Ranchman, it seems to me you yourself are trying to tear down individuals and refusing to see the point being made. My earlier posts were indeed more harsh ,I was reacting emotionaly to what was said ,sometimes I will tend to listen to my heart,for that I am wrong, I believe I went back and fixed that by saying "SOME" - I noticed you did'nt hold other people responsible when they were speaking in terms of absolutes. You just keep on trying to discredit me -I can take it- heck I am suprised you hav'nt attack my grammer yet ./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gifAs far as CEOs' christmas list ,one guy every single year without fail and if we miss each other he makes sure to give it to me , some people are very diff. at home, it is a place to be real and be yourself -the one you were when you were a kid- I try to always keep that feeling when entering someones home, then their are others who wont even wave or say hi when you walk right by them while they are gardening. Poeple are people to me, same thing happens when I go to lower income neiborhoods. My feelings about an educated man were based on fear and responsibility, My friend I was talking about going through school, has been going through school for so many years I don't even know how many degrees he has, over the years he has expressed his feelings of becoming a judge -like his sister - and I fully believe he will be one, he has never to my knowledge held a taxpaying job, his schedule since we got out of school has been go to school and play volleyball . I am sorry but I am going to take the fear standpoint on that one. I do believe there is no such thing as an educated person. By the way I have a really cool guy on my route who won an emmy for best cinematography on the work he did with the movie series starwars, showed me what he is working on for the next generation of cameras, all you digital and film camera buffs out there will soon be trading in those cameras./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
Our Dependencies
- Thread starter Kiohio
- Start date
- Views: 12474
Egon
Epic Contributor
Bird:
As usual your statements make much sense.
As this thread continues I have been wondering how genetics would factor in.
Using myself as an example there is no way I could have become an airforce pilot being only five ft. six inches tall and having very much less than 20/20 vision. The height factor alone would have excluded me from being considered officer material and from many other postions in the normal working world.
Raw intelligence may be influenced by genetics, birth conditions, diet and a myriad of other factors. The development and use of this intelligence may also be affected by these same factors.
Consider an athelete. Do they have high O2 uptake, fast twitch or slow twitch muscle orientation, what is the length of their thigh bone in relation to the rest of thier leg. All these are factors determining which sport the athelete may excell at.
My last thought is about "The Butcher, The Baker and The Candlestick maker " for without these people the King and his Court may be partaking of very unpalative food in the dark.
Egon
As usual your statements make much sense.
As this thread continues I have been wondering how genetics would factor in.
Using myself as an example there is no way I could have become an airforce pilot being only five ft. six inches tall and having very much less than 20/20 vision. The height factor alone would have excluded me from being considered officer material and from many other postions in the normal working world.
Raw intelligence may be influenced by genetics, birth conditions, diet and a myriad of other factors. The development and use of this intelligence may also be affected by these same factors.
Consider an athelete. Do they have high O2 uptake, fast twitch or slow twitch muscle orientation, what is the length of their thigh bone in relation to the rest of thier leg. All these are factors determining which sport the athelete may excell at.
My last thought is about "The Butcher, The Baker and The Candlestick maker " for without these people the King and his Court may be partaking of very unpalative food in the dark.
Egon
Hello Bird -
I had planned on making a response earlier, but Cowboydoc beat me to the punch. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif Oh well, I'll try and make a couple of points anyway. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
I understand where you are coming from in that some "adversities" in life are insurmountable. (e.g. Christopher Reeves will not become an Olympic figure skater in the next few years).
That being said, I think this entire discussion all boils down to attitude. A positive one vs. a negative one - e.g. one of "I'll do the best with what I have and try to make things better" vs. "Life has treated me unfairly, I can't, and even if I can, I'd most likely fail, so why even try."
I don't think Cowboydoc or anyone else is giving an absolute, saying "Anybody can do anything, no matter what." I think what is being said is that far to many folks choose to use some of the things you mentioned in your earlier post (luck, timing, God, etc.) as an excuse because they have an attitude of entitlement. (Perhaps it was instilled by an event in their life, instilled by a parent, a teacher, the media - whatever.) In other words a lot of folks say they can't when the real issue is that they won't. All goes back to that "choices we make" and responsibility for ones actions thing. That’s why companies hire motivational speakers - not to teach or give extra skills, but to change “I can’t” to “I can.” ‘Course the military has a much more “interesting” way of motivating new recruits to change their attitude. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif - Call it carrot vs. stick if you like.
Another interesting point is the question of what one defines as success - Most of the thread seems to be talking about money in this regard - but Cowboydoc raises a very good point. Does "success"="money" or the accumulation of material things, or is it something else? Christopher Reeves is certainly not pulling down the big bucks he could have (I saw something on TV a while back where they interviewed him and apparently, financially at least, the family wasn’t doing that hot.) - But yet he can still certainly be defined as “successful.” His attitude has constantly been a positive one - whether it be for promoting awareness and research or trying to do what has been stated as the impossible - reverse his condition. “Success” is defined by whatever yardstick we choose to use.
I guess my attitude is one that is that of a quote sold on some posters & such out there - "Success is a journey, not a destination." To me, success isn’t necessarily measured in dollars and cents - it’s setting goals for oneself, and then pursuing them. I see much more honor and “character” that comes with tackling such goals - even if one fails to achieve them (e.g. they are unsuccessful) - than someone who refuses to even set them and constantly looks to place blame on someone/something else for their situation. (e.g. "life isn't fair" - so what? Quit whining and deal with it!) No, not everyone will become a billionaire, or a star athlete, or President - but if folks would spend their energy trying to better themselves instead of trying to beat those who have been "successful" over the head for a handout, the world would be a better, and more honorable, place.
My post is longer than I had intended, and I guess we’ll probably have to be in the “agree to disagree” pool too. But to hit one more time on that attitude thing - another favorite quote of mine is "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade!"
Take care -
I had planned on making a response earlier, but Cowboydoc beat me to the punch. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif Oh well, I'll try and make a couple of points anyway. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif
I understand where you are coming from in that some "adversities" in life are insurmountable. (e.g. Christopher Reeves will not become an Olympic figure skater in the next few years).
That being said, I think this entire discussion all boils down to attitude. A positive one vs. a negative one - e.g. one of "I'll do the best with what I have and try to make things better" vs. "Life has treated me unfairly, I can't, and even if I can, I'd most likely fail, so why even try."
I don't think Cowboydoc or anyone else is giving an absolute, saying "Anybody can do anything, no matter what." I think what is being said is that far to many folks choose to use some of the things you mentioned in your earlier post (luck, timing, God, etc.) as an excuse because they have an attitude of entitlement. (Perhaps it was instilled by an event in their life, instilled by a parent, a teacher, the media - whatever.) In other words a lot of folks say they can't when the real issue is that they won't. All goes back to that "choices we make" and responsibility for ones actions thing. That’s why companies hire motivational speakers - not to teach or give extra skills, but to change “I can’t” to “I can.” ‘Course the military has a much more “interesting” way of motivating new recruits to change their attitude. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif - Call it carrot vs. stick if you like.
Another interesting point is the question of what one defines as success - Most of the thread seems to be talking about money in this regard - but Cowboydoc raises a very good point. Does "success"="money" or the accumulation of material things, or is it something else? Christopher Reeves is certainly not pulling down the big bucks he could have (I saw something on TV a while back where they interviewed him and apparently, financially at least, the family wasn’t doing that hot.) - But yet he can still certainly be defined as “successful.” His attitude has constantly been a positive one - whether it be for promoting awareness and research or trying to do what has been stated as the impossible - reverse his condition. “Success” is defined by whatever yardstick we choose to use.
I guess my attitude is one that is that of a quote sold on some posters & such out there - "Success is a journey, not a destination." To me, success isn’t necessarily measured in dollars and cents - it’s setting goals for oneself, and then pursuing them. I see much more honor and “character” that comes with tackling such goals - even if one fails to achieve them (e.g. they are unsuccessful) - than someone who refuses to even set them and constantly looks to place blame on someone/something else for their situation. (e.g. "life isn't fair" - so what? Quit whining and deal with it!) No, not everyone will become a billionaire, or a star athlete, or President - but if folks would spend their energy trying to better themselves instead of trying to beat those who have been "successful" over the head for a handout, the world would be a better, and more honorable, place.
My post is longer than I had intended, and I guess we’ll probably have to be in the “agree to disagree” pool too. But to hit one more time on that attitude thing - another favorite quote of mine is "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade!"
Take care -
Bird
Rest in Peace
<font color=blue>I guess we’ll probably have to be in the “agree to disagree” pool </font color=blue>
I don't think we're really disagreeing./w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif I certainly agree that a positive attitude, desire to succeed, and making a real effort are the most common keys to "success" (by whatever definition), as long as your goals are realistic. It's just that, as you've acknowledged, there are some things that the most positive attitude in the world cannot overcome. Egon mentions genetics, and I agree. Trying to figure out why people do or act as they do can be fascinating studying, although I doubt anyone will ever really totally succeed at that./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif You know there have been many theories as to why some people become criminals; with some thinking it's hereditary, some thinking it's environmental, some thinking it's poverty (or the theory of "relative deprivation" - I like that one), etc. Personally, I think many of the same factors, in reverse perhaps, determine how successful in life a person is, and I don't think any one factor alone is necessarily the determining factor.
My point is simply that there is no single, simple answer (wish there was)./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif
I don't think we're really disagreeing./w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif I certainly agree that a positive attitude, desire to succeed, and making a real effort are the most common keys to "success" (by whatever definition), as long as your goals are realistic. It's just that, as you've acknowledged, there are some things that the most positive attitude in the world cannot overcome. Egon mentions genetics, and I agree. Trying to figure out why people do or act as they do can be fascinating studying, although I doubt anyone will ever really totally succeed at that./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif You know there have been many theories as to why some people become criminals; with some thinking it's hereditary, some thinking it's environmental, some thinking it's poverty (or the theory of "relative deprivation" - I like that one), etc. Personally, I think many of the same factors, in reverse perhaps, determine how successful in life a person is, and I don't think any one factor alone is necessarily the determining factor.
My point is simply that there is no single, simple answer (wish there was)./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif
putty -
Well, I'll go back on my word a little here and respond to your latest post. (Something that honestly bothers me quite a bit, as I try VERY hard never to do that.) I don’t think it will change your perspective or anything like that - just more of a “for the record” thing.
<font color=blue>Ranchman, it seems to me you yourself are trying to tear down individuals</font color=blue>
Nope. My latest post to Bird (which I was busy writing when you posted your latest message) I believe it was (and it was intended, by the way) to be very civil and explain my point of view vs. what I understood to be Birds. I can be very civil to those I respect.
That example being put forth, I will admit though, yes, I can have a very venomous tone - especially when arguing with folks who do not use fact & logic to make their case, but instead rely on feeling, misdirection, inconsistency, and most importantly, fire the first volley with regards to disrespect (e.g. you "shooting" at Cowboydoc.) To me, I see that as not playing by the rules, and I have little respect for those who make up stuff (e.g. lies or deceit) to make their case. Is my tone “over the top” at times? Some would definitely say absolutely! But I ***NEVER*** sacrifice my facts & logic when I “go off the deep end” and have emotional tones come through in my messages.
<font color=blue>...and refusing to see the point being made. </font color=blue>
Nope. I see the points (and there are a lot of them) very clearly.
- Handouts are not just OK, they are good.
- The “unfortunate” in life don’t have to take responsibility for where they are because it “isn’t their fault.”
- Management types are self absorbed, arrogant, and since they really do very little work at all, undeserving.
- College was a joke and folks who made a better life for themselves by going down that path “had it easy” because there wasn’t any “real work” involved.
- There is no such thing as an educated person (implies disdain for those with degrees - at whatever level).
- Jobs that require unskilled labor can, and often are, easily just as stressful and demanding as an executive position.
- Doctors don’t have any more stresses in life than a logger.
- You’re not anti-education Uhhh /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif wait - doesn’t that go against something earlier?
- You’re “buds” with LOTS of executive types (who are GREAT folks) - Uhhh - /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif I’m starting to get confused here....maybe I should stop.
The problem is the consistency in arguments. Again, as I stated earlier, it is fruitless to try and argue against someone who flip-flops on their core arguments. CEO’s are bad - wait, I have TONS of CEO friends! Etc. etc. etc... /w3tcompact/icons/eyes.gif At heart, I think you believe pretty much what you stated initially and not the revisionist posts as it seems to be more in line with your general attitude.
<font color=blue>My earlier posts were indeed more harsh ,I was reacting emotionaly to what was said ,sometimes I will tend to listen to my heart,for that I am wrong, </font color=blue>
I guess if someone does something out of emotion, it’s “OK” then. No, while there are some cases where I can see that as a factor in ones defense, I generally don’t accept it as a “get out of jail free” card.
<font color=blue>I believe I went back and fixed that by saying "SOME" - I noticed you did'nt hold other people responsible when they were speaking in terms of absolutes.</font color=blue>
As far as adding the word “some” - well, again, that doesn’t make sense to me. You go from the ‘CEO types are EVIL’ attitude to the ‘SOME CEO types are EVIL’ attitude to ‘I’m the BEST OF BUDS with LOTS of CEOs - They’re GREAT FOLKS!” /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif The other folks, well, unlike you, they haven’t changed their stance 180 degrees. Yes, I’ll give them some latitude in their posts because they are hitting on a consistent theme instead of being all over the board and deliberately utilizing misdirection to make their case.
<font color=blue>You just keep on trying to discredit me -I can take it- heck I am suprised you hav'nt attack my grammer yet .</font color=blue>
I think you’re doing a fine job by all by yourself! /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
As I said in my earlier post to you, this is a “no win” situation with regards to discussing this subject with you. I can’t argue against points someone makes when they turn them 90 degrees out of phase with each successive post or if someone doesn’t use fact but relies solely on feeling to make their case. Hopefully you’ve had fun responding to me (and others) because for substantive philosophical discussion on the subject, I can’t say responding to your posts has really been a valued exercise on my end. A time waster? Sure - but advancing the subject matter? Hardly. ‘Course I suspect a lot of your posts come from a “stir the pot” perspective anyway with the “go ahead - I can take it” verbiage. Too bad that legitimate discussion has evolved in to trying to “get a rise” out of folks. /w3tcompact/icons/sad.gif
Well, I'll go back on my word a little here and respond to your latest post. (Something that honestly bothers me quite a bit, as I try VERY hard never to do that.) I don’t think it will change your perspective or anything like that - just more of a “for the record” thing.
<font color=blue>Ranchman, it seems to me you yourself are trying to tear down individuals</font color=blue>
Nope. My latest post to Bird (which I was busy writing when you posted your latest message) I believe it was (and it was intended, by the way) to be very civil and explain my point of view vs. what I understood to be Birds. I can be very civil to those I respect.
That example being put forth, I will admit though, yes, I can have a very venomous tone - especially when arguing with folks who do not use fact & logic to make their case, but instead rely on feeling, misdirection, inconsistency, and most importantly, fire the first volley with regards to disrespect (e.g. you "shooting" at Cowboydoc.) To me, I see that as not playing by the rules, and I have little respect for those who make up stuff (e.g. lies or deceit) to make their case. Is my tone “over the top” at times? Some would definitely say absolutely! But I ***NEVER*** sacrifice my facts & logic when I “go off the deep end” and have emotional tones come through in my messages.
<font color=blue>...and refusing to see the point being made. </font color=blue>
Nope. I see the points (and there are a lot of them) very clearly.
- Handouts are not just OK, they are good.
- The “unfortunate” in life don’t have to take responsibility for where they are because it “isn’t their fault.”
- Management types are self absorbed, arrogant, and since they really do very little work at all, undeserving.
- College was a joke and folks who made a better life for themselves by going down that path “had it easy” because there wasn’t any “real work” involved.
- There is no such thing as an educated person (implies disdain for those with degrees - at whatever level).
- Jobs that require unskilled labor can, and often are, easily just as stressful and demanding as an executive position.
- Doctors don’t have any more stresses in life than a logger.
- You’re not anti-education Uhhh /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif wait - doesn’t that go against something earlier?
- You’re “buds” with LOTS of executive types (who are GREAT folks) - Uhhh - /w3tcompact/icons/hmm.gif I’m starting to get confused here....maybe I should stop.
The problem is the consistency in arguments. Again, as I stated earlier, it is fruitless to try and argue against someone who flip-flops on their core arguments. CEO’s are bad - wait, I have TONS of CEO friends! Etc. etc. etc... /w3tcompact/icons/eyes.gif At heart, I think you believe pretty much what you stated initially and not the revisionist posts as it seems to be more in line with your general attitude.
<font color=blue>My earlier posts were indeed more harsh ,I was reacting emotionaly to what was said ,sometimes I will tend to listen to my heart,for that I am wrong, </font color=blue>
I guess if someone does something out of emotion, it’s “OK” then. No, while there are some cases where I can see that as a factor in ones defense, I generally don’t accept it as a “get out of jail free” card.
<font color=blue>I believe I went back and fixed that by saying "SOME" - I noticed you did'nt hold other people responsible when they were speaking in terms of absolutes.</font color=blue>
As far as adding the word “some” - well, again, that doesn’t make sense to me. You go from the ‘CEO types are EVIL’ attitude to the ‘SOME CEO types are EVIL’ attitude to ‘I’m the BEST OF BUDS with LOTS of CEOs - They’re GREAT FOLKS!” /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif The other folks, well, unlike you, they haven’t changed their stance 180 degrees. Yes, I’ll give them some latitude in their posts because they are hitting on a consistent theme instead of being all over the board and deliberately utilizing misdirection to make their case.
<font color=blue>You just keep on trying to discredit me -I can take it- heck I am suprised you hav'nt attack my grammer yet .</font color=blue>
I think you’re doing a fine job by all by yourself! /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
As I said in my earlier post to you, this is a “no win” situation with regards to discussing this subject with you. I can’t argue against points someone makes when they turn them 90 degrees out of phase with each successive post or if someone doesn’t use fact but relies solely on feeling to make their case. Hopefully you’ve had fun responding to me (and others) because for substantive philosophical discussion on the subject, I can’t say responding to your posts has really been a valued exercise on my end. A time waster? Sure - but advancing the subject matter? Hardly. ‘Course I suspect a lot of your posts come from a “stir the pot” perspective anyway with the “go ahead - I can take it” verbiage. Too bad that legitimate discussion has evolved in to trying to “get a rise” out of folks. /w3tcompact/icons/sad.gif
>>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.
Good post Bird...I agree, it just not that simple. People are responsible for their own actions, but as you say, many things are out of their control.
I worked hard, saved harder, and now enjoy the fruits of my labor...but not a day goes by that I don't either think, or more likely, say out loud to my wife "how lucky we are". Yea, I worked hard, yea I made a lot of good decisions, and yes I worked 80 hours a week for about ten years, but many bad things could have happened along the way that could have completly changed things: death of a spouse, car accident, long-term illness, a lawsuit, a big client stiffing me on a bill etc etc etc....we were *lucky*...not everyone is as lucky.
The other thing to keep in mind is everyone *can't* have the same success. As a nation we need people to work at walmart, drive trucks, dig holes, etc...i.e. all those jobs that don't pay all that much, but are honest jobs to have and jobs that need to be done.
Everybody can't make $100K salary...its impossible...and if they did, a loaf of bread would cost about $100.
So everyone that is successful, enjoy what you have
, but don't let it go to your head; don't think that somehow you are being rewarded solely for your genius and or hard work...some people are...and some are just plain lucky and for most of us that have had some degree of success, it was a little of both: a lot of luck and a lot of hard work.
Good post Bird...I agree, it just not that simple. People are responsible for their own actions, but as you say, many things are out of their control.
I worked hard, saved harder, and now enjoy the fruits of my labor...but not a day goes by that I don't either think, or more likely, say out loud to my wife "how lucky we are". Yea, I worked hard, yea I made a lot of good decisions, and yes I worked 80 hours a week for about ten years, but many bad things could have happened along the way that could have completly changed things: death of a spouse, car accident, long-term illness, a lawsuit, a big client stiffing me on a bill etc etc etc....we were *lucky*...not everyone is as lucky.
The other thing to keep in mind is everyone *can't* have the same success. As a nation we need people to work at walmart, drive trucks, dig holes, etc...i.e. all those jobs that don't pay all that much, but are honest jobs to have and jobs that need to be done.
Everybody can't make $100K salary...its impossible...and if they did, a loaf of bread would cost about $100.
So everyone that is successful, enjoy what you have
, but don't let it go to your head; don't think that somehow you are being rewarded solely for your genius and or hard work...some people are...and some are just plain lucky and for most of us that have had some degree of success, it was a little of both: a lot of luck and a lot of hard work.Ranchman , again my post was mistaken and the context changed- you asked about my knowledge of CEO's , I tell you, you hit me over the head and call me a liar , that was directed at me was'nt it? I told you that in responce to earlier questions, I also said I go to the poorest neigborhoods in many cities( I am buddies with them also) in an attempt to explain the amount of people I am in contact with. Maybe it is my communication skills? I guess what I am trying to say is I see the best of the best and the worst of the worst ,many times in one day, and it has nothing to do with class or education. A liar I am not.