My original argument was thinking out loud that the problem with the distribution of wealth is that it is not always earned by the people who hold it - with my own particular annoyance at hereditary wealth which maintains the upper classes through little effort of their own. As a point of something-much-less-than-principle I don't really care for death bonuses. I had the situation where my mother in law declared that she was leaving her house to my wife and I in her will. I told her straight that I didn't want her house, I don't need it and I would almost certainly spend the money on frivolous **** - if she wanted to do something with it then downsize and use the equity to enjoy herself before she is dead.
In some cases, yes, but so what? Are you jealous of such a situation? Nothing would fill me with more pride than to know that I'd managed to reduce the financial burden to multiple future generations of my family through my own endeavours. I've already told my own mother this, to sell her own house and enjoy the £100k+ and get a council house and do what she wants with the cash, though if someone wants to leave their house to someone in their family then so be it.
I am a bit poshist, but I'm not jealous. It may fill you with provide that you leave several generations of people living from your success but my argument is that it is not be fairest way to distribute wealth.
You gain your fair share of wealth by working hard and earning it, by taking chances and learning to succeed. If Peter Jones has worked his arse off, sacrificed seeing his kids some/most nights and has accumulated enough wealth that when he dies his kids get weighed in, I think that's fair. No doubt the Tax-man will get weighed in too which I don't think is fair but that's my opinion on taxation.
Ach, too late. If youâd written me a wee note and said this before I started, I may have been given pause to reflect on my intended actions. Terrific (and perfectly fair enough), but I was merely wondering if this recognition of your own hypocrisy meant that you were now less likely to rail against those people who seek to help their children in other ways, given that they would be perfectly entitled to use your own reasoning back at you: I don't give a **** as long as it's beneficial to the future of my children. Or, I suppose, put differently, and bearing in mind what youâve been saying to Le Queef: if you had been born into privilege, Lord Administrator, whether you felt this privilege was merited or not, in what sensible manner would this lessen your wholly natural parental impulse to help your kids? You understand Iâm on your side in this, yes? Parents doing everything they can to help their kids = Good. (Faith schools are most probably a terrible idea, however, but thatâs another argument.) Wise, compassionate words, Queef. And in Mickâs case, to be honest, itâs requiring considerable restraint to stop myself placing a call to social services, such is my concern for those weans. When dad's a fuming armchair revolutionary, it's the kids that suffer the most.
I like those who earn. If you are posh (or not) and run a business that makes you **** loads of money then fair do's, you earn it and you keep it. If you don't have a wealthy background but go to work to earn as much of a wage as you are able then fair do's to you too. I don't like poshies who do absolutely **** all apart from spending mummy and daddy's cash (Ecclestone's bint of a daughter springs to mind although having seen photo's over her I'd have to say she is a nailed on Ah Wid) and strut about the upper class hang outs lording it up over the peasants. I don't like those who cannot be arsed to get up of their morbidly obese backsides and get a job. I like taxes. Those who earn more pay more, those who earn less pay less. What I don't like is the constant arse kissing politicians of all colours give to the likes of bankers and try to create or jump through loopholes to allow them to avoid paying their dues. I don't like ponces who think it is up to the state to finance their horde of kids and all the while failing to contribute anything other than adding to the burden we all have to contribute towards. Up the workers!!
To be honest it's a not point I feel very strongly about - more an idea that some humans actually try harder to achieve things than others and those that are willing to put in the work are given every opportunity to be successful while not competing against a system of privileged hereditary interests (and indeed we may tax or abolish the hereditary interests in order to help give people from weaker backgrounds a more equal shot at achieving their potential). Anyway the argument was over the morals and hypocrisy of me trying to give my children a leg up by pretending we are good Catholics and by possibly using the Private school system to gain a competitive advantage over other humans
In other words, you don't know what you think and your arguments evolve to suit whichever mood you wake up in? You're just confused. <micksbilustforcock>
So I recognise there is no right or wrong involved in this - but I would argue that spoiling your children and then spoiling your man-children would not be the most beneficial thing you could do for their future. I think humans who develop with dependency on others turn out to be worse humans than those who develop independence and are able to fend for themselves. Like the bird that overfeeds its chicks to the point where they are too fat to fly from the nest. I want to set my children up with all the tools necessary to make their own way - and I think they will be better humans for it. Furthermore I know a few older people who seem determined to leave their relatives quite a lot of money after their death. Again it's a free country and you are (currently ) free to do this - but for god sake you've only a few years left, enjoy your life.
I told you already it's because of too much testosterone, which also means I'd beat you in a fight Anyway I just remembered this BBC article which fights my corner from an economic point of view http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21507168
Different kettle of bones to be honest. And I'm the best fighter on here, it was decided years ago #tuffasfuck
Fair enough, although I think you probably owe posh, rich people an apology. Posh, rich people have feelings, too. (It’s maybe a slightly different argument, though, to wonder at the outcomes of parental support, as opposed to allowing for the impulse of parental support to begin with, but I’m feeling generous enough to let it slide. Plus, I agree with some of what you’re saying - which feels dirty.)
Sorry Mr Hilton - you've done a terrific job raising your children not to be spoilt silly whores P.S. While out shopping for dinner in M&S I thought to myself that bastard has been quoting me out of context "I don't give a **** as long as it's beneficial to the future of my children" sounds much too brash for my intended meaning. In context I'd rather paraphrase it as: "Am I a hypocrite? Maybe - but I don't give a **** (whether or not I'm playing the Catholic card) as long as it's beneficial to the future of my children". Actually knowing you love your philosophy it's all starting to make sense now - I'm thinking Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Always being right. You're not a nitpicker - you are just a devious little ****er
Oh, are you reading actual philosophers these days, Maltesian, as opposed to reading books about philosophy in general? You’ve dived in at the deep end? Not that the thing by Schopenhauer (love that man) you reference is particularly regarded as the deep end, right enough – it’s probably too much fun for that (in a nerdy, anally-retentive way) – but you know what I mean. What else are you reading? Not philosophy, but I’ve just finished reading Occasions of Sin: Sex and Society in Modern Ireland. ("A groundbreaking study of the control of sexuality by church and state in twentieth century Ireland….") You people are thoroughly messed up, you know? Anyway, I’m gliding above your ad hominem attack, buddymate, serenely ignoring your gutter-boy tactics. That’s how cool I am. It’s no use, I’m too weak: No, I did not quote you out of context. And even if I did – which I didn’t - the specific context itself doesn’t really matter, as such, more the transferability of your sentiment towards other settings or other people. Which is to say, you could have written “I don't give a **** as long as it's beneficial to the future of my children” in any given context and I would have asked you the same sort of thing: are other people allowed to use this defence without earning your opprobrium? If not, why not? The underlying theme, then, is that if you allow yourself this generous dispensation to deal with your own hypocrisies it would seem churlish – and would perhaps add another layer of hypocrisy - to deny others the same leeway (in any situation of their choosing). That’s all. Besides, had I included the first part of your quote…. ….I was worried that I might have felt myself tempted to mention my own private misgivings about your words and highlight, possibly in a charmless, passive-aggressive manner, the slippery actions of a man not fully coming to terms with his own hypocrisy. I may have found myself pointing to the fact that you answered your own question with a softly self-forgiving “Maybe”, where a “Definitely” or “Yes” would perhaps have been more instantly recognisable as the truth. The flexible glibness of this response, I may have ventured, is hardly indicative of the most critical self-examination. But I didn’t mention any of this because I’m kind, warm-hearted and noble – and these private misgivings will remain just that: private. I’ll take them to the grave. Devious ****er? I can’t imagine why you would say such a thing, to be honest. I'm hurt.
I don't think I meant to delve into the deep end - but books teaching about Philosophy tend to contain much of the same stuff (man pushing rock up hill, man's only comprehension of reality is shadows in cave, ghost in the machine, bits about the Matrix and Minority Report etc) so I've meandered onto other stuff mostly by following references from other books I liked. Having a Kindle I'm uber-privileged to get the likes of Plato, Schopenhauer (up yours Luddite) and almost all of Bertrand Russell's stuff for free (which I found great in places and awful elsewhere [on the subject of 1920's China is great - Is a square still a square when looked at from a different angle is so tedious [to me] that it hurts my very soul]). I've been trawling through so many different subjects that I won't pretend I am any good at this particular one yet - but possibly the best book on the subject I've read this year (and which I'm only just finishing) is The Conspiracy against the Human Race by Thomas Ligotti http://www.amazon.co.uk/Conspiracy-Against-Human-Race/dp/0984480277 which is mainly a Pessimist's argument against the existence of the human race. For visceral reasons I disagree with the author - but he is pretty good at creating logic which exposes my internal reasoning as nothing but visceral - which is great. I'd agree without seeing any evidence - but I'm one of these counter-culturists who just likes to go against anything that other people may like for whatever reason - like ST, he's a Celtic supporter who hates Irish people. Well you have to understand the context and the disdain that I hold Religion in order to understand the contempt in my words - it's entirely relevant that I suppose Religion to be garbage and that I can use such words as "I don't give a ****" in reference to this subject (I thought it was obvious but I don't think you realise that I specifically don't give a **** about religious class - rather than I don't give a **** about everything else in the world vs the well being of my children). I'm merely contemplating the fact that my children may have to be taught a certain amount of nonsense as payment for a better overall education. (I still haven't made up my mind that this is the best course of action btw.) On another point I do use the term 'I don't give a ****' quite casually in other circumstances. I am not going to say that it's not my fault since I was conditioned into a class or society which uses the word **** every other sentence - but for whatever reason I do swear quite a lot in person and I try to write how I speak - which doesn't always transcribe as casually as it is spoke. In any case your abridged copy of my sentence reads much harsher than the tone I had intended. In my head I am considering the fact that I myself had went through a Catholic education - I can say the 'Our Father' in no less than four languages (maybe five, struggling to remember Spanish) and I jumped through quite a few hoops at one stage to get my children Baptised in Belfast and Malta (don't ask me why, really don't know - people told me I was supposed to) - so I feel as if I do have a little bit of an angle to pull this if I want to. I do realise that I am hypocrite for being anti-church, but I am not making decisions on behalf of me, I'm trying to pick the genuine best choice for another two humans. It's an unfortunate situation that being religious may bestow privilege, but there you go - you play with the hand you are dealt and when you are playing on behalf of other people you don't feel like taking up disadvantageous principles on their behalf. or nitpicker, your choice
Treat it like Blade then Michael. In order to be an effective vampire hunter, Blade was part vampire.
