4 ms·

It's only "infinitely more important" in your false, theoretical reality. Give me a Henry Ford or a porn producer any day over Mother Teresa. It speaks volume

It's only "infinitely more important" in your false, theoretical reality. Give me a Henry Ford or a porn producer any day over Mother Teresa. It speaks volumes that you hold a person that "never held a paid job in her life" in higher esteem than an individual that actually created wealth. The guy who founded girls gone wild produced far more of what people want than your useless social engineers.

jibiki 17y ago
> The guy who founded girls gone wild produced far more of what people want than your useless social engineers. Pablo Escobar produced far more of what people want than our hypothetical porn producer. Feynmann produced far, far less. What exactly is your point?
Locke1689 17y ago
Of course, this logic could also be applied to war profiteering. The problem is that economics does not exist in an ideal world with no socio-moral ramifications.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  a dollar made at the end of a gun and a dollar made because the purchase was a pareto improvement aren't the same thing. that you could equate the two means that you equate logos and pathos.
  - Locke1689 17y ago
    Actually, he was making the comparison. Consider, someone who sells weapons is doing exactly what he is talking about: selling people what they want. Economically, this can generally be considered a decent position. Unfortunately, its morally a bad one. My point was that is essential to consider both. Just because someone produces a product that serves a client base and produces a profit doesn't excuse moral issues. Similarly, just because Mother Theresa was not making a profit does not mean that she did not produce a net good. The two are apples and oranges but must be used in conjunction, not exclusion.
    - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
      I was unaware that inanimate objects can be morally bad. when guns aren't available in africa villages are simply butchered with machetes. at least a gun can be used equally well by a woman or child as well as a man. there is a simple solution: don't do business with people who use force, since there is no indication they won't eventually use force on you. do not do business with people who do business with people who use force, they aren't very bright for the above mentioned reason.
      - Locke1689 17y ago
        What are you talking about? I was unaware that inanimate objects can be morally bad. I don't remember saying anything remotely like that. I was talking about selling guns to both sides in an armed conflict for profit. Every comment you seem to change the topic a little bit more.
      - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        ah, i ca never tell on the internet exactly what people are trying to say. my solution still stands. coercion is wrong, profiting from coercion is wrong, akin to selling torture implements.

jibiki 17y ago

> The guy who founded girls gone wild produced far more of what people want than your useless social engineers. Pablo Escobar produced far more of what people want than our hypothetical porn producer. Feynmann produced far, far less. What exactly is your point?

Locke1689 17y ago

Of course, this logic could also be applied to war profiteering. The problem is that economics does not exist in an ideal world with no socio-moral ramifications.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago
a dollar made at the end of a gun and a dollar made because the purchase was a pareto improvement aren't the same thing. that you could equate the two means that you equate logos and pathos.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  Actually, he was making the comparison. Consider, someone who sells weapons is doing exactly what he is talking about: selling people what they want. Economically, this can generally be considered a decent position. Unfortunately, its morally a bad one. My point was that is essential to consider both. Just because someone produces a product that serves a client base and produces a profit doesn't excuse moral issues. Similarly, just because Mother Theresa was not making a profit does not mean that she did not produce a net good. The two are apples and oranges but must be used in conjunction, not exclusion.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    I was unaware that inanimate objects can be morally bad. when guns aren't available in africa villages are simply butchered with machetes. at least a gun can be used equally well by a woman or child as well as a man. there is a simple solution: don't do business with people who use force, since there is no indication they won't eventually use force on you. do not do business with people who do business with people who use force, they aren't very bright for the above mentioned reason.
    - Locke1689 17y ago
      What are you talking about? I was unaware that inanimate objects can be morally bad. I don't remember saying anything remotely like that. I was talking about selling guns to both sides in an armed conflict for profit. Every comment you seem to change the topic a little bit more.
    - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
      ah, i ca never tell on the internet exactly what people are trying to say. my solution still stands. coercion is wrong, profiting from coercion is wrong, akin to selling torture implements.