Best Use of a billboard EVER

[gblowfish]

To actually bring relief to people in need, this is Lima, Peru:

http://www.upworthy.com/omg-best-use...-ever-seen?g=2

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by patteeu

That, and his criticism of fan4ever's "world view" as if fan4ever is out to prevent people from getting drinking water or something.

I more meant the aspect of his "world view" that the first thought he has regarding something like this is people will inherently go from being grateful to bitchily demanding something as if it is a right. Never accused him of anything you suggest. Sorry if unclear.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by patteeu

That, and his criticism of fan4ever's "world view" as if fan4ever is out to prevent people from getting drinking water or something.

Ah, well he kinda went off the rails there at the end so I probably skipped his throwaway sentence.

He lost me at "vilify people in need..."

I feel like that's the kind of thing you tend to argue when you're at the front of an unruly mob, as opposed to when you're actually trying to substantively discuss something.

So yeah, your comment about decision-making from emotion strikes pretty true there. I'm not exactly sure where fan4ever vilified anybody, but when one has a soapbox and the majority behind him, he tends to get rolling and generally stop making sense.

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Your disregard of the distinction between needs and rights.

You don't have a right to food. You need it to survive, sure, but it's not a right. Nobody owes it to you. It's incumbent upon you to go out there and secure the means to get your own food.

For someone to point out that not all needs are rights and for you to respond "who gives a shit!?" is, in fact, extremely shallow thinking.

Where did I do that? Did I state that people have a right to this service? He didn't just point out that all needs are not rights (which is pretty obvious to most and not exactly deep, not that he claimed it was). He too it to what he assumed was a logical conclusion that this would soon become demanded as a right and people would be angry they weren't receiving it.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

I more meant the aspect of his "world view" that the first thought he has regarding something like this is people will inherently go from being grateful to bitchily demanding something as if it is a right. Never accused him of anything you suggest. Sorry if unclear.

In fairness, pretty much the whole of human history suggests that he's right.

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Ah, well he kinda went off the rails there at the end so I probably skipped his throwaway sentence.

He lost me at "vilify people in need..."

I feel like that's the kind of thing you tend to argue when you're at the front of an unruly mob, as opposed to when you're actually trying to substantively discuss something.

So yeah, your comment about decision-making from emotion strikes pretty true there. I'm not exactly sure where fan4ever vilified anybody, but when one has a soapbox and the majority behind him, he tends to get rolling and generally stop making sense.

Yeah, cause a comment about automatic entitlement isn't pandering to a crowd on Chiefsplanet. My couple of lines in response was clearly soapbox grandstanding.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

I more meant the aspect of his "world view" that the first thought he has regarding something like this is people will inherently go from being grateful to bitchily demanding something as if it is a right. Never accused him of anything you suggest. Sorry if unclear.

How do you know that was his first thought? Maybe he had a lot of the same thoughts as the people who posted before him, but he didn't feel the need to repeat what was already said. Instead, he made a thoughtful point that hadn't been made already.

Anyway, I just think you and a couple of others reacted negatively to a guy who didn't say anything that deserved it.

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

In fairness, pretty much the whole of human history suggests that he's right.

And while we're throwing out broad historical claims that are virtually impossible to back up without writing a term paper, I'd counter with most people who have made a substantially positive impact on the people around them operate on the assumption he's wrong.

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by patteeu

How do you know that was his first thought? Maybe he had a lot of the same thoughts as the people who posted before him, but he didn't feel the need to repeat what was already said. Instead, he made a thoughtful point that hadn't been made already.

Anyway, I just think you and a couple of others reacted negatively to a guy who didn't say anything that deserved it.

Fair point. It was his first post in the thread so I admittedly assumed. If I misconstrued his intentions, then I apologize. I just routinely see this kind of response around here and it grates on me. That's not his fault.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Your disregard of the distinction between needs and rights.

You don't have a right to food. You need it to survive, sure, but it's not a right. Nobody owes it to you. It's incumbent upon you to go out there and secure the means to get your own food.

There's a difference between something being provided for you and something denied you...

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

Where did I do that? Did I state that people have a right to this service? He didn't just point out that all needs are not rights (which is pretty obvious to most and not exactly deep, not that he claimed it was). He too it to what he assumed was a logical conclusion that this would soon become demanded as a right and people would be angry they weren't receiving it.

When he pointed out the distinction and you responded "who gives a shit", it certainly reads as though you're disregarding said distinction. Especially when you go on to criticize his worldview.

In the end, this is dangerously close to taking a DC turn, but I will say that the unfortunate truth is that he's largely correct. Many places in the world can't have this technology precisely because humans lack the nobility to allow it to serve its intended purposes (like I said, warlords and armed guards). And getting beyond that, you sure have a sunny outlook on humanity if you think that people gratefully accept a routine charity and never start to shift their baselines.

I'm sorry, but I think his concern is a real one. History tells us that people simply lack the capacity for long-term gratitude. Charity becomes right extremely quickly.

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

When he pointed out the distinction and you responded "who gives a shit", it certainly reads as though you're disregarding said distinction. Especially when you go on to criticize his worldview.

In the end, this is dangerously close to taking a DC turn, but I will say that the unfortunate truth is that he's largely correct. Many places in the world can't have this technology precisely because humans lack the nobility to allow it to serve its intended purposes (like I said, warlords and armed guards). And getting beyond that, you sure have a sunny outlook on humanity if you think that people gratefully accept a routine charity and never start to shift their baselines.

I'm sorry, but I think his concern is a real one. History tells us that people simply lack the capacity for long-term gratitude. Charity becomes right extremely quickly.

Sure, but this isn't state sponsored charity. This is private. I don't see the connection. I also don't see the argument against this unless one is against charity in any form at any time on general principle.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

And while we're throwing out broad historical claims that are virtually impossible to back up without writing a term paper, I'd counter with most people who have made a substantially positive impact on the people around them operate on the assumption he's wrong.

Most people who have made a substantially positive impact on the people around them haven't done it through providing charity. They've done it through teaching them or curing diseases; things that allow them to better their station independently.

"Teach a man to fish", so to speak.

Again, at the risk of steering this thing directly into DC, take a look at the difference in people that are on foodstamps now who complain about the stigma of food stamps and demand they get cards that look like credit cards, vs. the people that were initially grateful for any assistance they could get.

It doesn't take more than a generation or so for kindness to become right.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

Sure, but this isn't state sponsored charity. This is private. I don't see the connection. I also don't see the argument against this unless one is against charity in any form at any time on general principle.

It's not at all. In fact it's a perfect example what you would consider 'industrious' charity.

In fact, my very first comment was that this thing is really cool and could be put to great use in a ton of different places.

But that doesn't mean you should just ignore the potential downside of it. He made an interesting point, one that surely seems rooted in human nature, and you jumped his ass for it. That seems worth calling out.

[kysirsoze]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

It's not at all. In fact it's a perfect example what you would consider 'industrious' charity.

In fact, my very first comment was that this thing is really cool and could be put to great use in a ton of different places.

But that doesn't mean you should just ignore the potential downside of it. He made an interesting point, one that surely seems rooted in human nature, and you jumped his ass for it. That seems worth calling out.

Well I suppose I thought his point was just as trite as you and patteu seemed to think my point was. I didn't see it as relevant to the conversation as much as a knee jerk anti-entitlement jab. I did however, admit to my emotional bias in my harsh reaction. I could have misconstrued his intentions every bit as much as you and pat did mine. Good you called it out, though, since it gave me an opportunity to clarify.

[Braincase]

So much of what we all really need to survive and/or thrive surrounds us everyday. Yet there are those will do whatever they can to keep us from utilizing those treasures because they can't control it. Windmills becoming illegal. Prosecution for rain water when it lands on your own property.