So there's this Occupy Wall Street protest in Manhattan today
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
Necronic
Staff member
Says who? I'll agree that we're getting into the gray area of semantics though.
I just hate it when I ever hear the implication that a strong desire to make money is immoral. It's ridiculous.
Edit:
And this is proof of the semantics of the argument. You're sentence implies that a willingness to be dishonest scales with greed. In my view of the word it does not, they are independent attributes.
You think greed and dishonesty are never connected? That there would be a magic land I'd love to live in.
Added at: 21:19Wikitionary said:
It is one of the worst of the deadly sins after all.
I always thought "avarice" was a better term for this sort of thing than "greed".
Well, then you just take it outright.
The idea behind capitalism isn't that greed is good, but that, as long as we're on equal footing, my greed and your greed cancel each other out... and that's why it's ok.
But that doesn't make greed good.
Frankly i for one can't think of any situation where greed lead to something good that wasn't wither an unintended consequence or involved the person with too much money giving it away in some form, which is the opposite of greed.
If i where you i'd go more with competition is good, and greed is a good motivator to compete...
A strong desire to make money tells me nothing, i for one have a strong desire to make enough money to live comfortably, and i doubt anyone would say i'm greedy based on that....
If you so badly need to "take back" the word "greed" in order to re-define it to a non-classical meaning that omits its inherent association with malfeasance so you can then re-apply it to yourself without that association, I think you need to stop re-watching Wall Street for a bit.
Seriously, why else would need to apply it to yourself? The actual definition gives you a fucking out with the "more than is needed or deserved" part. The reason why greedy people usually don't refer to themselves as greedy is because they think they deserve it!
Seriously, why else would need to apply it to yourself? The actual definition gives you a fucking out with the "more than is needed or deserved" part. The reason why greedy people usually don't refer to themselves as greedy is because they think they deserve it!
Not my words but they seem appropiate
AdrianMonkFan wrote:
Greed is good because it is one of the driving forces pushing mankind forward. Greed for more land settled the colonies in the 1600 &1700s. Greed for economic and political freedom formed the USA. Greed also settled the west. Greed for gold settled the west coast. The greed in the late 1800s and early 1900s developed the industrial power of this country. Henry Ford's greed created the auto industry. Milton Hershey's greed greated a long running business, the Milton Hershey School and the Milton S Hershey Medical Center. Greed created the tools we are using to communicate at this topic.
I think you have that all wrong. If you substitute the word "greed" with the word "need" it will ring much more true. It is "need" that pushes mankind forward. Need, formed the USA and settled the west. Need, developed the industrial power of this country. Need, is the only thing that keeps the oil companies striving today. Greed, actually impedes the progress of need. If not for greed, there may very well be a cure for cancer. If not for greed, there may very well be many alternatives to oil already in use. If not for greed, our country could very well be much closer to a true democracy than it is now.
AdrianMonkFan wrote:
Greed is good because it is one of the driving forces pushing mankind forward. Greed for more land settled the colonies in the 1600 &1700s. Greed for economic and political freedom formed the USA. Greed also settled the west. Greed for gold settled the west coast. The greed in the late 1800s and early 1900s developed the industrial power of this country. Henry Ford's greed created the auto industry. Milton Hershey's greed greated a long running business, the Milton Hershey School and the Milton S Hershey Medical Center. Greed created the tools we are using to communicate at this topic.
I think you have that all wrong. If you substitute the word "greed" with the word "need" it will ring much more true. It is "need" that pushes mankind forward. Need, formed the USA and settled the west. Need, developed the industrial power of this country. Need, is the only thing that keeps the oil companies striving today. Greed, actually impedes the progress of need. If not for greed, there may very well be a cure for cancer. If not for greed, there may very well be many alternatives to oil already in use. If not for greed, our country could very well be much closer to a true democracy than it is now.
Because, as we all know, there is One True Definition for each and every word, and the only time there is confusion is when someone makes up an alternate definition.
I was just trying to be funny, tbh, but now I'd like reputable sources (this is the important bit) which don't use the word 'greed' in a negative light. No, NRO and their ilk do NOT count as reputable.
Isn't that exactly why we have dictionaries? Why y'all gotta be trippin' over Webster's needs, man?!
Added at: 11:51
See, this is exactly where your "greed = self interest /= need" thing doesn't really work. There's nothing "excessive" in the idea, regardless of an accurate threat analysis, that domination of the space race, and the technologies going into it, had national security implications. Was it a "need"? Given the historical knowledge now, probably not. Was it greed? Only if you believe that self-interest to be excessive or out of proportion. And that one is a hell of a lot tougher to determine for the space race.
You think making consumer products greedy? There's a massive investment of money into that kind of development, and consumers still need to choose to buy them.
ARPA, DARPA, and CERN (for the WWW, at least) thought so.
I know you're just arguing for fun GB, but this feels kind of like you guys are trying to take back the word "evil" when you're really just mean "kind of a dick".
Ugh. Semantic arguments are not solved that way. Dictionaries describe the language we use and they do it imperfectly. Nobody learns what words mean or their various shades of meaning by memorizing dictionary definitions. Dictionaries are just a blurry reflection of the language we actually use. Most people are able understand subtle differences in meaning derived from context. In the above conversation, the context being given lends meaning to the word greed as "wanting things offers a good incentive for people to do things". They aren't saying, "coveting thy neighbor's potatoes is a good incentive to do things" and I think it is pretty clear through the usage. Relying on the dictionary as a defense, as if it is the repository for all meanings and the source of all meanings is simply a weak argument.
As an aside, of course the malfeasance associated with greed is bad. If that was the type of greed that people were talking about, then it would simply be stupid, a no-brainer of an argument. At worst, the phrase "greed is good" is a silly turn of phrase with a not-so-clever alliteration and very little more to it.
That's entirely my point. Nobody is equating anything. They aren't saying, "whenever the word greed is used, it means someone wants more". That's what it would mean to equate the terms. People are simply using a word with a slightly off-beat meaning. We do that all the time in language every day. If anything, people on the other side of the argument are equating "Greed is good" with "Malfeasance is good", which is clearly not the intent of the phrase.
I think you and I are reading two very different threads. It seems to me that GB and Necro are saying that "greed," as they use it, is in fact a word simply implying "desire for more" and that malfeasance is an external component to that desire, while those of us on the flip side are saying that using the word "greed" without the component of malfeasance is a deliberate mis-use of the word.
This has been an entirely semantical argument from the get-go because no one in this argument (yet) is trying to claim that "desire for more" is an inherently bad thing. No one is arguing that Necro and GB are pro-malfeasance. Well, GB might be, but he's not currently arguing it.
This has been an entirely semantical argument from the get-go because no one in this argument (yet) is trying to claim that "desire for more" is an inherently bad thing. No one is arguing that Necro and GB are pro-malfeasance. Well, GB might be, but he's not currently arguing it.
Obviously they would need to weight in themselves, but I highly doubt that they are saying that the One True Definition of the word greed is that it means "wanting more". They are using it in that particular context is all.
GasBandit
Staff member
There's a marked tendency in TV "man in the street" programming to have people talk about how "nobody needs to make more than X amount of money, that's just greedy." The number changes - it can be millions, it can be as low as 250k or lower. Invariably, these statements are made by people who would not turn down this money if it came to them without strings, and who would scream holy hell if they actually earned that money and then had it taken away because they didn't "need" it. In other words, the only real difference here is the greedy who succeed and the greedy who don't.
Communists talk about "need." It doesn't work. If people get what they need (and only what they need) regardless of effort, merit or skill, the system collapses because there's no incentive to do anything above the bare minimum, if even that... except for the all-too-rare-in-humanity overpowering sense of altruism. The word "need" (and for that matter, "greed") has practically lost all useful connotation... much like the word "right" has. These days everybody is talking about the things they have a "right" to. The right to health care. The right to internet. I shit you not, that last one is actually called a human right. Nobody even knows what it means to have a right to something anymore. They think it means that it's somebody else's responsibility to provide for them. And if you object to having your money confiscated under threat of violence, imprisonment and death so that somebody else can have it? Someone who, all too often, only lacks it through the forseeable consequences of their own decisions and actions? Then you're greedy.
Communists talk about "need." It doesn't work. If people get what they need (and only what they need) regardless of effort, merit or skill, the system collapses because there's no incentive to do anything above the bare minimum, if even that... except for the all-too-rare-in-humanity overpowering sense of altruism. The word "need" (and for that matter, "greed") has practically lost all useful connotation... much like the word "right" has. These days everybody is talking about the things they have a "right" to. The right to health care. The right to internet. I shit you not, that last one is actually called a human right. Nobody even knows what it means to have a right to something anymore. They think it means that it's somebody else's responsibility to provide for them. And if you object to having your money confiscated under threat of violence, imprisonment and death so that somebody else can have it? Someone who, all too often, only lacks it through the forseeable consequences of their own decisions and actions? Then you're greedy.
Necronic
Staff member
I think that you're out of your mind if you think that's ever going to happen.
Also, since we're now onto semantics, who here wants to define virtue for me?
Depends. Whose virtue are we defining, and are they more mature than Iaculus' girlfriends?
Depends. Whose virtue are we defining, and are they more mature than Iaculus' girlfriends?
I wonder if the crackdown would've happened while the celebrities were still wandering through Wall Street, or if they chose to wait for that part of the attention to ebb.
It is less funny when Iaculus isn't around at the moment.
I don't think so. Maybe he just changed his login name.
Though I suppose Icarus could have as well.
"Desire for more" tell you nothing about how much you already have...
Greed is bad because it implies taking everything, malfeasance or not... and i only heard of one excuse for a monopoly from people with actual economic knowledge, and that is that people can just not buy the product if it gets too expensive, and thus the consumer still has some power, which only works if the product isn't essential and it's still a bad excuse for allowing monopolies... no matter how benign the way they get to it are.
Actually money isn't that great of a motivator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Business
I even had one teacher during my Masters say that money isn't a motivator... of course she was teaching us mostly english business terms... although it's weird that none of my class mates had covered the subject already, you'd think that would come up even if they studied international relations during normal college...
If the system collapses, you're obviously not doing enough...
What you want to argue here is that progress would be too slow, or none at all if you want to be x-treme....
Added at: 07:49
Almost as if it was the catch phrase of a movie villain?
The officer that pepper sprayed the students nonchalantly received over 27,000 angry or threatening emails and text messages, and as a result suffers from psychiatric and nervous system damage for whitch he was awarded $38,055 in workers compensation from UC Davis, just a little less than the students each received for their trauma.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24650954
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24650954
Dave
Staff member