Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: »PIIGS - economics problems
i am an astronaut
you are an astronaut
every person is an astronaut
you are an astronaut
every person is an astronaut
if is a man that kill in business he's a killer
LOL, so when you hire a hitman, you are again not morally wrong. You paid him to be wrong and have guilty conscience. Great logic. Simply great. We have another stand-up comedian here. :D
LOL, so when you hire a hitman, you are again not morally wrong. You paid him to be wrong and have guilty conscience. Great logic. Simply great. We have another stand-up comedian here. :D
According to that we could say that the massacre of Jews by nazi Germany was not morally bad, it just was. Do you agree with that?
yes.
Elsewhere for the nazi's men that did that massacre!
yes.
Elsewhere for the nazi's men that did that massacre!
LOL, so when you hire a hitman, you are again not morally wrong. You paid him to be wrong and have guilty conscience. Great logic. Simply great. We have another stand-up comedian here. :D
read again and please try understanding.
the difference is I am a man and you must not mix my behaviuor with countries behaviuor!!!
yes.
Elsewhere for the nazi's men that did that massacre!
LMAO Hitler, you're not that bad. It's the people you ordered to do it. The wrong people were in Nuernberg. ROTFL
Elsewhere for the nazi's men that did that massacre!
LMAO Hitler, you're not that bad. It's the people you ordered to do it. The wrong people were in Nuernberg. ROTFL
So, anyone financed from government budget is a parasite?
If they have their own financial background and their main objective is making money [=company] then yes, why not?
It's like there was a charity organisation that took money from the goverment and spent only half of them on charity and took the rest to itself - would that be ok?
A different thing is that the church is not sponsored by the country [or maybe it is, I don't really know] but it doesn't pay the normal taxes - and my question is why? If they were acting charitably then it would be understandable, but they gain lots of money are quite wealthy, aren't they? They gain lots of tax-free money on the masses and they take lots of money for services - for example in Poland in many churches [possibly all but I wouldn't like to generalise since I don't know every church] you HAVE to pay for the wedding, you HAVE to pay for the burial [not the place on the cementary - it's a different thing], you HAVE to pay for the baptism etc. Also I've heard 3 times in different churches that the church expects donations for renovation of...well, the main priests house.
My grandma was asked by a priest why didn't she donate money for the church renewal. Seriously, a guy who earns a lot more than an old lady asks why she didn't give him her money.
Not a parasite at all, no Sir - proper company.
I'm not saying that A PRIEST runs a business. No, he is just an 'office worker' for a company. It's quite simple. And yes, they can't pass what they have to future generation even if they have kids - because Church is quite witty and won't let the money get out of its hands.
If they have their own financial background and their main objective is making money [=company] then yes, why not?
It's like there was a charity organisation that took money from the goverment and spent only half of them on charity and took the rest to itself - would that be ok?
A different thing is that the church is not sponsored by the country [or maybe it is, I don't really know] but it doesn't pay the normal taxes - and my question is why? If they were acting charitably then it would be understandable, but they gain lots of money are quite wealthy, aren't they? They gain lots of tax-free money on the masses and they take lots of money for services - for example in Poland in many churches [possibly all but I wouldn't like to generalise since I don't know every church] you HAVE to pay for the wedding, you HAVE to pay for the burial [not the place on the cementary - it's a different thing], you HAVE to pay for the baptism etc. Also I've heard 3 times in different churches that the church expects donations for renovation of...well, the main priests house.
My grandma was asked by a priest why didn't she donate money for the church renewal. Seriously, a guy who earns a lot more than an old lady asks why she didn't give him her money.
Not a parasite at all, no Sir - proper company.
I'm not saying that A PRIEST runs a business. No, he is just an 'office worker' for a company. It's quite simple. And yes, they can't pass what they have to future generation even if they have kids - because Church is quite witty and won't let the money get out of its hands.
LMAO Hitler, you're not that bad. It's the people you ordered to do it. The wrong people were in Nuernberg. ROTFL
again,
but do you read my posts?
I did not write it!
again,
but do you read my posts?
I did not write it!
read again and please try understanding.
the difference is I am a man and you must not mix my behaviuor with countries behaviuor!!!
Yes, but if you are your a country's leader, then your responsibility becomes much wider. You are also responsible for making your citizens' choice valid. If you shout "let's not pay debt" or "that nation is evil" and your people choose you over a person saying "let's sell our gold and honestly repay our debts" or "all nations are nice", you and all of the Italian voters are responsible for that. Both those that voted you and those that didn't stop them and you.
the difference is I am a man and you must not mix my behaviuor with countries behaviuor!!!
Yes, but if you are your a country's leader, then your responsibility becomes much wider. You are also responsible for making your citizens' choice valid. If you shout "let's not pay debt" or "that nation is evil" and your people choose you over a person saying "let's sell our gold and honestly repay our debts" or "all nations are nice", you and all of the Italian voters are responsible for that. Both those that voted you and those that didn't stop them and you.
yes.
Elsewhere for the nazi's men that did that massacre!
I don't really understand your approach. I mean I understand what you're saying, your idea, but I don't know why do you think so.
Nazi Germany was made by those who ruled it and those who conveyed the orders of those who ruled it.
In my opinion Nazi Germany = Hitler&co + 'office workers on the front'.
It is they who made the Nazi Germany, they WERE the Nazi Germany.
I feel that you see a country as something abstract, not really existing; I see country by its men - that might be the source of the disagreement.
Elsewhere for the nazi's men that did that massacre!
I don't really understand your approach. I mean I understand what you're saying, your idea, but I don't know why do you think so.
Nazi Germany was made by those who ruled it and those who conveyed the orders of those who ruled it.
In my opinion Nazi Germany = Hitler&co + 'office workers on the front'.
It is they who made the Nazi Germany, they WERE the Nazi Germany.
I feel that you see a country as something abstract, not really existing; I see country by its men - that might be the source of the disagreement.
Yes, but if you are your a country's leader, then your responsibility becomes much wider. You are also responsible for making your citizens' choice valid. If you shout "let's not pay debt" or "that nation is evil" and your people choose you over a person saying "let's sell our gold and honestly repay our debts" or "all nations are nice", you and all of the Italian voters are responsible for that. Both those that voted you and those that didn't stop them and you
and so?
what the hell this means?
nothing, still the country business does not allow to use moral criteria!
I wonder how do you studied history, I think something like this:
"bold gallic people defend themselvs from evil roman empire that try to enslave their freedom and steal their goods"
and so?
what the hell this means?
nothing, still the country business does not allow to use moral criteria!
I wonder how do you studied history, I think something like this:
"bold gallic people defend themselvs from evil roman empire that try to enslave their freedom and steal their goods"
In my opinion Nazi Germany = Hitler&co + 'office workers on the front'.
It is they who made the Nazi Germany, they WERE the Nazi Germany.
I feel that you see a country as something abstract, not really existing; I see country by its men - that might be the source of the disagreement.
I can agree that the leader has a responsability for what he does.
But what this do not mean that running a country can be judged with moral value.
nazi's men were condemned in norimberga, not nazi's Germany!
It is they who made the Nazi Germany, they WERE the Nazi Germany.
I feel that you see a country as something abstract, not really existing; I see country by its men - that might be the source of the disagreement.
I can agree that the leader has a responsability for what he does.
But what this do not mean that running a country can be judged with moral value.
nazi's men were condemned in norimberga, not nazi's Germany!
Seriously, I have never witnessed such situations as you describe but I believe there are priests who misuse their positions. But to make conclusions about all of them based on bad examples is simply wrong. Most of the priests I know have no luxury nor their own possessions. They are just simply dedicated to their work 24/7.
On the other hand, I see much more people who earned their money in business or even in government (which is strange) who spend money on mindless luxuries while their neighbour is starving. Any hungry person coming to the Church will be fed. Be sure of that. You think at McDonalds or the Ministry of Finance they would get food?
On the other hand, I see much more people who earned their money in business or even in government (which is strange) who spend money on mindless luxuries while their neighbour is starving. Any hungry person coming to the Church will be fed. Be sure of that. You think at McDonalds or the Ministry of Finance they would get food?
According to that we could say that the massacre of Jews by nazi Germany was not morally bad, it just was. Do you agree with that?
No, it was morally bad because of the unjustified decision by the people involved to massacre other people.
In which political system or country they made the decision does not matter (in this case.)
Also, a country is an abstract entity. But if one still assigns moral value to it, you actually cover up the moral accountability of the individual people involved in the decision.
No, it was morally bad because of the unjustified decision by the people involved to massacre other people.
In which political system or country they made the decision does not matter (in this case.)
Also, a country is an abstract entity. But if one still assigns moral value to it, you actually cover up the moral accountability of the individual people involved in the decision.
Seriously, I have never witnessed such situations as you describe but I believe there are priests who misuse their positions. But to make conclusions about all of them based on bad examples is simply wrong. Most of the priests I know have no luxury nor their own possessions. They are just simply dedicated to their work 24/7.
Then we have different approach of church in our countries. All I wrote is based on personal experience, but I've heard such situations from other people as well. In Poland Church makes money, tax-free money. I've seen a drunk priest driving his [oh, sorry - Church's] BMW, I've seen how one renewed his house thanks to donations etc.
I'm not saying they can't expect to get money - it's a corporation like any other, so if someone wants to give them money, then he should be able to.
But please, why does nobody tax them like a proper corporation?
On the other hand, I see much more people who earned their money in business or even in government (which is strange) who spend money on mindless luxuries while their neighbour is starving. Any hungry person coming to the Church will be fed. Be sure of that. You think at McDonalds or the Ministry of Finance they would get food?
And those who earned money have a right to spend them - what's wrong with that?
I can agree that the leader has a responsability for what he does.
But what this do not mean that running a country can be judged with moral value.
nazi's men were condemned in norimberga, not nazi's Germany!
You see, for me the country's people represent the country itself, so since these people were condemned, then their IDEA/VERSION of a country [in this case Nazi Germany] was condemned.
Then we have different approach of church in our countries. All I wrote is based on personal experience, but I've heard such situations from other people as well. In Poland Church makes money, tax-free money. I've seen a drunk priest driving his [oh, sorry - Church's] BMW, I've seen how one renewed his house thanks to donations etc.
I'm not saying they can't expect to get money - it's a corporation like any other, so if someone wants to give them money, then he should be able to.
But please, why does nobody tax them like a proper corporation?
On the other hand, I see much more people who earned their money in business or even in government (which is strange) who spend money on mindless luxuries while their neighbour is starving. Any hungry person coming to the Church will be fed. Be sure of that. You think at McDonalds or the Ministry of Finance they would get food?
And those who earned money have a right to spend them - what's wrong with that?
I can agree that the leader has a responsability for what he does.
But what this do not mean that running a country can be judged with moral value.
nazi's men were condemned in norimberga, not nazi's Germany!
You see, for me the country's people represent the country itself, so since these people were condemned, then their IDEA/VERSION of a country [in this case Nazi Germany] was condemned.
In my idea those people who run the country are the physical version of this abstract entity.
If it would be otherwise, then no inter-country deals would have any sense, because you would be able to deny every deal, contract, loan etc. simply by saying 'you know, it was an abstract entity doing that, it was borrowed [etc.] by the country so sorry, but we won't go with it, the country has now a different approach to things so...sorry.'
It's 'a bit' hyperbolic and possibly not a good example but I hope you'll see what I mean.
If it would be otherwise, then no inter-country deals would have any sense, because you would be able to deny every deal, contract, loan etc. simply by saying 'you know, it was an abstract entity doing that, it was borrowed [etc.] by the country so sorry, but we won't go with it, the country has now a different approach to things so...sorry.'
It's 'a bit' hyperbolic and possibly not a good example but I hope you'll see what I mean.
