Not sure if I'm following here metalwing, but in the long run I think that we agree.

Wine, women, and song is different for each of us? Family is different for each of us? Work is different for each of us?

It seems to me that you are saying that what means the most to each of us differs from person to person, as the examples show. I would agree. But then "it" would be referring to the abstract idea of what means the most to people in their own lives. If what means the most in one's own life equates to the meaning of life in general, then we've stopped talking about life(in general) and began discussing individual lives. The question, it seems to me, is talking about life in general. That's whay I say that there is no such thing as the meaning of life.

Well whether or not I agree with the simplification all depends upon what "it" refers to.

A common question, but one that is philosophically uninteresting because it is based upon a few common misunderstandings about what meaning consists of, how it arises, and what sorts of things can be sensibly said to have meaning.

There is no such thing as the meaning of life.

Meaning is something that we create and attribute with thought/belief and language. Life does not require thought/belief and/or language. Meaning consists completely of exactly that. Therefore, life does not have meaning beyond that which we attribute to it.

Moreover, it is that which we care about most that means the most, thus the meaning we have in our life is determined by that which we care about most and how we've come to terms with it.

As if that is an appropriate response...

Some folk can back up what they say. Others cannot. The former can be said to know what they're talking about, the latter cannot.

I've backed up my claims.

I never mentioned Exxon/Mobile nor am I blaming Republicans, as if everything regarding the current income gap is their fault.




Again... Wow!

From what I've written, you've somehow concluded that I'm "blaming Republicans" and "glorify(ing) liberals"? While I suppose that that could be true of someone else who wrote exactly the same things, it isn't the only reasonable conclusion to draw and it most certainly does not count as an accurate summary of my own thoughts and/or actions here.

Some further considerations may help...

There's a big difference between "blaming" someone for the widening gap in income inequality and comparing what they say with their actions, especially when and if those actions influence the gap itself. That is basically what the paragraph in question was about. The current Republican talking points are emphasizing the income inequality gap and specifically pointing out that it has continued to increase exponentially during the Obama administration. That is a true statement about Republican behavior. It is also true that the income inequality gap has widened during Obama's time.

It is quite simply not true that the bigger gap is in any way shape or form an unavoidable consequence of Obama's policies or actions. In other words, Obama's policies cannot be the cause of it. However, that is exactly what Republican cable 'news' channels hope that the American people think/believe. That much is clearly supported by the fact that the Republican talking heads are implying and openly saying exactly that.


Blaming someone for something is often done flippantly, and without the speaker offering good reason for placing blame. A prima facie example of that is the Republicans currently trying to blame the Obama for the widening gap. So, how is the average person supposed to know what to believe, given so many different opinions being bandied about concerning the same subject matter?

Here's what I say...

When one is looking into the matter, one must examine what causes and or caused the gap. To figure out that much we have to look at all of the parts that make up the situation. You know the employers, workers, available jobs, pay rates, benefits, and the laws which govern these things. Which brings me to the following...

We know that part of what has allowed the gap to grow involves laws in place that govern taxation and redistribution, laws that govern employment, regarding both terms thereof and employee wages, and laws governing how business can be done. This last bit would include all of the trade agreements and such things as closing down American companies with American workers in order to move the entire operations overseas where the same employment laws that govern how you can operate a business within the states do not have to be followed.

So as can be seen by what I've briefly layed out here, the matter isn't a simple one, nor am I, nor do I think that something so simple as "blaming Republicans" and "glorifying democrats" can effectively set out what the problems actually are. Doing that certainly will not help to decrease the income gap and put more money into more people's hands who will spend it instead of hoard it. The former is always helpful, whereas the latter is quite harmful to the overall well being of a populace who's livelihood depends upon a strong economy. All else being equal, the more money being spent in our country, the better off the whole country and it's economy is.

Now, getting back to the underlying point, in an attempt to figure out what folk and what things have been instrumental in the growing income gap, one must look at any and all relevant things that factor into it.

Legislation is one of those things. Those who pass and those who reject any piece of legislation that had or would have had a direct effect upon the income inequality gap must be examined with a very critical lense, so to speak.

So, it seems to me that an astute reader will clearly recognize that there's also a big difference between what I am saying and your report thereof.



Do you not clearly see, understand, and admit that you have been and continue to talk about me? The above serves as prima facie evidence of just that. And yet again, I'm not sure why you think it is appropriate to make negative remarks about me based upon what you think that I think, but I can assure you that your report on my thoughts is not only wrong(because I do not think everything is about me), but it is also inappropriate and completely beside the relevant points being made.




The above assumes that I am "playing the congress games". I'm not even sure what "playing congress games" includes, but I can garuantee one thing for sure:In order to help create the situations and circumstances necessary for more Americans to have a bigger piece of the pie(earn more disposable income), we - as the American people - need to stand together in order to elect officals who are willing to make the necessary changes(by virtue of drafting and passing pieces of legislation) that will result in closing the income inequality gap.

Now, our government includes both, the Republican and the Democratic parties, so if talking about and being involved in our government, if examining the different factors of income inequality and the players involved(regardless of political affiliation) counts as "playing the congress games" then I'm guilty as charged, and I will continue to be:Happily, I might add.




Sarcasm doesn't work well in a strictly written medium.

I'm not seeing how your questions are relevant to what has caused or how to fix the widening income inequality gap.

All kinds of things have changed since Obama has been in office. Rather than get into all of that, it's better to isolate the things that directly matter to the problem at hand; the income inequality.

If you believe that Obama has lied about everything, then I'm afraid there's probably not much ground to be gained here, because if that is the case, it is abundantly clear to me that we do not agree on what counts as a lie.

"Percentage wise"...

What is that supposed to mean? Percentages of what exactly, and what part of Obama's term is being compared to what part of Bush's. More importantly, what does this have to do with the income inequality gap?

Wow. How you arrived at all that based upon what I've written here is beyond me. You'll just have to trust me when I say that you're wrong regarding everything you've said here about me and my mental ongoings.




That's all I asked. Not sure why you felt it appropriate to talk about me personally before you answered the question, but at least you eventually got around to it...

So, just so that I can be confident that I understand what you're saying, could you clarify for me? You are claiming that the widening gap in income between the uberwealthy and average everyday citizens is being caused by unseen, unnamed people that control congress and the president; that control what our government does concerning how to collect and redistribute money?

Prior to continuing, I'd like to ask, is that right thus far?

Ah for Pete's sake...

What the hell is this supposed to mean? Looks like it's saying something meaningful but then when one stops to think, s/he realizes that nothing's really been said. The key term doesn't really have a referent. If I knew what "it's" was referring to, I would know what you're talking about, but as it stands the response doesn't make much sense at all.

I can only assume that "them both" is talking about the major American political parties(Republicans and Democrats).

If "it's" refers to...

1.)The wide gap in income, then what does it mean to say that the gap is "behind them both"? That makes no sense at all, so a charitable reader would grant the benefit of the doubt and conclude that that's not what you were saying.

2.)The (unspoken)cause of the income gap, and not the gap itself, then what exactly would it take for that to be the case? How could the cause of the income gap be "behind them both"?

So, if this is what you're saying, then by all means, help a brother out. I'm stopping to think about your reply, and the above pretty much sets it out.

Still can't make much sense of it. So, assuming that you have something more substantial to add here, I'd like to see you further explain what you're talking about.

However, all that being said, one who seeks to learn new things and the desire to do that comes from deep within one, and no amount of advertising can stop one who knows that when you begin looking at the world differently, it begins to look different.

Those people are few and far between, in my experience...

It's "Dunning-Kruger" and confirmation bias is most certainly not limited to the internet, although I would agree with you that the way the users are tracked(for advertising) most certainly acts more to limit their exposure to new ideas and different points of view than it acts to broaden their thoughts on any given matter...

Feed 'em what we already know that they like, by virtue of a calculus...

What do you think/believe that those who agree with you can actually do about it? Republicans are currently emphasizing the wide income inequality by mentioning how it has continued to grow during the Obama administration, as if it is somehow a consequence of his policies and/or actions...



The saddest part is that many will hear that, and it's true by the way, and then infer that it is somehow Obama's fault, or think that Obama and other democrats haven't been attempting for years to get that exact issue addressed with legislation and/or out in the public arena. The duplicitous nature of the Republicans suddenly and purportedly 'taking a stance' against the growing income inequality and lack of mobility is sickening to anyone who knows about all of the different legislation that republicans have been involved in that essentially widens the gap and/or dismisses and rejects legislation that would help to close it.

There was a time when my mind feared no words
A time when my words feared no result
My mind now knows the power of words
No matter how well intended and genuine
People can be deeply hurt in the end
Of this I became oh so painfully aware
Words can be the vehicle of ruin
Now the muse has been silenced
There was a time when my mind feared no words

I'm far from a theist; however, the above is an abuse of language. The statement "There is a God" isn't true or false by virtue of being falsifiable/verifiable. It is true if, and only if, there is a God. The statement is true(or not) regardless of whether or not we check.

The first step above is a practical one. I disagree with saying that that is the scientific method, but that's just a quibble and not on point.

It is also my understanding that science isn't about encompassing all points of view as much as it's aim is to draw conclusions that are point-of-view-invariant(historically 'objective').

The thread isn't about science or the scientific method; however, falsifiability and verifiability are connected in a rather intimate way. They both employ truth as correspondence to fact/reality.

Yeah. Gotcha. Loud and clear. I'll gladly step aside, and let you folk talk about science. Perhaps one day I'll be able to understand it a bit better. When I grow up maybe...



Toodles.

Have a good night my friend. You may be surprised how your living situation reflects what my own was for many many years. Now they're grown and gone...

No worries. I'm rather thick-skinned.



With regard to your last statement, if by "truth" you mean... "How's that for a true statement?", then I would say...

If it is the case that you're just joking around, then it would be a true one.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know.

Far be it for me to attempt to convince you of the importance of knowing what sorts of things can be true and what makes them so, when it seems all you're concerned with is attempting to bash an otherwise quite relevant topic in conventional academic discourse.

You don't have to like it. The problem is that the subject matter itself underpins every thought and belief that runs through your mind. If you believe that sucks, then so be it.

You don't have to stay.

No argument here. Not sure how that applies to my original post which you framed in a negative manner of speaking.



"Narrow-minded"...

Well there it is! I knew something funny was going on. You've confused your own belief and personal preference with truth. Belief is insufficient for truth.

There is no such thing as my truth, your truth, his truth, or her truth. It is much better understood for what it is by using more appropriate terms...

Not "your truth", but rather your belief. That is... that which you believe to be true.

Yeah yeah... and your grammar is horrible. So what?

Care to engage the topic itself or the following question about your own claims?

How does one 'perceive the truth'? I mean, what on earth is that supposed to mean? I can perceive things by virtue of sensory perception; however, truth is most certainly not perceived in the same way. We don't touch it, or hear it, or taste it, or...

The assumption argument is vacuous. We all assume all sorts of stuff all the time, regardless of whether or not we know and/or admit it. You'll have to do better than that.