jrussel

What we have to ask ourselves here is: To what extent do we want our society to put a value on wealth? I would rather a society where value is placed on merit instead. I don't see any reason to prefer otherwise, unless you are someone who has gained their wealth through means other than merit. Therefore we should encourage those who advertise themselves on the basis of merit, and discourage those who advertise themselves on the basis of wealth. One way would be to sabotage attempts at display of wealth. If rich people found that parking their expensive cars on the street lead to them being damaged, they would be less likely to purchase such vehicles. They could sponsor worthy causes instead, for example.

stevebailey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Jesus, can't be arsed replying tall of that. > "Can't be arsed"? I'll take a guess about what that really means. > On the basis that you are being serious, why > shouldn't people who can afford nice things buy > them, what you expect someone who can afford a > bentley to buy a nissan micra as not to offend > others? > By displaying their wealth in such an ostentatious way they are showing a disregard for the feelings of those less fortunate than them. Buying nice things you can afford is one thing. Buying things primarily to display your massive wealth is distasteful. I'd say it's not indicative of a very nice person. > If you are comfortable then would you be fine with > someone poorer than you scratching your car as its > better than theirs? I don't have a car. But say for example someone mugged me for my smartphone. How I would feel about this would be affected according to the wealth gap between us, and the reasons for its existence. > > What I mean is just because they have wealth, they > may not indeed be happy in life. > This is true; however, you cannot deny a general relationship between wealth and happiness especially at the lower end of the scale. If you cannot afford decent food and shelter then this is very likely to impact on your happiness. If you have access to wealth you may well be able to access better healthcare resulting in higher levels of wellbeing. > On the basis you're on a wind up > then.......................b0ll0x :-)

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jrussel Wrote: > > Will I have lowered myself to the level of the > petty vandal? > > With any act of mindless vandalism. Yes. Of > course. Is it mindless, though?

stevebailey Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is it that you are genuinely saddened by people > that have been successful in life enjoying nice > things? > I am genuinely saddened that they feel the need to display their wealth and privilege so ostentatiously. I would use the adjective "lucky" rather than "successful". What is your definition of success - increasing the wealth gap between yourself and others? > Is it that you were wronged in some way buy a > wealthy person? > Wealthy people who use their wealth to generate more wealth for themselves with no regard for the conditions of others are constantly wronging a large proportion of the population. Also, the environmental impact of their cars and lifestyle wrongs many people. > Or is that you are just jealous that some people > have things you presumably cannot have yourself? Not especially jealous as I am lucky enough to be in a fairly comfortable financial situation. In addition I would never want a status symbol of this kind - it would indicate that I had lost my mind. > > Having nice expensive things does not necessarily > make these people better off than you! What do you mean?

Why don't you say "Northern England" then?

Now I'd like to state at the beginning that I am essentially a pacifist and feel that differences are best resolved through debate rather than physical violence wherever possible. But in the recent weeks there has been a growing urge within me, and I am unsure how to deal with it. I spend some of my time in one of the wealthiest parts of London, where it is not uncommon to see expensive cars parked up on the street. Usually with a driver in them, presumably waiting for the car's owner to complete whatever self-important business he is engaged in. When I say expensive, I don't mean Audis or BMWs. I mean Bentleys and Rolls Royces and vehicles which I'm unfamiliar with but which it's obvious cost a lot of money. There is no way of disputing the fact that these cars are simply egotistical status symbols. That is their primary function. So, here we are, waiting for the government's ruthless spending cuts to kick in. Millions of people will find themselves unemployed, and many others, mainly at the lower end of the wealth scale will find their incomes reduced. There will be hardship. And yet these rich maniacs with their expensive cars still see fit to display their ill-gotten gains on the street. Rubbing some extra salt in the wound. As a result of this I feel a compulsion to take my keys from my pocket and calmly drag them along the side of one of these vehicles. An impotent act perhaps, but these people need to know that we hate them. This has left me in something of a quandary. My morals are all in a whirl. I can't decide what is wrong or right. What do you think? If I do it will I be possessed by a terrible guilt? Will I have lowered myself to the level of the petty vandal?

I have to say, every time I see "Northerners" rattling on about "The North" I can't help to laugh at their delusions. Look at a map for god's sake - Manchester is in the North is it? Of course it's not you plonkers. Caithness - that's North. Put some "Northerners" somewhere that is actually "North" and they'd die from exposure within minutes, with their poncey Southern clothes and pretentious ways.

I don't think that question is relevant to the issue being discussed here.

Maybe it is easier to press the "?20" button than the "1", "5" and "0" buttons in sequence.

I am astounded by the blatancy. It feels much like other times I have been astounded - astounding.

Narnia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who is this a serious concern for jr? You called > someone a hypocrite. Aren't loads of people like > that? Yes, but not all are so obviously in the public eye.

Yet again certain self-important members of the EDF fail to engage with a serious concern.

Yes, last summer. There was one ground floor flat on that street where the occupants were making use of a lot of bad language which was clearly audible on the street when they had the windows open. There were often children walking on the street who would have heard it. On one occasion I made a polite suggestion that they tone down the volume and content of their conversations but this was met with a stream of invective. I did hear rumour that persons living in surrounding properties also made complaints about the same people, some of them relating to the noisy discussions and some relating to malodorous fumes dissipated while they were cooking meals (again with the window open). I gather that they had a habit of cooking certain types of food at inappropriate times of day (for example, heavily garlic based recipes around breakfast time). I no longer have cause to visit that street and a certain manipulative individual who resided there, so I do not know if the problem exists this summer too.

This is not about journalistic integrity. You are missing the point.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would have thought she has a clothing allowance > expense account for her TV appearances so why not > spend it. Exactly the kind of thinking that ended up with the MPs scandal. It's the "I wus just following orders guv" defense.

cate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is this posting for real? Why should she change > her name? Why shouldn't she spend money to look > good? Because her point is that the whole industry values appearance over competence. And yet she happily plays along with it. If she really wants to make a point, she should spend her money on some sort of education or training instead, and cut back on her beauty spend, and challenge her employers to accept this and if they don't, then make a big fuss and an example of them. It's not hard to understand.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jFlb6CRLoZ6TB9L6C43vq76110zw You have probably already seen the above story, rehashed in one or other of the mainstream newspapers. What I find baffling is that no-one seems prepared, publicly, to take up the issue of her blatant hypocrisy. Not only does she admit that she herself is complicit in the kind of stuff (constantly having her hair done and spending vast sums on new outfits) that promulgates the discriminative systems she rails against so publicly, but seems blind to the fact that her entire career has been based on the worship of youth: when she got married, did she change her surname to her husband's (Jones) as per widely accepted custom? No - she made her decision to stick with the name "Young". I don't think I need to say much more.

sillywoman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > (who luckily for > you was pregnant herself once) Why do you say "luckily"? What do you mean?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Next week's installment: "Should old people be > banned?" Next time, you should take the time to actually read what I have written, you maniac.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I was on crutches for a couple of months last > year. Entirely (though accidentally) > self-inflicted (Alice Cooper related living-room > dancing injury) > > Now then Jack, was I more or less deserving of a > seat than someone who went out (or stayed in) and > got themselves deliberately knocked up? More deserving, because your injury was not pre-meditated, nor were you presented with an opportunity to reverse it the next morning.

Having thought about this a bit further - some back-of-envelope calculations suggest that a premium approaching 50% rather than 30% would be more reflective of the true costs. I may have to do a little more work on this before settling on a definitive rate, though.

fairylamb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I actually think Jrussel is serious - he will not > give up his seat to others and I was hoping he > might realise/I could shame him into doing it > (extremely doubtful I know). Howevere he's > probably scribbling a note to Boris asking that we > take the 'public' out of transport and introduce a > first and cattle class sytem. Allowing more > affluent mothers and hung over people the > opportunity to sit on the tube whil the oinks > stand! Rah-Rah! Another arrogant person who has failed to read what I have actually written.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what happens when the pregnant woman who's > fallen over on the bus because she was standing > having not been able to find a seat when the bus > braked suddenly and injured her baby / caused a > miscarriage ? > Same as any other injury incurred on a bus. Either the driver should be disciplined for dangerous driving, or the pregnant woman should have been holding onto a handrail as per guidelines.

Moos Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Quids, this one is for you then, x. > > The trouble with jrussel's argument from a purely > logical perspective is that the solution he > proposes will not, I think, give him what he > wants. If pregnant women have to pay extra for > their tickets, then they will naturally demand a > seat. Not only the ones with the obvious bumps > (4-5 months+ pregnant) and not only the assertive > ones, but all of them and for all 9 months of > their pregnancy. No more lurking at back, > less-crowded carriages either, they will all be > marching to the front carriages and sitting down. > In effect, a commuter first class would have been > recreated. So instead of having to give up his > seat occasionally I imagine he might have to give > up his seat every day, excluded from the, forgive > me, Club Class. > > What I think he really wants is the courage to > deny a pregnant woman a seat. My advice to him is > that he either accepts that there is a vestige of > humanity and kindness marring the awful purity of > his solipsistic soul and stands up with grace, or > else looks the pregnant woman in the eye, tells > her it's a lifestyle choice and goes on reading > his paper. Jrussel, only you can save yourself. > Stand up, or grow a pair. It is unfortunate for you that you challenge my points from a "logical perspective" because I am, in fact a qualified logician. Regarding your first point - yes, it would likely lead to more pregnant persons demanding a seat, but this will not bother me if I know that they have paid for it. The extra revenue generated can be used to improve public transport for all. Furthermore, I would anticipate that if set high enough, the premium would have a small but measurable deterrent effect on the number of persons having children in general, which would be a desirable outcome from both a societal and environmental point of view. Regarding your second point in which you advise me to "grow a pair". I think the basic principle here is one of consideration for other human beings. In the context of public transport this means doing what one reasonably can to make sure that one's fellow passengers have a pleasant journey. This includes stuff like not playing music loud;y through low quality headphones that leak sound. It also in my opinion extends to avoiding intimidating behaviour such as that displayed by certain pregnant people. My view is that I should not be expected to be fortified with "courage" on a daily basis simply to defend myself against behaviour that is unjustified in the first place. No-one wants routine confrontation which in any case is a significant contributor to stress related illness which places a heavy financial burden on our oversubscribed National Health Service.

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Knock knock! > > Who's there? > > Jack! > > Jack who? > > Jack Russell. > > Oh, are you the same Jack Russell who is advancing > the peculiar notion about surcharging pregnant > women on public transport? > > Yes. > > In that case I'm not letting you in. Actually, > consider yourself ignored. You are not very good at this ignoring lark, HonalochieB!