RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Reaganomics devastated the economy

It's only when the resources you accrue exceed the scope of your objective and/or your means that your endeavor becomes greedy. Greed itself cannot be a goal, as you claim. It's a possible bi-product of the pursuit of said goal.

But if you're so hellbent on specifics, then that begs the question of exactly what you would consider a "need".

Nope. You need to go back to the dictionary definition that doesn't include your additional verbage.



You may want a billion dollars but that doesn't autamatically equate to need.

My additional verbiage doesn't negate the contents of the Websters definition. It mentions need. Need is relative to a given scenario.

Again, you're operating on the premise that everyone's needs are equal--which isn't true at all. And incidentally, you still haven't fleshed out your own particular parameters for assigning validity to a claim of need.

That's why I didn't just assume your need for a billion dollars was automatically greed. Your extra verbiage redefines greed into something else.

But you still presuppose a general quantification of what constitutes need. The fact that you tried to trivialize the scenario by referring to it as an example of prerogative proves that.

It's not a matter of prerogative that I need a billion to dollars to maintain a billion dollars worth of living conditions. After all, I couldn't dos such a thing with less.

And you still haven't established your own parameters for "need".

Now, show me how it is a real need to have a billion dollar lifestyle. You only need a billion dollars because you want to live a billion dollar life.

My guess is he's not revealling the need for a specific reason. As far as we know the theoretical billion dollars he needs is to feed homeless people.

I just assumed the Mexican drug cartel was going to beat the shit out of him if he didn't pay it up. Or, whatever the fuck his silly story was.

The need has already been disclosed. A billion dollars is needed to live a billion dollar lifestyle. The definition doesn't limit a person to someone else's standard of what qualifies as a "need".

The definition operates within the scope of a given scenario with a set of objectives: To do this, you need this.

That setup doesn't encompass any prerogative-based antecedents--and there's nothing within the definition that states it must extend that far.

Poor MEM.

I'm fine with the established dictionary definitions of words. Thems my parameters.

You say need a billion dollars to accomplish your goal. That may be true to accomplish your goal but the goal itself can fall into an excessive desire for money. You seem to be looking for a loophole for a concept (greed} that has been around for a long time. The definition doesn't allow for it though.

Again, the scope of the term's application doesn't need to adhere to your esoteric standards--which you're scared to death of actually identifying. It doesn't discriminate between one need or another.

It's not my standard but the definition's standard. Greed wasn't waiting for you to define it after all.

Except you're the only one here who's actually contradicting the definition since you're attempting to apply only one specific context (that exists in your own head) to the meaning of "need" as it is used. But the definition doesn't actually establish any such limitations.

No.

It gets confusing when you make quotes up on top of trying to redefine a concept like greed. Did you just give up on trying to make your case?

Frankly, the last 20 posts are so abstract and unrelatable to anything that I'm rapidly losing interest.


In an effort to tie it to something tangible, I was just watching John Stossel, and he questions whether self-interest or charity is more generous.

So attempting to tie that to a hypothetical billionaire's lifestyle, a billionaire acting in his self interest creates more jobs and benefit to more people (such as John D Rockefeller creating the oil industry, to replace the whaling and whale oil industry, paving the way for internal combustion engines and cheap feul, and inexpensive cars. Or Bill Gates creating an easily navigable computer operating system that basically lowered the cost of everything for billions of people worldwide)
As opposed to a billionaire who gives away the same money to less well-administered use of those resources (i.e., they hose it away inefficiently and create less benefit with that capital, to less people).

According to Christian philosophy, being charitable when you can is an investment in your own interests.

That's one thing Milton Friedman was rather sketchy on: he always seemed convinced that the free market all on its own created an atmosphere of eleemosynary activity. But while the beneficial results of a free market certainly encourage charitable mindsets (especially if you have right-offs), I'm not sure you could say that the former would inevitably produce the latter.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but either he didn't clarify his position enough or he simply didn't take into account the cultural characteristics of Americans and the effects they have on the free market and its players. I would argue, for instance, that our Judeo-Christian roots have a great deal to do with the general eleemosynary habits of the US. As such, the principles of those roots were transposed into our free market behavior. I'm more than willing to concede that point however given more evidence since I believe that a free market is an inherently Christian construct in the first place.

I wish he were still alive so I could ask him for clarification.




Nope. But you've given up on even trying to obfuscate the fact that you're too scared identify the standards by which you've chosen to restrict the use of the word "need".

So now I'm scared? Perhaps like greed you think that means something entirely different than as defined.


Seriously though since you're the one trying to redefine greed it's up to you to defend it. Making up fake quotes isn't helping your case.

Not just scared now. Throughout the entire thread, you've been scared shitless of actually identifying your general parameters for what qualifies as a "need". You've been avoiding it like the plague because the moment you make the attempt, your argument will crumble on the weight of its own ignorance.

Yeah you sort of lost it when you just started making up quotes. This talk about being scared shitless is more than a little silly. Do you think I'm afraid WB or G-man will think less of me? My position is that greed was defined a long time ago and I'm fine with that definition.

AAAAaaannd you're still avoiding fleshing out the apparently universal standards for what quantifies a "need".

MEM: petrified.

Was that from the quote you made up?

Haha!

You're so paralyzed by your missteps that you can't even delineate your own claim of a universal standard for "need".

I'll take that as a yes.

I'll make it very easy for you: what is you universal standard for "need"?

Since that's from a quote you made up why bother asking me? Why not just make up an answer?

Beyond the false quote you made for me why do you assume that's what I think?

I think it's cute how you're trying to hide behind that post, but I pointed out the rather obvious presence of a standard prior to that. And you corresponded with it.





a case of a need "depends" on your esoteric standards.

Nope, look at greed as defined. That (not me) decides if the need is a greedy one or not. This is the problem you created for yourself when you went outside of the definition. Come back Pariah, I won't hold it against you.

Except the definition states nothing about any extraneous dependencies outside of a given scenario. As such, you applied more to the meaning of greed than was offered: it's your own inference.

If you can just explain what your parameters for "need" are, then you can climb out of this hole you've dug for yourself.

Unless, of course, you can't really identify them...

Websters:

Greed : a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.


You're ignoring the other components of the definition. Just because you may need something to accomplish a goal doesn't make that need the same as other needs. You need oxygen to breathe for example. A selfish & excessive desire comes into play in seperating what is greed and what isn't.

Something is needed to do something else whatever the antecedents may be. Regardless of the context, the nature of "need" doesn't change. Your argument is that by virtue of the fact that someone does more than use oxygen, the act must therefore be excessive; any objective set beyond the goal of breathing qualifies as a "greedy" proposition. But as I already pointed out: your chosen parameters for "need" do not meet everyone else's respective standards.

Context does matter when it comes to need. Why wouldn't it?