Equality?

[Kendal]

Yes they were poor examples I agree. I did not want to spend much thought debunking proverbs. People using proverbs to support their argument in a political discussion always seems to me like those the Southern lawyers who quote the scriptures to prove their case - it's makes for good drama and showmanship but is a load of hogwash. This is why politicians steer clear of them - they get nailed.

Anyhow back to the point. You claim people do not value that which is obtained at no cost to themselves.

- Do you value this website - you did not pay for admission.
- Do you value the posts and posters on here for which you have given thanks.
- Does the hungry man value the food from the soup kitchen or bed at the hostel.
- Does the hitchhiker value the ride he gets.
- Do people go intro stampede mode at stores when the word "free" is mention.
- Did you value your allowance - (the one you got without having to work for it)
- Do people value the sermom and service they get at the church.
- Will you value the wedding ring you get(got)
- Are all of the above definable and finite products, services and commodities.

I think the answer to all of the above is Yes. And all were obtained for FREE.

[Kendal]

I can add another to the list. The gifts we receive at Christmas. The Santa Klaus the Dutch brought to America from Europe gave gifts to all equally. Americans introduced the naughty and nice list - the concept that if the kid did not work, did not do as he was told then he would not get the (same)material reward of a gift. The work ethic is at being taught even with Santa in America. The Europeans follow the principle that all are equal in love and all shall receive the same. The lazy boy shall receive the same gift as the hard working boy for they are loved equally by the parents, Jesus and God. And some would say the bad boy is loved more - because he has strayed the furthest and it is the love and charity that shall bring him back.

I dont want to debate whether American or European Santa is right but hope we can agree they are different and follow different principles when it comes to giving and who is deserving.

[DuncanONeil]

Except even the naughty kids get Xmas gifts.
And the naughty - nice thing is not about "the concept that if the kid did not work ... he would not get the (same)material reward of a gift."

I can add another to the list. The gifts we receive at Christmas. The Santa Klaus the Dutch brought to America from Europe gave gifts to all equally. Americans introduced the naughty and nice list - the concept that if the kid did not work, did not do as he was told then he would not get the (same)material reward of a gift. The work ethic is at being taught even with Santa in America. The Europeans follow the principle that all are equal in love and all shall receive the same. The lazy boy shall receive the same gift as the hard working boy for they are loved equally by the parents, Jesus and God. And some would say the bad boy is loved more - because he has strayed the furthest and it is the love and charity that shall bring him back.

I dont want to debate whether American or European Santa is right but hope we can agree they are different and follow different principles when it comes to giving and who is deserving.

[steelish]

Yes they were poor examples I agree. I did not want to spend much thought debunking proverbs. People using proverbs to support their argument in a political discussion always seems to me like those the Southern lawyers who quote the scriptures to prove their case - it's makes for good drama and showmanship but is a load of hogwash. This is why politicians steer clear of them - they get nailed.

Anyhow back to the point. You claim people do not value that which is obtained at no cost to themselves.

- Do you value this website - you did not pay for admission.

Actually, I did...in the form of the internet service in my home. I could not access it without that.

- Do you value the posts and posters on here for which you have given thanks.

Yes, and they probably (likely) had to pay for internet access as well. If they didn't, then they had to find a way to get somewhere to have a computer with internet access.

- Does the hungry man value the food from the soup kitchen or bed at the hostel.

I would hope so...because SOMEONE payed for it.

- Does the hitchhiker value the ride he gets.

I would hope so...for the same reason. It wasn't free. The driver put gas in his car. He's putting mileage on his car. I would hope the hitchhiker appreciates it.

- Do people go intro stampede mode at stores when the word "free" is mention.

Hmmmm...must be a UK thing. Stores in the US don't give away FREE things.

- Did you value your allowance - (the one you got without having to work for it)

I never got an allowance for doing nothing. I could have sworn I've already made that point clear.

- Do people value the sermom and service they get at the church.

I'm sure they do. They put on their Sunday best (clothing they purchased with churchgoing in mind) and drive (gas, mileage) to church. But then, that's not free is it.

- Will you value the wedding ring you get(got)

I'm pretty sure my husband paid for it.

- Are all of the above definable and finite products, services and commodities.

Yes, they are.

I think the answer to all of the above is Yes. And all were obtained for FREE.

No, not free. I think I've established that. Just because someone benefited from a couple of them and did not have to pay directly for them does not make them free.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, somewhere has to pay for it.

[Kendal]

steelish - Duncan said -

"That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued"

I disputed that. You disputed me on the basis somebody down the line paid for it. Somebody else paying is not YOU (ie ourselves) paying is it. It is therefore no cost to you - which is what Duncan meant.

Pick an apple off the tree or pluck a flower on open public land. And saying this site is not free because you have to pay for connection. You could go to public library and use their computer. If you want to go to the ridiculous extreme you pay for the food you eat and without that food you could not visit the site because you would be dead from starvation.

If one trie to defend proverbs one will get a tough time. Better one leaves proverbs and fortune cookies out of serious discussions.

PS - Nothing in life is free is another one of these glib maxims. If a country was governed by proverbs we would be in a worse mess than we already are.

[steelish]

steelish - Duncan said -

"That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued"

I disputed that. You disputed me on the basis somebody down the line paid for it. Somebody else paying is not YOU (ie ourselves) paying is it. It is therefore no cost to you - which is what Duncan meant.

Pick an apple off the tree or pluck a flower on open public land. And saying this site is not free because you have to pay for connection. You could go to public library and use their computer. If you want to go to the ridiculous extreme you pay for the food you eat and without that food you could not visit the site because you would be dead from starvation.

If one trie to defend proverbs one will get a tough time. Better one leaves proverbs and fortune cookies out of serious discussions.

PS - Nothing in life is free is another one of these glib maxims. If a country was governed by proverbs we would be in a worse mess than we already are.

It matters not to me which one of you said it. My point is that I value the things you mentioned/listed. BTW - I never said "Nothing in life is free". What I said is "There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone, somewhere has to pay for it."

My other point is that there are people out there who value only that which they will never have to pay for...(their concept of "free" is skewed)

Like this woman
or these people
Oh wait, what about this?

[DuncanONeil]

The library would never let you on this site!
Can;t wait to see what you have to say to me on the subject!

steelish - Duncan said -

"That thing we receive at no cost to ourselves is not valued"

I disputed that. You disputed me on the basis somebody down the line paid for it. Somebody else paying is not YOU (ie ourselves) paying is it. It is therefore no cost to you - which is what Duncan meant.

Pick an apple off the tree or pluck a flower on open public land. And saying this site is not free because you have to pay for connection. You could go to public library and use their computer. If you want to go to the ridiculous extreme you pay for the food you eat and without that food you could not visit the site because you would be dead from starvation.

If one trie to defend proverbs one will get a tough time. Better one leaves proverbs and fortune cookies out of serious discussions.

PS - Nothing in life is free is another one of these glib maxims. If a country was governed by proverbs we would be in a worse mess than we already are.

[Thorne]

- Do you value this website - you did not pay for admission.

As steelish said, I pay through my ISP fees, but the real value in a site such as this is in the effort we all put into making it interesting and relevant. I would hope my own modest efforts have added to that value for others as well as myself.

- Do you value the posts and posters on here for which you have given thanks.

Every poster here has some value. Naturally, I value some higher than others, and I do give thanks when they are deserved. In other words, poster should have to earn their thanks!

- Does the hungry man value the food from the soup kitchen or bed at the hostel.

I'm sure he does, just as (as noted in your next post) we value gifts which we are given. But if our hungry man is given that gift every day, there will come a point where he will view it not as a gift but as an entitlement, and when the soup kitchen closes down he will rant about his rights being taken away.

- Does the hitchhiker value the ride he gets.

Same as above.

- Do people go intro stampede mode at stores when the word "free" is mention.

I'm sure they do, but the cost of that "free" item is spread out over the cost of everything else we buy, so it's not actually free, is it?

- Did you value your allowance - (the one you got without having to work for it)

Like steelish (and I expect, like most who received an allowance) I didn't get an allowance for doing nothing. I earned it. As I grew older and was able to do more, I received a larger allowance. Then, in order to cement my understanding of the value of my efforts, when I got old enough to have a job, I was expected to pay a percentage of my pay as 'room and board'. In retrospect, at least, the lessons I learned were far more valuable than the money I paid.

- Do people value the sermom and service they get at the church.

Apparently, though I have difficulty understanding why. But then, they've put a lot of time and effort into maintaining their church, in some form or another.So again, it's not 'free'.

- Will you value the wedding ring you get(got)

You don't just 'get' a wedding ring. You have to invest a tremendous amount of time and energy, both physical and emotional. And the future costs are even higher. And if you're as lucky as I am, it will all be worth it. If you can even think that the receipt of a wedding ring is 'free' your value system may be seriously flawed.

Paying money for something is not the only way to pay for it. After all, money is just a placeholder, a way of showing how much work we've done to earn what we are buying. Gifts received generally come from expenditures in emotional bonds. Even charity comes at a cost to someone. Being the recipient of charity should make you feel grateful to those providing it, but can also be humbling to a degree, knowing that you must rely on the charity of others. But those who have come to rely on charity, and have lost that gratitude, are the ones who make it so hard for people like me to see the 'value' in giving that charity. When charity is no longer viewed as a gift but as a right, it ceases to become charity. And it no longer has any value to society.

[Kendal]

You guys are trying to nail every example with very obscure reasoning because you are clinging to the principle you have to work for everything you get. I am not disputing the value of slogans and ethics like this but they should not be seen as the sort of global laws of the universe both of you make out. There are other principles involved like charity and the responsibility of the strong to help the weak. It is not as simple as the 1:1 direct relationships you make out. Much of what I have and have been given is the legacy of our fathers. I have lived in peace and security not because of my work but because 2 generations gave their tommorow so I could have my today. I help those less fortunate than myself because it is the right thing to do. I hope should they be able one day they will in turn help somebody. If not - so be it - I do what I must. I cannot look the other way and recite some proverb to the hungry man. I see nothing wrong in giving those at the bottom of the economy a leg up so they can in turn do the same for others. And if some are them are just parasites on society - so be it - I am not going to refuse to water the garden because there may be some weeds in there amonst the flowers. We will just have to agree we are from different cultures with different social values.

[steelish]

You guys are trying to nail every example with very obscure reasoning because you are clinging to the principle you have to work for everything you get. I am not disputing the value of slogans and ethics like this but they should not be seen as the sort of global laws of the universe both of you make out. There are other principles involved like charity and the responsibility of the strong to help the weak. It is not as simple as the 1:1 direct relationships you make out. Much of what I have and have been given is the legacy of our fathers. I have lived in peace and security not because of my work but because 2 generations gave their tommorow so I could have my today. I help those less fortunate than myself because it is the right thing to do. I hope should they be able one day they will in turn help somebody. If not - so be it - I do what I must. I cannot look the other way and recite some proverb to the hungry man. I see nothing wrong in giving those at the bottom of the economy a leg up so they can in turn do the same for others. And if some are them are just parasites on society - so be it - I am not going to refuse to water the garden because there may be some weeds in there amonst the flowers. We will just have to agree we are from different cultures with different social values.

No. What we are saying is there is great value in being a productive citizen if you have the ability to do so. To be able-bodied, yet choose to do nothing to contribute to society and instead to live off the efforts of your fellow man is WRONG.

[DuncanONeil]

Perhaps you are unwilling to surrender your idea that free things can be valued.
Very little in life is simple but in this forum we perforce restrict ourselves to short periods of time. Forcing short answers.
You mentioned something specific; "Much of what I have and have been given is the legacy of our fathers. I have lived in peace and security not because of my work but because 2 generations gave their tommorow so I could have my today." That kind of thought process leads me to believe there is personal aspect to the comment. If not you are way better than most. The vast majority of this country are unable to see what you just said. Some even with such a person in their family. The sad fact is that for most people history begins the day they are born.

The only real difference I can see is that you are of the opinion that people value free things and Steelish, Thorne, and I do not so opine.
Much of the past hour I have been thinking on this charitable works issue. It also has two aspects. My expending something as simple as my time and effort to assist someone through "something" is not quite the same as going over to the local homeless jungle and handing out "stuff". I am a volunteer in an organization, known to save a life of two each year. I still can see the difference in putting yourself out there and just handing out "stuff". I just can't think of a better way to phrase it!

You guys are trying to nail every example with very obscure reasoning because you are clinging to the principle you have to work for everything you get. I am not disputing the value of slogans and ethics like this but they should not be seen as the sort of global laws of the universe both of you make out. There are other principles involved like charity and the responsibility of the strong to help the weak. It is not as simple as the 1:1 direct relationships you make out. Much of what I have and have been given is the legacy of our fathers. I have lived in peace and security not because of my work but because 2 generations gave their tommorow so I could have my today. I help those less fortunate than myself because it is the right thing to do. I hope should they be able one day they will in turn help somebody. If not - so be it - I do what I must. I cannot look the other way and recite some proverb to the hungry man. I see nothing wrong in giving those at the bottom of the economy a leg up so they can in turn do the same for others. And if some are them are just parasites on society - so be it - I am not going to refuse to water the garden because there may be some weeds in there amonst the flowers. We will just have to agree we are from different cultures with different social values.

[DuncanONeil]

I can remember two allowances I received in my youth. In elementary school a nickle credit at the local grocery I used on return to school from lunch.
In high school $3 per week, however, I was expected to buy my own lunch from that sum.

As steelish said, I pay through my ISP fees, but the real value in a site such as this is in the effort we all put into making it interesting and relevant. I would hope my own modest efforts have added to that value for others as well as myself.


Every poster here has some value. Naturally, I value some higher than others, and I do give thanks when they are deserved. In other words, poster should have to earn their thanks!


I'm sure he does, just as (as noted in your next post) we value gifts which we are given. But if our hungry man is given that gift every day, there will come a point where he will view it not as a gift but as an entitlement, and when the soup kitchen closes down he will rant about his rights being taken away.


Same as above.


I'm sure they do, but the cost of that "free" item is spread out over the cost of everything else we buy, so it's not actually free, is it?


Like steelish (and I expect, like most who received an allowance) I didn't get an allowance for doing nothing. I earned it. As I grew older and was able to do more, I received a larger allowance. Then, in order to cement my understanding of the value of my efforts, when I got old enough to have a job, I was expected to pay a percentage of my pay as 'room and board'. In retrospect, at least, the lessons I learned were far more valuable than the money I paid.


Apparently, though I have difficulty understanding why. But then, they've put a lot of time and effort into maintaining their church, in some form or another.So again, it's not 'free'.


You don't just 'get' a wedding ring. You have to invest a tremendous amount of time and energy, both physical and emotional. And the future costs are even higher. And if you're as lucky as I am, it will all be worth it. If you can even think that the receipt of a wedding ring is 'free' your value system may be seriously flawed.

Paying money for something is not the only way to pay for it. After all, money is just a placeholder, a way of showing how much work we've done to earn what we are buying. Gifts received generally come from expenditures in emotional bonds. Even charity comes at a cost to someone. Being the recipient of charity should make you feel grateful to those providing it, but can also be humbling to a degree, knowing that you must rely on the charity of others. But those who have come to rely on charity, and have lost that gratitude, are the ones who make it so hard for people like me to see the 'value' in giving that charity. When charity is no longer viewed as a gift but as a right, it ceases to become charity. And it no longer has any value to society.

[DuncanONeil]

yes they were poor examples i agree. I did not want to spend much thought debunking proverbs. People using proverbs to support their argument in a political discussion always seems to me like those the southern lawyers who quote the scriptures to prove their case - it's makes for good drama and showmanship but is a load of hogwash. This is why politicians steer clear of them - they get nailed.

Anyhow back to the point. You claim people do not value that which is obtained at no cost to themselves.

- do you value this website - you did not pay for admission.

i do not value the website nearly as much as i value the people and discussions in which i engage! The people have inestimable value, the site itself not nearly as much.

- do you value the posts and posters on here for which you have given thanks.

see above

- does the hungry man value the food from the soup kitchen or bed at the hostel.

no! He values not being hungry for a while.

- does the hitchhiker value the ride he gets.

perhaps? The true measure of said valuation is subject to the situation. On would have to presume that gratitude and value are synonymous.

- do people go intro stampede mode at stores when the word "free" is mention.

more likely greed than value!

- did you value your allowance - (the one you got without having to work for it)

a free, unencumbered allowance? Most kids do not value such. They perceive it as a gift or right.

- do people value the sermom and service they get at the church.

completely different animal! Not definable nor finite.

- will you value the wedding ring you get(got)

this is a quid pro quo! Something that both parties have worked for.

- are all of the above definable and finite products, services and commodities.

no!

i think the answer to all of the above is yes. And all were obtained for free.

000000000