The Old and the New - the Ant and the Grasshopper

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Tacc


I think it is a fundamental misunderstanding between cultures. Here in civilisation, Aneeshm, we consider helping disadvantaged people to be a good thing.

Speak for yourself freeloader advocate.

[Lorizael]

We see the attempt and style at humor in the joke, certainly, but it's not terribly funny. It's predictable, it's tired, and we don't get the cultural references.

[aneeshm]

But I can't believe how people distort a simple fable. The ant and the grasshopper had equal opportunities, but one used it and the other didn't. The one who used the opportunity benefited, and the one who didn't, didn't. It's that simple. It does not consider the case of unequal opportunities (which is what happens many times due to poverty) at all. Why people have to see conspiracies where there are none is hard to understand.

This is the same level of distortion as when a DMK politician said that Bharat, Ram's brother, not only seized his kingdom, but also went to the forest to steal his slippers .

[Nubclear]

But I can't believe how people distort a simple fable.

Indeed. The OP is quite obscene in this regard

[Arrian]

Ah, so you admit it's a fable, not a joke.

A fable is a story that makes a moral point. Here, I'll quote the dictionary:

a fictitious narrative or statement: as a : a legendary story of supernatural happenings b : a narration intended to enforce a useful truth; especially : one in which animals speak and act like human beings

The point of your fable is that poor people are poor because they're irresponsible slackers (grasshoppers) and rich people are rich because they're responsible and hard-working (ants). The rest flows from there. The cultural references are clearly specific to India, but it could be just about anywhere.

I got it just fine. No distortion necessary. I think it's you who doesn't understand what you posted.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by aneeshm
But I can't believe how people distort a simple fable. The ant and the grasshopper had equal opportunities, but one used it and the other didn't. The one who used the opportunity benefited, and the one who didn't, didn't. It's that simple. It does not consider the case of unequal opportunities (which is what happens many times due to poverty) at all. Why people have to see conspiracies where there are none is hard to understand

Seriously we know. Been there seen it. This was going around (no lie) 10 or more years ago. No Indian references plenty of US references. While the message may be something I actually in some degree agree with the format is old hat.

Translation - Not Funny, tired an old and has too many references of Indian culture to be appreciated by the wider Poly audience.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Tacc

It isn't that we don't "get" the joke - it isn't that difficult to understand.
Rather, he is whining that we don't find his hatred for the poor to be "amusing" or "funny"

You, sir, are crazy, and I say that in the kindest possible way. I do not "hate" the poor. I do not "despise" them, as you claim. If you saw the sort of poverty I do on a daily basis, and the reasons for it, it would be impossible for you to EVER hate the poor. I consider myself extremely lucky to be born into a situation where I am not poor, given the prevalence of poverty in India, and the sheer abjectness and wretchedness of the poor. I am thankful for being born into the middle-class.

Originally posted by Tacc

I think it is a fundamental misunderstanding between cultures.

I think it's a set of fundamental misunderstandings in your head.

Originally posted by Tacc

Here in civilisation, Aneeshm, we consider helping disadvantaged people to be a good thing.

So you imply that I'm living in barbarism? You who supported the Soviet Union? Who supported the worst sort of oppression for the rich, you whose people went to the extent of trying to exterminate all who could read, or who wore glasses, you whose ideology is the one which worked people to death for the sake of five-year-plans, you of all people have the temerity to accuse me of not caring for the disadvantaged or of living in a barbaric country? You?

Originally posted by Tacc

We don't think it's acceptable for people to just die because they happend to be born in a lower social "caste" (something else that the civilised world has done away with, btw.)

Neither did we, ever. Where DO you get your ideas of India from? And we have also done away with caste around fifty years ago. In another fifty, it should be fully gone, because not it has lost the support of everyone, and the orthodoxy are actively working against it.

Originally posted by Tacc

But I realise that there are still many in India who cling to the old ways.

The old ways of respecting, revering, and cherishing the country and its heritage?

Originally posted by Tacc

You must have been really frustrated when India became a republic, the sight of all those people having freedom...and now India proposes to do away with things like caste and to promote social welfare and prosperity....

Again, your crazy is showing. I thank God that India became a republic, because that was and is the only way. But I want even more freedom, and I want the government to stop messing with religious matters. I also don't believe in coercive systems. Real freedom is apparently unacceptable to commies.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ah, so you admit it's a fable, not a joke.

A fable is a story that makes a moral point. Here, I'll quote the dictionary:

I referred to the original fable, on which the joke was based.

Originally posted by Arrian

The point of your fable is that poor people are poor because they're irresponsible slackers (grasshoppers) and rich people are rich because they're responsible and hard-working (ants).

The point is that the one who uses the opportunities presented prospers, whereas the lazy one who does not, does not.

In the case of the fable, both had EQUAL OPPORTUNITY! One used it, the other didn't. It DOES NOT consider the case of unequal opportunity AL ALL! Why can't you understand this simple fact?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tacc
Here in civilisation

You finally moved to Europe?

[Kuciwalker]

Guys, you totally missed the point. Aneeshm is complaining about the huge Muslim problem in India. I agree with him, something ought to be done.

[Nubclear]

So you imply that I'm living in barbarism?

I don't think that some of your values, such as your anti-value on helping the poor, is up to civilised standards.

You who supported the Soviet Union?

No.

You?

The italics (not preserved here) are really a nice addition An interesting adhominem-strawman combination to divert attention from your barbaric story.

nd we have also done away with caste around fifty years ago.

Oh yes, civilised India has. I'm not saying *India* is the uncivilised entity here - India has made remarkable progress.

The old ways of respecting, revering, and cherishing the country and its heritage?

If by "respecting the country and its heritage" you mean "enforcing state-sponsored oppression of lower castes and poor people under the false belief that they deserve their status because they are lazy and stupid", then yes, there are many in India who cling to that. Sir.

But I want even more freedom, and I want the government to stop messing with religious matters.

So the government shouldn't step in to help the poor when your pet religion says to oppress them? WTF?

I also don't believe in coercive systems. Real freedom is apparently unacceptable to commies.

Yes, because clearly enforcing the Indian constitution is "coercive". I guess you would prefer anarchy, though, considering that your spiteful ideology has been rejected and denounced by civilised people everywhere. The only way for you to ever enforce your viewpoint on the world would be in an anarchy, where the forces of civilisation and democracy are not present to hold you back.

The belief that people who are disadvantaged deserve their status is something that was done away by the West and by India long ago. I'm just sad that, under the rhetoric of "freedom" and even "anticommunism" you attempt to promote this archaic and uncivilised belief.

[Arrian]

In the case of the fable, both had EQUAL OPPORTUNITY! One used it, the other didn't. It DOES NOT consider the case of unequal opportunity AL ALL! Why can't you understand this simple fact?

You're either incredibly naive, or being deliberately obtuse.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Guys, you totally missed the point. Aneeshm is complaining about the huge Muslim problem in India. I agree with him, something ought to be done.

wtf Kuci?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by aneeshm
This is the same level of distortion as when a DMK politician said that Bharat, Ram's brother, not only seized his kingdom, but also went to the forest to steal his slippers .

You're right - I nearly pissed myself laughing at that one too. Ah, the foibles of those silly DMKers.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Tacc


I don't think that some of your values, such as your anti-value on helping the poor, is up to civilised standards.

I am helping the poor, I just don't want it to be done with coercive methods and by stealing or extorting people's wealth.

Originally posted by Tacc

You who supported the Soviet Union?

No.

What sort of communist are you, then?

Originally posted by Tacc

The italics (not preserved here) are really a nice addition

Thank you. I attempt to be a master of rehtoric.

Originally posted by Tacc

An interesting adhominem-strawman combination to divert attention from your barbaric story.

What barbaric story?

Originally posted by Tacc

nd we have also done away with caste around fifty years ago.

Oh yes, civilised India has. I'm not saying *India* is the uncivilised entity here - India has made remarkable progress.

Neither I, nor the people in whose society I move, are caste-conscious. What's the point you're trying to make?

Originally posted by Tacc

The old ways of respecting, revering, and cherishing the country and its heritage?

If by "respecting the country and its heritage" you mean "enforcing state-sponsored oppression of lower castes and poor people under the false belief that they deserve their status because they are lazy and stupid", then yes, there are many in India who cling to that. Sir.

That is obviously not what I mean, and I presume you know it.

Originally posted by Tacc

But I want even more freedom, and I want the government to stop messing with religious matters.

So the government shouldn't step in to help the poor when your pet religion says to oppress them? WTF?

My "pet" religion is the one whose every institution is engaged in a fierce effort to eradicate caste.

Originally posted by Tacc

I also don't believe in coercive systems. Real freedom is apparently unacceptable to commies.

Yes, because clearly enforcing the Indian constitution is "coercive". I guess you would prefer anarchy, though, considering that your spiteful ideology has been rejected and denounced by civilised people everywhere. The only way for you to ever enforce your viewpoint on the world would be in an anarchy, where the forces of civilisation and democracy are not present to hold you back.

Wait a minute. I think NOW I see where you're coming from. Which ideology exactly are you referring to? My support of capitalism? Or of freedom of religion? Or of separation of church and state? Or of the freedom of speech and press? What exactly are you against?

Originally posted by Tacc

The belief that people who are disadvantaged deserve their status is something that was done away by the West and by India long ago. I'm just sad that, under the rhetoric of "freedom" and even "anticommunism" you attempt to promote this archaic and uncivilised belief.

Again, this is a strawman. People do not "deserve" anything except a basic minimum of opportunity. It is the job of social institutions to provide that minimum opportunity. I believe that these social institutions must not be coercive. Is that such a bad thing?