I was watching a movie today in gym class (goddamn health classes) and I started to realize I have a bit of a problem over a cultural value.

Over the past who-knows how many years, it has become rather apparent that very many people think the classic A-Student in school should be valued above the jock. That is, there is a large number of people who think that more respect should be payed to the intellect than the athlete. My question is; why? I have a few ideas. One is that for so long before this the intellect felt undervalued - but I really have nothing to back this up. My second idea is that the intelligent and generally non-athletic in the nation just want all the attention.

Frankly, I can't see one good reason to give more respect to intelligence than to athletic ability. Both take equal amounts of natural skill, practice, devotion and precision in skills. Well, actually, I'd say more precision is necessary in athletics than most academic persuits.

Any ideas?

When all is said and done, the academic tends to pay a lot more back to society, whereas the jock generally sinks away or becomes an entertainer of the masses. Not to say it can't go both ways, of course.

In the end people respect you for your accomplishments. And if you can find a cure for cancer or design the next bridge you'll become a hero figure. Being a fast runner just doesn't measure up in the information age anymore. It did a lot more when we were hunter gatherers, when we relied on the next kill as a matter of life and death. Now cancer is the major life or death threat, and it takes a much different kind of athlete to kill. That said, there's no reason someone can't be a jock and an 'A' student. It's just a more respectful pursuit to be chasing the future of humanity.

"In the end people respect you for your accomplishments"

There you go. I can't believe I forgot to type up this one other idea...
A lot of girls in my school comment that they won't go out with a guy who's just a joke because..... he's just a jock. But if a guy's just smart, that's fine. So maybe it's because the 'just smart' guy has more a chance of getting money. To be a successful, financially, athlete - you pretty much have to be in the top 600 in your sport in the world, at least. You don't even have to be in the top 600 in your city in an academic persuit to make good money.

well we're assuming that the jock and the Astudent are fairly one dimensional people. the most valued people at my old HS did both. there was always a few people who were good at everything and made everyone else look lazy. straight A's, 3sport athlete, class president, community service, ect.

what about the artsy people? they are valuable too. interms of value to society a dumb jock is not very valuable. but not all jocks are dumb.

also,note that the people who peak in highschool, are most often the jocks, not the Astudents.(at least in my experience)

its armageddon time, mankind has been wiped out, few survivors.
now ask yourself "can i rebuild civilization?

Both straight A students and jocks are really nothing special.

Especially the jocks because well. . .
they're jocks.
What more needs to be said?
They study sports. A recreation that holds no relevance to anything important.

Most of all, growing up, I came to despise them because during class, they treat everybody that sucks at sports like crap. All of them.
In gym, the teacher splits the students up into teams.
Instead of helping the players that suck, and working with them so everybody can participate, all the jocks do is complain, push you out of the way, and try to get you off of their team so that everybody plays while you remain on the side.

And it was all of them.
Not one of them shared my views that everybody should be included in the game no matter how bad they suck.
Their view was if you suck, than you can't play.

It makes you wonder if there really is such a thing as an intelligent jock.

Originally posted by cool skill
Not one of them shared my views that everybody should be included in the game no matter how bad they suck.
Their view was if you suck, than you can't play. This is more evident in the real world. If you suck at a certain job, people won't let you 'play the game'.
EDIT: Unless it's a government job

Persol,
You suck. You beat me to it. Great post.

Polish the skills you have, not the ones you wish you had.

The most common place I encounter jocks(see below for jock definention) is the weight room. I workout 3-4 times a week so I am aware of many types of people that frequent a gym. In my college gym the football players work out in the same gym as the rest of the students. Now I know that football players are sterotyped as jocks, and I agree 95%. It's because they believe every thing lies in who can push the heaviest weight the fastest. I've read many books and magazines on exercise and I'm pretty confident in my knowledge of proper form and nutrition. When I observe the football players working out in the gym I see many things wrong. 98% of the time they do not work out to push themselves hard to utter weakness to properly stimulate muscle growth, but instead they work out to impress their fellow teammates, and often I see them mock people who, instead of throwing the weight into the air they actually take the time to concentrate on the muslce and power (under control) the weight up.....



Originally posted by cool skill It makes you wonder if there really is such a thing as an intelligent jock

Intelligent athlete, yes.. intelligent jock? no

First off I'll explain what I consider to be the difference between a jock and an athlete.

In high school and now in college the people I observe to be jocks are those that are out to, in essenec, "show-off" to others. I don't mean the Brazillian exchange student who played on my soccer team senior year even though he was the leading goal scorer in the state. He was amazing, but he also helped others to learn. I consider him to be an athlete.

But when I think of a jock it's the hot-shot (usually not as great as they think they are) sports player who is overly confident in what they do. If they make a touchdown or a goal then they brag about it for the next few weeks. They thrive on pushing other people down. The only people they will encourage are those that are akin to themselves, while they ignore anyone outside of the "jock" circle who tries to comment or improve a jock. Sometimes the jock will listen to the advice from an outsider, but they will mock his words and carry on with the correct "jock" method.





Originally posted by cool skill
They study sports. A recreation that holds no relevance to anything important.

I have to disagree. Sports and other recreational activities are a way for many people to get away from the ever demanding life in society.

For me persoanlly; My area of study is not sports or anything close to it. I go to one of the top engineering schools in the US and world. It's very demanding and quite stressful at times. However I do rely on information provided by people who study "sports". But I gaurentee they're not jocks. They are professionals who are out to better the lives and enjoyment of people. I am always gathering information about the sports I enjoy just so I can continue to push myself and grow physically and mentally, and to make sure that I am not doing anything that can be harmful to me. I'm not talking about avoiding extreme sports, hell I've skied for the past 16 years, but rather about proper information and technique so that I am aware of all possible dangers associated with a certian sport. I love sports and they provide great relaxation and competition that are needed to survive in the world.

Given the American educational system, you either have real balls to be a straight-A student, or you're just stupid enough to take things seriously.

Or just want to keep the parents off your back. Getting straight As isn't hard in my school.

Not sure what school you are going to though, Tyler. In my school, the smart kids do not get the girls. The jocks get the girls and the parties, not the nerds(with some exceptions;) ).

Frankly, I can't see one good reason to give more respect to intelligence than to athletic ability. Both take equal amounts of natural skill, practice, devotion and precision in skills. Most of the jocks I know are extraordinarly dumb and arrogant. My best friends up until high school were jocks, and I got tired of it. I can see how the girls would get tired of it too. Athletics doesn't really serve a good purpose, anyway. From reading your other posts, I thought you would have better judgement than this.

I said that jocks are thick and slow, didn't I?

Originally posted by Persol
This is more evident in the real world. If you suck at a certain job, people won't let you 'play the game'
Originally posted by immane1
Persol,
You suck.
You do suck, Persol.
That’s the biggest load of garbage I’ve ever heard.


Originally posted by Xev
or you're just stupid enough to take things seriously.
Ya.


Originally posted by orbie
However I do rely on information provided by people who study "sports".
Ya right. Like what? Who can pump the most iron?
I’m not trying to say I’m completely against sports.
Friendly games and sport activities can be fun.
(Especially when you’re playing with a group of 5 year olds.
That way, if they try anything funny, you can just step on them.
lol.)


What isn’t fun is the fact that athletes, actors, singers, writers, and various entertainers get paid millions while garbage men get close to minimum wage. It should really be the other way around.

Cool Skill,
Have you even thought this one out? Garbage men should get paid more than professional athletes that have worked tremendously their entire lives to excel?! What do they give back to society?

A: Not much. They take the trash to a landfill. And we're supposed to pay them millions for this service? Wow. I can see it now. People lining up in their back alleys to watch the garbage men perform. I think you're actually a bit jealous of the athletes. It takes skill and drive to do what a lot of them do. Even the academics. I'm not going to make any judgements, but you seem to be like the lazy type. No, you're obviously not against sports. You're against competition!

And just for the record, I don't think highly of astronomical salaries for pro-athletes. It seems a bit much. That's why I enjoy minor hockey (WHL). They'll continue to make it as long as we continue to pay it.

That’s the biggest load of garbage I’ve ever heard.
Perhaps you could give a reason? If someone thinks you are bad at a job, you will not be hired. I don't want someone on my team who is going to cause the rest of us work harder to makeup for their lack.

Originally posted by Elbaz

Have you even thought this one out?

Have I thought this out?
No, I just post stuff out of the air.
I think about it daily, Elbaz.
Try it sometime.


Originally posted by Elbaz
What do they give back to society?

Much more than overpaid athletes.
They clean up the city.
I’d rather have a clean city than sit there and watch and athlete do all kinds of fun tricks.


Originally posted by Elbaz
Not much. They take the trash to a landfill.

Not much?
Have you tried it?
I have. Not because I had to but to see what it was like. It’s disgusting and difficult.
Try it. They hire people by the day, and pay by the day. You can just walk in there, and most likely, they will put you on a truck.
They will pay you $6 per hour. At the end you get your check, and you can go back anytime you want.
They sent me home early because I couldn’t keep up. It’s something I’m just not good at. Nor do I enjoy it.
As for sports, dancing, acting, and music? True it isn’t easy work training, rehearsing, memorizing lines, and getting the steps perfect, but I have no problem doing it.
I can get on a stage, and have no problem whatsoever. Furthermore it’s fun.

I’ve locked myself in my room everyday of my life to practice.
I can rehearse for days and days just to get the lines and the steps correct.
Does that mean I should get paid more to entertain for fun than do hard labor like farming, garbage, construction, etc.?
No way.
Entertainment and sports are fun, and one of the things that people should not get paid to do no matter how much they practice.
And paying people to do what they would do anyway is one of the things that limits society progress.

On the other hand, garbage, farming, and hard labor is something that is necessary for city function. Nobody wakes up in the morning saying “Hey, I can’t wait to cover myself in smelly maggots, dead animals, and rotten trash.” It is not something they do for themselves, but something they do because it is necessary to the city. Nobody does it because it is exiting. The only reason I could give for people that freely volunteer to take responsibilities is because they care about living in a clean well functioning city. So you want to know if they deserve great rewards for doing so? Definitely. I believe people that do these important things should receive the highest monetary rewards. A farmer’s job to toil the ground so the city can eat is just as difficult and important as a doctor’s job to study and work on the human body to keep people healthy. Therefore, they should be well respected, and well rewarded.

On the other hand, entertainers, artists, athletes, and such live for what they do, and wake up every morning thirsting for it. Because it is enjoyable. It falls under automatic city function in that individuals all have opportunities to participate in sports and entertaining activities at their leisure. There is no need to pay people to do it. Were you ever paid to go to the park with your friends to play a game of soccer or something? Do you get paid to play a game of cards or chess? Try going into one of those karaoke bars, and have them pay you to get on the microphone. It’ll never happen. In fact, most of the time you have to pay them to let you get on stage.

There is a difference between working hard for athletics and entertainment, and laboring for city function.
The difference is that people train and practice hard, and would go to the park to play because they want to, and it’s fun.
What people wouldn’t do is repetitive labor, and go into the city, and haul heavy dirty things because they want to.
Because it’s not fun.

Our society’s worship of athletes and entertainers to the point where we pay them all of our money to watch them do what they do is obscene and ridiculous. Why do we do it? Because we’re human morons that have fallen under the spell of the god of commercialism. Which is more rewarding, watching these entertainers and athletes play or going to the park to play with your friends?

Is it more important for you to get paid for playing a game in the park than it is for a farmer to toil the ground so we can eat or a garbage man that repetitively lifts heavy garbage so we can have a clean city? The only difference between professional athletes than athletes that play in the park is that the professionals get paid for it.
The same goes for amateur and professional entertainers. They all work just as hard to make their art wonderful for the people they want to entertain. The only difference is that the professionals get paid.
We don’t pay each other to play in parks, yet we pay entertainers and athletes to do the same thing in oversized parks.
So why would it be more important to pay athletes and entertainers to play in over sized parks than it would be to pay each other to clean the city, and grow our food?


So what would happen if we stop throwing our money at these over glamorized people?
How would society improve?
1) we wouldn’t be wasting so much time watching them, and possibly devote our time to more productive and fulfilling endeavors.
2) devoting our time to more productive and fulfilling endeavors generates a higher level of creative output.
3) with an increased level of creative output, not only would our symphonies, films, stories, and games increase in immeasurable quality, our designs, inventions, and discoveries would propel us across the galaxy.
4) furthermore, the resources we throw at ridiculous supposedly heroic athletes, artists, and entertainers can be devoted to educating more people and improving the quality of our city environment.
5) the reaction effect goes on and on.


Originally posted by Elbaz
Garbage men should get paid more than professional athletes that have worked tremendously their entire lives to excel?!

Of course.
Working all your life to excel at something has nothing to do with weather or not that something is a social necessity that is not automatic.
Should I get paid more if I spent all my life practicing how to jump up and down on my head with a pogo stick attached to it?
There is a man that worked all his life to be the Guinness Book’s fastest talker. He can talk 6 times faster than the Guinness Book’s fastest rapper.
I think it’s great, and entertaining. But should he or any other athlete/artist/entertainer be rewarded for working hard to practice their art as much as laborer that repeatedly lifts heavy objects while knee deep in manure?
I personally think working extremely hard to excel at a physical ability or art is much less difficult than the repetitive nature, physical and emotional stress, lack of intellectual appeal, and filth that comes with doing certain labor work for social function.


Originally posted by Elbaz
You're against competition!

I’m not against friendly competition for fun, Elbaz.
But when it comes to real life, I believe cooperation gets us farther.


Originally posted by Elbaz

A: And we're supposed to pay them millions for this service? Wow. I can see it now. People lining up in their back alleys to watch the garbage men perform.

I don’t think anybody should be paid any large amount of money to do anything. I’m sure you weren’t blind enough to take it that way.
What I do think is that the highest paid people in the city should be the ones who do the most difficult labor.
Furthermore, the most difficult labor is not spending years studying, traiing, and practicing to excel at an art or science.
The most difficult work is rummaging in filth, toiling the ground, lifting and moving heavy objects, all repetitively.
Either way, if I had to pick somebody to throw all this money at, I’d pick somebody that does the more difficult labor than an athlete/artist/entertainer.


Originally posted by Elbaz
I think you're actually a bit jealous of the athletes.

I have no idea what could make you think that. I think it is a very arrogant and presumptuous accusation.
I am not jealous of athletes in the least bit. You couldn’t pay me a billion dollars to trade places with them.
What is it with jocks that make them think that everybody is jealous of them?
I enjoy friendly sports, but never have I ever wanted to do all that athlete stuff. It’s least appealing thing in the world to me.
It could be that the only reason jocks are so arrogant is that they are the ones that are jealous of the sheer intellectual skill of artists and scientists.


Originally posted by Elbaz
It takes skill and drive to do what a lot of them do. Even the academics.
I have no doubt about that. The same goes for artists, designers, scientists, and entertainers.
Just because I choose to use my skill in something more appealing to me does not mean I’m jealous of anybody.


Originally posted by Elbaz
I'm not going to make any judgements, but you seem to be like the lazy type.

What is it with people and their clauses? This happens everywhere.
Most of the time it’s the “I don’t mean to be offensive” clause, followed by a “but,” and then an offensive statement.
Thanks for making a judgment, Elbaz, but because your clause says you are not making a judgment do you think a person would be dumb enough to believe that it is not a judgment?
That nonsense may work for others, but I see no purpose for it.
Assuming that “lazy type” labeled people exist, I’d like to know how you define “lazy type”, and how you came to the conclusion that cool skill is the “lazy type.”


Originally posted by Elbaz
No, you're obviously not against sports.
And just for the record, I don't think highly of astronomical salaries for pro-athletes. It seems a bit much. That's why I enjoy minor hockey (WHL). They'll continue to make it as long as we continue to pay it.

I know that most people don’t, and as I said, I don’t think anybody whatsoever should receive such large salaries either.
In the same sense, I don’t think anybody should receive less than the cost of providing for their bare necessities weather they work or not.
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.
Do you enjoy WHL because they don’t get paid astronomical salaries? Please clarify.
Thank you.

-cs

So if you’re still wondering weather or not I “thought this one out”, it’s part of what I do. I plan and design organizations and cities including social standards.




Originally posted by Persol
Perhaps you could give a reason? If someone thinks you are bad at a job, you will not be hired.
The reason, Persol, is because there is a difference in playing fun games than doing serious work.
In my idealistic opinion, the main objective of a friendly game is to include EVERYBODY regardless of how well they play or regardless of uneven teams.
As long as everybody is included, there is a game. Nobody should have to be left out. The objective of playing games is to include everybody. Leaving people out does not fit the objective.

This is the reason why jocks are the creeps that they are. The teacher can say everybody in the group gets to play, but instead of being supportive and inclusive of their sucky teammate, the jocks complain, and push them out of the way. They would rather be inconsiderate and make people feel bad and left out than do whatever they can to have a fair game that includes everybody.

Originally posted by Persol
I don't want someone on my team who is going to cause the rest of us work harder to makeup for their lack.
The goal is to include EVERYBODY. Not to play while other people have to sit out just because YOU want to win. If you are too self centered to work with a sucky player that is trying their best to keep up, than you’re just as dumb as the rest of the jocks who think winning the game is the most important thing.

It’s true that sometimes you have a score to settle with someone, and you want serious competition, but if other people are there that want to be included, it would be completely self centered of you to leave them out instead of postponing your feud.

In the same way, it would be self centered of other people to interfere with a feud that is important to somebody.
But when it all comes down to it, even if you offered them to play, and they decide to sit out so you can continue your personal vendetta, the goal of including everybody still exists.
Therefore, a true athlete would not let them sit out, but convince them to join in the fun.

That is the difference between a true athlete, and a dumb arrogant jock.
A true athlete always puts their personal vendettas and competitive urges aside to have fun with everybody.
Meanwhile, a dumb jock feels they have a right to play over others that are not as good.
Dumb jocks use their physical abilities to push sucky players away because they posses a psychotic belief that they have more of a right to play than others.
Being better at a sport does not mean you have the right to play over others.
Everybody has equal rights to play.
True athletes understand this.

Originally posted by cool skill
Have I thought this out? No, I just post stuff out of the air. I think about it daily, Elbaz. Try it sometime.
You always have to love a post that starts out by trying to put people down.

They will pay you $6 per hour. At the end you get your check, and you can go back anytime you want...


[b]
They sent me home early because I couldn’t keep up. It’s something I’m just not good at.
They sent you home because you were not good at your job. It is the same reasoning.

As for sports, dancing, acting, and music? True it isn’t easy work training, rehearsing, memorizing lines, and getting the steps perfect, but I have no problem doing it. I can get on a stage, and have no problem whatsoever. Furthermore it’s fun.
There are plenty of jobs which are not absolutely necessary. We have a supply/demand economy. There are alot more people who can be trashmen then play professional sports. They also must put alot more training in, and expect to get paid back. This is the same reason people who go to college expect to get paid more.

I’ve locked myself in my room everyday of my life to practice.
I can rehearse for days and days just to get the lines and the steps correct. Does that mean I should get paid more to entertain for fun than do hard labor like farming, garbage, construction, etc.?
Entertainment is a service. If people enjoy your service then you will be paid well.

Entertainment and sports are fun, and one of the things that people should not get paid to do no matter how much they practice.
I think that my job is fun to. Yet I still think I should be paid for it.

And paying people to do what they would do anyway is one of the things that limits society progress.
We pay people to do things WE want THEM to do. If they happen to like that job, then so be it.

On the other hand, garbage, farming, and hard labor is something that is necessary for city function... It is not something they do for themselves, but something they do because it is necessary to the city.
Wrong. They do it for themselves so they can get paid. As you have previosly stated there are no requirements to work as a trashman.

So you want to know if they deserve great rewards for doing so? Definitely. I believe people that do these important things should receive the highest monetary rewards.
I have a house down the shore. There is no trash collection, and we just take our trash to the dump every week. When I'm down there, I also take the neighbors because she is getting old. I do not expect to get paid for it, because it isn't that much effort and I did not have to learn how to do it.

A farmer’s job to toil the ground so the city can eat is just as difficult and important as a doctor’s job to study and work on the human body to keep people healthy. Therefore, they should be well respected, and well rewarded.
Supply and demand. Most people could be farmers. Most people could not be doctors.

On the other hand, entertainers, artists, athletes, and such live for what they do, and wake up every morning thirsting for it. Because it is enjoyable.
As do some doctors and trashmen.

It falls under automatic city function in that individuals all have opportunities to participate in sports and entertaining activities at their leisure. There is no need to pay people to do it.
There is if you want to see people who are good.

Were you ever paid to go to the park with your friends to play a game of soccer or something?
If I spent my entire life practicing and learning chess then I would expect to be paid.

Do you get paid to play a game of cards or chess?
Only if other people want to pay you. If I say 'I will not play without payment' people will laugh and walk away. They can find just about anybody to play with, if skill doesn't matter.

Try going into one of those karaoke bars, and have them pay you to get on the microphone. It’ll never happen.
But if you are good it could lead to jobs.

In fact, most of the time you have to pay them to let you get on stage.
You are getting ripped off my friend.

The only difference between professional athletes than athletes that play in the park is that the professionals get paid for it.
They also train much harder, which doesn't leave much room for another job to support them.

The same goes for amateur and professional entertainers. They all work just as hard to make their art wonderful for the people they want to entertain. The only difference is that the professionals get paid.
Because people would rather watch them then amateurs.

So what would happen if we stop throwing our money at these over glamorized people?
How would society improve?
1) we wouldn’t be wasting so much time watching them, and possibly devote our time to more productive and fulfilling endeavors.
We might as well outlaw all entertainment. It is not your place to pick and choice what others want to pay for. You'd rather by a football, they'd rather buy a football ticket.

2) devoting our time to more productive and fulfilling endeavors generates a higher level of creative output.
Many people believe sports are fulfilling

3) with an increased level of creative output, not only would our symphonies, films, stories, and games increase in immeasurable quality
Less people with specilize in these fields because they won't be able to make a living. The quantity would go up, and quality would go down.

our designs, inventions, and discoveries would propel us across the galaxy.
So all these athletes are suddenly going to become scientists?

Should I get paid more if I spent all my life practicing how to jump up and down on my head with a pogo stick attached to it?
One last time: supply and demand. Nobody cares enough to pay you to jump on a pogo stick.

I personally think working extremely hard to excel at a physical ability or art is much less difficult than the repetitive nature, physical and emotional stress, lack of intellectual appeal, and filth that comes with doing certain labor work for social function.
Most of the jobs you are talking about take little training. If they don't think they are getting paid enough for their job, they should find another one.

I’m not against friendly competition for fun, Elbaz.
But when it comes to real life, I believe cooperation gets us farther.
No. You got sent home from the dump because you were not good enough at it. Cooperation is not part of your employeers responsibility.

What I do think is that the highest paid people in the city should be the ones who do the most difficult labor. Furthermore, the most difficult labor is not spending years studying, traiing, and practicing to excel at an art or science.
This is your opinion, and isn't supported by the number of people who fail at being artists, athletes, and scientists.

So if you’re still wondering weather or not I “thought this one out”, it’s part of what I do. I plan and design organizations and cities including social standards.
Then you should understand our economic system.

The reason, Persol, is because there is a difference in playing fun games than doing serious work. In my idealistic opinion, the main objective of a friendly game is to include EVERYBODY regardless of how well they play or regardless of uneven teams.
The objective of others is to win.

As long as everybody is included, there is a game. Nobody should have to be left out. The objective of playing games is to include everybody. Leaving people out does not fit the objective.
No, the objective of games is to have fun. Picking up after people who can't play is not fun.

The goal is to include EVERYBODY. Not to play while other people have to sit out just because YOU want to win. If you are too self centered to work with a sucky player that is trying their best to keep up, than you’re just as dumb as the rest of the jocks who think winning the game is the most important thing.
It is not fun to play with people who are nowhere near as good. If you don't want to win, then play a game with everybody that's left and don't keep score. Competition is fun.

In the same way, it would be self centered of other people to interfere with a feud that is important to somebody.
It is also self-centered to think somebody should 'draft' you in a pickup game, just because you want to play, even though you suck.

Dumb jocks use their physical abilities to push sucky players away because they posses a psychotic belief that they have more of a right to play than others.
Everybody has a right to play... but that doesn't mean you have a right to play with anyone you want. Challenge Kasparov to a game of chess and see if he accepts.

Well, just look who gets the girls... Never mind, you can always PAY for girls later when you as an A-student will earn a huge salary at some Defense R&D faccility where you will develop the mother of all bombs that will blow away a thousand stupid jocks in some far away country. These schoolyard bullies had it coming!

Originally posted by Vortexx
where you will develop the mother of all bombs that will blow away a thousand stupid jocks in some far away country. These schoolyard bullies had it coming!
Hell ya.


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
You always have to love a post that starts out by trying to put people down.
--------------------
Why?
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
They sent you home because you were not good at your job. It is the same reasoning.
--------------------
I never said that somebody that isn’t qualified for a job should do it, Personl.
I hope you’re not mixing up playing games and work.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
We have a supply/demand economy.
--------------------
Do you really believe that our economy is supply and demand?
Do you think capitalism would survive if it was really were based on supply an demand?
Should we all just be good little A students that take in all of the garbage that our economics teachers shove down our throats.
Hard core economists and social scientists understand that supply and demand cannot support a society.
Especially not a capitalist society.
I don’t have to go through this in detail because it isn’t that difficult to figure out.

That day I did the garbage thing, the other person that signed up for it with me was completely illiterate. I had to punch the letter code for him on the candy machine because matching the letters and numbers were too complicated for him.
Now if a person walks into our city, and doesn’t know how to do something as simple as reading, should we not provide him with an education?
Should we expect him to work at all?
The only reason he was there is because he cannot get another job. Can he get an education?
No. If he doesn’t work, than he cannot pay his bills. Even if there was free education out there for him, the fact that he has to work interferes with learning.
Even if it didn’t should we expect him to be knowledgeable enough to go get an education? It’s a trap.
There’s way more to it than that, but this is just an individual case of a huge social problem.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
There are alot more people who can be trashmen then play professional sports. They also must put alot more training in, and expect to get paid back.
--------------------
So they train because they expect to get paid back?
Did Michael Jordan train to be a great player because he expected to get paid back?
If he knew he would never get paid for it, would he have given it up?
Would he have stopped doing something he truly loves to do if he would never get paid for it?
What if basketball players and other athletes and entertainers stopped getting paid?
Would Michael Jordan and people that love their sport or art stop training to be great at what they do?
So does the fact that there are a lot more people that can

Having tons of people that have the ability to be trash-men does not mean the city should not reward them very well rewarded for the type of labor they do.
And just because Michael Jordan trained for years to have an exceptional talent does not mean the city should reward him for it.
What is important is the difficulty and appeal of the job.
Sure somebody has worked all his life to be an engineer. Does that mean that being a trash man is less difficult?
So we shouldn’t reward him well for going from house after house after house, and dealing with garbage?
Should we pay him more for doing engineer work?
Just because being an engineer takes much more training, that does not mean engineer work is more difficult than trash work.
Yes sitting at a desk, crunching numbers, and creating designs is not easy work.
But it is not nearly as difficult and unfulfilling as doing physical filthy labor.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
This is the same reason people who go to college expect to get paid more.
--------------------
Right.
So why shouldn’t we pay them large sums of money to do garbage or work on the fields?

For example we have:
a) Michael Jordan. A person that has worked years to develop his skill.
b) Persol. A person that has college education, as well as various talents and abilities.
c) Joe Shmoe. A semi-athletic uneducated person that isn’t too great at basketball, or anything else.
d) the city. I use the term city, but city-school would be a better description. (The city school is my city design of the future.)
So here we have A through D.

There is a shortage of farmers, and the city needs help.
Should the city reward Michael Jordan to play basket ball? After all, he did work for years to be good at it.
What if nobody got paid to play basketball, sing, or act? Would the city really suffer for having a shortage of excellent basketball players, singers, and actors?
Should the city not greatly reward Michael Jordan for toiling on the field?
Should the city not greatly reward Persol in the same way for toiling on the field?
Should the city not greatly reward Joe Shmoe in the same way for toiling on the field?
After all, the three of them could be in school learning more or out in the park playing ball together. Or even doing some other more appealing work.
True, there might be volunteers out there to help the city out of he goodness of their hearts, but shouldn’t the city be grateful to these volunteers or whoever decides to help by rewarding them with good money?

Supply and demand is effective here in that there is a demand for farmers, and there is a supply of people with the ability to farm.
But the city understands that this type of work is less fulfilling and desirable to the individual than other things that might be more fulfilling and enjoyable them.
Therefore there is not much of a supply of people that are eager to toil the ground.
Because of the shortage of people that would freely toil the ground, the city gives the people a great monetary incentive to do so in order to meet the demand for farmers.
That is one way of doing it.

Here is another more primitive way to do it:
Strip people of food, shelter, education, love, and other necessities.
Limit these necessities, and let them compete with each other for them on their own.
The only way to achieve a better quality of living is to step on each other in competition to get it.
Survival of the fittest means that strongest get to it first.
It also means the strongest do whatever is necessary to hold on to what they have.
Meanwhile, the weak have no choice but to go on the farm because if they don’t, than they’ll probably have a hard time obtaining their basic necessities.
The city’s demand for farmers is met.

Here is an even more primitive way to do it:
The city needs farmers.
The city appoints various people to do the task, and chooses whoever they feel like.
Whoever refuses shall be punished.
The city’s demand for farmers is met.

As history progresses, the methods for meeting social and economic demands progress.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
Entertainment is a service. If people enjoy your service then you will be paid well.
--------------------
So first, it’s “we have a supply and demand economy.”
Then, it’s “Entertainment is a service.”
These statements are true in some ways, but seriously limit the bigger picture.
Again, paying somebody to entertain you is not a service like paying them to clean up is.
The difference is that one improves the city, and therefore all individuals while the other damages the city.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
I think that my job is fun to. Yet I still think I should be paid for it.
--------------------
So you feel that you should be paid more to do your fun job than to swim in trash all day?
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
We pay people to do things WE want THEM to do. If they happen to like that job, then so be it.
--------------------
It isn’t about weather they like it or not.
Regardless of what people want to throw their money at, it’s not the point.
The point is, people who do more difficult jobs deserve to be paid more than people who do jobs that are automatic.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
Wrong. They do it for themselves.
--------------------
Wrong. People do not do it because it is fun. They do not do it because they enjoy it.
It is necessary to the city. Basketball on the other hand is not done because it is necessary for the city.
Basketball is something people do for themselves.
The city has no desire to pay people to play basketball. What is important is rewarding them well to do something that is difficult and necessary for the city like garbage.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
I have a house down the shore. There is no trash collection, and we just take our trash to the dump every week. When I'm down there, I also take the neighbors because she is getting old. I do not expect to get paid for it, because it isn't that much effort and I did not have to learn how to do it.
--------------------
It’s nice that you don’t expect to get paid to take your own trash out, and help an elderly neighbor.
Would you also like to volunteer to spend all day going from house after house doing much more intensive filthy trash work for free?
Would you do it for $6 an hour?
Do you think it’s alright to pay somebody else to do it for $6 an hour?
How much would you go around doing the real filthy trash work for?
Would you do it for $7? $10? $20? $50? $100? $500?
Do you think it’s right to pay somebody else less than what it would take to get you to do it?
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
Most people could be farmers. Most people could not be doctors.
--------------------
Wrong.
Furthermore, I’m sure more people would rather be doctors than farmers.
Both are difficult, but I think working in a hospital or clinic, and treating people is much easier and more appealing than being out in the hot sun pounding dirt.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
As do some doctors and trashmen.
--------------------
Am I not living in the real world?
So people wake up in the morning thirsting to jump in trash?
If they couldn’t get paid for it they would do it free?
If some robot came out that would eliminate the need for trash men, they would still do it because they wake up in the morning thirsting for it?
Because they enjoy it?
I know people that love to paint, and thirst for it so much that they do it regardless of weather they get paid or not.
I must not get around much because I know of no person that thirsts for trash so much that they would be willing to do it if they couldn’t get paid.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
There is if you want to see people who are good.
--------------------
There isn’t if you want to see people that are extremely good.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
If I spent my entire life practicing and learning chess then I would expect to be paid.
--------------------
So just because you spend your whole life to be great at chess, does that mean you would not play chess for less money than you would do trash?
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
If I say 'I will not play without payment' people will laugh and walk away.
--------------------
So if people say they would not do garbage without proper payment, should we just laugh and walk away?
Should we just let garbage pile up because people don’t think they should have to clean up after the rest of the city for free?
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
But if you are good it could lead to jobs.
--------------------
How?
Being good at singing does not lead to any real jobs that are important for city function.
The city does not require excellent singers to function properly.
Furthermore, the city has no reason to pay people to sing because weather they are paid or not, there will always be excellent singers.

****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
They also train much harder, which doesn't leave much room for another job to support them.
--------------------
No.
They all train just as hard.
It’s not talent, not ability, and not training.
Athletes that don’t get paid can have just as much or if not more talent and training than the professionals.
Like I said, there is only one difference.
One gets paid. The other doesn’t.

And if a paid athlete does train more, it’s because the one that is not paid uses their time to support themselves.
Meanwhile an athlete that gets paid has more access to better training opportunities.
If neither get paid, does that mean society will be damaged?
For course not. They both can still train to be much better.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
Because people would rather watch them then amateurs.
--------------------
No people would rather watch what is more appealing and talented.
Somebody getting paid lots of money doesn’t mean they are more talented and appealing than a person that does not get paid.
People pay to watch them because that is what they are presented.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
We might as well outlaw all entertainment. It is not your place to pick and choice what others want to pay for. You'd rather by a football, they'd rather buy a football ticket.
--------------------
Just because paying for entertainment is unnecessary and unproductive doesn’t mean entertainment should be outlawed.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
Less people with specilize in these fields because they won't be able to make a living. The quantity would go up, and quality would go down.
--------------------
Wrong.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
So all these athletes are suddenly going to become scientists?
--------------------
They can be whatever they want.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
One last time: supply and demand. Nobody cares enough to pay you to jump on a pogo stick.
--------------------
Supply and demand is irrelevant.
The fact that there is a higher demand for somebody to jump up and down on their head with a pogo stick attached to it does not mean that paying them to do so would be productive.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
Most of the jobs you are talking about take little training. If they don't think they are getting paid enough for their job, they should find another one.
--------------------
OK.
If you don’t think you are getting paid enough to do trash, you should go find another job.
And when you do feel that you are being properly compensated to do trash, than maybe we can all have a cleaner city.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
No. You got sent home from the dump because you were not good enough at it. Cooperation is not part of your employeers responsibility.
--------------------
Ya ok. Go tell that to your boss.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
This is your opinion, and isn't supported by the number of people who fail at being artists, athletes, and scientists.
--------------------
Of course it is.
And even if it isn’t, it’s irrelevant.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
Then you should understand our economic system.
--------------------
Implying?
Or do you mean I should accept the spoon fed version of it that everybody seems to think is so real.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
The objective of others is to win.
--------------------
Yes. That is my point. Thank you.
The object of dumb jocks who only think about themselves is to win.
Real athletes understand that others have as much right to play as they do.
Real athletes don’t dictate who gets to play and who doesn’t.
Real jocks understand that they have no right to tell others to sit out of the game no matter how sucky they are.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
No, the objective of games is to have fun. Picking up after people who can't play is not fun.
--------------------
It’s obvious you don’t think in terms of EVERYBODY.
For some reason you seem to be focused on what is fun for the better player, and refuse to broaden your spectrum.
If the objective of the game is to have fun, how is sitting on the sideline fun?
Dumb jocks say that the object is for “ME to have fun.”
Real athletes say “EVERYBODY should have fun.”
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
It is not fun to play with people who are nowhere near as good. If you don't want to win, then play a game with everybody that's left and don't keep score. Competition is fun.
--------------------
Sure competition and keeping score is fun, but how do you expect to have fun when dumb jocks refuse to let you in?
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
It is also self-centered to think somebody should 'draft' you in a pickup game, just because you want to play, even though you suck.
--------------------
Right, but as I said, a real athlete would put aside his own desires to settle whatever vendetta.
A real athlete understands that even though another person is willing to sit out, it doesn’t mean that the other person doesn’t want to play.
Because the other person wants to play, real athletes would invite the person into the game.
****************************************


****************************************
Originally posted by Persol:
Everybody has a right to play... but that doesn't mean you have a right to play with anyone you want. Challenge Kasparov to a game of chess and see if he accepts.
--------------------
If he’s too scared to play me, then it’s perfectly understandable.
Some people don’t readily enjoy the agony of ultimate defeat and humiliation.
****************************************

The statesman or the soldier who is more important? The pen & the sword which is mightier? You just seem to be on the side of jocks thats all. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Balder1
Athletics doesn't really serve a good purpose, anyway.

According to this argument, so does music, visual arts, the art of cooking, the theater...

All those activites are just for amusement, stress relief and furthering personal growth. Except athletics also makes you healthier.

Plus, so what? Are you guys really trying to define the worth of a person here? Come on people, throw the first stone already...

I think being allround in intellectual and physical abbilities is more usefull and enjoyable than being specialized being all brains or all muscle:

- maybe a B-student that knows how to catch a ball?

I certainly agree with that, and am proud to say that I fit into that category.

When I said it serves no purpose, I meant that it doesn't really do anything for society or for people. Entertainment... am I the only one who finds playing sports more fun than watching them?

They are good for keeping in shape, but I don't think people should earn millions and millions of dollars from them.

Keeping in shape is good, and people who don't exercise will tend to be unhealthy and often unstable mentally, as well as more timid and less self-confident. Personally, I'm glad that someday science will allow us to live healthy lives without exercising an hour a day or whatever.

The B,C, and D students are the ones we should pity. The do nothing for they excel at nothing.

Mind u these are all generalizations; not that I give a fuck anyway, but:

The Jock has his fun in high school and bemoans his lack of intelligence in the future. Nevertheless, he becomes a movie star, athelete and gets more money than the Doctor, Physicist, etc. The A student will still worship and be jealous of the jock. The A student will still be insecure and will create a false ego on the premise of his superior intelligence. If they both really really excel, only future A students will know about the A student; however, everyone, including the B,C,D,F and A will know of the jock.

Go ahead--pick the best known intellectual from any year since 1930(~the start of jock dominance.) and compare to the best known jock.


I say value the jock more, even with his inferior intelligence, he still controls you. Or be like me and be both. :m:

it seems that musicians are the most popular. if u can play, and get straight A's, there is a bonus. if u are a jock, play music and get straight A's, then your popularity is automatic. also people that are funny also are at the top of the social list

Go ahead--pick the best known intellectual from any year since 1930(~the start of jock dominance.) and compare to the best known jock. Wtf? Not much for history, are you? Jocks, or anyone strong, healthy, and big, have always dominated socially.

They get the girls because, like animals, we judge the best genes depending on physical appearance. We haven't progressed to the point as a species where brain is valued above brawn, although we are approaching that stage quickly, I think.

The A student will still worship and be jealous of the jock. The A student will still be insecure and will create a false ego on the premise of his superior intelligence. That contradicts what Tyler is saying, and maybe it's been a while since you've been to school. The "nerds" or A students are beginning to outnumber the jocks, and have a lot more respect.

I tend to agree with you that the A student usually gets his good grades and smartness because he feels inferior and wants to make up for it. At least it goes that way with some people.

I say value the jock more, even with his inferior intelligence, he still controls you. Eh? Did you even read the Fountainhead? I really hope you are joking. You're saying we should value jocks, who rely on their natural genes to accomplish nothing substantial, more than the philosophers and scientists who have progressed us past the Stone Age and into space and democracy.

Ayn Rand would turn over in her grave at hearing that.

Or be like me, and be both. You can only be one. Which one are you?

I've got a 3.75 GPA and play three sports pretty well: basketball, baseball, and soccer. I'm an A student, though.

It is good to be a well rounded person, and anyone who focuses too much in one field is not worth as much as they should be.

Now when I say too much in one field, I mean that you spend an excessive amount of time doing nothing "spectacular" at all. Maybe getting straight A's makes you feel as if you' re applying yourself well, but really, what are your goals an aspirations?

Trying to be a straight A student really isn't going to give incentive in the real world, and many people who do get straight A's are children whose parents are rather demanding, or were at a young age, and the straight A's simply became habitual. Really, people of average inteligence can attain a 4.0, because it is more a demonstrative of good study habits and work ethic than overall intelligence. In the work force, the straight A students are generally those who hold high postions, but really don't do anything revolutionary in their field. They will not be forever rememebered, and they are not one of very few that can do their job.

On the other hand, one of the main reasons athletes, musicians, etc, are payed so much is because of the amount of revenue their industries bring in. People spend billions of dollars weekly simply going to watch a movie, they spend billions of dollars simply buying cd's, going to basketball games, etc etc.

THAT is why they are such high paying jobs. And equally, there is much more value in the idividual, than there is in science, or garbage collecting, so yet ANOTHER reason why the salary diference is present.

I think one of your points Cool Skill was that you could go on stage and act and it is fun. But there is one thing you left out, people don't care if you're comfortable on stage, that is a given and is not even considered in the selection process. However, there are some specifics that they look at when deciding who gets the next multimillon dollar role in a movie; looks, genre of movie, genre of roles, plot place, target audience, etc etc. So how "easy" you think it is has NOTHING to do with it, it is the objectives and parameters that govern the salary. And the less in supply one type of person is, the more in demand they are, hence the larger in salary they receive.

Not everyone can sing, play an instrument, hit a baseball, punt a football, and so on. BUT no one man can make science be put to good use, patent inventions, and ideas. No single man, can collect the garbage more astoundingly more efficient than anyone else. These are tasks done by GROUPS of people, and if you really look at it correctly, the money distribution is quite acceptable.

Originally posted by Tyler
"In the end people respect you for your accomplishments"

There you go. I can't believe I forgot to type up this one other idea...
A lot of girls in my school comment that they won't go out with a guy who's just a joke because..... he's just a jock. But if a guy's just smart, that's fine. So maybe it's because the 'just smart' guy has more a chance of getting money. To be a successful, financially, athlete - you pretty much have to be in the top 600 in your sport in the world, at least. You don't even have to be in the top 600 in your city in an academic persuit to make good money.

ITs not just that a smart guy would be more successful, it is that he is more interesting. I wouldn't want to date a guy that thinks the extent to living is airing out his jock strap, watching his muscles grow, and drinking beer. It gets old. But that is why God also made one dimensional air head girls-so the jocks can procreate too.

Im not saying that athletic people are not interesting. But the typical "jock" is not a big "politics" or "philosophy" guy. These are just things on which I place value. I also play sports. But im also an academic, so the girls that say "just a jock" have a point. Obviously these girls need to be kept interested by someone who has interests outside of cars, beer, sports, and wrestling.

Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM
Really, people of average inteligence can attain a 4.0, because it is more a demonstrative of good study habits and work ethic than overall intelligence.
Good point.
Some of the people with the highest grades are some of the dumbest people in the world.
If you're intelligent enough to get away from the stupidy of school while you can, than you are intelligent enough to be Einstein, Edison, and many other people that have brought about important change in a world that has serious difficulty adjusting to progress and change.


Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM
there are some specifics that they look at when deciding who gets the next multimillon dollar role in a movie; looks, genre of movie, genre of roles, plot place, target audience, etc etc. So how "easy" you think it is has NOTHING to do with it, it is the objectives and parameters that govern the salary. And the less in supply one type of person is, the more in demand they are, hence the larger in salary they receive.

How is that relevant?
It doesn't matter if you fit all those qualifications.
It doesn't change the fact that people that do garbage should be paid more than artists.
It doesn't change the fact that artists should not receive a cent for what they do.

It definitly doesn't change the fact that paying artists stifles progress.

It definitly doesn't change the fact that paying artists more than garbage workers that should get top pay completely retards society.

It definitly doesn't change the fact that paying artists rediculous sums of money rediculously stifles social progress.

By your argument any form of entertainment should be paid much less then it is now because it 'stifles social progress'. Well participating in entertainment also 'stifles social progress'. People could spend all that TV time taking thier own trash to the dump.

The point is that people decide how much something is worth to them by voting with the dollar.

How is that relevant?
It doesn't matter if you fit all those qualifications.
It doesn't change the fact that people that do garbage should be paid more than artists.
It doesn't change the fact that artists should not receive a cent for what they do.

AHEM....


On the other hand, one of the main reasons athletes, musicians, etc, are payed so much is because of the amount of revenue their industries bring in. People spend billions of dollars weekly simply going to watch a movie, they spend billions of dollars simply buying cd's, going to basketball games, etc etc.

THAT is why they are such high paying jobs. And equally, there is much more value in the individual, than there is in science, or garbage collecting, so yet ANOTHER reason why the salary difference is present.


As I was saying, no patrons, no industry.

ANYONE, can be a garbage man. They are not valued because their difficulty of work is NOT significant enough to be valued.

NO ONE MAN, can influence and generate revenune for Waste Management as much as ONE MAN can influence the music industry, arts, film, ect. ect.

Did you read my post?!?

I have already said all of this.

No single man, can collect the garbage more astoundingly efficient than anyone else. These are tasks done by GROUPS of people, and if you really look at it correctly, the money distribution is quite acceptable.

Additonally, the revenue generated in the Fine Arts industries are reflected in the salaries the Artists recieve; billions of Dollars on a weekly basis. Think about it this way, over the course one week, if 500 million people bought a 2 dollar CD, that would be one billion dollars a week. And this is music ALONE. Think about everything you do in one week that is related to entertainment. Think about how much money YOU soley contribute. Now, multiply this 500 million times.....

I am COMPLETELY baffeld at how you think it stifles progress by paying artists as much as they receive and not paying Garbage Men as much as artists.

If we payed Garbage Men as much as artists currently recieve, everyone would take a job in the Waste Management industry because it would be easy money. No one would want an education, because they could get by well in life by simply hopping on the back of a truck, picking up bags, and putting them in the truck. After thy did all this tedious work they would be payed 30 million dollars.

But I ask, where would all of the pay come from?!?!?!

Taxes would have to be increased collosally in order to compensate for their salaries.

I think you're a little off in your logic here buddy....

I am pissing in my pants from laughing so freaking loud. My name is the fountainhead minus the 'a' for reasons or only very few will understand. And u question whether or not I know Rand? And what of Rand????? Who made her infallible? She would we squirming in her grave for you to assume that just because she represents her views in novels, then they must be the truth!


Also what difference if the 'nerds' are outnumbering the jocks? Society will always celebrate the movie star and singer than it will the great physicist--- and it is not because society is stupid. It is simply because those people, those jocks, satisfy out prmitive and instintual needs more than the nerd would with his accomplishments.

And yes, I correct myself, Besdes Einstein, you will find that the most popular artist/athelete/entertainer.... supersedes the most popular 'nerd' from their years in therms of populaity amogst the public. As for 1930 Mr Cunnigham, I choose that date because you fucking retard, if u take Plato, Pythagores, Euclid, Newton, Galileo, Bernoulli, etc etc etc etc and place them on a historical timeline, the jocks donot always win, except from 1930--- - 1or 3.

“AHEM....
On the other hand, one of the main reasons athletes, musicians, etc, are payed so much is because of the amount of revenue their industries bring in.
People spend billions of dollars weekly simply going to watch a movie, they spend billions of dollars simply buying cd's, going to basketball games, etc etc.”
********************
Ahem?
What’s your point?
Do you actually think this is a good thing?
So spending billions on entertainment is good for progress?
Let me know when you wake up from your happy delusion.
********************


“THAT is why they are such high paying jobs. And equally, there is much more value in the individual, than there is in science, or garbage collecting, so yet ANOTHER reason why the salary difference is present.”
********************
Wrong.
********************


“As I was saying, no patrons, no industry.”
********************
What industry? What patrons?
********************


“ANYONE, can be a garbage man. They are not valued because their difficulty of work is NOT significant enough to be valued.”
********************
Wrong as usual. It’s amazing how that statement collapses all over itself.
But don’t worry, I’ll save you the trouble of figuring it out:

Where to start?
First of all, you mention, “their difficulty of work is NOT significant enough to be valued.”
I can’t think of any reason for a sanitation not to be of the utmost value.
Being that the case, that is not the reason “they are not valued.”
Nor is it the reason YOU don’t value them.
I don’t think it would be too difficult for you to figure out the real reason “they are not valued.”
********************


“NO ONE MAN, can influence and generate revenune for Waste Management as much as ONE MAN can influence the music industry, arts, film, ect. ect.”
********************
That’s nice. Are we aware of why that is?
********************


“Did you read my post?!?”
********************
what
********************


“No single man, can collect the garbage more astoundingly efficient than anyone else. These are tasks done by GROUPS of people, and if you really look at it correctly, the money distribution is quite acceptable.”
********************
That makes absolutely no sense.
How the hell is it acceptable to pay people less than it costs to live?
Just because somebody would spend the whole day cleaning my apartment for $5 doesn’t mean they deserve $5 for cleaning my entire apartment.

In the example of garbage,
paying somebody $5 an hour to do work that is way more [important, difficult, hazardous, insalubrious, unappealing, monotonous, uneducational, etc.] than the work of an entertainer that gets paid $10,000 per hour to do work that is [unimportant, fun, less dangerous/hazardous, healthy, glamorous, adventurous, educational, etc.] is completely backwards.

It isn’t that difficult to understand that such laborers deserve higher salaries than artists/entertainers. They have every reason to.
********************


“Additonally, the revenue generated in the Fine Arts industries are reflected in the salaries the Artists recieve; billions of Dollars on a weekly basis. Think about it this way, over the course one week, if 500 million people bought a 2 dollar CD, that would be one billion dollars a week. And this is music ALONE. Think about everything you do in one week that is related to entertainment. Think about how much money YOU soley contribute. Now, multiply this 500 million times.....”
********************
Despite this vague and flimsy explanation of the ridiculous amount of money we all throw away on entertainment, the point is, this waste of human and natural resource is something that seriously suffocating social progress.
Not only could the billions of dollars worth of time/resources/effort/money be spent to give medicine and better lives to the hungry, there are tons of ways it could be used more effectively.
********************


“I am COMPLETELY baffeld at how you think it stifles progress by paying artists as much as they receive and not paying Garbage Men as much as artists.”
********************
Well if you’re a moron, you would think that me saying that garbage workers getting paid more than artists/entertainers means that garbage workers should be making millions and millions.
I never said such laborers should get millions and millions, genius.
I don’t believe anybody should get paid that much to do anything.
Whatever maximum a single person should get paid, labor workers deserve to be at the top of the list, and entertainers at the bottom.
The point is, the top of the list shouldn’t be billions.
********************


“If we payed Garbage Men as much as artists currently recieve, everyone would take a job in the Waste Management industry because it would be easy money. No one would want an education, because they could get by well in life by simply hopping on the back of a truck, picking up bags, and putting them in the truck. After thy did all this tedious work they would be payed 30 million dollars.”
********************
Why? Why would you want to pay anybody 30 million dollars to do anything?
********************


“But I ask, where would all of the pay come from?!?!?!
Taxes would have to be increased collosally in order to compensate for their salaries.
I think you're a little off in your logic here buddy....”
********************
You’re *deleted by forumer.
Who’s off logic?
I’m not the one making stupid ass umptions out of the air.
When did I ever mention that labor workers or anybody should be getting millions?
If I say that entertainers should be paid less than garbage workers, why not just create the opposite ridiculous assumption, and say that the garbage workers still get the same pay while entertainers receive less than that?
Either way you go, you’re a *deleted by forumer.
********************


EDIT: Don't worry. I have taken it upon my self to do my own moderation.

<i>"Frankly, I can't see one good reason to give more respect to intelligence than to athletic ability."</i>

Jocks are such easy targets. My nerd buddies and I were pretty hard on them when I was in school. There were few days when we didn't intimidate one or two jocks in the hallway, maybe throwing one against the lockers then giving him an atomic wedgy. :D

is the work the garbage man does tough?
does it require a 5yr. course in waste disposal?
does it require hours and years of practise so that he can be the BEST garbageman in town?

my servant's dad is a garbage man. we had to do a project once....i forgot in which subject....i chose my topic as waste disposal. wasn't an extensive project.....was fairly brief.

and i saw them dispose garbage. you don't require any great skill for disposing garbage. garbage disposal is very important from the ecological point of view of the nation.

BUT the difficulty level of the job is low.......it's unskilled labour.
the waste disposal system is important to the country....BUT the garbage man does not perform a skilled job.....any guy with a 6 pack can become a garbage man. quite a few don't have a 6 pack as well. they definitly do not deserve the same salaries as entertainers and musicians etc.

it takes years to perfect an art such as music....playing the guitar really well.....acting so well you think the actor is his subject..that takes practise and talent. unless i'm much mistaken you DO NOT need talent to be a garbage man.

is the work the garbage man does tough?
does it require a 5yr. course in waste disposal?
does it require hours and years of practise so that he can be the BEST garbageman in town?

my servant's dad is a garbage man. we had to do a project once....i forgot in which subject....i chose my topic as waste disposal. wasn't an extensive project.....was fairly brief.

and i saw them dispose garbage. you don't require any great skill for disposing garbage. garbage disposal is very important from the ecological point of view of the nation.

BUT the difficulty level of the job is low.......it's unskilled labour.
the waste disposal system is important to the country....BUT the garbage man does not perform a skilled job.....any guy with a 6 pack can become a garbage man. quite a few don't have a 6 pack as well. they definitly do not deserve the same salaries as entertainers and musicians etc.

it takes years to perfect an art such as music....playing the guitar really well.....acting so well you think the actor is his subject...that takes practise and talent. unless i'm much mistaken you DO NOT need talent to be a garbage man.

can you play like michael jordan?
can you drive an F1 car as fast as michael schumacher?
can you play the guitar like jimi hendrix?
can you act as well as marlon brando?
can you write as well as homer?

i suspect the answer to all of those questions is no.
however:-
can you dispose garbage as efficiently as your neighbourhood garbage man?

i know i can.

“can you play like michael jordan?” Nope.
“can you drive an F1 car as fast as michael schumacher?” Don’t know. Never used an F1 car before.
“can you play the guitar like jimi hendrix?” I don’t know how to play a guitar.
“can you act as well as marlon brando?” Better.
“can you write as well as homer?” Way way way better.
(Of course, this is all subject to opinion.)

“i suspect the answer to all of those questions is no.” You suspect wrong.
“can you dispose garbage as efficiently as your neighbourhood garbage man?” Not nearly. Already tried. They threw me out with the garbage after my first 4 hours.


OK. I don’t see much relevance in these questions.
You’re trying to prove that because many people have the ability to do a certain job, the job is easier, and therefore does not deserve as much pay.
You’re not bringing up anything new that hasn’t already been discussed on this forum.
What about the old argument that a job should be paid more based on the fact that more people are willing to pay for it.
(Despite the fact that it is easy and unimportant.)


The truth is, just as anybody can have the ability to do garbage, anybody has the ability to develop any skill.


Here’s a scenario:
You have a choice to do 2 jobs.
You may choose either, but you must work the period starting today, and ending 6 months from today.
During the 6 months, all your basic needs will be provided.
At the end of the period, I will pay you the amount of $20,000 no matter which job you choose.

The firs job is collecting garbage on the same set of streets all day from Monday to Friday. Most of the garbage will not be properly bagged in plastic, so picking up trash off of the floor is very likely.

The second job is playing a starring or co-staring role in a very popular play. The first two months will be spent rehearsing from Monday to Friday. The remaining four months will be spent performing the play. Expect to be adored by fans, and people of the opposite sex.

Each job requires as much time away from your personal life as the other.
Both jobs have the same duration.
Both jobs have the same pay.


Which would you choose?
Some people might choose garbage because of stage fright, less emotion/brain work, or whatever reason.
But I think we can safely assume that most people would go for the acting job.


Now let’s say we increase the salary of the garbage job, and decrease the salary of the acting job.
Depending on the increase/decrease, different people would make different choices.

If we pay the acting job the amount of $0 at the end 6 month period, some people might still choose the acing job over doing garbage.
If this is the case, what would be a reasonable amount to pay a people in general to choose the garbage job over the acting job?


As for the lack of skill and ability argument, if a person only has the ability to do garbage, and no other skill whatsoever, that person should not be working at all, but should be receiving proper education full time.

Nobody should be working at all until they receive enough education that they can read/write/math pretty well, have a practical understanding of themselves/communication/logic/social policies, and learn how to function professionally and fluently.
Seriously. Wouldn’t you think we would be better off if EVEYBODY either:
a) had “at the least” such level of education
b) is in the process of obtaining “at the least” such a level of education.


So why are we so afraid of providing people with the education they deserve?
Simple. If that happened, who would take out our trash for very little money?

So can we afford to support and provide EVERYBODY such essential education?
Of course not. We’re spending all of our money on entertainment and other forms of ecosocial destruction

If people were supported to attend school anytime they want, they wouldn’t have to worry about paying for their bills.
Therefore, why would anybody work, or take out our trash?
Maybe if we give them a large enough pay check that they truly deserve for repeatedly digging in piles of maggots all day, they would do it.
Not because they HAVE to do it in order to barely survive, but because they feel they are being properly rewarded for a job that is very important, and not in the least bit fun and easy.

this is so far off it made me laugh....

obviously if you give people a choice between an acting job and a garbage disposal job.......at the same salary...most people will choose the acting job.

however in society.....there is the element of COMPETITION.
only the minority will be able to act very well. it's not about choosing a specific job over another.....it's about how well you can do that job.

working in theatre is very tough........you have to remember so much....and deliver it all very well.

to get a theatre job you have to audition........if you can't act VERY well you definitley will NOT get the job.

most societies these days are not socialistic in nature.

most people will choose the acting job in your hypothesis.....BUT can they act really well?.......for the majority the answer is no.

can the same group of people do the garbage man's job sufficiently well to get hired?

i think more number of people will be able to perform the garbage man's job to the requisite standard....than the acting job.

as i said before for professions such as acting..music etc. you need talent and lots of hard work.
you DO NOT need talent to be a garbage man. the garbage men are just trying to earn a living.

as for the education part.......even if we provide evryone with education....there will still be garbage men because not everyone will be able to understand maths or physics well....many people are not academically oriented and need some job to sustain themselves.

again this comes down to your inherent talent and intelligence....many people are inherently stupid......so even if everyone is educated.....i venture to say there will still be garbage men around.

“this is so far off it made me laugh....”
********************
Far off what?


“however in society.....there is the element of COMPETITION.”
********************
It’s not necessary. Nor is it helpful.


“only the minority will be able to act very well.”
********************
Not really. Especially when they work every day for the first 2 months in order to learn how to act and rehearse.


“it's not about choosing a specific job over another.....it's about how well you can do that job.”
********************
So now you’re trying to prove that the nature of the job is not relevant to how much a person gets paid.
A person that does well at it


”working in theatre is very tough........you have to remember so much....and deliver it all very well.”
********************
I never said it wasn’t. But one thing’s for sure, it’s nowhere near as tough as labor jobs.


“to get a theatre job you have to audition........if you can't act VERY well you definitley will NOT get the job.”
********************
Wow. You’re sharp. What’s the point? It goes for any job. If you can’t do it, you won’t get it.


”most societies these days are not socialistic in nature.”
********************
No kidding.


“most people will choose the acting job in your hypothesis.....BUT can they act really well?.......for the majority the answer is no.”
”i think more number of people will be able to perform the garbage man's job to the requisite standard....than the acting job.”
********************
Wrong. There are just as many people that have the ability to act as there are people that can do hard labor. Acting is not as complicated as most people make it out to be.
Even if you can’t read, you can be taught lines. I taught a 5 year old a few lines one time just playing around, and she did great.

On top of that, the more you do a certain labor job, the better you get at it. The smoother it goes.
The same goes for acting. Every time you rehears or perform, the smoother you will be on the performance.


“can the same group of people do the garbage man's job sufficiently well to get hired?”
********************
Of course. You’d have to be a moron to think more people can do garbage than act.


“as i said before for professions such as acting..music etc. you need talent and lots of hard work.
you DO NOT need talent to be a garbage man. the garbage men are just trying to earn a living.”
********************
How does that benefit anybody?
If entertainers/artists/athletes aren’t paid, more time/money/human/planet resources can be diverted to providing everybody with food/shelter/clothing/education.
Nobody would be forced to do labor jobs in order to survive.


What you’re professing is idolatry and slavery.
Idols can be compared to fancy cars that burn up lots of gas.
They live lifestyles that use up lots and lots of resources(time/money/human/planet).
An idol’s output to social progress is extremely minute compared to the amount of resources that are exhausted on them.
That’s like consuming lots of resources to create a useless product, then consuming even more resources to market your useless product so people can buy it from you. All these resources that could have been used productively have been thrown away. This doesn not lead to social/individual advancement in any way.

Where do these resources come from?
From the labor of humans and the rape of the planet.
Why would humans labor hard, and rape the planet when all of their output goes to supporting idols?
In other words, why are we using up so much time/effort/resources knowing it will all be wasted on something that does more harm than good to social progress?
Because we have no choice. We are not earning a living.
If you want something you have to earn it.
The problem is, we are doing the work while our idols earn the product of our labor.
But again, why would humans labor hard, and rape the planet when all of their output goes to supporting idols?
Because we have no choice. The entire planet is structured in a way that gives us no choice.
If we wish to live, we must labor for our idols.
Call it whatever you want, it’s slavery.
Do you really think social advancement and progress can be achieved this way?

500 people do labor:
The combined output of their labor would be enough to provide about 2,000 people (perhaps more) with clean well educated healthy lives.
Furthermore, there would be enough left over to properly give these 500 people a generous award that they well deserve for the very necessary, very difficult labor they do.
But let’s not do that.
Let’s give it all to a single person that is an idol, and leave a minute portion over to provide the 500 people just enough to keep them working.
Why?
Because that idol is something special, intelligent, and talented?
Because that idol trained very hard in arts and athletics?
Do you expect me to believe that social advancement and progress can be achieved by expending resources in this manner?
After all, why should the reward go to the people that do the actual work when it can go to a person who’s job it is to give people a certain distraction?
In other words, let’s all do hard labor, and give all of our output to a single person that can provide us with temporary amusement so that we won’t feel so bad about doing all this hard labor in order to give all of our output to a single person that can provide us with temporary amusement so that we won’t feel so bad about doing all this hard labor in order to. . .

As far as I see, progress and advancement is replaced by perpetual stagnancy.

But let’s not only look at 500 people.
Let’s look at the total combined output of all labor.
In this same way, a very tiny portion of this immense output is used to keep people laboring while incomprehensibly vast amounts of it all in the form of billions of dollars is thrown out of the tinted window on non sense that prevents progress.


”as for the education part.......even if we provide everyone with education....there will still be garbage men because not everyone will be able to understand maths or physics well....many people are not academically oriented and need some job to sustain themselves.”
********************
Of course I have seen people that are born with certain brain disorders preventing them from comprehending a certain amount of complexity such as algebraic concepts. Usually they are born with physical disabilities and other brain disorders as well. I wouldn’t expect them to work at all, but if they can qualify for a job, more power to them. If the only job they qualify for is doing garbage, does that mean we should reward them any less than the generous reward that anybody else deserves for doing such a job?
Should we expect them to do such labor while another single person reaps most of the benefits of the labor leaving barely enough left over for the laborer to keep laboring?


“again this comes down to your inherent talent and intelligence....many people are inherently stupid......so even if everyone is educated.....i venture to say there will still be garbage men around.”
********************
So you’re trying to convince me that people that have disorders that prevent them from understanding certain complex concepts should be doing the hard labor to support everyone else?
Even if society could benefit by exploiting people with disadvantages (which it does), are you not intelligent enough to think of other ways to achieve progress with out resorting to taking advantage of them?
Do you really expect me to believe that the fact that they are not as mentally/physically fit means we should be using them instead of caring for them?

Sorry, but I really don’t see how your opinions that people doing hard labor getting barely nothing while idols get practically everything would lead to overall social progress and advancement.

I believe both should be treated with equal respect. no one deserves to be treated beter or worse because of their social situation. people who cant treat others with respect are just stupid.

cool skill....i'm not talking about social progress and advancement. sure we can save lots of money which can be effectively utilised elsewhere if we don't pay entertainers that much......but is that the reality of the situation?

personally....hard labour is easier than a field like entertainment or something. then again it's subjective...it varies from person to person.

you say competition isn't neccessary in society? i believe it absolutely is. competition brings out the best in people and forces them to change, adapt and innovate. from a social point of view it is undesirable, as many people get left out in the cold.
but we worry only about the monetary benefits don't we?

simple question:--- if hard labour is as TOUGH as acting and entertainment..... why is there such a big diff. between the salaries of these two professions? if entertainment is as easy a profession as hard labour, why aren't there more entertainers than there are labourers?

do you need talent:--

for shovelling coal;
for removing trash;
for carrying bricks;
for pushing a ferris wheel?

i think the answer is no.

Ok.....



So spending billions on entertainment is good for progress?
Let me know when you wake up from your happy delusion.

Ok.....well then I suggest you start this new world order, by completely boycotting ALL forms of entertainment. Because this is ESSENTIAL to social progress, you can be the New Paradigm, and completely exclude your self from being entertained in any way, shape, or form. You are not allowed to laugh, watch anything beside the news, you sure as heck can't talk to people for any other reasons than to be informed about things that may affect your daily life, you can't read magazines, books in leisure, no radio in the car, no movies, NOTHING. Because all of these things that are so unacceptably accepted in society are completely hindering its progess.....

I am sure this corruptly-made billion dollar industry will be on its knees in NO time flat......

I mean, don't you just love to think back to the peak of social progress, back in the days before they had entertainment, art, or anything else in that sense. Those good old days when all people did was hunt, eat, procreate, and die.....wow...good times...... good times....to bad we don't have that now, I mean all this conflagged entertainment junk is really putting us in the dark ages......


“THAT is why they are such high paying jobs. And equally, there is much more value in the individual, than there is in science, or garbage collecting, so yet ANOTHER reason why the salary difference is present.”
********************
Wrong.


So then.... why do you think they pay actors so much??

Saying "I don't know, that's the whole point" is completely dodging the question, and then shows me that I am right. Equally even thinking of saying that prior to reading the last sentence is just the same.......

“As I was saying, no patrons, no industry.”
********************
What industry? What patrons?

People don't directly pay for their garbage to be collected it comes from tax dollars. However people directly pay for various forms of entertainment such as going to the movies, or a basketball game, or buying a cd.

Because of this, garbage men's salaries have to be fit into the GOVERNMENT'S budget, not the people's.

If there is not an easy way of funding, the salaries will generally manifest this.

“NO ONE MAN, can influence and generate revenune for Waste Management as much as ONE MAN can influence the music industry, arts, film, ect. ect.”
********************
That’s nice. Are we aware of why that is?


Uhhhhh, lemme think a sec dude, hold up man I think Ima go wit.....

In waste mangament, one man has to drive the truck, the other has to make sure keep well maintenced for future use, more than one person has to pick up the trash from the sidewalk,etc etc, whereas.....

In entertainment, one man sings and dances better than everyone else and makes millions upon millions of dollars. Because of his and the comparable solo abilities of others to generate revenue, this small handful of people/entertainers( quite presumable a plenum less than the amount of waste mangement workers) are valued very much to those who want to generate revenue. He does not need many other people to bring in money, and in fact if he weren't in such demand, things such as cds, mudic videos, movies, nationwide cable television, cd players, televisions, vcrs, portable cd players, etc. etc. etc. would have no value because they would have no use whatsoever.





“Did you read my post?!?”
********************
what
********************

Yeah, I didn't think so.....

You’re *deleted by forumer.

Uh huh.....

If I say that entertainers should be paid less than garbage workers, why not just create the opposite ridiculous assumption, and say that the garbage workers still get the same pay while entertainers receive less than that?

Mmm hmmm......yep, yep....

Either way you go, you’re a *deleted by forumer.

Right, right.....


I’m not the one making stupid ass umptions out of the air.
When did I ever mention that labor workers or anybody should be getting millions?


quoted by cool skill 3-19-03 3:01am

What isn’t fun is the fact that athletes, actors, singers, writers, and various entertainers get paid millions while garbage men get close to minimum wage. It should really be the other way around.

Hmmmm, I must have taken you too seriously....remind me never to do it again..........

“i'm not talking about social progress and advancement.”
********************
So what the hell are you talking about?
Obviously your pointless yapping is getting us nowhere.


“sure we can save lots of money which can be effectively utilised elsewhere if we don't pay entertainers that much.”
********************
Well shit.
Why didn’t you say so in the first place?
What was with all that stupid crap as if you didn’t know what you were talking about?


“personally....hard labour is easier than a field like entertainment or something. then again it's subjective...it varies from person to person.”
********************
OOOK. So maybe you would rather do hard labor than act. Like I said, there are some people that would choose to do hard labor.
I’m pretty sure most people would pick an acting job.
Why?
Maybe it’s just me but, acting is WAY easier than hard labor.

Labor work is the most difficult.
Should I list it again?
It’s physically strenuous.
It’s dangerous.
You breath dust and risk your health.
It completely lacks any intellectual stimulation.
It’s repetitive, unadventurous, boring.

The level of difficulty depends on the above qualities.
Not talent, training, or education.
I don’t care how long or hard you study or train to do a job, it’s nothing compared to the difficulty of hard labor.


“simple question:--- if hard labour is as TOUGH as acting and entertainment..... why is there such a big diff. between the salaries of these two professions? if entertainment is as easy a profession as hard labour, why aren't there more entertainers than there are labourers?”
********************
I never said hard labor is as tough as entertainment.
I said it is in every way much tougher than entertainment.

Regardless, if you want to know why the salaries are so different, it’s not that difficult to figure out.
Oh but you obviously have all the answers.
You seem to be under the impression that the fact that entertainers get paid more means that their jobs are more important and difficult than laborers.
If I pay you a hundred dollars to walk down the street and somebody else fifty dollars to assemble a car from scratch, does that mean that walking down the street is more difficult?

Obviously, developing whatever amazing talent, training, or education is not nearly as difficult as the danger, health risks, strain, and repetitive nature of hard labor.
So why does labor work get paid so little?
Because “hard” labor is “easy”?
Try again.
Like I said, it isn’t that difficult to figure out.
The only reason a person wouldn’t be able to is because they lack the ability to think.
I guess taking things at face value is easier.


“you say competition isn't neccessary in society? i believe it absolutely is.”
********************
No it isn’t.
Not only is it not necessary, it’s counterproductive.


“competition brings out the best in people”
********************
Nope. Try the opposite.


“and forces them to change, adapt and innovate.”
********************
Wrong again.
Try regress, deceive, and stagnate.
Do you really think the force of change and innovation is competition?
That’s the most contradictory crap on earth.


“from a social point of view it is undesirable, as many people get left out in the cold.
but we worry only about the monetary benefits don't we?”
********************
Explain.




“Ok.....well then I suggest you start this new world order, by completely boycotting ALL forms of entertainment. Because this is ESSENTIAL to social progress, you can be the New Paradigm, and completely exclude your self from being entertained in any way, shape, or form.”
********************
I have a better idea.
You do it for me, moron.


“You are not allowed to laugh, watch anything beside the news, you sure as heck can't talk to people for any other reasons than to be informed about things that may affect your daily life, you can't read magazines, books in leisure, no radio in the car, no movies, NOTHING. Because all of these things that are so unacceptably accepted in society are completely hindering its progess”
********************
If you say so.


“Saying "I don't know, that's the whole point" is completely dodging the question, and then shows me that I am right. Equally even thinking of saying that prior to reading the last sentence is just the same”
********************
lol.
You’re so retarded it’s not even funny.


“People don't directly pay for their garbage to be collected it comes from tax dollars. However people directly pay for various forms of entertainment such as going to the movies, or a basketball game, or buying a cd.
Because of this, garbage men's salaries have to be fit into the GOVERNMENT'S budget, not the people's.
If there is not an easy way of funding, the salaries will generally manifest this.”
********************
Great. Let’s all bring about a better world by giving all of our money to a single person because he can play good ball. Real progress there.
You have yet to explain how paying billions to artists/entertainers would lead to more progress than paying people that actually deserve it.


“Uhhhhh, lemme think a sec dude, hold up man I think Ima go wit.....
In waste mangament, one man has to drive the truck, the other has to make sure keep well maintenced for future use, more than one person has to pick up the trash from the sidewalk,etc etc, whereas.....
In entertainment, one man sings and dances better than everyone else and makes millions upon millions of dollars. Because of his and the comparable solo abilities of others to generate revenue, this small handful of people/entertainers( quite presumable a plenum less than the amount of waste mangement workers) are valued very much to those who want to generate revenue. He does not need many other people to bring in money, and in fact if he weren't in such demand, things such as cds, mudic videos, movies, nationwide cable television, cd players, televisions, vcrs, portable cd players, etc. etc. etc. would have no value because they would have no use whatsoever.”
********************
Wrong as usual.
Nice try though.
Sometimes I wonder what people do with their brains.
God forbid they use it for once in their life.
Idiot.

LOL...this is pathetic. we're having a decent discussion cool skill. stop being juvenile and don't make this personal for lack of anything else to say. use your brain(?) :bugeye: constructively if you have one.

you believe competition isn't neccessary in society and that it's counterproductive. well....the number of people who have the motivation to push them selves and do well in the absence of competition is very small. competition brings out the best in people. what i've seen is that the 'losers' are the ones who don't want competition. they're the ones who f**k up every game .......and they say..''it's for fun guys cmon.'' winners are born in the presence of competition, the really intelligent and bright people who are the BEST come to the forefront in the presence of competition. the stupid idiots who can do crap are relegated. as it should be.

again try and understand what i'm trying to say.....hard labour vs. acting..it's NOT about what you PREFER, it's about what you can do WELL. you mean to say you can act well enough to be on broadway...or get into hollywood? look at society..an entertainers job is more difficult than a labourers, precisely why the entertainers get PAID MORE than labourers. labour IS DULL AND REPETITIVE exactly why it's so much easier than entertaining. throughout history you mean to say labour has been tougher than entertaining? you mean to say that the guys who built castles had a tougher job than the bard?

it is not about your choice...it's about how good you are at it. going by your theory you seem to value muscle over brain. not all of us live in the stone age, this is the age of brain. as the weak elements of society are finding out, the world is a tough place to live. don't rave about how competition is counter-productive. that's the attitude of one who can't compete.

and don't make this personal. if all you can say is some offensive crap, don't say it at all. not all of us can descend to your level.

“and don't make this personal. if all you can say is some offensive crap, don't say it at all. not all of us can descend to your level.”
“stop being juvenile”
“this is pathetic.”
Yes you are.
Juvenile?
Sure.


“and don't make this personal for lack of anything else to say.”
OK.


“well....the number of people who have the motivation to push them selves and do well in the absence of competition is very small.”
Proof?
None. Where do you receive this wrong information?
Out of thin air I suppose?
Definitely not from research or any real thought.


“competition brings out the best in people.”
Nope. Backwards.


“what i've seen is that the 'losers' are the ones who don't want competition.”
Look again.


“winners are born in the presence of competition, the really intelligent and bright people who are the BEST come to the forefront in the presence of competition. the stupid idiots who can do crap are relegated.”
Nope


“as it should be.”
Explain.
Since you’re such an expert on social progress, how should it be?


“an entertainers job is more difficult than a labourers”
Wrong yet again.
Entertainment is not as physically strenuous.
It’s not as dangerous.
You don’t breathe dust and risk your health.
It doesn’t completely lacks any intellectual stimulation.
It’s doesn’t lack appeal and glamour.
It’s not as repetitive, unadventurous, boring.
Therefore, it’s not as difficult.

You have yet to prove how paying entertainers more than people that do the actual difficult labor benefits society.


“precisely why the entertainers get PAID MORE than labourers.”
No it’s not.


“labour IS DULL AND REPETITIVE exactly why it's so much easier than entertaining.”
The dull repetitive nature of a job is part of what makes it more difficult. It is much easier to do a fun adventurous job. Therefore, there is no need to pay people more to work easy jobs such as entertainment.


“throughout history you mean to say labour has been tougher than entertaining?”
Of course. Much touger. It’s impossible for labor not to be tougher.
Something that is more dangerous, unhealthy, unappealing, and physically straining cannot be easier than something that is less.


“you mean to say that the guys who built castles had a tougher job than the bard?”
Hell yes. you’re finally getting it. How dangerous and physically straining is it to be a bard? The difficulty of a bard’s work doesn’t come close in any category.


“it is not about your choice...it's about how good you are at it.”
Again, how does paying a single person the product of many people’s labor promote any progress?
I don’t give a crap how much a single person trains at a sport or practices a song and dance routine, their ability does not mean they deserve a lick of what real laborers work hard to produce.


“going by your theory you seem to value muscle over brain.”
Why? Because I think the ones that should get the most reward for the difficult work are the people that actually do it?


“not all of us live in the stone age”
Sure seems like it.

“this is the age of brain.”
Says who? Where the hell do you get this ridiculous information?
I’d compare it more to being the age of stupidity than to the brain.


“as the weak elements of society”
What weak elements?
You seem to be obsessed with strong and weak.


“don't rave about how competition is counter-productive.”
It is.


“that's the attitude of one who can't compete.”
No it isn’t.

cool skill.....obviously me and you differ on competition. i feel competition brings out the best in people you don't. i'm fed up arguing that point. we can go on and on.

i just want to know.......if hard labour is AS difficult a job as entertaining, why do entertainers get paid more?
you say hard labour is repetitive, unadventorous and boring. EXACTLY why it's not difficult, a donkey or an animal can perform hard labour. but can an animal sing? no. a gorilla can lift a lumpof coal, but can a gorilla do the moonwalk? an elephant can shove blocks of wood all day long.....can it sing?

Cool Skill, you say I'm wrong, yet you have no corroboration against it.

Tis' a shame of many shames.....I haven't had a conversation as circular, mindless, and inane as this since I was was "debating" with a Creationist......

And getting into other points I noticed you have made is that competetion is counterproductive, this is by far the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. If there was no goal to be better and/or more advanced than previous acheivements made by others, aka competition, then all progrees would stop. If you don't think this....well...I am speecless......

But, moreoever if you think actors shouldnt get paid as much as they do, and the funding should go to the DEVELOPMENT of other such things as education, and poverish, people, ok. I can agree with that. However this spiel about paying Waste Management Workers highest salaries, and most other occupations the lowest is absolutely ridiculous.

Equally, you say I'm "wrong as usual", yet I haven't come across your evidence against these "erroneous" claims.......

Really if I am so wrong and "retarded"(good one by the way, really mature and adult-like of you) then tell me why you think entertainers get paid as much as they do. Because everytime I have explained quite clearly why, you are very quick to say "wrong as usual" without ever saying anything worth listening too....as usual.....

Really, I have about this |___| much patience left, becuase all I hear from you are childish derrogatory comments, that are not offensive at all, but truly further support my reasons of why I shouldn't take you seriously.

Sorry I haven’t responded in awhile.
My schedule is so tight these days.
I’m not even supposed to be doing this now.


airavata:
“cool skill.....obviously me and you differ o