Our Dependencies

RanchMan · Jan 11, 2003

putty -

The "someone" you are referring to is me.

I have to admit, I've gotten somewhat tired with this thread as all I've seen is Cowboydoc and others drill on one common theme - responsibility. Be it in the form of self reliance, or self improvement, it has all been about worrying about yourself instead of coveting your neighbors fortunes (whatever they may be) in life. An excellent point, and one I agree with - but that isn't what tires me.

What tires me is those out there (such as yourself) who keep on trying to either tear down the individuals making the point or simply refusing to try and understand the point being made. This "not getting it" is not because people can't understand what is being said, but because they refuse to acknowledge it because the point being made goes against their personal beliefs.

Your latest post seems quite benign compared to your earlier ones, where you indeed DID lump the CEO types together. Unfortunately I really don't feel like wasting my time by going through and picking out your quotes, reprinting them here, dissecting what came across, and then going back to asking you what you really meant. While following such a methodology often helps to illustrate the inconsistency in arguments, it does little to help the individual espousing said arguments because they refuse to acknowledge their lapse in logic or contradictory statements.

Instead, I will make a couple of *brief* comments about my meaning in some of the supposed "themes" you took from my last post that you commented on.

 ...whoever said that I have no contact with CEO's you are very wrong ,on any given workday I will go to at least two of them and over the past thirteen years...I am always bringing them goodies for their cars ... I think I am a just a person that they can be real with...I try to keep it light and sometimes get into a conversation about life...

Actually, you are making my point - a quick "handshake" as it were (or delivery in your case) hardly puts you as a CEO's "Friend." My point about "dinner" was that usually folks who make plans outside of the work environment to get together are far more inclined to really get to know one another. Sure, you may be "friendly" with some executive types, but are they on your Christmas card list (or you on theirs?) How well do you really know all these "people of influence?" /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif

" I treat everyone the same and that is a problem with some?"

OK, I can't help myself - I have to point out this inconsistency. You go from basically claiming that all the executive types out there are overpaid, under worked and basically "bad" people. Now you say you don't even look at socioeconomic classes in society and you're "pals" with executive types. So which is it???

To whoever talked about a doctor having peoples life in their hands, that is true along with many , many union jobs and "non-educated" jobs; contruction , miners, tree trimmers, many who operate very powerful equipment who are required to work very fast and make many decisions quickly, one small slip and they are single-handedly and directly responsible for someones death. 

Well, first off my point was regarding the $100K janitor, but since you want to switch to another job description since the janitor role fails in your argument, that's fine.

Never said that you couldn't kill someone if you screw up in an "unskilled" job. (What about bus drivers? Or heck, anyone who drives a car for that matter? Just cross the double yellow line into oncoming traffic and death is knocking.)

The difference with doctors (since you choose the whole "life & death" aspect of my point - not all the other stresses about job loss, investor loss, bankruptcies, etc.) is that their decisions are not as S.O.P. as the other industries you mention. There is a lot more "judgement call" that goes in to medicine, and even when you do follow the S.O.P. for a particular condition, it does not guarantee results (much unlike the other jobs you mention.)

Accidents can and do happen that cost life in other job roles, but let's be honest here - even though those other jobs are needed and may be filled by good, honorable, hard working individuals, - diagnosing a disease and determining a course of treatment is something that has a much more complex series of variables.

Again, I promised to make this a brief post (by my standards at least) so I'll stop for now. I really don't see the point of going round-n-round with you on this subject as I don't see a lot of consistency in your points or your arguments. Whenever a valid point is made against your position, you either ignore it completely or change your stance.

For me, at least, I just don't feel like wasting more of my time to aim at a constantly moving target that continues to turn 90 degrees with every post.

MossRoad · Jan 11, 2003

CBD, I just sat down and read this entire thread while taking in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and helping my 5 year old learn to read(I think she just picked up the concept of words, right here, right now /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif ) the names of colors in a color by numbers book.

For the most part I agree with you. I have some comments about this point.

No matter what the circumstances, good or bad, it is personal choices that got you there. Each and everyone of us is completely responsible for his own actions and exactly where they are right now in life because of those choices.

When I was a kid, my father got hit by a car, laid off and had to deal with family problems that I don't want to go into. The economy tanked, he couldn't find work in his field, or anyone else’s for that matter. He managed to find some work, which kept us under the roof that he built with his own hands, but lost his savings. He got laid off from several jobs, but kept at it. Mom took out loans, went back to school and got her teacher's license. They started to get back on their feet, but she had an aneurism. She lived, and went on to become the Teacher of the Year. However, they never recovered financially, until seven years later, when mom had a second aneurism and died. Her insurance paid off most of my father's remaining debts, but he had to continue working until he was in his mid 70s. He made it into the black, just in time to get cancer and die in 5 weeks. On his death bed, he told me a few things regarding his thoughts on the war, his life choices, the condition of his family and society in general. He felt like he did everything right and his family still got gypped.

He made the choices to work in high school, attend college, go back to work for more college money, serve his country in the Army in WWII, finish college, work, get married, have kids, take care of them, do the best he could, and still get the shaft at every turn in life right up until his death.

While I agree that I am completely responsible for my actions, after watching my father, I've come to accept that some things are out of my control, regardless of the choices I make. With that in mind, my goal for life is to have a clear conscience at the end of every day. Most days, I achieve my goal. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Bird · Jan 12, 2003

Yep, David, I agree with you. I agree with Cowboydoc that we are each responsible for our own decisions and actions, and of course, in many cases those decisions and actions determine where we are in life, but other people's decisions and actions, accidents, luck, timing, politics, heredity, environment, acts of God, etc. have an even greater effect. It just ain't a simple matter.

JohnMiller3 · Jan 12, 2003

...It just ain't a simple matter...

Bird...

That's one of the things I love about ya...

...truthful, succinct, and to the point... /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

(Besides... I agree with every word you just wrote!) /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif

Anonymous Poster · Jan 12, 2003

Macher: Of course I do-define what is moral that is. The word symbols moral/immoral, good/bad, right/wrong have no intrinsic meaning. They define relationships between objects, in this context, between human beings (although non-human objects can be "good/bad" as well-such as, I can't help adding, the issue of hydro vs geared transmissions-the problem is that a standard has to be explicitly identified FIRST). They (the word symbols good/bad, etc.) REQUIRE a standard against which they can be applied. If you set up a standard, such as Rand did for example, of "man's life" (qua, or as, man-human being), then you define a thing as "moral" or not based on that standard. All expressions of something as being right/wrong, etc., imply a standard against which that something is being evaluated. The problem is, that too many people do not recognize the standard they are using when they use the word symbols moral/immoral, etc. I acknowledge that, and, I define my own standards of right and wrong. Many who have posted in this thread are, by my standards, very moral in excersizing responsibility for their own lives, even though they may not understand it explicitly, they certainly do implicitly. The reason western civilization is collapsing around you is that too many "good" people have accepted a standard that cannot be lived up to and they are torn by the dichotomy between their intrinsic sense of "right/wrong" and the explicit standards they have accepted (standards I alluded to in my prior post). Read CowboyDocs (and the many others) post of his struggles, hard work, to make something of himself-if these are not moving as an application of HUMAN standards for life I don't know what is. Yet there are those who seek, for motives of envy, sloth, power-lust or whatever, to induce guilt for them carrying out their human standards. Until the CowboyDocs, and the many others, can reject that anti-human "moral" code (i.e. grasp the standards implicit in that code), they are defenseless and lack real understanding of why they are defenseless. If I may concretize the above, I believe someone once used the image of a wagon with people out front pulling it and people riding in it. The wagon is civilization itself. The CowboyDocs (and many others who have posted here) are out front pulling the wagon. There are too many riding in the wagon and they don't want the ones pulling to know what's really happening. As to where I am in all this, Macher, that is up to you to decide. Happy tractoring. JEH

saw_dust · Jan 12, 2003

Ranchman good post....

saw_dust · Jan 12, 2003

My original reply on this thread was in defense of the working man and to say that all union workers are not the crazed people you see on the picket line.I am not union....never have been....but not totally anti-union...I have worked for everything I have and I have a lot to show for it...
I am conservative by nature
This country is the land of oppurtunity.....
I am impressed with people who have educated themselves and or prospered in life through there own thinking and hardwork.
I am equally impressed with some who has built a successful business or has built and paid for a home and been able to see a better life for his children.There is an old country barber a few miles from where I live who has sent his two boys to medical school.
The old saying....do not waste time/talent and money

However an individual succeeds is ok with me...along as they done it honestly....

Anonymous Poster · Jan 12, 2003

Grimreeper,

Many people through history felt like you and have defined things in their societies to be what they felt they should be. Sometimes with great negative results, as defined by others within their grasp.

Words, written or vocal, often do no more than confuse and hide whatever the true reality of a particular situation may be. (especially if they are presented in one lump, and not broken into paragraphs /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif )

There is more than one wagon being pulled through life. Some are like you describe, some have the pullers and pullees in reversed roles. And some just don't make any sense at all.

If you can only see that one wagon you mention, you might try slowing down, clearing your mind a little of stray/busy thoughts, and taking a fresh open-minded look at the way things are.

The easiest thing one can do is decide to see things only one way. Makes life simple, because there is really no need to spend time evaluating anything. You just compare to that fixed frame of reference and accept of reject accordingly. Takes no time, no effort, and you just move on...

Prsonally, I generally don't get into these kinds of discussions because, even though I enjoy them, they end up leading to no conlusion.

You know, I am actually a little /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif to be adding anymore to this thread. I honestly can't see it being related to to tractors much [if at all].

If I were to coin an expression at the moment I think it would be: "Beware of those that think they can define for themselves what is moral!"

And to the moderators I would suggest that this thread has a flavor similar to those that are not in the spirit of the related topics forum. What do the rest of you think?

Related or not related?

Bill in Pgh, PA

cowboydoc · Jan 12, 2003

Bird,

While I agree that bad things happen to people I still don't buy the premise that what happens to you determines where you are in life. It is still a choice. You can take a person who had everything in the world given to them and had the best life had to offer and turn out to be the biggest screw-ups in life. You can take a person that never had anything in their life and had one disaster after another and turned into a very successful person. Life is what you make out of it based on the choices that were made. You can't blame the bad that happens in your life for where you are.

I certainly won't go into alot here on a public forum but from the time I was 2 years old my life was filled with tragedy and things a child should never have to live through. Yes I had some great grandparents but it was a constant turmoil to be with them because of other circumstances.

A person can either learn from those tragedies and make the most out of what you have and move on or you can let it ruin you and make excuses the rest of your life for where you are.

A perfect example of this I believe is Christopher Reeves. He could have chosen to let his injury ruin him. He hasn't. He has risen above the accidents, the luck, politics, etc. and is still being a successful person.

There are always going to be tragedies in a persons life. The true test of a person is not how they handle success but how they handle the adversity. It can either destroy you or it can make you stronger.

A favorite book of mine is Life's not Fair but God is Good by Dr. Robert Schuller. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. It's just the way of the world. When it all comes down to it though you can sit and the corner and cry that life gave you a bad shake or you can rise above it, take responsibility for your life and rise above it all.

Bird · Jan 12, 2003

We may have to just agree to disagree, Richard. I agree with much of what you've said, but . . ., if you had been born into a poor family on welfare, do you really think you'd be where you are today? Sure, you might have had the initiative and drive to become a doctor or rancher and maybe even both. But you also might not have. What your parents and grandparents did certainly had an influence on what you did. And I'm not taking anything away from you by saying that. I certainly don't begrudge you, or anyone else, what they've worked for and earned. But I think we sometimes have a tendency to believe "I did it, so they could, too, if they just wanted to and worked hard enough" and I am abolutely convinced that it just ain't always true. Let's suppose you decide today that you are going to retire, sell everything, and go spend all your money gambling, drinking, or whatever. Do you think your daughters will be in the same situation 20 years from now that they will be in if you continue as I expect you to do? They might still be very successful in life, but they probably won't have what you have today, and it won't be because of the decisons they made, but because of a decision you made. Or suppose you had died of cancer, heart attack, car accident, or whatever right after they were born. Would they be in the same situation today, or 20 years from now, that you expect them to be in now?

Do you think Christopher Reeves would be in the same situation he's in today if he had not had fame and money before his accident? I don't. And do you think he'd be in the same situation as he is today if he had not had that accident?

I agree with Dr. Schuller's book, also, and I certainly believe strongly in personal responsibility. But we'd like for things to be simple and they just aren't; too many factors and possibilities.