Posted on 09/11/2005 11:47:11 AM PDT by ForGod'sSake
If they ever add that you have to be pretty, I'm really toasted!
If they're going to see you, you have to be pretty.
I believe stupidity should be punished by the government. They could pass a law that places a tax on people for being stupid.
We could call it the stupid tax. -- (Oh, wait! ... Hmmm ... ... ... Never mind!)
Sheesh!
If I were smart, lucky, and pretty, why would I need to be rich?
" --- A stupid person is someone who causes damage to another person, or a group of people, without any advantage accruing to himself (or herself) -- or even with some resultant self-damage. (We shall come back to this, because it is the pivotal concept of the Cipolla Theory.) -- "
The author ignores the fact that some groups of stupid people are so dangerous that they must be damaged, even if the immediate [or long term] result is self damage at no gain.
the author doesn't ignore that, necessarily.
long-term profit IS still profit.
There is no individual/self profit in dying to defend liberty, -- for instance.
Chances are, with al those attributes, it would come naturally.
It isn't so much "dying" as it is "killing". The founders knew that the ony way to be free of the king was to kill the Kings minions. It wasn't that they were all that keen to die, but that they would rather risk death than live as slaves.
We are pretty much right back to that point again.
I'm smart and pretty but monetary luck eludes me. Too bad, because I would make a great millionaire!
I, on the other hand, cheapskate that I am, would probabbly need lessons.
Is it pronounced "LuvVy", or "LuVvy?"
ah. that gets into whether the human capacity for tribal affiliation and symbolic valuation should be considered "stupid"
that might be beyond the scope of this paper.
*Bob shakes head sadly*
"There is no apparent individual/self profit in dying to defend liberty..."
There! That's better. Many species produce individuals which sacrifice themselves for the good of the species as a whole. Humans are not removed from this calculus.
The individual may not be able to observe the long term aspects of the good that he has done, but he may be aware at the time that it is "the right thing to do."
Yes, we call them Heroes. The same brave effort expended to save only his own life makes him "stout-of-heart," and "determined," but it doesn't make him a hero. One expects a person to attempt to survive. What one does not expect is the individual who is willing to risk, or surrender, his(or her) life for the benefit of others. (Picture the drunken pilot in "Independence Day." He was in a position to recognize a unique opportunity to strike out in defense of his children, his nation, his world -- but at the cost of his own life. It didn't appear to take him long to decide. It seldom does.)
KP:
the author doesn't ignore that, necessarily. long-term profit IS still profit.
There is no individual/self profit in dying to defend liberty, -- for instance.
And as DC argues:
[no one is] that keen to die, but that they would rather risk death than live as slaves.
We are pretty much right back to that point again.
127 by Dead Corpse
ah. that gets into whether the human capacity for tribal affiliation and symbolic valuation should be considered "stupid"
that might be beyond the scope of this paper.
IMHO, dying for the liberty of your 'tribe' isn't stupid, but it sure isn't very profitable either, in an individual sense. -- Which is the subject of this paper. True?
Oh.
Stupid of me.
Glad I did it here, and not where it would be embarrasssing.
I read a newspaper article that stated" More than half of the people are below average intelligence.
Hard to believe this stuff gets printed.
not sure it is all that simple.
individuals might consider they profit by dying for a cause or purpose they consider more important than their own lives - if they value their family or nation more than they value themselves, dying for the preservation of these higher-value entities constitutes profit.
the paper also fails to factor in the calculus of risk v. benefit.
sometimes people incur loss in a calculated gamble to gain profit. This does not make the gamble stupid, just a failure.
Profit?
"... for what doth it profiteth a man, to gain the whole world, and lose his soul?"
One way of translating that would be to ask, "What has a man gained, if he loses his life in saving the entire world?" That's not what the passage means, but I like to be flexible.
Dying ain't much of a way to make a living, but you won't get to Heaven in a little rowboat.
One of those "the more you say it the funnier it sounds" thingies?
The author ignores the fact that some groups of stupid people are so dangerous that they must be damaged, even if the immediate [or long term] result is self damage at no gain.
the author doesn't ignore that, necessarily. long-term profit IS still profit.
IMHO, dying for the liberty of your 'tribe' isn't stupid, but it sure isn't very profitable either, in an individual sense. -- Which is the subject of this paper. True?
not sure it is all that simple.
individuals might consider they profit by dying for a cause or purpose they consider more important than their own lives - if they value their family or nation more than they value themselves, dying for the preservation of these higher-value entities constitutes profit.
Thanks, -- in essence, you've agreed with my original point. Looks like it was that simple.
that we agree on the point in question has been clear form the outset
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.