it's not unlike our desire for status through expensive goods—once we understand where it's coming from, we can recognise and overcome it (OK, slightly dodgy segue  ).
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
CP
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Great topic.
I own 3 watches, each of which are more expensive than most 2nd hand cars.
I will own more in the future.
Can someone please explain my morality & ethics to me so I can live with myself? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well, how do you feel knowing that not buying them and instead giving the money to charity might have saved lives?
I'm not singling you out there—it's a question we can all ask ourselves. It's not an easy question to resolve, but it's obviously a serious ethical conundrum. I wonder how anyone—particularly a Christian, as you have proclaimed yourself to be—could think otherwise.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
CP
Joined: 05 Feb 2003
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Well, how do you feel knowing that not buying them and instead giving the money to charity might have saved lives?
I'm not singling you out there—it's a question we can all ask ourselves. It's not an easy question to resolve, but it's obviously a serious ethical conundrum. I wonder how anyone—particularly a Christian, as you have proclaimed yourself to be—could think otherwise. |
How much do I donate to charity?
Tell me.
See. The thing about claiming that things are 'not easy questions to resolve' as they are 'serious ethical conundrums' is that you begin to meddle and (in a subversive way) try and impose your ethics & morality on other people when you couldn't possibly know what walking a mile in their shoes is like.
My cash, my decision. Whatever I choose to do with it; it is only up to me to be comfortable with the morality or ethics of the spend. Not yours and definitely not the author of that article.
And you can rest easy, my Christian values are well catered for. Thanks for moralizing, though... |
|
|
|
|
Nick - Pie Man
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Doesn't matter how old people get, they hate being told what to do. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| CP wrote: | | My cash, my decision. Whatever I choose to do with it; it is only up to me to be comfortable with the morality or ethics of the spend. Not yours and definitely not the author of that article. |
You may be surprised to learn that I agree with you. I simply believe that you should not have had the money in the first place.
I don't have a moral opposition to people having massive amounts of money or choosing to spend it on obscene frivolities. As rights go, however, I believe that it should be secondary to the right to a minimum standard of living. So long as many throughout the world are denied that, I would prefer that as much money be redirected that way as possible through taxation.
If you had a little less disposable income and a higher tax rate—let's say, enough so you had enough for everything else in your life but not for the watches, probably rightly presuming that you didn't prioritise them over more essential needs—would you really have a lower quality of life? No. Would it impede your freedom to spend your money as you choose? No, not a bit.
That money could and should have been spent better; not by you, for no individual should be forced to bear the burden of society on their shoulders, but by the state.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
F.D. Roosevelt was an advocate of a maximum wage during World War 2. His logic was that the war had created great need and that those who benefited from society should contribute as much as reasonably possible to keep it safe and healthy.
Today, we live in a global society. So long as great need exists in the world, why not apply Roosevelt's proposal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_wage
| Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote: | | At the same time, while the number of individual Americans affected is small, discrepancies between low personal incomes and very high personal incomes should be lessened; and I therefore believe that in time of this grave national danger, when all excess income should go to win the war, no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year. It is indefensible that those who enjoy large incomes from State and local securities should be immune from taxation while we are at war. Interest on such securities should be subject at least to surtaxes. |
The elephant in the room here is the issue of economics: might such a policy have a negative effect on the economy? Friedman and co say yes, but it seems that there's a strong economic school of thought suggests the opposite: that a maximum wage would control inflation and reduce the risk of a currency being devalued.
Personally, I'm all for it.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
So basically the first world should be taxed up the wazoo to support the 3rd world.
I'm not voting for you.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
How, then, do you propose to solve the problem of massive inequality and the suffering of so many people around the world with a terrible standard of living? Or do you believe it's not such an immediate problem?
I'm not saying we should all live in squalor. But we could certainly live very well off a lot less.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
David, from each according to their ability and to each according to their need is a tenet of Communism. It doesn't work, is totally against human nature, penalizes the brightest and most ambitious of citizens and rewards the laziest.
I don't even know where to start on your philosophy so I'll just leave it at 'I don't agree with you'. Your heart is in the right place, but stealing from the rich to give to the poor isn't as romantic and idealistic as you think. As soon as the top tier smell the threat of it coming they're going to bail somewhere else and then you'll be left with a middle class having to shoulder the burden of a non contributing lower class.
Nobody will work any more than they have to, nobody will innovate because, well, why bother when someone else is going to gain the fruits of your labour and society will slide into oblivion.
I know the collectivist statists around here will jump down my throat, but that's how I see it. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | How, then, do you propose to solve the problem of massive inequality and the suffering of so many people around the world with a terrible standard of living? Or do you believe it's not such an immediate problem?
I'm not saying we should all live in squalor. But we could certainly live very well off a lot less. |
I can't say I believe it, but I believe you. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | How, then, do you propose to solve the problem of massive inequality and the suffering of so many people around the world with a terrible standard of living? Or do you believe it's not such an immediate problem?
I'm not saying we should all live in squalor. But we could certainly live very well off a lot less. |
There have been many poor, downtrodden cultures that have risen themselves out of the mire and equally as many glorious empires that have fallen into squalor. There will always be inequality, and we're lucky to be on the upward side of it right now, but as always there are people banging down the door to get what we have. If you redistributed the entire planet's wealth evenly then everyone would have about $9000. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | CP wrote: | | My cash, my decision. Whatever I choose to do with it; it is only up to me to be comfortable with the morality or ethics of the spend. Not yours and definitely not the author of that article. |
You may be surprised to learn that I agree with you. I simply believe that you should not have had the money in the first place.
I don't have a moral opposition to people having massive amounts of money or choosing to spend it on obscene frivolities. As rights go, however, I believe that it should be secondary to the right to a minimum standard of living. So long as many throughout the world are denied that, I would prefer that as much money be redirected that way as possible through taxation.
If you had a little less disposable income and a higher tax rate—let's say, enough so you had enough for everything else in your life but not for the watches, probably rightly presuming that you didn't prioritise them over more essential needs—would you really have a lower quality of life? No. Would it impede your freedom to spend your money as you choose? No, not a bit.
That money could and should have been spent better; not by you, for no individual should be forced to bear the burden of society on their shoulders, but by the state. |
So that last paragraph, where do you draw the line? I'm guessing your putting yourself under it, or would you like to say what your going without to help more needy folk?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
