No he would have so one do it for him with his very close supervision. The Mods have my email address to submit prototypes through for my guidance and approval.
You will need to explain the relevance of this point to me.
When it comes to giving credit for the athletes’ performance, it goes to the Phelpses of the world, not the guy who built the pool.
Evidently, some need to be told this:
[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
Not the water, but I’m sure the guy who built the pool got paid for his trouble.
[/QUOTE]
(Post 247)
You are incorrect. That is not true.
I said that one time, responding to a direct quote of your post #299. The word “like” was not present in the text I quoted and was responding to.
No, you never did. I questioned you about it and you:
- Simply quoted your own post, with no attempt to explain it.
- Said that your argument revolved around the word “like” in the quoted post, with no explanation of what thing was “like” another.
- Started some new train of thought about Phelps, Steve Jobs, and Martha Stewart, with no comparison present. (The word “like” totally absent from your argument now.)
But still, no answer to my question. You’ve certainly taken lots of other people to task for trying to cut down Phelps, or diminish his accomplishments. (I don’t see anyone here doing that, but that’s another matter.) But no one would be talking about him here if you hadn’t started it. Is this the flip side of retroactive retirement, preemptive retaliation?
So Obama makes a speech about increasing taxes, and makes an argument for why taxes are important and how they are used.
Unbelievable I tell you, totally incomprehensible.
But Governor Romney disagrees with you. He believes that the people who built the infrastructure that supported Phelps’s win also deserve credit. This is not to say they deserve a medal. It is to say they deserve credit. Romney said this. Now, you don’t have to agree with Romney. You may think Romney was wrong to give them credit.
Do you?
Well, did Gov. Romney directly address Michael Phelps to say: “You’ve got those gold medals, but you didn’t win that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Or if you prefer,
“You won your medals by swimming in a swimming pool. You didn’t build the swimming pool. Somebody else made that happen.”
If applied to either of the two possible interpretations of Obama’s statement in the OP, you can see that one is insulting and wrong, and the other is ridiculously irrelevant.
The analogy you’re making doesn’t work, because Obama didn’t directly address a business owner to say the business owner did not build the infrastructure behind his business.
However, Obama did say something to a general audience which could fairly be generalized to make that point. And so did Romney. Romney said something to a general audience which could fairly be generalized to make the point that Phelps won his medals by swimming in a pool, but that Phelps didn’t build the pool, and that someone else made that happen.
Or perhaps the third possible interpretation that reasonable, everyday, people will make.
The one that says,
hey, you know what - you’ve made a great success of yourself, you’ve achieved much - you’ve built a successful and profitable business. That has been made possible, you got that opportunity because “the state” maintains an apparatus such as an education system, a legal system the infrastructure for deliveries and such.
Given that you’ve benefitted so much from the system, how about paying back into the ongoing maintenance to sustain and build it for the further success of others, just as others selflessly paid into it for your success so why don’t you do the same.
You are correct. You did it once. My apologies. I was under the general impression you were keeping at it. (Could have sworn there was more than once…) But that had to do with you’re insistence that I didn’t explain myself. Which you are wrong about and were persistent about it.
False. Even though the original post need ZERO explanation as to why I brought Michael Phelpse into the discussion, or a skier, here is Post 299: (emphasis added)
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Uh, no. Especially since you’ve offered no rationale. [for your claim that I was wrong]. The bottom line is that people who start businesses and succeed deserve the credit for doing so. They’ve played on the same play field as everyone else, yet they suited up and did what was necessary. Milions of people drive on the same roads they do and didn’t take advantage of the infrastructure and do all the other things to open the doors and make their businesses succeed. The Steve Jobses, Michael Phelpses, and Martha Stewarts of the world deserve the credit. Not the computer chip, swimming pool manufacturers or arts and crafts stores.
[/QUOTE]
Notice the parallel construction between the individuals who excelled and an example of the infrastructure they operated in. If you don’t get it from the original post, and this added, you just ain’t gonna get it.
Me: My boss is fat. He’s like Orson Welles fat.
You: What does Orson Welles have to do with it. You know he’s dead, right? Why bring him up?
Me: Don’t worry, I can take it. His criticism roll off me like water off a duck’s back.
You: Duck? What do ducks have to do with anything? Why are you bringing up water fowl?
Me: Those were some serious hallucinogens. It was like the aurora borealis and NYC’s 4th of July fire woks were trapped inside Hayden’s Planetarium, and there I was in the middle of it.
You: Huh? We’re in Arizona. You can’t see the aurora borealis from here. And we’re not in NY either? Why did you bring that up? Why? Huh? Huh? Huh? WHY?!
Me: Man, Im tired. It’s like I took a bottle of sleeping pills.
You: Hello, 911? We have an emergency!!!
Me: No, I’m fine, I was just trying to communicate how tired I was by comparing to a state that anyone would understand, and using a little hyperbole.
You: You said you took sleeping pills. Why would you say that?!
Me: Minimizing the credit a successful businessman deserves by pointing to infrastructure he operates under is ridiculous. It’s like saying Michael Phelps should hare his success as a swimmer with the properties of water, or the guy who fills the pool.
You: Wy did you bring up Michael Phelps?
Me: Well, I thought it was kind of obvious. It is obvious. I chose someone that was clearly a success and than carried the analogy out to look at what we could say is his "infrastructure.
You: Why did you bring up Michael Phelpos? Why do you refuse to answer? :mad:
Like I said: :rolleyes:
False. It was already supplied. I’ve shown that enough by now. Stop untruthing.
And, was an explanation really necessary? See the theoretical exchanges between you and I above. Serious question: is English not your first language? maybe the “like” thing doesn’t translate well into some languages.
Ohboyohboyohboy. Sigh. When I quoted the actual text that had the word in it, you said that was an insufficient explanation. So, I then crafted an explanation that, you guessed it, explained the post you found lacking. Why must I use the same word in the explanation as I did in the original post. In fact, given the colossal trouble you seemed to be having, why would I? If you look back now, you will see that the post without the “like” does, in fact, explain the logic behind the post that did have the “like”. Which is what I thought you wanted and stomping your foot demanding.
But still, no answer to my question. You’ve certainly taken lots of other people to task for trying to cut down Phelps, or diminish his accomplishments. (I don’t see anyone here doing that, but that’s another matter.) But no one would be talking about him here if you hadn’t started it. Is this the flip side of retroactive retirement, preemptive retaliation?
[/QUOTE]
Let me see if I understand this. I make a comparison between to things, linked by the common phrase, “A. It’s like X.” You ask me again and again why I brought up X. I point you to the original post, thinking you lost it, because it is so patently evident that I brought up X to say A is LIKE it. You insist that you need an explanation, I give it. But then you claim befuddlement because the explanation I gave you doesn’t employ the word “like”* in the explanation*. You contort this into me claiming that the answer revolves around LIKE, BUT, there’s no “like” in the post explaining the original post that did employ the comparison, via “like”. On this and your apparent general difficulty with the facts, I see no reason to spend another second is this dance of bad faith you’re doing. Or maybe we just have a language barrier, revolving around words such as “like” and “truth”. I have better things to do, like debating with my cat.
And I don’t even own a cat.
We are done.
Onward.
Oh, sure, that’s indeed a third interpretation:
“Yeeah. Say, it’s a nice business you’ve got here. Nice little store. Yeah. Say, seeing as you’ve done so well building a business here in our community–good job, by the way–how’s about you make a periodic donation to our organization to ensure your continuing success? 'Cause it’d be a shame if something happened to it . . .”
So water is Phelps’s infrastructure, but it’s not like a bridge.
Thanks so much for clearing that up.
In the venue he did, and they day he did, not necessarily. I’m not a fan of the whole “if one wins, by golly, we all win”. I give credit to the people who distinguished themselves. People who were visionaries. Those who hit the home runs. And I really think it serves society best to recognize the genius of the individual, when it is present. Ot the heroics. Or the super talent. It inspires individuals to greater heights and the higher we all reach, the better for us all. We can be inspired by people in the private sector, like Jobs, Phelps, Stewart. Getting more civic minded, New Yorkers like Frederick Olmstead, Robert Moses, John Roebling. Men of vision. People whose accomplishments lead you to believe that if they were not present, things wouldn’t have turned out near as well.
Part of the problem I have, is where do you draw the line. We actually had someone in this thread, possibly more than one, arguing that Phelps didn’t deserve all the credit because some guy built the pool! That Bizarro Land in my book. If you can put an “of course” in front of it, it needn’t and shouldn’t be mentioned. Of course there was a guy who built the pool. In fact a whole bunch of them fro each pool built. Of course someone kept the pool clean. Of course someone took care of the locker room. Of course a young ML get rides to swim meets and those cars traveled on roads. And a bridge to go over the river. These things are the backdrop, the default reality we all operate in. We all pay for it and we all benefit by them. But when you have a 300,000,000 people operating in that same default system and one of them does something the others couldn’t, to then say, "Hey, slow down. What he accomplished is admirable and all, but let’s not forget, he couldn’t have done it without all the roads and stop lights and such, is as unuseful and unhelpful as it is ridiculous. Like I’ve said, you might as well as give a should out to gravity.
Are you seriously comparing the tax policies of the lawfully formed and elected government of the United States with criminal protection rackets? :dubious:
Unfuckingbelievable. I just had to respond to this underhanded bullshit of yours. You took my “Uh, no.” completely out of context, omitting that which immediately preceded it and immediately followed it, thereby linking it to something it was not in response to. UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE!
Here is the full, honest, reality-comporting version of the exchange, color code so you get miss the relationship:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
It’s like taking a successful ski racer and giving credit to the mountain, gravity, or snow. Or saying that michael Phelps should be sharing his success with the properties of water.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
So you think teachers and bridges are “like” gravity and water, and that Michael Phelps becoming wet was somehow illustrative of this similarity.
My mistake. I thought there was some subtlety I was missing. Instead, you’re just wrong.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Uh, no. Especially since you’ve offered no rationale.
[/QUOTE]
My disagreement was with your simple “you’re just wrong”. No explanation, no rationale, just the simple, empty, useless statement. :rolleyes: That should be obvious by the combination of 1) proximity between your closing line and my opening line and 2) my very next sentence.
So thanks for for solidifying my decision on how to deal with you in the future.
Hey, it’s bengangmo’s analogy, ask him.
The rationale was in my first sentence. I don’t know how you missed it.
Anyway, does that mean that gravity and water are like teachers and bridges (from your point of view, anyway)? You’d have saved us a bunch of time if you’d just admitted it a couple pages ago.
Promises, promises.
what’s the point in even asking the question? He’s shown what he’s like, and seeing as how we’re not in the pit I’m not going to tee off with what I really think, but rather just close this thread and stop prodding the crazy.
That’s fair enough!
As for the rest of your post, I can respect the philosophical position you describe, even if I don’t agree. I do think you’re right to point out there’s a “where do we draw the line?” question–but I tend to think that the line should be drawn nowhere, and the credit should be distributed unevenly all the way down the line. (Most of it going to the individual accomplisher, but graduatedly smaller amounts to others in the causal network behind him.) But of course in practical terms this is all immeasurable, and that’s another serious wrinkle with a position like mine.
Now: You do think, don’t you, that since there is a causal network behind the success of each great individual, and since great individuals are a good thing to have succeed, investment in that causal network ought to be made or continued?
Funnily enough, your mob analogy helps explain Obama’s point. It would be a shame for him if his business failed because the power went out regularly, roads and bridges fell into disrepair, communication was undependable, undermanned police force couldn’t prevent extortion by the mob;)–all the stuff that provides a secure, stable environment from which to launch a business. If he wants his business to remain successful, it would be in his interest to help support that infrastructure, and it would be cheap and selfish of him to ignore it and expect everyone else to provide it for him. We’d all be better off without freeloaders like that, right?