Babelfish translates it as "hawker". Sounds about right.
funkyderek
JoinedPosts by funkyderek
-
22
Did you ever look up the word Colporteur?
by james_woods ini remembered last night that the jw of old used to call certain members "colporteurs".
it probably meant roughly what we would now call pioneers.. i looked it up in my dictionary - and guess what?
it actually means "door to door magazine sales person, or a person who sells or gives away religious tracts".. what a refreshing note of honesty!
-
-
-
41
If Satan is such a good guy then.................................
by Warlock insome of you blame jehovah for every atrocity and every disaster that has ever occured on this earth, from a-z.. if satan is such a good guy, as some of you have stated, then why doesn't he do anything to help mankind?.
warlock .
-
-
funkyderek
snowbird:
You're entirely too fly for a White guy.
Do you know that?
Fo shizzle!
-
76
What a deal!
by frozen one ini was talking to my neighbor earlier today and he told me his daughter was buying a house.
the house, a brand new 3 bedroom/2 bath built to energy star standards, has been for sale for over a year.
it was built by a local low to moderate income housing organization funded with a mix of public/private dollars.
-
-
funkyderek
SixofNine:
In exactly what sense do you "pay out more than [you] get back"? And how do you quantify what it is you get back, do you peg it back to money values for services somehow?
Exactly. I pay out more money in taxes than I receive in services, i.e. if the government stopped providing all the services it currently does and I had to pay for only the ones I use, it would cost me less. At least I'm pretty sure it would. If that's not true for me with my modest income, it's certainly true for higher earners. For other people, the opposite is true.
And just so I'm not being coy; for example, do you assign any value at all to living in a society where the base level of the poorest is still much higher than it is in say, Somalia, or Ecuador, and where those people have at least some opportunity?
Of course I do. Everybody who's capable should have the opportunity to earn enough money to live comfortably.
If you do, how exactly do you figure that amount of value into "what you get back"? If you don't, this is off-topic but, why not?
It is advantageous to me to have a large number of potential trading partners, people who produce things of value with which I can exchange the value I have produced (directly or indirectly). It is not at all to my advantage (or to that of "society") to increase the number of people who rob me of the value I produce and give nothing in return.
Also, how much do you figure in for roads? Does it vary if you go on a road-trip vacation?
I don't use them all that much, although of course I still pay for them. I'd be happy to pay for only the roads I use. Toll roads are common in much of Europe and new technology makes it even easier to charge people only for the amount of road they use. This principle can be extended (admittedly, with varying degrees of difficulty) to practically every service currently funded by taxation.
What about libraries? (I'm very curious about this one). Has your view of libraries value to yourself (and society? or do you integrate yourself with society at all when assigning value?) changed since the internet?
Libraries are great. I haven't used one in years as I have disposable income and a book fetish so I prefer to buy but I'm all in favour of libraries and would be happy to give some of my money to help run them. Some people may feel differently and I do not think they should be forced to support an institution they don't believe in.
You mentioned that governments do things to keep their currency valued. Does the relative "health" (and I mean to include literal, mental/moral, and fiscal health) of a society contribute to the value of currency for a 1st world country?
Undoubtedly. I favour laws and principles that will improve the health of society. I do not believe that rewarding people for not contributing to that society is an effective way of doing this.
I really am curious how you think about these things Derek. I know we've butted heads on this a little in the past, but we've never gotten past the butting heads stage.
I kind of like that stage!
For instance, when you say that government builds roads inefficiently, I'm just not sure what metrics you're using. Maybe you know something I don't; maybe they do it differently in Ireland? "Inefficient" compared to what? Doesn't the government hire private or public companies to build roads there, after recieving bids? And sure, there is corruption in that process, but at least in government, it can be weeded out. If it was done only by private companies, why should I believe there would be less corruption? History, and common sense, just does not bear that out.
The corruption is much harder to weed out in government because there's no direct accountability. The people who make the decisions are rarely affected directly by those decisions. If I am a business owner and need a private road built, I will select the contractor who provides the best value for money. If I am a government official in charge of constructing a public road, I will select the contractor who gives me a nice fat brown envelope. At least that's how it's done here. Even without such obvious corruption, there is no incentive for the government to be careful when making such decisions. It's not their money they're spending so they never seem too concerned if they go over budget. I'm not sure what version of history and common sense you are considering but to me, it seems that it is always the case that people make better decisions when they have a stake in the outcome.
-
41
If Satan is such a good guy then.................................
by Warlock insome of you blame jehovah for every atrocity and every disaster that has ever occured on this earth, from a-z.. if satan is such a good guy, as some of you have stated, then why doesn't he do anything to help mankind?.
warlock .
-
-
funkyderek
snowbird:
If you discard the ellipses ...
Oh, do what you like with them. I quoted only the relevant portions in the interest of clarity. It's qute clear from reading any translation of the bible (even the woeful exegesis you quoted) that things happened exactly as the serpent predicted they would, which surprised and angered YHWH, causing him to expel Adam and Eve from the garden because he was afraid that if they ate from another tree they'd live forever and he woudn't be able to stop them.
I don't know how anybody can read that passage and not see it, although I did for years so I guess it's to do with conditioning.
-
76
What a deal!
by frozen one ini was talking to my neighbor earlier today and he told me his daughter was buying a house.
the house, a brand new 3 bedroom/2 bath built to energy star standards, has been for sale for over a year.
it was built by a local low to moderate income housing organization funded with a mix of public/private dollars.
-
-
funkyderek
sweetstuff:
Question is, who sets that statute? You, me or government?
Well, it's common sense really. People who weren't oppressed shouldn't be compensated at the expense of people who didn't oppress them.
Kind of reminds me of the WTS to be frank, sure we were wrong in the past but you are the wrong if you dwell on that or cry justice, accountability!
I don't see the similarity at all. The people you are blaming for past atrocities are not the people who perpetrated them, and the people you wish to see compensated are not the people who suffered.
IMHO, the extent of past atrocities has certainly by no means been rectified to the level of equality we currently see today. If so, why was Fema so bloody slow in responding to the crisis caused by hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, they were sure a hell of alot quicker in Midtown Manhattan on 9/11. Do you stop to ask yourself why?
Well, they were very different situations. Why do you think FEMA reacted slowly to Katrina? Do you really think they checked the demographics of the area and then decided not to bother doing all they could? Hell, maybe you do. But it all sounds a little like the familiar cry of the angry black man. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were out in force to stir the pot. Hey, black people are affected by this; therefore, any inadequacy in the response must be due to racism.
Your right, that at some point the past needs to be layed to rest, but its delusional to think that many people are not still suffering from that past, currently! It not like we are talking thousands of years here Derek. In the long term of humanity's existance, those atrocities are extremely recent and still have effect on the minds and opportunities of people currently. And therefore, yes I do think that there is still room for rectification.
And I'm all for working to remove the last vestiges of those effects. But discriminating against innocent people is not the way to do it; that was the problem in the first place, remember. It would be like denying men a vote now because in the past women were denied the right to vote.
Until everyone is treated completely equal and has the same opportunities at birth, we are just burying our heads in the proverbal sand to say, get over it already and suck it up.
Well, that's never going to happen. But we are at (or very close to) the stage where a child's prospects at birth depend on his or her parents' choices, and later on his or her own choices, and not at all on the colour of their skin.
SixofNine:
I'm curious what you mean by this? Do you mean in essence "pays" out a number of rectangular paper bills and jangly coins and then gets fewer rectangular paper bills and jangly coins back, or do you use some other metric that assigns value beyond literal bills and coins?
The "paper bills and jangly coins" are just tokens representing an agreed-upon value system. I exchange my time for these notes and coins (or for the monetary value they represent) at a particular rate with my employer. The government takes a percentage of this transaction for various reasons. One reason is to protect the value of the money. Those paper notes won't be worth a thing without a government to back them up, so to save us all lugging bags of gold around, we allow the government to take a little off the top.
Unfortunately, they don't stop there. They decide we need roads and hospitals and schools and football stadiums and take whatever money they wish from us to pay for them. Understandably, they're very very inefficient at doing this as they have no real competition and little in the way of accountability. But most people need roads and hospitals and schools (and it's nice to have a football stadium) so we generally don't complain too much.
But at this point, the government has realised that money can solve almost any problem and start treating it accordingly with little or no regard to where it came from. So instead of getting a house because you worked hard and saved up the money and agreed a price with someone who was selling a house, the government gives you a house because - well, because you don't have one and don't look like ever being able to afford one, or because one or more of your ancestors may have been a victim of discrimination. Those who earn money have to pay twice, once for themselves and then once for those who have (for whatever reason) opted out of paying.
And that still works for a while, until the people who don't pay grow in number and demand - not request but demand - more handouts. So they get "free" houses and "free" transport and "free" clothes and "free" schoolbooks and "free" food, and a wage for doing no work. And always, always, they want more. And they keep getting it because that's what compassionate people do, right? They give to the poor. The government wants to appear compassionate so it takes our money and gives that to the poor.
So children grow up thinking that money is simply a right. Their existence must be paid for and why would it occur to them to pay for it themselves? That's what governmen is for, right?
-
41
If Satan is such a good guy then.................................
by Warlock insome of you blame jehovah for every atrocity and every disaster that has ever occured on this earth, from a-z.. if satan is such a good guy, as some of you have stated, then why doesn't he do anything to help mankind?.
warlock .
-
-
funkyderek
snowbird:
Genesis 3:4 -5 The serpent told the Woman, "You won'tdie. God knows that the moment you eat from that tree, you'll see what's really going on. You'll be just like God, knowing everything, ranging all the way from good to evil."
The above is from The Message Bible. Sounds like a promise to me.
Me too. And if you look just a few verses down the page you'll see that it came true:
7 Immediately the two of them did "see what's really going on
[...]
22 God said, "The Man has become like one of us, capable of knowing everything, ranging from good to evil.How did you miss that? What the serpent promised was exactly what happened which is why God then devised a plan to kill Adam and Eve.
-
76
What a deal!
by frozen one ini was talking to my neighbor earlier today and he told me his daughter was buying a house.
the house, a brand new 3 bedroom/2 bath built to energy star standards, has been for sale for over a year.
it was built by a local low to moderate income housing organization funded with a mix of public/private dollars.
-
-
funkyderek
snowbird:
This is a White woman who happens to be of Native American ancestry with a bi-racial (African-American) child who certainly needs a hand-up.
She's given a discount because Native and African Americans were screwed over by the American Government. This may have been some years ago, but a screwing is a screwing - no matter when it happened.
But you just said she is white (or "White" if you prefer)! Shouldn't she be punished rather than rewarded for what the majority of her ancestors supposedly did to a minority of her ancestors?
Hasn't the British Government done something similar for the Irish?
No. They eventually gave us most of our country back but that's hardly the same thing.
-
76
What a deal!
by frozen one ini was talking to my neighbor earlier today and he told me his daughter was buying a house.
the house, a brand new 3 bedroom/2 bath built to energy star standards, has been for sale for over a year.
it was built by a local low to moderate income housing organization funded with a mix of public/private dollars.
-
-
funkyderek
snowbird:
So African/Native Americans living in a certain neighborhood will automatically cause property values to fall?
Not automatically. Only if they are there on handouts as the woman in this scenario is. Or possibly if they are perceived as being on handouts. As other people may be due to scenarios like this one. Or of course if potential property buyers are racist which they may be due in part to welfare schemes that benefit people of another race.
-
76
What a deal!
by frozen one ini was talking to my neighbor earlier today and he told me his daughter was buying a house.
the house, a brand new 3 bedroom/2 bath built to energy star standards, has been for sale for over a year.
it was built by a local low to moderate income housing organization funded with a mix of public/private dollars.
-
-
funkyderek
sweetstuff:
Now we both know that is never going to happen, its as likely as living forever on a paradise earth.
Why couldn't it happen? Even if it may seem unattainable, that does not stop it from being a better system than the one we have now.
So my point was simply this....if her child benefits, good.
And my point was if that's at the expense of another child, bad.
And of course I know there are more than two alternatives, it was an example, I'm not a moron FD. (Waiting for you to jump on that one.)
Of course not. However, you did say that it was better to spend the money this way than in another way, and I don't necessarily disagree. But it's still better not to be spending other people's money in this way at all.
I find it personally grating to hear people bitching in general about this kind of thing, when most of us in developed countries are spoiled friggin rotten and have no bloodly clue what it really means to work your ass off or struggle. At least we have houses, clean water, hospitals. I'd rather worry about much more important things that how someone got a deal "undeservedly" on tax dollars.
Well, sure. We should all be thankful that our lives are so great that we have the free time, the education and the technology to have this debate and I'm sure we all are. But that doesn't stop us wanting to make things even better.
Yeah, I suppose you could view it that way, or you could view it that her ancestors certainly didn't get any discounts and were royally screwed by the european settlers . Or does it not count because its the past? Shit on people who aren't anglo-saxon for centuries and then when the tables turn around a bit, cry how racist it is. Equality is a relatively new concept and a very convienent one to the dwindling anglo-saxon gene pool.
Isn't that the very definition of racism? Rewarding or punishing someone because of their (probable) ancestry. There has to be a statute of limitations on past atrocities or institutionalised racism will simply be perpetuated.
-
76
What a deal!
by frozen one ini was talking to my neighbor earlier today and he told me his daughter was buying a house.
the house, a brand new 3 bedroom/2 bath built to energy star standards, has been for sale for over a year.
it was built by a local low to moderate income housing organization funded with a mix of public/private dollars.
-
-
funkyderek
sweetstuff:
However, you can't dictate how the government choses to use your tax dollars any more than you can dictate to a person who just bought your car how he should drive it or who he is allowed to resell it to.
That's not at all the same thing. It's more like your car has been stolen, or at least commandeered against your wishes.
You are bound by law to pay your taxes. If you don't the government will get ya,
Agreed, the money is taken by force.
so would you prefer your tax dollars to go towards helping those who are perhaps a bit less fortunate or towards weapons.
Defense is a legitimate and necessary function of government. Charity is not,
I'd personally be happier to see my hard earned money help someone else within my own country have a better chance of making it, versus it being used toward a bomb that will kill innocent people in another country in the name of political agenda.
Those aren't the only choices available. Disagreeing with one does not mean defaulting to the other.
Just an example of how people chose to bitch about "Oh I am supporting so and so with my taxdollars", yet you don't hear them out on the streets proclaiming, "Oh, my taxdollars just killed 3 children in Iraq, its just wrong and I won't take it". No one gives a rat's ass it seems, about the latter.
What are you talking about? There have been protests against the war since it began. There is a huge and vocal anti-war lobby.
If they truly did, the would boycott paying their taxes in mass)
Unfortunately, the punishments for doing so are so severe that only the most staunchly principled people would even consider it.
But someone's life being BETTER because of tax dollars is a crying freaking shame isn't it?
Someone's life being better at the expense of someone else's life being worse is a shame, especially when the person who suffers is the one who worked hard for a better life.
It reminds me of a child sooking cause their sibling got a bigger piece of the candy they bought together at the store.
No, it's more like candy being taken from the child who bought it and being given to a child who has already eaten their candy.
How many tax dollars in the U.S. are really used towards social programs and medical programs compared to other countries of similar economic standing? MUCH LESS, check the numbers. How much more is used by the U.S. towards military funding, government funding and "homeland security"? ALOT more. So perhaps instead of bitching about the very few who are positively helped due to tax dollars (god forbid!), bitching about the government's priorities in budget would be more appropriate. IMO
Again, there are more than two alternatives. I am not suggesting that the money used to buy this woman a house should have been used to buy another cluster bomb instead. What if, instead, the money had been left in the hands of those who earned it to use as they saw fit? Wouldn't that be better for everyone (except the moochers, of course)?