The Death of America

[TomAiello 25]

Quote

>The employer is free to make that change, just as the employee is free to find a new job.

Thus, rendering quite a chunk of the responsibility on the employer as well as the employee.

I think the fundamental disconnect here is the manager's failures. If he fails to motivate his employees and keep them reasonably happy, then he's doing a bad job. Someone needs to take him to task for that.

If he's the owner of a small business, then it's the market that will do it. He'll be less successful, and make less money, than a competitor who does a good job managing his people.

If he's at a larger enterprise, the problem is that his manager is failing to take him to task--and in so doing the higher level manager is doing a bad job, too. Get enough of that, and your whole enterprise has issues.

The major problem comes when the government tries to shield the company from having to face the consequences of it's poor management because it's "too big to fail" or whatever. The solution there is to get the government out of the way, and let the bad managers/owners/businesses actually fail.

Bottom line: if you're a manager and everyone who works for you is unmotivated and unhappy, you're doing a piss poor job, and you probably need to be fired.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[wmw999 2,149]

Quote

The responsibility is on both the employer's and the employee's shoulders. You admitted it when you said that the employer is free to make the change and needs to do it for the success of their business. Thus, the responsibility is shared.

The key to shared responsibility, however, is that each person can only take charge of their own responsibility. Individuals cannot force the other to take theirs.

Sometimes that means it's uneven. Tough shit.

There are lots of cases where responsibility is "forced" on one, either by the government (laws) or society (family ties, manners). But each person does, in fact, have the choice to shirk the vast majority of that responsibility.

Each of us could become a street bum in some city, shitting on the street, and eating out of the trash. We can choose not to do anything with our education, our riggers can choose to do a lousy job of rigging.

How each of us treats others, giving them the benefit of assuming that they're really not in this life just to screw us out of our "rightful dues" goes a long way towards people finding paths through this maze of responsibilities.

But as long as each person is focused on how others are failing in their responsibility, they're not spending as much time on their own. It's a balance, just like most of everything else.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[makeithappen40 0]

>Drug use (or BASE jumping, or whatever) doesn't hurt anyone else
>If you damaged something, then the problem is that you damaged it. You're responsible for the damage you did to it, and ought to make it right to the owner of the building.

Great, you have responsibility for fixing it. That doesn't change the fact that the activity hasn't negatively impacted someone else. What if that person landed on the camera crew on the ground? Sure, they should'nt have been standing there or should have at least been aware of the situation, but does that mean that the jump didn't negatively impact someone else? It did negatively impact someone else.

>The jump itself hurts no one.

Neat, so instead we can make some lame assed excuse about how the property damage was a result of the will of the jumper as opposed to his engaging in the sport and mislabeling the sport as a result of something that happened when the sport occured.

"The gun didn't kill him, the person did."
"Would the person had killed him, hadn't the gun been there?" This is the same damned arguement, only it looks different.

Whether it is "up to the guy to make it right to the building owner," it still negatively impacted someone else. That's all we need here. (The point was about drugs, though...)

>Emotionally, you mean? Or are you envisioning some kind of physical damage?

Sure, emotionally. How a person dies has a major impact on the family, as you well know in BASE. When grandma dies at age 100, we all expected it, it hurts us, but it does not hurt the same as when someone is killed, or dies from drugs (that, for me, is more real than the BASE death at this time) or when they die in BASE. I'd say a death from drugs or BASE have a pretty negative impact relative on others as opposed to other deaths. This isn't changed by the notion that you wouldn't want your family to be kept in a padded room to keep you from having the bear the news of one of their violent deaths.

>If the appearance is effecting the job, then it's a performance issue

Thus, you would judge a person's performance based on their appearance.

>I'm guessing that the fact you're having this conversation with me, and I'm probably the only poster here who's actually been in all those situations, is not a coincidence

Nope. I have never met you, most likely never will, and do not know any of your family. All i know is that you run a BASE course, and that you live near the Perrine.

However, I do find it within my own self-interest to post here on this forum. I am very interested in Philosophy, and I would be more interested in finding out if there really is any sense to each one of the political/economic/social philosophies that are out there. Unfortunately, I have only found two philosophies that keep people from sounding off contradictions in speech. Well, really one, but I have more to look through in the second. I'm taking a Social and Political Philosophy class this term, so maybe that will make the search a little bit more interesting. (As if it wasn't already)

[makeithappen40 0]

>The key to shared responsibility, however, is that each person can only take charge of their own responsibility. Individuals cannot force the other to take theirs.

Sure. Only the problem is that not everyone fosters that environment very well, even if it is to their advantage.

Maybe Tom will have a management course, and people will actually listen to what he has to say about management, and then everyone will stay true to it, even though there exist many self-interested reasons for those firms to screw their workers out of the compensation they deserve.

[wmw999 2,149]

Quote

Only the problem is that not everyone fosters that environment very well, even if it is to their advantage.

Each person can contribute to the environment. It's not all up to the management. Employees can talk to management (i.e. by providing constructive criticism), and they can vote with their feet.

A single employee can't make management "do it right" any more than a single manager can in a larger company. For one thing, each party's interests only overlap, they're not exactly the same. And each person has a responsibility to identify what's in their best interests, and do what they can to work towards that. Even if it means compromising on less important things, or working somewhere else.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[makeithappen40 0]

>Someone needs to take him to task for that.

Uh oh. lbdazel might disagree, "because its that managers own damned fault for doing it, and that you can't do it for him"

>If he's at a larger enterprise, the problem is that his manager is failing to take him to task--and in so doing the higher level manager is doing a bad job, too. Get enough of that, and your whole enterprise has issues

And boy does that EVER happen. After all, there must be some reason that McDonald's has a high turnover rate. McD's used to have a great product, from what I hear. Apparently, it was long before I was born that they lost it, and their product suffered.

>The major problem comes when the government tries to shield the company from having to face the consequences of it's poor management because it's "too big to fail" or whatever. The solution there is to get the government out of the way, and let the bad managers/owners/businesses actually fail.

Amen.
How long can this last for? How many lifetimes will it take for people to be running businesses so that they can both 1) make money and 2) employ happy workers? Will we ever have a situation where people "deserve" to have property and "deserve" to hold their jobs, by virtue of how the economy dictates it?

>Bottom line: if you're a manager and everyone who works for you is unmotivated and unhappy, you're doing a piss poor job, and you probably need to be fired

So cool. I needed to hear that.

[makeithappen40 0]

>Each person can contribute to the environment. It's not all up to the management. Employees can talk to management (i.e. by providing constructive criticism), and they can vote with their feet

Right on. (Well, when constructive crticism actually is allowed in reciprocation)

Also, people don't really have the freedom to "vote with their feet" once they are obligated in one job/area/set of bills/family establishment. People get "stuck."

>A single employee can't make management "do it right" any more than a single manager can in a larger company

Right on. I dislike giant corporations for the same reason that I, and so many of those crazy libertarians, dislike giant beurocratic governments. They are the same thing: Inefficient, wasteful, and out of control.

[wmw999 2,149]

Quote

Also, people don't really have the freedom to "vote with their feet" once they are obligated in one job/area/set of bills/family establishment. People get "stuck."

They choose to get stuck. They choose the responsibility. Remember -- there is always the option to go be a street bum somewhere.

Don't spend so much trying to find someone to blame. It doesn't matter. Each person can only change themself, and they can only change themself productively if they actually have taken the time to figure out what they want and need, and what they (i.e. not someone else) have to do for them to get it.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[makeithappen40 0]

>They choose to get stuck.

Conservativism outlines that pretty well. Is it accurate? Are we able to answer that here?
Stuck also implies that you wouldn't accept worse alternatives. For example, if someones car was stuck in three feet of mud, they wouldn't choose to spend the time to dig it out. They would spend their time looking for other options, like calling someone to pull them out, or using a wench (the tool, not the person) or avoiding the mud altogether. However, circumstances prevent that at times. (Like flash floods, driving at night in the countryside to get to your home, and so on)

Thus, they don't always choose that responsibility, or they choose some of the circumstances that get them even more stuck. Do they choose all of them? I don't think so. Is their always another option? Probably. Are those options always preferable? No.

If I was born to an outdoor family in India, would it be my choice that I lived in poverty?

>Don't spend so much trying to find someone to blame. It doesn't matter.

Fair enough. I'm far less interested in assigning blame than I am in the solutions. However, I think it is important to note which perspectives result in more destruction when suggesting solutions. Thus, we need to have at least an idea of who is to blame.

[bdazel 0]

>Thus, rendering quite a chunk of the responsibility on the employer as well as the employee.

Responsibility for what? The employee's laziness? The employer can and will make a change or go away if that change is necessary for his survival. But the employee possess the free agency to change his behavior. Whatever he chooses is his choice, not the choice of the employer.

>Bullshit. The responsibility is on both the employer's and the employee's shoulders. You admitted it when you said that the employer is free to make the change and needs to do it for the success of their business. Thus, the responsibility is shared.

Uh, Bullshit right back dude. Assume you are still talking about responsibility for the employee's laziness? If so, I admitted no such thing. The employer can change his own actions and provide incentives - he has the free agency to do that. But he cannot force the employee to not be lazy if the employee chooses to be lazy. The responsibility for the employee's laziness sits on his shoulders only.

>I'll tell you: Often. (You even said it yourself, you said its EXACTLY right. Uhh. Wait. No, it's not for the reasons you agreed to above) Relevance: We've heard guys like you say it a million times. It is relevant, because even you admit to something that would give us reason to negate it, even if it s only so in some cases.

You must have a liberal arts degree. Political Science maybe? You are making no sense. Guys like you try to pull this crap all the time.

>I'm not your dude, dude. (You probably wouldn't watch South Park, considering they hate mormons)
(Just kidding dude. I don't hate mormons, and it's not your fault if you are)

Clearly you have issues with Mormons. Go see a therapist.

>Your lazy employee is blaming his own laziness (something over which he has complete control) on someone else.
>Isn't that a bit circular for you to be using it as justification for defending the business?
"Why is lazy employee lazy? Because he is lazy.

Nope. Lazy employee is lazy because he chooses to be. Very simple.

>Great, so your saying: If he chooses not to be lazy, then the employee has the free agency to get his butt in gear. Well how is that possibly false? You haven't proven anything outside of the assumption you made to the right of "IF." IF A occurs, then A occurs. Fucking amazing. I never knew that if something happened, that something happened. You've labeled me stupid for 8 posts, and you expect something like THAT to be sufficient for arguing with? Of course it is VALID, but how does that move us forward?

Back to third grade are we? Is it English Lit? I'm dying to know. Let me dumb it down for you. Employee has two choices: 1. Be lazy. 2. Don't be lazy. Employer is not sitting somewhere in the back of the employees mind controlling his actions. If employee chooses 1, he is responsible for his laziness. It's like coming to a fork in the road. You go left, or you go right. You seem to be running in circles in the intersection. There is no other road dude.


Bottom line here: A chooses of his own free will to be lazy. You claim B is to blame for that laziness. That mentality, my friend (my dude), is American Liberal cancer.

[billvon 2,435]

Both of you - enough.

[TomAiello 25]

There's a difference between hurting someone intentionally and having an accident. Accidents will happen, and they will hurt people--that's just the nature of life. If your accident hurts someone, then you are responsible for making it right. That doesn't mean that you should never do anything that might result in an accident. If you did that you'd never do anything at all.

-- Tom Aiello

[email protected]
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[bdazel 0]

Quote

>
Uh oh. lbdazel might disagree, "because its that managers own damned fault for doing it, and that you can't do it for him"

You are quoting me for something that I never said. Foul play dude.

[makeithappen40 0]

>You are making no sense

This happens when an otherwise intelligent person is not willing to admit something.

>Guys like you try to pull this crap all the time.


I have studied a bit of political science, but it is only among several subjects I have studied. What would that have to do with "the crap I am pulling," anyways? There are more than enough copies of guys like you in poli sci classes who are poli sci majors. They pull the same kind of stunts that any other smartass in the class is willing to do. They are also some of the loudest because they take every chance of approaching something objectively and take offense at others making their points instead of providing counterexamples. Every day, there was crazy religious conservative guy screaming at the teacher and crazy coffee-shop liberal screaming back. No change of opinion was made as a result. Every once in a while there was a Tom Aiello telling everyone else they were crazy socialists, but he usually made interesting points. You aren't that guy.

>Clearly you have issues with Mormons. Go see a therapist

Nope. I have issues with your people who come to my door wearing white button-ups with ties and packpacks. Enough. Leave me the fuck alone about your religion. Thanks.

>Nope. Lazy employee is lazy because he chooses to be. Very simple

Great. So you justify "the employee is lazy because he chooses to be" with "the employee is lazy because he chooses to be." You're begging the question. Bad bad boy.

>You go left, or you go right. You seem to be running in circles in the intersection. There is no other road dude.

You can't end the road where it begins in logic without committing a fallacy.

"Employee has two choices: 1. Be lazy. 2. Don't be lazy."
Why are they lazy? Because they choose option one, and option one is Be Lazy. Fascinating.

>Bottom line here: A chooses of his own free will to be lazy. You claim B is to blame for that laziness. That mentality, my friend (my dude), is American Liberal cancer.

Oh. It looks alot like its your perception being set up to justify your perception. Hmmmmmmm

[makeithappen40 0]

>There's a difference between hurting someone intentionally and having an accident. Accidents will happen, and they will hurt people--that's just the nature of life. If your accident hurts someone, then you are responsible for making it right. That doesn't mean that you should never do anything that might result in an accident. If you did that you'd never do anything at all

Accident or not, it hurt someone else who didn't will it on themselves.

[SpeedRacer 1]

what a load of horseshit this whole thread is.

So
America isn't you're own megalomaniacal version of what you wanted it to be. Fuck off & start your own country.

I didn't like
Bush, but I didn't spout this shit when he was in power.

hmmm, maybe Bill Cole was right, and America HAS been destroyed, and we just don't realize it yet.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Not dead yet, but dying of a slow, painful, cancer-like disease called liberalism.

)

yup. It started with those fucking liberals back in the 1770s. What were they thinking. We should have remained loyal to the King, and listened to the Conservatives ( Loyalists) who called us all traitors.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[bdazel 0]

>This happens when an otherwise intelligent person is not willing to admit something.

Too bad that's not the case here.

>I have studied a bit of political science, but it is only among several subjects I have studied. What would that have to do with "the crap I am pulling," anyways? There are more than enough copies of guys like you in poli sci classes who are poli sci majors. They pull the same kind of stunts that any other smartass in the class is willing to do. They are also some of the loudest because they take every chance of approaching something objectively and take offense at others making their points instead of providing counterexamples. Every day, there was crazy religious conservative guy screaming at the teacher and crazy coffee-shop liberal screaming back. No change of opinion was made as a result. Every once in a while there was a Tom Aiello telling everyone else they were crazy socialists, but he usually made interesting points. You aren't that guy.

I've heard from several law professors how much they dread reading exams written by poli sci students because they spend so much time trying to spin magic out of words without actually saying anything. You are that guy. By the way, you are incorrect to label me religious. That goes back to number 2.

>Clearly you have issues with Mormons. Go see a therapist
>Nope. I have issues with your people who come to my door wearing white button-ups with ties and packpacks. Enough. Leave me the fuck alone about your religion. Thanks.

My people? Go see a therapist.

>Nope. Lazy employee is lazy because he chooses to be. Very simple
>Great. So you justify "the employee is lazy because he chooses to be" with "the employee is lazy because he chooses to be." You're begging the question. Bad bad boy.

Wow. Let me dumb it down a little more: Employee is lazy because he chooses to be. Is that better?

>You go left, or you go right. You seem to be running in circles in the intersection. There is no other road dude.
>You can't end the road where it begins in logic without committing a fallacy.

Still running in circles. It's not a roundabout; it's a fork. Shall I draw you a picture?

"Employee has two choices: 1. Be lazy. 2. Don't be lazy."
>Why are they lazy? Because they choose option one, and option one is Be Lazy. Fascinating.

Still trying to throw the blame elsewhere. I find it sad. You find it fascinating. Liberal cancer.

[makeithappen40 0]

>Too bad that's not the case here.

"NUH UHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!" -lbdazel

>they spend so much time trying to spin magic out of words without actually saying anything.

Just like you encompass all liberals as cancerous. You've made a bold step, assuming that lazy people are liberals, and liberals are lazy. You've also assumed that the social programs in place allow people to sit luxuriously by in society while others work for their ability to do nothing. "You people" do this all the time. "You are that guy"

>By the way, you are incorrect to label me religious

I really do not care. You are conservative and proud enough of your own perception that there are plenty of ideas with which to terrorize you for an eternity.

Ohhh yeaaaaaa.... MMMMMMMmmmm. Socialism... so hot... gotta love livin large when lbdazels paying for it! 'Cause welfare gives us all soo much money.. thats why we have these pieces of information here:

Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility

Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support

Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent
Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are White

Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance

Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line

I'll take your "bottom line factor..."

"Still trying to throw the blame elsewhere. I find it sad. You find it fascinating. Liberal cancer."

What liberal cancer? What are the odds that you support a higher form of socialism than welfare? What are the odds that you worship the military? What are the odds that you don't know what the fuck your simple-minded views come from?

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html

You answer the question: Why is the employee lazy?

Because he chooses to be lazy. Why does he choose to be lazy? Because you think he chooses to be lazy. Circular. No value added.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

You cannot "Make" a person do anything.

Don't think Pavlov would agree with you.

[makeithappen40 0]

"Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor"

[chasteh 0]

>Liberalism makes this choice easy and attractive - and the cancer spreads.

"The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as "Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996)."

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Not dead yet, but dying of a slow, painful, cancer-like disease called liberalism.

You realize the USA was founded on liberalism, right?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And the fifth.

That's quite the rock collection you're accumulating.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Not dead yet, but dying of a slow, painful, cancer-like disease called liberalism.

)

yup. It started with those fucking liberals back in the 1770s. What were they thinking. We should have remained loyal to the King, and listened to the Conservatives ( Loyalists) who called us all traitors.

FINALLY someone with a bit of common sense in this thread.