Something on the Daily Show reminded me of Apolyton...

[General Ludd]

I'm not really sure what some people are geting at here. Is it just that they said that while riding around in a limo? Who cares? It's a ****ing TV show. Clothes [i] really are neccisary in alot of the world. I live in northern Ontario, and if you don't have proper clothing you won't make it through the winter, and alot of homeless people do die from exposure. It doesn't really matter who says it - especially if it's on a bloody TV show - but giving clothes to people who need it certainly isn't frivolous. Just ask the salvation army.

[General Ludd]

Wee, double post.



I'll try and think of something to fill this empty space with...

[Dis]

I think the essentials in life should be free.

I would love to live in that world.

Food, health insurance, water, electricity, computers, computer games; all of these things should be free.

[Q Classic]

you forgot sex.

[David Floyd]

As opposed to the childishness of the right which says "MINE! MINE! MINE!"

I'm not quite sure how you can call selfishness childish. That would imply there's something wrong with it.

[David Floyd]

I think the essentials in life should be free.

They aren't free, you still pay for them.

In fact, in some cases, you probably pay more due to government inefficiency.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I'm not quite sure how you can call selfishness childish. That would imply there's something wrong with it.

You mean there isn't?

[David Floyd]

No - all that "selfish" means is that you are you primarily concerned with your own self-interest. Nothing wrong with that, unless you somehow believe that doing something for yourself is automatically wrong, and doing something for others, instead, is automatically right.

[MrFun]

This thread is nothing but a troll -- it doesn't accurately present the ideology of mainstream liberals.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
No - all that "selfish" means is that you are you primarily concerned with your own self-interest. Nothing wrong with that, unless you somehow believe that doing something for yourself is automatically wrong, and doing something for others, instead, is automatically right.

That is not what I get by consulting this online dictionary.

You could try to embark on a campaign to change the definition of the word, but I don't think you will succeed.

[molly bloom]

So Albert Speer the poster with the Nazi monicker is telling leftists how they think?

Yeah, Albert, your analysis is so cogent, so incisive, based on the intellectual achievements and public pronouncements of........Paris Hilton?

Paris Hilton, fashion model and heiress?

I look forward to your disquisition on the African diaspora and its influence on the culture and music of the Caribbean and the states of the Americas, based upon the accumulated wit and wisdom of Naomi Campbell.

Or possibly an insight into wave mechanics and quantum physics, with reference to the startling scientific breakthroughs of Yasmin Bleeth and the Baywatch team.

[POTUS]

I say the government should give every female a life-time supply of bikinis.

[David Floyd]

UR, your dictionary definition doesn't differ substantially from my definition. The main point of difference is my use of the word "primarily" and it's use of the word "exclusive". Either way, though, I fail to see the problem, because whether you are "Primarily" or "Exclusively" concerned with yourself, you will be forced to take some actions that benefit others anyway - your reason is that it is in your own interest to do so, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[johncmcleod]

I can't believe I actually wasted my time reading this.

[MrFun]

There's always that risk when you come into this forum, john.