 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / April 2008Ping Bill: What about Jane Goodall?
Hey Bill, I was just wondering if Jane Goodall is worthy of being included with the likes of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Fred Rogers. She appears to me to be an ethical, spiritual woman, who is spending her life trying to make the world a better place. I realize there is controversy over the methods she used to study the chimpanzees, and perhaps her divorce disqualifies her in your mind, but it seems to me that she has lived a life commensurate with the qualities you admire. What do you think? Xorra I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't put her quite in the same league (in regards to overall accomplishments in improving humanity for human beings). But otherwise, for sure. > Hey Bill, I was just wondering if Jane Goodall is worthy of being included > with the likes of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Fred Rogers. She appears to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Xorra > I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't put > her quite in the same league (in regards to overall accomplishments > in improving humanity for human beings). But otherwise, for sure. I'm not so sure...she's been travelling the world promoting programs and recognizing people for doing things which help the earth, and you can't tell me that inspiring young people to work on good causes to help the world beyond themselves isn't improving humanity! I read today that she's on the road 300 days a year! And that she enjoys and almost rock star status among youth, which puts her in a good position to get them involved. At any rate, I was reading some of her biography, and think it would be a very good read for you. And it occurred to me that perhaps you'd feel a bit less hopeless if you were to expand your list of only three (3!) good people in the world, all of them dead. :-S Xorra >> Hey Bill, I was just wondering if Jane Goodall is worthy of being >> included with the likes of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Fred Rogers. She [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> Xorra >> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't put >> her quite in the same league (in regards to overall accomplishments [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > beyond > themselves isn't improving humanity! You're right. > I read today that she's on the road 300 > days a year! And that she enjoys and almost rock star status among youth, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the > world, all of them dead. :-S Perhaps. But I wouldn't bet the house on it. >>> Hey Bill, I was just wondering if Jane Goodall is worthy of being >>> included with the likes of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Fred Rogers. She [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> >>> Xorra > > I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't put > > her quite in the same league (in regards to overall accomplishments [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > hopeless if you were to expand your list of only three (3!) good people in the > world, all of them dead. :-S I think Bill _likes_ having a list of good people limited to a few dead ones. His behavior on ASM (in particular the glee he takes in spreading what he considers to be bad news, his inability to acknowledge anything good, and his penchant for taking any news story and misinterpreting it so that it shows the world of today is worse than the world of yesterday) suggests he _wants_ to be hopeless about the state of the world. Sadly, I think it is an understandable symptom of depression: he's unhappy so the world _must_ be a worse place than it was when he was happy. Ironically (given Bill's collection of catchphrases) it is a way to _avoid_ looking within. >>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't put >>> her quite in the same league (in regards to overall accomplishments [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > His behavior on ASM (in particular the glee he takes in spreading what > he considers to be bad news, his inability to acknowledge anything good, That's not true. > and his penchant for taking any news story and misinterpreting > it so that it shows the world of today is worse than the world of > yesterday) suggests he _wants_ to be hopeless about the state of the > world. But wait a minute. Just to be clear here ... are we talking about the recent school shootings? Or the fact that some schools are now actually considering allowing their students to be able to carry handguns to school? Or the current prison population, bursting at its seams (aka: can't build them fast enough!)? Or the current, rampant, urban gang activity, unmatched in recent history (replacing the home for most)? Or the decrease in the two-parent (or even sometimes, one parent), homes these days? Or .. the generally decreasing personal responsibility in society today? Or what part? I'm not sure what you're getting at (or rather, I should say, directly avoiding). > Sadly, I think it is an understandable symptom of depression: he's > unhappy so the world _must_ be a worse place than it was when he was > happy. Ironically (given Bill's collection of catchphrases) it is a > way to _avoid_ looking within. Maybe. I don't see it as ironic, however. It just is what it is. >>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't put >>> her quite in the same league (in regards to overall accomplishments [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I think Bill _likes_ having a list of good people limited to a few > dead ones. Hey, I didn't start this thread to be about Bill. I was hoping it would be a positive thread. Who would you nominate to be on his list? Xorra >>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't put >>>> her quite in the same league (in regards to overall accomplishments [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Xorra Can I vote? If so, I vote for Glenn Miller. I think I shoulda gone out with him over the English Channel. > >>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't put > >>> her quite in the same league (in regards to overall accomplishments [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Hey, I didn't start this thread to be about Bill. I was hoping it would be a > positive thread. Who would you nominate to be on his list? I don't know enough about most famous people to know whether they are "good" or not. I know lots of good people from among my own acquaintance. None of them are saints. But I have no idea how many saints were really good. As far as famous people go, I despise Microsoft software, but as a famous person, Bill Gates is trying in an intelligent way to do real good in his charity work. Al Gore has done really good work in trying to educate people about global warming. Or how about the inventors of Gardasil, which may mostly wipe out the STD that Bill seems most worried about? I also like your example of Jane Goodall. In my own little world, I know many people who are devoted at great personal cost to improving education. Many of them are effective, but most of them only affect a small number of people. I find it pretty easy to find people doing good things in the world if you look! That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of bad stuff happening too of course. >>>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't >>>>> put her quite in the same league (in regards to overall [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > I also like your example of Jane Goodall. Thanks! :-) I'll be interested in what Bill has to say about your choices. > In my own little world, I know many people who are devoted at great > personal cost to improving education. Many of them are effective, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if you look! That doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of bad stuff > happening too of course. Yes, I agree. Xorra >>>>>>I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't >>>>>>put her quite in the same league (in regards to overall [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Xorra I'll offer another candidate, Bernard Kouchner, one of the founders of Doctors without borders. S > >>>>>>I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't > >>>>>>put her quite in the same league (in regards to overall [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > I'll offer another candidate, Bernard Kouchner, one of the founders of > Doctors without borders. Awesome addition. Vickie >>>>>>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't >>>>>>>> put her quite in the same league (in regards to overall [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Awesome addition. After finding the "Titties and Beer" video, and Kato's remark, I kinda plunked around You Tube for a bit and rediscovered some interviews I had forgotten about. ...and with that, I'll throw in *my* nomination. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_McaUor0G0&feature=related We used to say in ASD that support does not all consist of stroking hair and murmuring "poor baby", sometimes it's a swift kick in the a.s to get someone to focus on an important point that they're missing. I only wish he had been able to reach more a.ses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IlE8yAmW3E&feature=related > >>>>>>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't > >>>>>>>> put her quite in the same league (in regards to overall [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > to get someone to focus on an important point that they're missing. > I only wish he had been able to reach more a.ses.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IlE8yAmW3E&feature=related- Hide quoted text - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iZ2gK8M86U&feature=related Just cause. Vickie >>>>>>>>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't >>>>>>>>>> put her quite in the same league (in regards to overall [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > Just cause. > Vickie Dang people, can't we at least say what the links are so I can decide whether or not I wanna follow the them?! Been a lot of awesome suggestions guys, thanks. Xorra > >>>>>>>>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't > >>>>>>>>>> put her quite in the same league (in regards to overall [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > Dang people, can't we at least say what the links are so I can decide whether or > not I wanna follow the them?! oopsie daisie Sorry sweets. Hey, did that mean you didn't enjoy the Big Balls song?! lol Vickie >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I >>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't put her quite in the same league (in regards to [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > Hey, did that mean you didn't enjoy the Big Balls song?! lol It means I didn't follow the link -- sorry, babe. Xorra > Vickie > Dang people, can't we at least say what the links are so I can decide > whether or not I wanna follow the them?! I kinda thought I was by not going the "TinyURL" route as I normally do. > Been a lot of awesome suggestions guys, thanks. Yeah,...I hadn't seen Bon Scott's face in a while. Brings back some cool memories. >>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>> put her quite in the same league (in regards to overall [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] >Dang people, can't we at least say what the links are so I can decide whether or >not I wanna follow the them?! LOL... Where's your sense of adventure? rj >>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't >>>>>>>>>>>> put her quite in the same league (in regards to overall [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > rj Right here, after frying one motherboard. (SOME of us like to walk on the edge - what can I say...). >>>>>>>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't >>>>>>>>> put her quite in the same league (in regards to overall [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > I only wish he had been able to reach more a.ses. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IlE8yAmW3E&feature=related Beyond just his musicianship, you have to loves Frank's stand on censorship. He was one hell of a guitar player! > Beyond just his musicianship, you have to loves Frank's stand on > censorship. He was one hell of a guitar player! The best that ever lived, in my book. The Czechs thought he was kinda cool too. That damn wall didn't fall because of Ronnie, y'know. He just happened to be there when it happened. "I'll a huff and a puff, and I'll BLOW that wall down..." just as there was a decades old cultural tidal wave about to slam home. Timing is everything, eh? >> > Beyond just his musicianship, you have to loves Frank's stand on >> censorship. He was one hell of a guitar player! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > just as there was a decades old cultural tidal wave about to slam home. > Timing is everything, eh? Timing is everything. Under different sets of circumstances, some of our revered presidents would have been average. Some of the weaker ones, could have been great. Gotta go fishing now. . . >> >>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't >> >>> put [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > famous person, Bill Gates is trying in an intelligent way to do real > good in his charity work. I agree with you about uSoft software. And then reflecting on Bill Gates for example... Are people that primarily give money really in the same league as those who give of themselves? Put another way, do dollars stack up against personal sacrifices? Does Oprah's giving of millions say, compare with Mother Teresa's sacrifice? Or does the money Bill Gates give, compare on a personal 'goodness' scale, with any of the thousands of Peace Corp volunteers that put their lives on-hold, or even on-the-line, to serve? Are many, some?, philanthopists giving out of a sense of pride/fame 'look world, how good I am' rather than actually making a personal sacrifice? While the big bucks from Gates may do far more for humanity than a Mother Teresa in the physical realm, I think she touched 'humanity' more... whatever things she did, seem more to go to the spirit and soul. Bill Gates will be remembered for his money. She will be remembered for her sacrifice and service. Just musing.... Bo > Al Gore has done really good work in trying to educate people about > global warming. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > happening > too of course. > >> >>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't > >> >>> put [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > against personal sacrifices? Does Oprah's giving of millions say, > compare with Mother Teresa's sacrifice? I think this is a much mor complex question than dollars vs. sacrifice. I'm not impressed by a rich person who says "oh, I have billions, have my accountants donate 10% of my annual income to charity." I'm much more impressed by someone who does what Bill Gates has done though. As far as personal "sacrifice" goes, I need some convincing on that ground as well. What exactly did Mother Teresa sacrifice? Whatever it was, maybe it was worth the fame and adoration she received. I'm not trying to run Mother Teresa down, but I don't think the fact that she lived a life of poverty automatically makes her a better person than someone who accomplished more without living a life of poverty. (I don't think it makes her worse either.) Poverty is not proof of virtue (and of course neither is wealth). There are lots of different ways to evaluate whether someone is good or not. Joining the Peace Corps can be just as self-serving as donated a million dollars to a high-profile charity (I'm not saying that most Peace Corps members are self serving - I think most of them genuinely do want to help people, though based on the ones I know, only a minority succeed. But they also want excitement and adventure). And I'm also not saying that most philanthropists work as hard and intelligently at their philanthropy as Bill Gates has been doing. But what he has been doing goes far beyond giving some money to have good PR. > give, compare on a personal 'goodness' scale, with any of the > thousands of Peace Corp volunteers that put their lives on-hold, or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the spirit and soul. Bill Gates will be remembered for his money. She > will be remembered for her sacrifice and service. I'm not sure how people are remembered has much to do with whether they are good people or not, and I'm not interested in deciding who is better, Mother Teresa or Bill Gates, but maybe Bill Gates will be remembered for wiping out malaria, and Mother Teresa will gradually be forgotten having had no impact beyond slightly ameliorating the lives of a few thousand people. Again, I'm not trying to run Mother Teresa down, but you brought up how she is to be remembered. But really, I don't know enough about what Mother Teresa, or Bill Gates (or Mr Rogers or any other celebrated person) to decide whether they are good or not, or which ones are better. I know a lot more about the people in my life. Most of us live within selfish frameworks that still allow us scope to think about doing good and about what the right thing to do is. I suspect this is also true for Mother Teresa and for Bill Gates. >> I agree with you about uSoft software. And then reflecting on Bill >> Gates for example... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think this is a much mor complex question than dollars > vs. sacrifice. Sure. > I'm not impressed by a rich person who says "oh, I have billions, > have > my accountants donate 10% of my annual income to charity." I'm much > more impressed by someone who does what Bill Gates has done though. Exacly what is it that you think sets Bill apart from other philantropists? I did a quick Wiki check and nothing leaped out as extraordinary. > As far as personal "sacrifice" goes, I need some convincing on that > ground as well. What exactly did Mother Teresa sacrifice? Whatever > it was, maybe it was worth the fame and adoration she received. A normal life? Perhaps to her--but I doubt it. > I'm not trying to run Mother Teresa down, but I don't think the fact > that she lived a life of poverty automatically makes her a better > person than someone who accomplished more without living a life of > poverty. (I don't think it makes her worse either.) Poverty is not > proof of virtue (and of course neither is wealth). Of course. But CHOOSING poverty (vs being 'handed it') certainly must reflect some character, right? Either that or not many marbles. > There are lots of different ways to evaluate whether someone is good > or not. Joining the Peace Corps can be just as self-serving as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > only a minority succeed. But they also want excitement and > adventure). I think anyone joining Peace Corp for self-serving reasons would be in for a life-changing lesson in many cases. > And I'm also not saying that most philanthropists work as hard and > intelligently at their philanthropy as Bill Gates has been doing. > But > what he has been doing goes far beyond giving some money to have > good > PR. Again, what exactly are you referring to? >> give, compare on a personal 'goodness' scale, with any of the >> thousands of Peace Corp volunteers that put their lives on-hold, or [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > of a few thousand people. Again, I'm not trying to run Mother Teresa > down, but you brought up how she is to be remembered. I don't know. I think a person's legacy/ how they are remembered has _much_ to do with how they lived their lives--not how much money they give away. > But really, I don't know enough about what Mother Teresa, or Bill > Gates (or Mr Rogers or any other celebrated person) to decide [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for > Mother Teresa and for Bill Gates. Agreed. Bo > >> I agree with you about uSoft software. And then reflecting on Bill > >> Gates for example... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > philantropists? I did a quick Wiki check and nothing leaped out as > extraordinary. He isn't just giving money away while he goes about making more. He is shifting his complete attention from how to make money to how to spend money in a way that helps the world, with big goals in mind that _might_ be acheivable (like cuttting world deaths from malaria in a substantial way). > > As far as personal "sacrifice" goes, I need some convincing on that > > ground as well. What exactly did Mother Teresa sacrifice? Whatever > > it was, maybe it was worth the fame and adoration she received. > > A normal life? Perhaps to her--but I doubt it. I don't know. Instead of a normal life in Albania (which I have to say, doesn't have a lot of appeal to me) she got to travel, see the world, run hundreds of missions, and publicize a cause she cared about. Yes, there was a period of real poverty in there too - that's true for lots of people who pursue ambitous goals, whether they goals happen to have good results or not. > > I'm not trying to run Mother Teresa down, but I don't think the fact > > that she lived a life of poverty automatically makes her a better [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Of course. But CHOOSING poverty (vs being 'handed it') certainly must > reflect some character, right? Either that or not many marbles. I'm confused by the "choosing poverty" part. Did she give up a fortune? I don't think so. She made a career out of being a nun. A career which was for many years not so different from many energetic careers like that, but took a turn when she decided to devote herself to the poor of Calcutta. Yes, as a nun she gave up personal possessions. She also traveled around the world talking to people (not by foot, by jet). Again, I'm not criticizing. I see some virtue in what she _did_ but not particularly in whatever she gave up. > > There are lots of different ways to evaluate whether someone is good > > or not. Joining the Peace Corps can be just as self-serving as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I think anyone joining Peace Corp for self-serving reasons would be in > for a life-changing lesson in many cases. I think anyone joining the Peace Corp will be in for a life changing lesson, whatever their reasons are. > > And I'm also not saying that most philanthropists work as hard and > > intelligently at their philanthropy as Bill Gates has been doing. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > _much_ to do with how they lived their lives--not how much money they > give away. I'm not sure why you are bringing up how much money someone gives away. That isn't my criterion. I'm also not sure why you are bringing up how someone will be remembered since I'm not sure how related that is to how good the person was. But as far as your contention: if the Gates foundation succeeded in wiping out malaria, I expect that would be more remembered than Mother Teresa's accomplishments. > > But really, I don't know enough about what Mother Teresa, or Bill > > Gates (or Mr Rogers or any other celebrated person) to decide [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Bo > >> >>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't > >> >>> put [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > Just musing.... I should have read your post first! I am and will go right along musing with you, Bo. Personally I think the risk and sacrafice make a huge impact on "who makes the list". Vickie >>>>>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't put >>>>>>> her quite in the same league (in regards to overall accomplishments [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Vickie Exactly. Service and Sacrifice, not just (so often, primarily) for the "show".. >>>>>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't >>>>>>> put [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > Vickie I would be curious to know if you know anything about Mr Gates philanthropy. >>>>>>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't >>>>>>>> put her quite in the same league (in regards to overall [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > I would be curious to know if you know anything about Mr Gates > philanthropy. But what real difference does that make? (We're past that bar). We're talking about Service and Sacrifice here. (Look Upwards, for the Higher Rung of the ladder). > I would be curious to know if you know anything about Mr Gates > philanthropy. Yes. Some. What is it that you know that you think I don't know that would point to some personal sacrifice on his part? Bo >> I would be curious to know if you know anything about Mr Gates >> philanthropy. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Bo Not trying to defend ol' Bill G. here... However, I find this particular comment to be a bit offensive for a self-professed Christian such as yourself. Who are you to criticize... even by implication? And to what extent have *you* picked up that cross? rj >>> I would be curious to know if you know anything about Mr Gates >>> philanthropy. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > rj Come over and I'll show ya. >>> I would be curious to know if you know anything about Mr Gates >>> philanthropy. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > However, I find this particular comment to be a bit offensive for a > self-professed Christian such as yourself. Sorry. You lost me. How does my question offend you? I merely asked what/how BG's philantropy activities cause him self-sacrifice (which I inferred Stephanie was saying BG did vs perahsp some other philantropists. > Who are you to criticize... even by implication? You inferred criticism on my part. I merely asked a question--which in so many words is 'doesn't personal sacrifice enter into the equation of how highly one should be held in esteem?' If you want to think me judgmental, that's your perrogative. Perhaps your 'equation is function of amount of $'. whereas my equation is more a function of personal sacrifice? That doesn't make your/my equation any more or less judgmental that the other. It just means we place things differently on an importance scale. If that's judgmental in your view, then nothing I say is going to change that. The _amount_ of money someone may give, isn't in my equation at all and here's why: Mark 12:43-44. I don't think that what BG did, (even as much as I am happy he has given so,) could reasonably be argued to have followed Matt 6:1-4. In this regard, I doubt he is any better or worse than most/many/(all?) philantropists. I respect him/them all for giving, but not as much as I respect others that give of themselves and of those who give as Matt 6 suggests. Bo > And to what extent have *you* picked up that cross? > > rj > >>> I would be curious to know if you know anything about Mr Gates > >>> philanthropy. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > The _amount_ of money someone may give, isn't in my equation at all > and here's why: Mark 12:43-44. Nor could Mother Teresa, or anyone else who continues to nourish themselves enough to live while others starve. Which is fine, but it doesn't provide a practical standard. > I don't think that what BG did, (even > as much as I am happy he has given so,) could reasonably be argued to > have followed Matt 6:1-4. I don't think so. Of course it is impossible to do something as ambitious as trying to wipe out malaria in secret. > In this regard, I doubt he is any better or > worse than most/many/(all?) philantropists. I respect him/them all for > giving, but not as much as I respect others that give of themselves > and of those who give as Matt 6 suggests. I think he is better than most philanthropists. Here is an example. If I give money to the schoolkids who knock on my door raising money by selling wrapping paper, that is behavior which is similar to other philanthropists. I'm not giving of myself, just parting with some money I can spare. If on the other hand I spend my time (more precious than money to me) _and_ money working on realizable goals that might improve education in my state, it is a different story. Gates's work is more in this second category. As much as you like to repeat it, he isn't just giving money, he is giving of himself in the sense that he is working on his projects as well as giving them money. He isn't doing medical research, that isn't his expertise. What he is doing is trying to understand the problem well enough to focus his considerable resources in areas likely to bear fruit. If you can't see that this is different from just cutting a check, it isn't because people haven't pointed it out to you. >> > However, I find this particular comment to be a bit offensive for >> > a >> > self-professed Christian such as yourself. >> >><snip> >> The _amount_ of money someone may give, isn't in my equation at all >> and here's why: Mark 12:43-44. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it > doesn't provide a practical standard. Not a standard in hard numerical terms sure. But an underlying principle is clear-- that giving out of abundance means less than giving when it hurts. Giving at great risk to personal well being or safety is unquestionable. So Oskar Schindler should undoubtedly be added to the list along with any other people that risked their own families by sheltering Jews and others in their time of great need. >> I don't think that what BG did, (even >> as much as I am happy he has given so,) could reasonably be argued [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I don't think so. Of course it is impossible to do something as > ambitious as trying to wipe out malaria in secret. Yes & no. It is impossible to wipe out malaria in secret. It is also possible to give money and time to that effort without publishing the amount, and the name of the donors and without being on the cover of magazines. > I think he is better than most philanthropists. Here is an example. > If I give money to the schoolkids who knock on my door raising money [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > _and_ money working on realizable goals that might improve education > in my state, it is a different story. I whole heartedly agree.... > Gates's work is more in this second category. As much as you like > to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > doing is trying to understand the problem well enough to focus his > considerable resources in areas likely to bear fruit. Great. > If you can't see that this is different from just cutting a check, > it > isn't because people haven't pointed it out to you. I do see the difference...thanks for pointing them out. Bo > >> > However, I find this particular comment to be a bit offensive for > >> > a [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > amount, and the name of the donors and without being on the cover of > magazines. I don't think it is possible to do something on the scale of what Gates is trying to do without being publicized and without being on the cover of magazines. It would be on thing if no one knew who he was (though it would be hard even then). But that isn't the situation. I can't tell if he is deliberately publicizing his work. I see no evidence that he is. When he is interviewed (for example) by tech magazines/websites he sticks to the topic, and doesn't say "by the way, my software sucks, and my business practices look back to those of the robber barons, but I'm donating money to charity!" But I certainly have no way of knowing for sure to what extent he is doing this because he believes he should, or because he believes it will look good. (That line isn't always so bright and clear by the way, but that is a separate topic.) My impression (based on what I've read, and on knowing someone who works for the Gates Foundation) is that he is actually working at this, and working at it because he believes it is a good thing to do, not for the publicity (certainly he can have all the publicity he wants in any case). It is actually sort of interesting to me. In terms of technological innovation and vision, Jobs and Gates are often compared. I'm much more sympathetic to Jobs in the sense that I think he's made interesting, intelligent, technological decisions, some of which have done well, some of which have done poorly, but many of which show a really interesting vision (and which have affected me - I used linux for a long time - when Apple switched to unix based computers, they brought me in as a customer. And I hate to say it, but the iPod has had a huge impact on my life - not mostly a musical one, but allowing me to time-shift my news consumption to moments when it is convenient for me). Gates by contrast I consider to be a good businessman who has mainly capitalized on other people's mistakes, or on odd situations, and not much of a visionary. At the same time, Gates is now doing something I kind of respect, and while I can respect Jobs's taste and vision, he seems like he might be a person I wouldn't like if I actually knew him. [On Silicon Valley: Do you know the old joke about Larry Ellison's ego? Q: What's the difference between God and Larry Ellison? A: God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison.] > I can't tell if he is deliberately publicizing his work. I see no > evidence that he is. Agreed. When he is interviewed (for example) by tech > magazines/websites he sticks to the topic, and doesn't say "by the > way, my software sucks, and my business practices look back to those > of the robber barons, but I'm donating money to charity!" Ha ha! Now if he did that, he'd definitely make my list :) > But I certainly have no way of knowing for sure to what extent he is > doing this because he believes he should, or because he believes it [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > he > can have all the publicity he wants in any case). Hopefully you are right. > It is actually sort of interesting to me. In terms of technological > innovation and vision, Jobs and Gates are often compared. I'm much [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > while I can respect Jobs's taste and vision, he seems like he might > be a person I wouldn't like if I actually knew him. I can definitely see that. If this analogy is right-- ie Jobs is the cat waiting to pounce on a foolish mouse. Whereas Gates is the Pit Bull on the block forcing pedestrians to jump over a fence. :) > [On Silicon Valley: Do you know the old joke about Larry Ellison's > ego? > > Q: What's the difference between God and Larry Ellison? > > A: God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison.] Nope--never heard that one-- I had to Google just to know who Larry boy was :) Bo >>>>>> I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't >>>>>> put her quite in the same league (in regards to overall [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Just musing.... I completely agree. Hey, this might be a first. :-) >Are many, some?, philanthopists giving out of a sense of pride/fame >'look world, how good I am' rather than actually making a personal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the spirit and soul. Bill Gates will be remembered for his money. She >will be remembered for her sacrifice and service. I dunno. Sacrifice and service are wonderful, but there is nothing like a little polio vaccine to make all the difference in the world to a child and his family. Dedication is great, but it takes money to buy vaccine and mosquito netting so I don't think that should be seen as a lesser contribution.  SignatureLauri in WA > >Are many, some?, philanthopists giving out of a sense of pride/fame > >'look world, how good I am' rather than actually making a personal [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as a lesser contribution. > -- I think the vaccine is tremendous. I think the virologists are giants. I think the people who sacrificed themselves and were injected with the trials of a new vaccine should also be highly respected. My sis (who looks at "bugs" for a living) also told me of some connection between polio vaccine trials and failures in the Congo. Did you hear of this? Vickie >>Are many, some?, philanthopists giving out of a sense of pride/fame >>'look world, how good I am' rather than actually making a personal [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > seen > as a lesser contribution. Right. Not a lesser contribution, but maybe a lesser _personal contribution.... Bo >>>>>I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't put >>>>>her quite in the same league (in regards to overall accomplishments [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > famous person, Bill Gates is trying in an intelligent way to do real > good in his charity work. Melinda was very good for him in this. Before he married her, he wasn't a particularly charitable person in a relative wealth sense. At a particular charity event, we calculated that relative to our reasonably high salaries, he was giving the equivelant of 37 dollars. Kudos to their current work. His business practices when he was CEO were pretty reprehensible, almost as if he was channeling Carnegie or J.D. Rockefeller. Of course they ended up assuaging their conciences through very charitable work as well. Snip > Kudos to their current work. <shrug> Better than another poke in the eye with a sharp stick, I guess. How many times have I been forced by designed obsolescence to buy the latest interface??? Multiplied by....?? > His business practices when he was CEO were pretty reprehensible, > almost as if he was channeling Carnegie or J.D. Rockefeller. Of > course they ended up assuaging their conciences through very > charitable work as well. ...and that's just how I see it. Trying to buy their way into "heaven" before it's too late. Well,...once any of them stepped on that first throat the chances diminished greatly. >> Kudos to their current work. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Well,...once any of them stepped on that first throat the >chances diminished greatly. I have to say, I don't see their charitable work this way. The company I just retired from has been working with the Gates Foundation in Africa, and as the person in charge of communicating about that work until recently, I found their work very impressive. Their foundation is also helping to find ways of reinventing secondary education in the US. One (or more) of the schools in the Cincy Public school system has a grant from the foundation and is doing some good stuff. Most philanthropists are people who spend a goodly portion of their lives focused more on making money than giving it away. Considering the alternatives, I find it commendable that Bill Gates and his wife are choosing to spend their money in ways that are truly making a difference in people's lives in meaningful ways. Barb > Most philanthropists are people who spend a goodly portion of their > lives focused more on making money than giving it away. Considering > the alternatives, I find it commendable that Bill Gates and his wife > are choosing to spend their money in ways that are truly making a > difference in people's lives in meaningful ways. <nods> Yeah, I've seen the difference. (though I never met Rockefeller) Maybe it's just a persistent "camel/needle eye" thing for me. Old, well drilled notions are the hardest to shed, eh? Either way, I'm still casting a wary eye. My instincts used to be pretty good, and I'm still learning to trust them again. >> Kudos to their current work. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > latest interface??? > Multiplied by....?? Sorry, I am very anti-Microsoft, but then again I am a Mac user. >> His business practices when he was CEO were pretty reprehensible, >> almost as if he was channeling Carnegie or J.D. Rockefeller. Of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well,...once any of them stepped on that first throat the > chances diminished greatly. > >> Kudos to their current work. > > <shrug> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sorry, I am very anti-Microsoft, but then again I am a Mac user. Ditto. Maybe that's why I can appreciate where Bill Gates is putting his attention now - I've never had to force myself to suffer through his company's software, so I have less of a grudge on that front! >> >> Kudos to their current work. >> > <shrug> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > attention now - I've never had to force myself to suffer through his > company's software, so I have less of a grudge on that front! I can't bring myself to hate Microsoft. It kept me very gainfully employed with its baffling "development tools" for years. >>>>>Kudos to their current work. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I can't bring myself to hate Microsoft. It kept me very gainfully employed > with its baffling "development tools" for years. Glad someone got some good out of it! >> Kudos to their current work. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Well,...once any of them stepped on that first throat the > chances diminished greatly. I think it is interesting that you assume this is the motive. >>> Kudos to their current work. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I think it is interesting that you assume this is the motive. Momentarily cynical was all. > I agree with you on your assessment of her. Still, I wouldn't put her > quite in the same league (in regards to overall accomplishments in improving [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > Xorra Mother Teresa, the Ghoul of Calcutta, did nothing to alleviate suffering, save for some hand-holding . She was misguided at best, selfish, and evil at worst. She was a bad person. http://www.fitz-claridge.com/Articles/MotherTeresa.html http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/1996/august96/hakeem.html http://www.meteorbooks.com/introduction.html "TomK's report of Mother Teresa's attitudes toward hospice care have been independently reported by several sources: The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice by Christopher Hitchens, Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict by Aroup Chatterjee, and "Mother Theresa's care for the dying" by Robin Fox (Lancet. 1994 Sep 17;344(8925):807-8. [PMID 7818649]). Among the medical accusations, all confirmed by independent primary sources (people who actually visited her facilities in person): a systematic lack of diagnosis (people often didn't even know what disease they had, or if it was treatable; all diseases were treated as terminal), a systematic lack of analgesia (no pain relief), and frequent reuse of needles (to save money). There are also many reports of financial irregularities with her charity. Mother Teresa filed a letter with Judge Lance Ito, presiding over the trial of Charles Keating (of the 1980's Savings & Loan scandal), in an attempt to win mercy for one of her major donors. Deputy DA Paul Turley wrote to her in response, asking her to return the money Keating had donated because it had been obtained through defrauding innocent people. She didn't reply." http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/ > Hey Bill, I was just wondering if Jane Goodall is worthy of being included with > the likes of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Fred Rogers. She appears to me to be an [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What do you think? She is up on my list for sure! Vickie > Hey Bill, I was just wondering if Jane Goodall is worthy of being included with > the likes of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Fred Rogers. She appears to me to be an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Xorra I want to add some people. Ann Sullivan Nelson Mandela Miep Gies and Irena Sandler Robert Johnson And of course, well, I *am* Catholic, so you can guess who tops my list. Vickie > > Hey Bill, I was just wondering if Jane Goodall is worthy of being included with > > the likes of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Fred Rogers. She appears to me to be an [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > And of course, well, I *am* Catholic, so you can guess who tops my > list. Which reminds me: Margaret Sanger (though she is also dead). On Apr 24, 9:52 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey Bill, I was just wondering if Jane Goodall is worthy of being included with > > > the likes of Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Fred Rogers. She appears to me to be an [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Margaret Sanger (though she is also dead).- Hide quoted text - Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? It would seem so. I agree. She was certainly a champion. I just can't get past her thoughts on selective breeding and a few other things. So, I wonder what percentage of good would classify someone to make the (close to) universal man-made list of "saints" For me, the importance of what those people risked and sacrificied to do the good deeds makes a difference as well. Vickie > On Apr 24, 9:52 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? That's kind of my point. I think you _have_ to do this if you are going to find people to respect. Everyone is mixed. It is nice to have fantasies about some people being good and only doing good things, and other people being fallen angels (or some such thing) but that's not what human beings are like. When you said you were Catholic so we could guess who tops your list, I thought of the Pope (you may have meant Jesus of course, but then it becomes very confusing whether he was actually a person or not). I'm sure that Ratzinger has done good things. And as popes go, I like what he's said (since becoming Capo di tutti capi). But he's also dones things I really don't like. The fathers of US democracy were, in their ways, great men who did a good thing (I think) for humanity. They also owned slaves, and condoned a society based (to some extent) on slave ownership. (And for all I know they were cruel to their wives.) Are they to be admired? Reviled? Forgotten? On Apr 24, 11:34 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 24, 9:52 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > That's kind of my point. I think you _have_ to do this if you are > going to find people to respect. Yeah. Except there can be some people who go above and beyond, don't you think? > Everyone is mixed. It is nice to have fantasies about some people > being good and only doing good things, and other people being fallen > angels (or some such thing) but that's not what human beings are like. Yes, everyone is mixed. That's why I think self-sacrifice comes into play. > When you said you were Catholic so we could guess who tops your list, > I thought of the Pope (you may have meant Jesus of course, but then it > becomes very confusing whether he was actually a person or not). I'm > sure that Ratzinger has done good things. And as popes go, I like > what he's said (since becoming Capo di tutti capi). But he's also > dones things I really don't like. I meant JC (as Owen Wilson's charcter in Meet the Parents calls him). > The fathers of US democracy were, in their ways, great men who did a > good thing (I think) for humanity. They also owned slaves, and > condoned a society based (to some extent) on slave ownership. (And for > all I know they were cruel to their wives.) I agree. > Are they to be admired? Reviled? Forgotten? I think they are admired until someone points out their skeletons. Take Columbus for instance. Forgotten, no. It doesn't help anything to forget. Again, I am not sure what the formula would be to pick the people on "the list". Vickie > On Apr 24, 11:34 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Yes, everyone is mixed. That's why I think self-sacrifice comes into > play. But self-sacrifice is hard to measure. I think a lot of self-sacrifice is actually mixed with selfishness in one way or another. > > When you said you were Catholic so we could guess who tops your list, > > I thought of the Pope (you may have meant Jesus of course, but then it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I meant JC (as Owen Wilson's charcter in Meet the Parents calls > him). Yeah - well, if you believe he is god then he doesnt' really fit onto a list of admirable people. And if you believe (as I do) that he was simply a man, then his life is too far away and too hard to know the facts of for us to be able to say how the good and the bad were mixed. > > The fathers of US democracy were, in their ways, great men who did a > > good thing (I think) for humanity. They also owned slaves, and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I think they are admired until someone points out their skeletons. > Take Columbus for instance. Maybe I still wasn't clear. I think everyone has "skeletons." At least in the sense that everyone has done things that aren't good even if they have also done good things. So if you are only going to admire people until someone points out hte skeletons in their closet, then you should skip the whole thing and not admire anyone at all. But I don't suggest this. I suggest admiring people for their admirable qualities, but not insisting that they have to be perfect in order to admire what is good about them. >> On Apr 24, 11:34 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > skeletons in their closet, then you should skip the whole thing and > not admire anyone at all. What skeletons did Fred Rogers have? > But I don't suggest this. I suggest admiring people for their > admirable qualities, but not insisting that they have to be perfect in > order to admire what is good about them. On Apr 24, 1:05 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net> wrote: > >> On Apr 24, 11:34 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > > What skeletons did Fred Rogers have? The kind that make children giggle and gulp on Halloween? Vickie On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 24, 11:34 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > self-sacrifice is actually mixed with selfishness in one way or > another. Some is. I think some self-sacrifice really stands out. > > > When you said you were Catholic so we could guess who tops your list, > > > I thought of the Pope (you may have meant Jesus of course, but then it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > simply a man, then his life is too far away and too hard to know the > facts of for us to be able to say how the good and the bad were mixed. I believe he was God in man's form. But, I will take him off the list. I kind-of think he is above being listed away. > > > The fathers of US democracy were, in their ways, great men who did a > > > good thing (I think) for humanity. They also owned slaves, and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > least in the sense that everyone has done things that aren't good even > if they have also done good things. Sure. Then you (we) weigh the bad with the good. I am thinking the bad would be extremely insignificant for them to make the cut. > So if you are only going to admire people until someone points out hte > skeletons in their closet, then you should skip the whole thing and > not admire anyone at all. Oh, no. I meant people in general have a tendency to do that. The throw the baby out with the bath water thing. > But I don't suggest this. I suggest admiring people for their > admirable qualities, but not insisting that they have to be perfect in > order to admire what is good about them. I agree. In this instance, this thread, we *are* talking about those we find admirable in the extreme; not perfect, but as close as we have been able to see. Vickie > On Apr 24, 12:41 pm, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Some is. I think some self-sacrifice really stands out. Indeed! (And that seems to be the point Doug is still missing). >>>> When you said you were Catholic so we could guess who tops your list, >>>> I thought of the Pope (you may have meant Jesus of course, but then it [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Vickie "Vickie <lilliputianbizzare@gmail.com>" asked: > Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? "Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com>" replied: > I think you _have_ to do this if you are going to find people > to respect. Spot on. My take on this is that judging goes both ways: you can judge actions, but not people. I can't judge what kind of person Tonya Harding is; I don't know enough about her, I wasn't there, I wasn't *her*. But I can judge what she and her compatriots *did*. I can't judge George Washington: his motivations were a complex set of things known only to himself (if that!). But I can judge what he did: he resigned his commission instead of marching on Philadelphia with his army behind him and declaring himself King. Then he served two terms and went home to Mount Vernon. And I can judge other things he did: he owned slaves. It serves us nothing to sit around as if we were final arbiters of good and bad, and put gold stars on people we like and "Mister Yuck" stickers on people we don't. What serves us is to find acts we should emulate and acts we shouldn't. * Mr Anderson wrote, of Jesus: > [I]f you believe he is god then he doesnt' really fit onto a list of > admirable people. This is point concerning which there hath been brave disputation. The official formulation has it that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine. What exactly does that mean? Beats the heck out of me. * Mr Anderson also wrote: > So if you are only going to admire people until someone points out > the skeletons in their closet, then you should skip the whole thing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > admirable qualities, but not insisting that they have to be perfect > in order to admire what is good about them. Spot on. At this point, I'll refer you to Cecil Adams's answer about Martin Luther King: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030502.html which summary gets it right: Was he a great American? No argument here. Was he a fraud and a hypocrite? He was that, too. The lesson is "Don't be simplex". (Go read "Empire Star" if you don't get the reference.) Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "The saints are what they are, not because their sancity makes them admirable to others, but because of the gift of sainthood makes it possible for them to admire everybody else." -- Thomas Merton >> Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? > > That's kind of my point. I think you _have_ to do this if you are > going to find people to respect. Of course you can absolutely respect one aspect of a person, or one great thing they've done in an otherwise undistinguished life. But I think for the purposes of *this* list, the idea is not merely to find people to respect, but to go beyond respect, to people who are truly good to the core. A list of people whose accomplishments are to be admired would be much different, and much, much longer. It's very hard for us to truly measure "goodness" of other people, especially famous people, but with so many people dedicated to bringing down idols these days, finding people whose "good person image" has not yet been toppled is probably good enough. From your original list, I have trouble with Bill Gates despite his philanthropy, not only because he has kept billions for himself and thus has not suffered self-sacrifice, but also because he made those billions off the backs of people like me by stifling completition and creativity and driving so many small businesses out of business. I can admire his business acumen and the fact that he has taken it upon himself to give back in a much larger and more proactive way then most of the other ultra-rich, but I think the bad he has brought on the world counterbalances the good and therefore I do not think he would qualify as someone to revere. The Gardasil developers are just an unknown. Is there among them any who dedicated their life to developing this vaccine? Or are they a bunch of smart people who in the course of their jobs and collecting a paycheck, have managed to develop something of benefit to humanity? I just don't know, do you? And Al Gore....well, he's a celebrity who like many other celebrities has taken up a cause. I credit him for trying to live to his principles, but...I just don't see that he's really gone up to the next level. > Everyone is mixed. It is nice to have fantasies about some people > being good and only doing good things, and other people being fallen > angels (or some such thing) but that's not what human beings are like. Perhaps not, but it's easy to see that some people fall much closer to one end or the other. > The fathers of US democracy were, in their ways, great men who did a > good thing (I think) for humanity. They also owned slaves, and > condoned a society based (to some extent) on slave ownership. (And > for all I know they were cruel to their wives.) > > Are they to be admired? Reviled? Forgotten? Admired? Yes. Reviled? Perhaps -- I think it's important to judge people against the period and place from which they came, and we simply can't judge them according to modern standards. Forgotten? Of course not. Xorra >>> Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > purposes of *this* list, the idea is not merely to find people to respect, > but to go beyond respect, to people who are truly good to the core. Exactly. Well said. > A list of people whose accomplishments are to be admired would be much > different, and much, much longer. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > not > think he would qualify as someone to revere. True enough. > The Gardasil developers are just an unknown. Is there among them any who > dedicated their life to developing this vaccine? Or are they a bunch of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > but...I > just don't see that he's really gone up to the next level. Again - true enough. A lot of it is for the show. Although I agree he did take up the cause, and that is good. >> Everyone is mixed. It is nice to have fantasies about some people >> being good and only doing good things, and other people being fallen [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Xorra ?? What "modern standards"?? >>>> Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? >>> [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > ?? What "modern standards"?? The one which says "slavery is wrong" which was obviously not a universally held standard in revolutionary war era America, or for some time to come afterwards. Xorra [...] > But I > think for the purposes of *this* list, the idea is not merely to find > people to respect, but to go beyond respect, to people who are truly > good to the core. This is interesting to think about, Xorra, and it _is_ hard to guess at what might have been in the heart and mind of someone who has done spectacularly good works. I think I do have a candidate for your list - Edward "Weary" Dunlop. I suppose you are unlikely to have heard of him but he's very famous and revered here as a hero of the second world war. A surgeon involved with the Australian Army mobile surgery unit, he was captured by the Japanese and was sent to the Thai-Burma railroad where he performed as a surgeon under the most appalling conditions and with extraordinary bravery, for example when he put himself between very sick men and the soldiers who wanted to kill them because they could no longer work. I'm going to be lazy here and just quote the Wikipedia entry for him. "A courageous leader and compassionate doctor, he restored morale in those terrible prison camps and jungle hospitals. Dunlop defied his captors, gave hope to the sick and eased the anguish of the dying. He became, in the words of one of his men, "a lighthouse of sanity in a universe of madness and suffering". His example was one of the reasons why Australian survival rates were the highest." Added to that he was able to forgive his captors and is quoted as saying "[...] I was deeply conscious of the Buddhist belief that all men are equal in the face of suffering and death". > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > "[...] I was deeply conscious of the Buddhist belief that all men are equal > in the face of suffering and death". Sounds like a winner to me. You all just had your "Veterans Day" there recently, yes? (Pardon for not knowing the correct name, sincerely...Anzak??). My husband's boss reached a new low. After talking to the head of their Australian division, said boss made a joke over the day. He was then informed how seriously it is taken there. Again he decided to put his foot in his mouth. Needless to say, someone else has been directing the communication to you all down under. I really had no idea myself of the importance of the day. It was interesting to find out. I do need to read more about it though! Vickie >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Vickie And also, watch the PBS MacNeil Lehrer report to keep informed of what's going on in this world! Just to let you know, "Seasoned Hillary" is making a comeback. And so it's gonna be a bit tougher for "Inspirational Obama" to make it at this point, it seems. I just wish ONE of them would make it, so we could move FORWARD - to save this country from its decimation. Disclaimer: "The views expressed here reflect that of a sane man, and in no way are intended to represent those of the masses" :-) >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > You all just had your "Veterans Day" there recently, yes? > (Pardon for not knowing the correct name, sincerely...Anzak??). It's Anzac Day, today! There's a dawn parade of veteran servicemen and our son, a cadet, is marching in the later parade of current service personnel and allied prganisation wearing the medals of his grandfather, who we lost last month under very sad circumstances and who served in the Royal Navy in WWII. It's also our 27th wedding anniversary, so there's lots for me to feel moved about today. :) > My husband's boss reached a new low. After talking to the head of > their Australian division, said boss made a joke over the day. He was > then informed how seriously it is taken there. Again he decided to > put his foot in his mouth. Needless to say, someone else has been > directing the communication to you all down under. Oh dear! Yes, that would have gone down like a lead balloon. I can't imagine anyone here making jokes about your Memorial Day. > I really had no idea myself of the importance of the day. > It was interesting to find out. > I do need to read more about it though! Well, I could say the same about yours! Today is our special day for remembering our war dead but we also observe Remembrance/Armistice Day (your Veteran's Day?), and pause for a minute's silence at the 11th hour of 11 November. Well, some of us do.... > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > of one of his men, "a lighthouse of sanity in a universe of madness and > suffering". Now THAT is impressive. > His example was one of the reasons why Australian survival rates > were the highest." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > equal > in the face of suffering and death". That is *quite* remarkable. And admirable. (And, most likely, nearly unfathomable, I expect, for the rest of us ... mere mortals). >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > (And, most likely, nearly unfathomable, I expect, for the rest of us > ... mere mortals). Woo Hoo! Looks like we have a winner! So Bill, is he added to your list? And Tai, thanks. He does sound like a truly remarkable man, and well worth learning about. Xorra [...] > Woo Hoo! Looks like we have a winner! So Bill, is he added to your > list? > And Tai, thanks. He does sound like a truly remarkable man, and well > worth learning about. You're welcome! But... if Bill is going to trot Sir Edward out with the regularity he does Mother Teresa and Mr Rogers I am going to regret mentioning the man! :o) > >> Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of *this* list, the idea is not merely to find people to respect, but to go > beyond respect, to people who are truly good to the core. But this is what I'm kind of objecting to. There are a few people I know to the core. They aren't famous public figures. I claim we don't know famous public figures to the core. Furthermore, if we look at _any_ human being to the core, we discover ambiguities. So I'm not so sure this "good to the core" qualification is either useful or meaningful. > A list of people whose accomplishments are to be admired would be much > different, and much, much longer. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > days, finding people whose "good person image" has not yet been toppled is > probably good enough. And this is _why_ I object to making lists of "good to the core." What they are instead are lists of people who we don't know well enough to see the ambiguities, and then they are subject to being crossed off the list in _spite_ of whatever wonderful things they've done if we discover the ambiguities of motivation at their cores, > From your original list, I have trouble with Bill Gates despite his > philanthropy, not only because he has kept billions for himself and thus has not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > brought on the world counterbalances the good and therefore I do not think he > would qualify as someone to revere. Hmm. I don't particular want to argue the merits of Bill Gates. But if you have to give away all your money to become good to the core, then we are setting a bar too high for Gandhi or Fred Rogers, neither of whom led a life of privation. And if that is a _primary_ qualification, then Mother Teresa becomes no more outstanding than many other nuns and monks. As far as self-sacrifice goes, I don't think giving away a small chunk of your fortune represents self-sacrifice. I _do_ think turning your business and organizational abilities away from your fortune, and towards harnessing your wealth to do good _does_ constitute a certain amount of self-sacrifice. > The Gardasil developers are just an unknown. Is there among them any who > dedicated their life to developing this vaccine? Or are they a bunch of smart > people who in the course of their jobs and collecting a paycheck, have managed > to develop something of benefit to humanity? I just don't know, do > you? I don't know who they are, or what their motivations were. Just like I don't know Mother Teresa's motivations, or those of Fred Rogers. > And Al Gore....well, he's a celebrity who like many other celebrities has taken > up a cause. I credit him for trying to live to his principles, but...I just > don't see that he's really gone up to the next level. Yes. The problem is that while there really is a difference between people, the whole business of putting them on one "level" or another gets troubling. Your criterion may be "self-sacrifice." But what if all Mother Teresa did was to do what she _wanted_ to do. What if she had no interest in seeking alternative paths in the Albania she grew up in? After all, she became the world's most celebrated and famous Albanian on her path, and maybe it was the most efficient path to that route, and maybe that was part of her motivation! Again, I don't mean to run her down. I really don't know very much about her. After all, she is a celebrity, not a close personal friend of mine. I'm just questioning what the criteria should be to be on the "one of the world's few good to the core people" list. >>>> Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? >>> [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > people, the whole business of putting them on one "level" or another > gets troubling. Not really. > Your criterion may be "self-sacrifice." But what if all Mother Teresa > did was to do what she _wanted_ to do. What if she had no interest in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of mine. I'm just questioning what the criteria should be to be on > the "one of the world's few good to the core people" list. I think the answer is pretty clear, by what has already been covered in this thread.. >>>> Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > So I'm not so sure this "good to the core" qualification is either > useful or meaningful. I don't think you can judge whether or not something is useful or meaningful to others. It's true that sometimes our role models fall from grace as more is found out about them, but I don't see that as a reason not to have any at all. >> A list of people whose accomplishments are to be admired would be >> much different, and much, much longer. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > crossed off the list in _spite_ of whatever wonderful things they've > done if we discover the ambiguities of motivation at their cores, Oh, this is far to pessimistic. You sound a bit like Bill here. I do believe that there are a good number of good people in the world. And I don't think that anyone expects them to be perfect. >> From your original list, I have trouble with Bill Gates despite his >> philanthropy, not only because he has kept billions for himself and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > qualification, then Mother Teresa becomes no more outstanding than > many other nuns and monks. I was trying to say that it was *not* the primary consideration. The rest of the paragraph, starting with "but also because" lists the reasons why I personally would not put him on the list. > As far as self-sacrifice goes, I don't think giving away a small > chunk of your fortune represents self-sacrifice. I _do_ think turning [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I don't know who they are, or what their motivations were. Just like > I don't know Mother Teresa's motivations, or those of Fred Rogers. I wasn't talking so much about motivation as devotion. >> And Al Gore....well, he's a celebrity who like many other >> celebrities has taken up a cause. I credit him for trying to live [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > people, the whole business of putting them on one "level" or another > gets troubling. Why? > Your criterion may be "self-sacrifice." But what if all Mother Teresa > did was to do what she _wanted_ to do. I find this to be philosophical hair-splitting. If someone selfishly decides to devote themselves to the poor and infirm, then I say good for them. > What if she had no interest in > seeking alternative paths in the Albania she grew up in? After all, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of mine. I'm just questioning what the criteria should be to be on > the "one of the world's few good to the core people" list. Well, then, perhaps this is a topic that doesn't interest you, or in which you have no inclination to participate. You are welcome to start a list of your own with whatever criteria you deem appropriate. Xorra >>>>> Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Oh, this is far to pessimistic. You sound a bit like Bill here. No, that is far more pessimistic than even me. And even more cynical. (It's kind of sad, actually, that one actually believes that). > I do believe > that there are a good number of good people in the world. And I don't [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > I wasn't talking so much about motivation as devotion. And down in the field, actually getting your hands dirty, Service and Sacrifice. >>> And Al Gore....well, he's a celebrity who like many other >>> celebrities has taken up a cause. I credit him for trying to live [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Why? He just does. >> Your criterion may be "self-sacrifice." But what if all Mother Teresa >> did was to do what she _wanted_ to do. > > I find this to be philosophical hair-splitting. Indeed. > If someone selfishly decides > to devote themselves to the poor and infirm, then I say good for them. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you > have no inclination to participate. Interesting. Perhaps that's it. (I hadn't even thought of that possibility!). > You are welcome to start a list of your > own with whatever criteria you deem appropriate. > > Xorra > >>>> Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? > >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I don't think you can judge whether or not something is useful or meaningful to > others. I can try though. > It's true that sometimes our role models fall from grace as more is > found out about them, but I don't see that as a reason not to have > any at all. Nor do I. And I explicitly said I'm _not_ suggesting not to have role models. What I am suggesting is that since we have no way of knowing whether someone is "good to the core" we look for role models without concern for that unknowable quality. And we value the good that people do without insisting that they be paragons of perfection. >>>>>> Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I can try though. I don't understand why you would try. People get to decide that kind of thing for themselves. >> It's true that sometimes our role models fall from grace as more is >> found out about them, but I don't see that as a reason not to have [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And we value the good that people do without insisting that they be > paragons of perfection. Let me ask you Doug, why can't you just play along? There is nothing stopping you, me, or Bill from valuing anyone we want. I'm certain that Bill values and respects many people other than Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and Fred Rogers. His daughter, for example, his friends, and yes, certain famous people he has mentioned over the years. Nonetheless, he puts those three in a category of their own. An ideal that seems impossible to reach. And I believe that even with those seemingly impossible standards, there are many, many people, both past and present, who would qualify. *That* is what I was hoping to show him. That there are many in the world who do live up to his standards. So, I'd really appreciate it if you did not chose this time or place to make a stand that he ought to lower his standards. Because it's not going to happen, and it's just going to turn a positive thread into yet another argument. Xorra > >>>>>> Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I don't understand why you would try. People get to decide that kind of thing > for themselves. Sure. And they can listen to my opinions or not. > >> It's true that sometimes our role models fall from grace as more is > >> found out about them, but I don't see that as a reason not to have [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > impossible standards, there are many, many people, both past and present, who > would qualify. I think dividing the world's people into saints and regular people is, to some degree, pathological. Most explicitly so in Bill's case since he uses it to support his notion that he lives in a fallen world relative to the world of his childhood. So to me adding a couple people to the pathology seems like feeding the problem, not ameliorating it. > *That* is what I was hoping to show him. That there are many in the world who > do live up to his standards. So, I'd really appreciate it if you did not chose > this time or place to make a stand that he ought to lower his > standards. I've not taken that stand. In fact, I think he should _raise_ his standards. "Used to be good, now bad" is much too low a standard. > Because it's not going to happen, and it's just going to turn a positive thread > into yet another argument. You needn't argue if you don't feel like it. >>>>>>>> Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > he uses it to support his notion that he lives in a fallen world > relative to the world of his childhood. You call it dividing, I call it recognizing the best of the best. > So to me adding a couple people to the pathology seems like feeding > the problem, not ameliorating it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I've not taken that stand. In fact, I think he should _raise_ his > standards. "Used to be good, now bad" is much too low a standard. This makes no sense. >> Because it's not going to happen, and it's just going to turn a >> positive thread into yet another argument. > > You needn't argue if you don't feel like it. It doesn't bother me, but some around here apparently find it distressing. Xorra >>>>>>>>> Can you highly respect only part of what a person has done? >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > This makes no sense. Good. I thought so too. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one that caught that specious line. Because you're right, it makes no logical sense. >>> Because it's not going to happen, and it's just going to turn a >>> positive thread into yet another argument. >> >> You needn't argue if you don't feel like it. > > It doesn't bother me, but some around here apparently find it distressing. Yup. Apparently so. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.