Music Talk Board

(06-09-2013, 02:57 PM)Mr Maps Wrote: [ -> ]Hey man, fuck you.

Anyway, some of us have got a chemistry exam tomorrow and it's ruining my concentration. Also, the words I didn't spell correctly aren't necessarily English anyway. There, those are my excuses.

True. True.

(06-09-2013, 03:05 PM)Mr Maps Wrote: [ -> ]Koay tknas Amd 3<

:haha:

Guys, guys, guys, guys!

Zoroastrianism
Daeva -> Demon
Ahura -> Deity

Hinduism
Deva -> Deity
Asura -> Demon


...



My mind is all over the room. Like, shit, the walls are covered in it, dawg.

I've been wondering this. It's the philosophy of desert, the philosophy of what a person deserves, from which the expression "just deserts" (and not "desserts") comes from.

People often talk about how undeserving, bad people live in prosperity (ranging from money-grubbing CEOs to tyrannical dictators) while good people who deserve happiness and prosperity (ranging from Cyrano-style guys who let the loves of their lives into the arms of another man to peaceful protestors such as Gandhi) because they are morally "good" wind up being pushed around and living in worse conditions (for example, the Cyrano winds up heartbroken and alone (and in the fiction, gets killed shortly after due to an accident), and Gandhi ends up murdered after five failed assassination attempts).

My skepticism tells me that human beings may have a terribly misleading idea of desert; clearly if someone "deserved" something, they'd most likely have it. Therefore, it only seems right to assume that the jerks of society do indeed deserve happiness and prosperity while the good people are the punching bags of society. Therefore, this means that for a person to "deserve more" is a contradiction in terms. This also leaves to assume that what may be morally correct is to be a selfish asshole.

Oh god. I'm turning into Ayn Rand

Disclaimer: Not a chance in hell am I ever going to become Ayn Rand. I do NOT endorse the point of view brought up within this post, merely discussing it.

The thing to consider is why are we humans capable of judging what's best for other humans. Now, I don't mean in the sense of "what's best for society". (Although, politicians always seem to end up too corrupted to judge this properly, even though we essentially elected them to listen to the people and figure this out.) I mean, chances are, you don't know enough about 90% of people to be able to judge what they truly do deserve. I'm even cautious about what I say or think about my friends; because, even when you know someone fairly well, it's hard to really know what they think or feel.

For instance, for all you know, that money-grubbing CEO has nightmares every night and sees a psychiatrist. He may know he's not a nice guy and isn't as confident as he appears. (He may just be very good at putting on an act for people.) On the other hand, he might have no issues at all. We just don't know, so we can't really judge. hrug:

People just act like everyone who is super rich is an awful person. I've never really understood it tbh. There are awesome people and assholes everywhere

(07-19-2013, 04:20 PM)WCPhils Wrote: [ -> ]People just act like everyone who is super rich is an awful person. I've never really understood it tbh. There are awesome people and assholes everywhere

As much as people don't want to admit it, it's largely out of jealousy. They rage when they see a rich guy complaining about his problems and think "you're rich, you shouldn't have problems!"

Yea, I agree

I also find it funny when people say things like "I don't want a lot of money because it doesn't buy happiness", but then like you said, say people shouldn't complain about anything because they're not poor.

You gotta pick one or the other :p

I wanna be rich so I can buy stupid shit.

pretty much