The Motivation And Domination Of Greed Amongst Humanity.

The Valkyrier wrote:

When looking at close relatives to us we can see that they are flock animals and even though there is a strict hierarchy in their community they still take care of each other.

Egoism is a far less potent force than collectivism, it was only a couple of thousand decades ago that our ancestors discovered that they were unique individuals.

We ought to look after others; but everything else that goes with Socialism, it is too much extra just to accomplish that one thing.

electricalice wrote:

......though you can hardly blame me for that i wasnt born till 1990 ...but yes it is discusting it seems as if people care more about money than other human beings

Do you favor giving back to the natives all the wealth, gold, ivory, culture-objects, rubies and gems, Teak wood....

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

Hadji wrote:

"Don't sleep with hookers."

"Why not?"







"Why not?"

http://www.bayswan.org/cambodia.html

Phnom Penh Post, Issue 8/19, September 17 - 30, 1999

The description is probably still accurate.

Though...

Just because the early flying machines of Thomas Moy or John Childs were a disaster, it doesn't follow that all flying machines must be.


"You give us AIDS; when we are no longer profitable you leave us to die, but we do not die in peace: you point your finger and you blame us."

This is an interesting line. AIDS in Cambodia is sometimes blamed on the Africans who staffed the ranks of the UN force during the first part of the international occupation period (1992 to present).

Bribing, and then calling the natives beggars is a very common psychological framing.

electricalice wrote:

i for one agree with you

Well of course you do!

Socialist scumbags need to stick together! They don't call it a "ratpack" for nothing!

As I stated: send me a postcard from Cambodia when you prove to me you have a heart.

Talk is cheap.

Quote :

Do you favor giving back to the natives all the wealth, gold, ivory, culture-objects, rubies and gems, Teak wood....

Interesting concept Hadji, I thank you for sharing it.

The definitive answer: "No, it is much easier being a Western hypocrite..."

Hadji wrote:

The Valkyrier wrote:

Egoism is a far less potent force than collectivism, it was only a couple of thousand decades ago that our ancestors discovered that they were unique individuals.

We ought to look after others; but everything else that goes with Socialism, it is too much extra just to accomplish that one thing.

I know there has been mention of "socialist scumbags" etc in this thread but I never mentioned it in my post. When I wrote collectivism I didn't mean it in a sociological sense but rather a purely biological one. The kind of collectivism I spoke of has nothing to do with socialism, capitalism or any other philosophy or ideal - it's genetic.

I am going to clarify myself here: I do not mind socialist scumbags until they start blatantly-contradicting themselves. When that happens; they put the scum in scumbags. The only thing a socialist ever owns is: 1) propaganda, 2) rhetoric, and last but certainly not least 3) lies. Only the socialist does not know why or how they are lying. They need an Individual to point these things out for them. And, before I leave, let me say, a socialist basically-lives a life full of lies, one lie to the next, to the next, to the next, etc. The only way out of this circle of lies is --guess what-- The Truth, that's right, with a capital 'T'.

And who knows The Truth? Well, I can confidently-tell you that the only people who do *NOT* lie are the people who have nothing worth lying about. And do these people exist? ~ yes! And where do they exist? ~ outside society! And why do they exist there? ~ because socialists are liars! And thus completes the "circle of lies" of Mankind.

Thank you, thank you, please folks, hold your applause! No, really, you are truly too kind!

The Valkyrier wrote:

When I wrote collectivism I didn't mean it in a sociological sense but rather a purely biological one. The kind of collectivism I spoke of has nothing to do with socialism, capitalism or any other philosophy or ideal - it's genetic.

Let's hope it is genetic. This will save us a lot of time teaching sharing in kindergarten. Maybe this is the clue! Sharing is not learned, it is the default setting for humans. So then, can an old dog -- forget -- old tricks?

If people think that sharing is not 'taught', then you should visit any preschool to learn otherwise...

All the contrary needs is one male to take from others without giving back in return, keyword: male.

['Do you favor giving back to the natives all the wealth, gold, ivory, culture-objects, rubies and gems, Teak wood....']
i am from England and i do not have wealth my ancestors were landed gentry but i dont have any status symbols and i dont care i am at school studying art i havent got a penny in my pocket but if i had enermous wealth i would give it to whoever needed it most and please would you not abuse me for it

'Well of course you do

Socialist scumbags need to stick together! They don't call it a "ratpack" for nothing!

As I stated: send me a postcard from Cambodia when you prove to me you have a heart.

Talk is cheap.'


You think i can afford to go to cambodia?! i dont even have a passport I might be a socialist but at least im not an ignorant masogenist do you really think ALL women who are prostitutes want to be? have you never heard of trafficing?

electricalice wrote:

You think i can afford to go to cambodia?!

electricalice wrote:

i dont even have a passport

Unreasonable wrote:

Talk is cheap.

...like I said.

electricalice wrote:

I might be a socialist but at least im not an ignorant masogenist

Are you implying that I am an "ignorant misogynist"? That's not very nice!

electricalice wrote:

do you really think ALL women who are prostitutes want to be?

If they choose to become prostitutes, then yes. Actions speak louder than words.

electricalice wrote:

have you never heard of trafficing?

Have you ever heard of, "So what is your point?"

real, now wait a minute, weren't you socialist a matter of months ago? Now suddenly it's just so below you. And also, let's not play like you haven't heard my anti-political views a million times, which are nowhere near socialist ideology.

Have you turned to capitalism and the way of the fittest by means of economic status once again? Are you sifting the latest Cosmo and People Magazine for who is deserving of the top 100 hotties list based on your distorted evolutionary principles?

SpeedOfSilence wrote:

Taras wrote:

SpeedOfSilence wrote:

Greed is the reason why you and me are here so it can't be all that bad, can it?

The Buddha would disagree with the second part.

The Buddha could be so beautiful because he conquered sex. I just finished (about 2 hours ago) having the most incredible sex with a woman with a beautiful bod. 45 minutes of pure ecstacy. It only cost me $200. Now, I am at peace. I can die right now and I will go with no regrets.

I don't know-- maybe the Buddha was wrapped up a little too tight. Maybe if he had regular sex and enjoyed he wouldn't have been so critical on humanity.

Buddha had a wife and sex too.
Later he decided to use all of his Will and intentions on something other than that.
Sex is not bad in buddhism, but a monk is so dedicated to liberating himself that he sets certain priorities up higher than that. Buddha was not a victorian christian.

-

Meanwhile, that thing you said "I can die right now and I will go in with no regrets",
That is what it's like to have true fulfillment of being.
Our self alone is not enough, we need more. It would be great to exist as an actual sufficiency but we really are not. Some people can't enjoy sex much because of genetics. Others are very active with it because of genes. It varies from person to person, and I have read it is not a sign of health or sickness to have certain intrinsic lack or extreme of sexual desire, but if the desire goes down later below its natural original level, then that is unhealth oriented.

Joker is changing the meaning of the word "greed", in his original post.
The OP describes greed for positive attainments in humanity. A super desire, almost like the super man / ubberminsc concept, but not in such poetic terms at all.

-

Socialism is only good if you have a good government in control of your property and resources.

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

real, now wait a minute, weren't you socialist a matter of months ago?

I do not recall ever calling myself a socialist. Is this how I have identified myself in the past or was it just your misrepresentations of my philosophies? Have I ever desired to become a socialist? Yes, of course I have desired the easy-way out. Everybody does. Nobody wants to do the 'right' thing, the 'true' thing, or the 'real' thing. People would prefer to be fakes and liars, socialists, precisely-because it is easy! It is easier to lie then it is to progress yourself on your own terms.

So what have I said that indicates to you that I am, now, or ever have been, a socialist?

Do me a favor and show me where I said: "Yes, I am a socialist!"

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

Now suddenly it's just so below you.

That depends on whether I have ever been a socialist before now, or not...

Was I not banned from speaking my mind? What incentive do I have anymore to tell the truth to anybody?

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

And also, let's not play like you haven't heard my anti-political views a million times,

Wait a second: your anti-political views?

You have no anti-political views; your boyfriend does. Those are his thoughts, not yours. You have no 'views'.

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

which are nowhere near socialist ideology.

Actions speak louder than words.

If you want to change the world, then do something about it and quit complaining while you are at it...

All I would say in that context is be careful what you wish for; and furthermore be careful of the side you have chosen.

You may win; you may lose. This is why Life is a Game that females play to have Fun. Is losing fun??? - how about dying???

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

Have you turned to capitalism and the way of the fittest by means of economic status once again?

You and Satyr were fooled to believe there is any other way. You were setup, played like fools.

I am beyond petty political idealism now. I was searching for something more profound from the beginning.

SilentSoliloquy wrote:

Are you sifting the latest Cosmo and People Magazine for who is deserving of the top 100 hotties list based on your distorted evolutionary principles?

Who said they were distorted, you? I have already-heard *ALL* of the counter-arguments against my case; I no longer have any precaution to assert what I do or do not know.

dannerz wrote:

Socialism is only good if you have a good government in control of your property and resources.

That is what I believe, 100%.

Quote :

Actions speak louder than words.

If you want to change the world, then do something about it and quit complaining while you are at it...

All I would say in that context is be careful what you wish for; and furthermore be careful of the side you have chosen.

You may win; you may lose. This is why Life is a Game that females play to have Fun. Is losing fun??? - how about dying???

[quote="Unreasonable"]

electricalice wrote:

You think i can afford to go to cambodia?!

electricalice wrote:

i dont even have a passport

Unreasonable wrote:

Talk is cheap.

...like I said.

electricalice wrote:

I might be a socialist but at least im not an ignorant masogenist

Are you implying that I am an "ignorant misogynist"? That's not very nice!

electricalice wrote:

do you really think ALL women who are prostitutes want to be?

If they choose to become prostitutes, then yes. Actions speak louder than words.


of course some dont they get trafficked as slaves sherlock

And what the fuck is your argument here Alice?

Unreasonable wrote:

And what the fuck is your argument here Alice?

oh nevermind im finished with being violently typed at and im sure youll find an argument out of that aswell

Socialists are usually cry babies anyway.

Satyr wrote:

There in no mind that is not greedy.
That some would like to only refer to it as a monetary greed, thusly positioning themselves
as the enlightened, anti-materialists, is itself a power play.

A mind seeking enlightenment is greedy for knowledge.
A man seeking self-denial is greedy for relief.
A mind seeking sex is greedy for domination or surrender.
We amass what we most feel insecure about and what we identity with.

S, well put, a premise of many religions is the divestment of worldly
goods and a shift in concentration from the worldly to the etherial. This enlightenment
is grasped by some but repudiated by most.

Consider If our life span was 500 years, would worldly goods be more important to us given
that we would have to sustain ourselves longer? Or would the evolving consciousness with
500 years of evolution bring us a different realization of priorities and the purpose to life.

But apart from those thoughts, you nailed it.

Unreasonable wrote:

Socialists are usually cry babies anyway.

you strike me as the kind of man who could start a row in an empty room ill leave you to do that

electricalice wrote:

you strike me as the kind of man who could start a row in an empty room ill leave you to do that

Leave then.

You clearly-have nothing important nor nothing of value to say.

Your opinions are unfounded and dull, reflective of your naive & girlish mind.

You are the product of a feminine world: unthinking, stupid, and predictable.


Come back after you learn how to reason.

Unreasonable wrote:

electricalice wrote:

you strike me as the kind of man who could start a row in an empty room ill leave you to do that

Leave then.

You clearly-have nothing important nor nothing of value to say.

Your opinions are unfounded and dull, reflective of your naive & girlish mind.

You are the product of a feminine world: unthinking, stupid, and predictable.


Come back after you learn how to reason.

is it wrong to respect ALL other human beings im afraid your arguments are very dull and obvios if i had a penny for the number of times ive heard boys my age spewing the same sort of rot id be rich