I forgot to mention that I don't think you know enough about Saeger to characterize him as having a "love of guns". Doing so no more fosters reasonable conversation than his hostility. Granted, his hostility was a bit over the top--he obviously feels strongly about the issue--but you really don't know why. From what I could tell, it was the question of self-defense and defense of one's family that was his main concern.
Your hostile attitude ("You're on my foe list") is interesting. I wonder if there's a correlation between it and your love of guns?
Do you really think that? If so, I'm guessing you haven't done much political discussion in open, online forums--if not, you've been uncommonly fortunate. Unreasonable hostility abounds on every side of any remotely controversial topic.
But the basic flaw in your premise remains. You try to contrast guns with DVR's by saying that DVRs have legitimate use, and the illegal uses are an unfortunate side-effect, but the intended purpose of guns is illegal/illegitimate from the start.
The flaw: killing != illegal/illegitimate
Yes, guns were designed to kill. The legitimacy (or lack thereof) of any particular killing, however, is another question entirely. Self-defense springs immediately to mind, as does hunting. Guns are tools, invented to kill. That, by itself, isn't a bad thing. At the very least, it's not necessarily illegal.
I almost don't know where to start. Should I start with the way you don't seem to think doctrine has anything to do with religion? Or the assumption that the holy days of a religion are the only relevant details? Or the notion that the date of a holiday is its sole defining characteristic?
As for your second question, well, those Muslims are just too weird.
Yes, any company's profit comes from being paid for their product than it cost them to make. That's a basic principle of all economic philosophies--at least all that I know about. The only reason someone would hire me is because my services are worth more (or exactly as much)to them as the money they're paying me. (Well, it would be more accurate to say, "worth more or as much as everything else they could do with the money.") No rational person would pay me more than I'm worth. It's just cost/benefit comparison.
What you appear to be missing is the fact that I'm doing the exact same thing. The only reason anyone is ever willing to work for anyone else is because they get more in return for working than they sacrifice. In other words, when the benefit outweighs the cost. (And I do mean "only", "anyone", "ever", and "anyone". People who spend their entire lives devoted to the service of others do so because they don't consider their sacrifices to be as important as the resulting benefit to others. In the same vein, no amount of money could get me to commit murder, or to rape someone, or to sacrifice my family, because the cost--the ethical, moral cost--is too great. In this respect, the only difference between normal financial costs and ethical costs is that, for more people, ethical costs always outweigh financial costs.)
The point is that in many cases, someone whose salary is $40,000 a year would be still be willing to work for only $39,000, or $38,000, or sometimes even for only $30,000. In a non-monopolistic market, the price/wage for a good or service is somewhere between what it's worth to the buyer and what it's worth to the seller. Everyone makes a profit, except for the small number of buyers and sellers who just break even.
I don't understand your use of the term "underpaying". As I see it, the only time someone is being underpaid is when they're making less than the fair market value.
Put another way, there's a range of salaries that I might get paid. The low end is the lowest amount I would accept. The high end is the highest amount the company will pay. If my salary is right smack in the middle, we'll get an equal share of the profit. If it's at the low end, the company gets all the profit. If it's at the high end, I get all the profit.
The downfall of that being the governmental override that tells the car, "The *best* route would be right through this conveniently located police station."
Slashdot Mirror
I forgot to mention that I don't think you know enough about Saeger to characterize him as having a "love of guns". Doing so no more fosters reasonable conversation than his hostility. Granted, his hostility was a bit over the top--he obviously feels strongly about the issue--but you really don't know why. From what I could tell, it was the question of self-defense and defense of one's family that was his main concern.
correlation between it and your love of guns?
Do you really think that? If so, I'm guessing you haven't done much political discussion in open, online forums--if not, you've been uncommonly fortunate. Unreasonable hostility abounds on every side of any remotely controversial topic.
Ack, sorry for the bad formatting. I forgot to press "Preview".
// //"Guns are tools, invented to kill. That, by // //itself, isn't a bad thing" // //Ah... well you see, that's where we disagree.
Yes, apparently. But it's definately not "illegitimate" in any legal sense, which is the main point of this discussion.
But the basic flaw in your premise remains. You try to contrast guns with DVR's by saying that DVRs have legitimate use, and the illegal uses are an unfortunate side-effect, but the intended purpose of guns is illegal/illegitimate from the start.
The flaw: killing != illegal/illegitimate
Yes, guns were designed to kill. The legitimacy (or lack thereof) of any particular killing, however, is another question entirely. Self-defense springs immediately to mind, as does hunting. Guns are tools, invented to kill. That, by itself, isn't a bad thing. At the very least, it's not necessarily illegal.
...
...
I almost don't know where to start. Should I start with the way you don't seem to think doctrine has anything to do with religion? Or the assumption that the holy days of a religion are the only relevant details? Or the notion that the date of a holiday is its sole defining characteristic?
As for your second question, well, those Muslims are just too weird.
and in return they pay you what you are worth.
Not quite. They only ajust accordingly if (1) they have to do it to prevent you from leaving, or (2) they have high ethical standards.
Yes, any company's profit comes from being paid for their product than it cost them to make. That's a basic principle of all economic philosophies--at least all that I know about. The only reason someone would hire me is because my services are worth more (or exactly as much)to them as the money they're paying me. (Well, it would be more accurate to say, "worth more or as much as everything else they could do with the money.") No rational person would pay me more than I'm worth. It's just cost/benefit comparison.
What you appear to be missing is the fact that I'm doing the exact same thing. The only reason anyone is ever willing to work for anyone else is because they get more in return for working than they sacrifice. In other words, when the benefit outweighs the cost. (And I do mean "only", "anyone", "ever", and "anyone". People who spend their entire lives devoted to the service of others do so because they don't consider their sacrifices to be as important as the resulting benefit to others. In the same vein, no amount of money could get me to commit murder, or to rape someone, or to sacrifice my family, because the cost--the ethical, moral cost--is too great. In this respect, the only difference between normal financial costs and ethical costs is that, for more people, ethical costs always outweigh financial costs.)
The point is that in many cases, someone whose salary is $40,000 a year would be still be willing to work for only $39,000, or $38,000, or sometimes even for only $30,000. In a non-monopolistic market, the price/wage for a good or service is somewhere between what it's worth to the buyer and what it's worth to the seller. Everyone makes a profit, except for the small number of buyers and sellers who just break even.
I don't understand your use of the term "underpaying". As I see it, the only time someone is being underpaid is when they're making less than the fair market value.
Put another way, there's a range of salaries that I might get paid. The low end is the lowest amount I would accept. The high end is the highest amount the company will pay. If my salary is right smack in the middle, we'll get an equal share of the profit. If it's at the low end, the company gets all the profit. If it's at the high end, I get all the profit.
Why should I get all the profit?
The downfall of that being the governmental override that tells the car, "The *best* route would be right through this conveniently located police station."