Solar so, what you're saying is...

This is correct.

v
v
v

Quote from: Solarquoted text

This is incorrect.

v
v
v

Quotequoted text

Is this what you're saying or do I need to add anything else? 

Another thing, why are you trying to force me to be PC?

Quote from: cubedemon on August 02, 2015, 09:39:14 AM
Solar so, what you're saying is...

This is correct.

v
v
v
This is incorrect.

v
v
v

Is this what you're saying or do I need to add anything else? 

Another thing, why are you trying to force me to be PC?

This from a kid that need step by step instructions.   

By the way you did not use the quote function. 

Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2015, 10:31:15 AM
Bull shit! You just contradicted yourself. 

No, I pointed out your own contradiction to your American values, beliefs and standards.

Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2015, 10:31:15 AM
No, that's exactly what we're saying.

Which is contradictory and here is why.  If all could do as proscribed then wouldn't everyone be successful and win.  Let's imagine we have a horse race with ten contestants as an analogy.  You all are saying if all of the trainers made the correct decisions with regarding the training of horse and rider then all can win the race yet at the same time you all are saying there can be only one clear winner?  Which is it?  Can all 10 contestants win first place at the same time, can there be  multiple ties for 1st place or is there only one first place winner?  Now, in real life can everyone win and get what they need if life is destined to have losers?  Can life have all winners if all made the correct choices?  How, if losing is part of the equation of life?

Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2015, 10:31:15 AM
There is no contradiction, just your inability to see it, or unsillingness to accept reality.

See above.

Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2015, 10:31:15 AM
Again wrong! You are able to succeed or fail, there is no one stopping you, but it appears you have an issue with success, it seems the goal you've set for yourself is unachievable.

See above.

Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2015, 10:31:15 AMYou live in a very small world, get out, explore the country, broaden your view, see how others live rurally speaking.
Hell, if you're physical able, you could live the life of a cowboy, though it doesn't pay well, they provide food and shelter, all they ask in return is a fair days labor.

See above.  All of us live on the same planet.  We don't have colonies on other worlds yet. 

I'm going by what you say and your words, beliefs, and values are contradictory?  Am I the one who refuses to see reality correctly or is it you who refuses to see reality correctly? 

Quote from: Solar on August 01, 2015, 10:31:15 AMGet your head out of the clouds, the life you see as successful may not be achievable for you.

  I'm talking about ideas and the ideas you and others have are double-think and contradictory and a subset of Orwellian.

Quote from: walkstall on August 02, 2015, 10:02:34 AM
This from a kid that need step by step instructions.   

By the way you did not use the quote function.

Yes, I did.   I just don't get why the way I write or sound matters instead of the content.

Quote from: cubedemon on August 02, 2015, 10:24:20 AM

Yay....You figured out the quote function.

No, I pointed out your own contradiction to your American values, beliefs and standards.

QuoteWhich is contradictory and here is why.  If all could do as proscribed then wouldn't everyone be successful and win.  Let's imagine we have a horse race with ten contestants as an analogy.  You all are saying if all of the trainers made the correct decisions with regarding the training of horse and rider then all can win the race yet at the same time you all are saying there can be only one clear winner?  Which is it?  Can all 10 contestants win first place at the same time, can there be  multiple ties for 1st place or is there only one first place winner?  Now, in real life can everyone win and get what they need if life is destined to have losers?  Can life have all winners if all made the correct choices?  How, if losing is part of the equation of life?

See above.

See above.

That's the beauty of a capitalist system, everyone can win, but it would appear that you have no concept of winning means.

QuoteSee above.  All of us live on the same planet.  We don't have colonies on other worlds yet. 

And it's a big ass planet, yet the world you exist in is very small, akin to a basement.
Get the Hell out and explore the world.

QuoteI'm going by what you say and your words, beliefs, and values are contradictory?  Am I the one who refuses to see reality correctly or is it you who refuses to see reality correctly? 

  I'm talking about ideas and the ideas you and others have are double-think and contradictory and a subset of Orwellian.

If you had any worldly experience whatsoever, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about.
Get off the damn block, get out of your safe little sphere and travel, at least out of the damn city.

Quote from: cubedemon on August 02, 2015, 10:24:20 AM
Which is contradictory and here is why.  If all could do as proscribed then wouldn't everyone be successful and win.  Let's imagine we have a horse race with ten contestants as an analogy.  You all are saying if all of the trainers made the correct decisions with regarding the training of horse and rider then all can win the race yet at the same time you all are saying there can be only one clear winner?  Which is it?  Can all 10 contestants win first place at the same time, can there be  multiple ties for 1st place or is there only one first place winner?  Now, in real life can everyone win and get what they need if life is destined to have losers?  Can life have all winners if all made the correct choices?  How, if losing is part of the equation of life?

You fall off the track here because you assume that there is only one way to win. To continue your analogy, there is, indeed, only one horse which crosses the finish line first. The problem is you focus on crossing the finish line first as the only definition of winning.  However, the horses that cross the line second and third also get rewarded for their efforts, just not as much as the one which crosses first. And even the last place jockey has had the enjoyment of doing a job they love. (unless you know any jockeys who hate horse racing? - Didn't think so.) Additionally, thousands of people watching that race receive enjoyment from doing so, making them all "winners" in that they received what they desired (entertainment) for the cost they put into it.

In short, do not limit the definition of winning to only include those in first place. That just leads to frustration and unhappiness.

In the race of real life, every organism which ends the day still breathing (or the unicellular equivalent) is a winner. They're still alive when so many are being digested by other organisms.

In the realm of human endeavor, everyone who finishes the even some of the tasks they put before themselves is a winner. Yes, some will win larger than others. Some have ridiculously large "McMansions", while others struggle to maintain a studio apartment. If you desire a McMansion, but are stuck in a studio, you may view yourself as losing.  But, perhaps the problem is not your being a loser, but in how you define the win. I tell my daughter several times per month "Happiness is being thankful for what you have, rather than sad about what you don't have." This is a pure truism, because no matter how much a person has, there wil ALWAYS be something they desire, but do not have.  If the focus is on what you do not have, you will be constantly sad, regardless of how much you do have.  Conversely, if the focus is on being appreciative of what you DO have (Hey, Ive got a roof over my head, jeans and a t-shirt, food in my belly and a deck of cards, all is good!) then you can live a happy life, even while pursuing something more.

But, (at least here in the United States) in the field of human endeavor, both ends of the economic spectrum are still winning because the efficiencies of capitalism provides enough that even those on the lower rungs still have food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment at the end of the day. And, here in the U.S. we even manage to assist all but a very small percentage to have the base necessities at the end of each day, all because of the competitive nature of capitalism, where our poorest are wealthy compared the the REAL poor of the world.

Quote from: zewazir on August 02, 2015, 01:44:32 PM
You fall off the track here because you assume that there is only one way to win. To continue your analogy, there is, indeed, only one horse which crosses the finish line first. The problem is you focus on crossing the finish line first as the only definition of winning.  However, the horses that cross the line second and third also get rewarded for their efforts, just not as much as the one which crosses first. And even the last place jockey has had the enjoyment of doing a job they love. (unless you know any jockeys who hate horse racing? - Didn't think so.) Additionally, thousands of people watching that race receive enjoyment from doing so, making them all "winners" in that they received what they desired (entertainment) for the cost they put into it.

Hmmmm, I'm going to have to take some time to wrap my mind around your definition of winning.  I never really considered 2nd or 3rd place really winning at least in horse races or any competitive race.   In a competitive race, I've always thought the winner applied to the ones who won first place only.   They did win 2nd and 3rd place but to me I thought the winner was the one who won the race.  In addition, I never knew that receiving enjoyment from entertainment was considered being a winner.   To me, they received and enjoyed their entertainment and nothing more.   I never knew that well that's considered winning.   That's new to me and the way you think is fascinating to me.   I would love to hear more if you don't mind. 

Quote from: zewazir on August 02, 2015, 01:44:32 PMIn short, do not limit the definition of winning to only include those in first place. That just leads to frustration and unhappiness.

Maybe that's what I'm doing wrong then.   I'll have to think about this.

Quote from: zewazir on August 02, 2015, 01:44:32 PMIn the race of real life, every organism which ends the day still breathing (or the unicellular equivalent) is a winner. They're still alive when so many are being digested by other organisms.

Never really thought about it this way.   I do have a question though.  Socrates was given a chance to escape his fate from taken hemlock.   He chose to accept his fate and to drink the hemlock.  Western Philosophy came from him.  So, did he win or did he lose?

Quote from: zewazir on August 02, 2015, 01:44:32 PMIn the realm of human endeavor, everyone who finishes the even some of the tasks they put before themselves is a winner. Yes, some will win larger than others. Some have ridiculously large "McMansions", while others struggle to maintain a studio apartment. If you desire a McMansion, but are stuck in a studio, you may view yourself as losing.  But, perhaps the problem is not your being a loser, but in how you define the win. I tell my daughter several times per month "Happiness is being thankful for what you have, rather than sad about what you don't have." This is a pure truism, because no matter how much a person has, there wil ALWAYS be something they desire, but do not have.  If the focus is on what you do not have, you will be constantly sad, regardless of how much you do have.  Conversely, if the focus is on being appreciative of what you DO have (Hey, Ive got a roof over my head, jeans and a t-shirt, food in my belly and a deck of cards, all is good!) then you can live a happy life, even while pursuing something more.

So, it is possible to focus on what one does have and one is still morally allowed to pursue more?  Does it mean that one is not allowed to pursue more at all or does it mean to keep a level head?  How does one pursue more without getting into the trap of being sad about what one doesn't have?   What can one say the homeless person has or the starving child in Africa?

Quote from: zewazir on August 02, 2015, 01:44:32 PM
But, (at least here in the United States) in the field of human endeavor, both ends of the economic spectrum are still winning because the efficiencies of capitalism provides enough that even those on the lower rungs still have food, clothing, shelter, and entertainment at the end of the day. And, here in the U.S. we even manage to assist all but a very small percentage to have the base necessities at the end of each day, all because of the competitive nature of capitalism, where our poorest are wealthy compared the the REAL poor of the world.

I guess you have a point there.   


Quite honestly, I think my analogy of the horse races is a poor analogy because I think the real world is more complex than horse racing.   It's difficult to give a proper analogy.

Quote from: Solar on August 02, 2015, 11:01:43 AM

That's the beauty of a capitalist system, everyone can win, but it would appear that you have no concept of winning means.

So, what you and others are saying is anyone and everyone can make a life for themselves and pull themselves by their own bootstraps no matter who they are, the setup of our culture, their genetics, the laws of existence, their mental or physical condition and no matter what other negative conditions exist for them?   

Is this what you are saying and do you accept this 100% fact and truth?

Quote from: cubedemon on August 03, 2015, 05:58:40 AM
So, what you and others are saying is anyone and everyone can make a life for themselves and pull themselves by their own bootstraps no matter who they are, the setup of our culture, their genetics, the laws of existence, their mental or physical condition and no matter what other negative conditions exist for them?   

Is this what you are saying and do you accept this 100% fact and truth?

As goes the law, yes!
Why is it you fail to see a lack of govt intrusion in the work place, or entrepreneurial investments as a good thing?
It would appear you are an advocate for govt intrusion in the private sector.
Again, the unique thing about America is the unbridled ability for all to succeed, no single individual is afforded special rights when pursuing their dream in the private sector.
As an employer, I can refuse to employ you for a myriad of reasons, and for tghe same reason, you as an emploiyer are afforded the right to hire anyone you choose.

Are you saying we need govt to step in and make mandatory that the private sector adhere to PC rules on hiring, that despite impairment, private business should be forced to hire handicapped?
Blind taxi drivers have rights too, right?

So regardless of impairment, you have a level playing field where employment is concerned.

Why don't you come out and admit it? You're a lib at heart.

Quote from: cubedemon on August 02, 2015, 03:31:22 PM
Hmmmm, I'm going to have to take some time to wrap my mind around your definition of winning.  I never really considered 2nd or 3rd place really winning at least in horse races or any competitive race.   In a competitive race, I've always thought the winner applied to the ones who won first place only.   They did win 2nd and 3rd place but to me I thought the winner was the one who won the race.  In addition, I never knew that receiving enjoyment from entertainment was considered being a winner.   To me, they received and enjoyed their entertainment and nothing more.   I never knew that well that's considered winning.   That's new to me and the way you think is fascinating to me.   I would love to hear more if you don't mind. 

As has been pointed out to you multiple times over several threads, it is all in the attitude. And the attitude that to "win" means always being in first place is an attitude which only leads to frustration and unhappiness.  No one person can be the best at all the endeavors they enjoy doing. From the Western tradition of rodeo comes a saying that is a basic truth: "There ain't a horse that can't be rode, nor a cowboy that can't be throwed."  If coming is first is required to be considered a winner, then no one can call themselves a winner but a few times out of hundreds of endeavors people take on every week of their lives. In a game of sports, when it is competition between two opponents, then yes, the definition of winner is limited to the person or team that has the best score at the end of the game.  But even in sports, the results of a sport are never limited to a single game, are they?  We have sporting "seasons", which is an officially designated period of time in which persons or teams play individual games against a host of opponents. No single win is absolute, since it is the accumulation of wins over losses.  Life is the same way, with the exception that coming in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or even 186th still count.  In life, anything that is not a dead loss IS a win of some type.  As I said, if the organism is still breathing at the end of the day, they won that day. The losers are busy being chemically disassembled to nourish other winners. In short, perhaps the better definition of winning is not losing, where losing is limited to being dead.

Quote from: cubedemon on August 02, 2015, 03:31:22 PM
Never really thought about it this way.   I do have a question though.  Socrates was given a chance to escape his fate from taken hemlock.   He chose to accept his fate and to drink the hemlock.  Western Philosophy came from him.  So, did he win or did he lose?

Well, IMO Socrates was an over inflated blowhard, and the field of western philosophy that was derived from his teachings is nothing more than a method of arriving at wrong conclusions with confidence. But, when it comes to winning or losing, did his death advance the principles for which he chose to die?  If so, he won. If not, he lost. But, since the matter of whether his principle were advanced by his death is a matter of individual interpretation and opinion, so is the question of win or loss.

Quote from: cubedemon on August 02, 2015, 03:31:22 PM
So, it is possible to focus on what one does have and one is still morally allowed to pursue more?  Does it mean that one is not allowed to pursue more at all or does it mean to keep a level head?  How does one pursue more without getting into the trap of being sad about what one doesn't have?   What can one say the homeless person has or the starving child in Africa?

Yes, it is absolutely possible to be happy with what one has, while still pursuing more. For instance, one of my favorite pastimes is camping. I would very much like to have a nice camper (either trailer or pickup) to go camping in.  But the desire for a nice camper does not, in any way, limit my enjoyment of camping in a tent. And before we had a tent, sleeping in the bed of the pickup was still enjoyable. I love camping, and any week I can get out there for one or more nights is a win for me, regardless of what equipment I have to cook, sleep, or relax with. I still will pursue getting a camper, because having one will make it easier to get out there, which in turn will increase the number of times per year I will be doing what I love to do. But, not having one does not, in any way, cause me unhappiness. I still get out there, I still get to wake in the morning amongst the trees and catch my breakfast out of the creek or lake. I am still a winner every time I camp.

Quote from: cubedemon on August 02, 2015, 03:31:22 PM
Quite honestly, I think my analogy of the horse races is a poor analogy because I think the real world is more complex than horse racing.   It's difficult to give a proper analogy.

Yes it was, but it was still useful in pointing out that it leads to a very narrow, limiting, and quite inaccurate definition of winning.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/winner

I looked up the definition of winner and the horse racing example is definitely poor.   When I am talking about winner I'm talking more about the informal definition which says "A thing that is a success or is likely to be successful."   I'm going to take away the absoluteness of winning and stick with the definition of a thing that is likely to be successful."   
Now, I need to define what success and successful in the context we're talking.  Success and being successful means that one is able to a) make a life for oneself and sustain oneself; b) one is able to improve oneself as he goes.

Now each person has a set of attributes that make up but not limited to the way they think, their health (mental and physical) and their personality.    These attributes have to be able to line up, mesh up and conform to whatever is in that particular external environment.    Assuming the USA is not uniform and has different sub cultures and different external environments one would have to present a particular external environment in which the vast majority of those with particular characteristics are able to conform to one or more external environmental conditions that exist currently. 

If one can do that than one has demonstrated and presented that success is highly possible for those with particular characteristics and this includes other aspects as well.  For example, it isn't just being able to do a job but being able to obtain the job and keep it in the social setting that exists.  If one can't find an external environment in which the vast majority of those with particular characteristics are able to succeed then the argument that anyone and everyone can make a life for themselves no matter who they are doesn't hold up. 

Quote from: cubedemon on August 04, 2015, 05:49:15 AM
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/winner

I looked up the definition of winner and the horse racing example is definitely poor.   When I am talking about winner I'm talking more about the informal definition which says "A thing that is a success or is likely to be successful."   I'm going to take away the absoluteness of winning and stick with the definition of a thing that is likely to be successful."   
Now, I need to define what success and successful in the context we're talking.  Success and being successful means that one is able to a) make a life for oneself and sustain oneself; b) one is able to improve oneself as he goes.

Now each person has a set of attributes that make up but not limited to the way they think, their health (mental and physical) and their personality.    These attributes have to be able to line up, mesh up and conform to whatever is in that particular external environment.    Assuming the USA is not uniform and has different sub cultures and different external environments one would have to present a particular external environment in which the vast majority of those with particular characteristics are able to conform to one or more external environmental conditions that exist currently. 

If one can do that than one has demonstrated and presented that success is highly possible for those with particular characteristics and this includes other aspects as well.  For example, it isn't just being able to do a job but being able to obtain the job and keep it in the social setting that exists.  If one can't find an external environment in which the vast majority of those with particular characteristics are able to succeed then the argument that anyone and everyone can make a life for themselves no matter who they are doesn't hold up.

It's all relative. Ask a poor man what success is, and he may tell you it's getting a bath that week, or a better fitting pair of used shoes.
Ask a man suffering from cancer, and to him, just keeping a meal down, or getting 10 minutes of reprieve from pain is success/winning.

You on the other hand are whining, you fail to recognize what you already have, your pessimism will always be your barrier to winning.
In comparison to the cancer sufferer or poor man, to them you are the winner, in your world, while all you see is a victim/loser.

You see success as an ultimate end game winner, it is not, for you're incapable of recognizing success.
Success is a conglomeration of small daily achievements, from just staying alive, to enjoying the complex simplicity of the flower and it's very existence.
You are an answer in search of a question.

Try looking at daily accomplishments instead of an end goal.

Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2015, 07:10:53 AM

Why is it you fail to see a lack of govt intrusion in the work place, or entrepreneurial investments as a good thing?

This is totally from left field.   Where did this come from?   Why was govt brought up?   

If you want to know my opinion, I will tell you.   I think the idea of the nation state is a failure especially with the idea that one can have unlimited growth especially in a world of limits.  If one looks in the past at past empires like the Roman Empire the British Empire, the old Soviet Union and others what happened is that they reached their limit and the point of diminishing returns.      They become unmanageable by their respective governments.   Eventually, more than likely, the USA will reach that limit as well.  My opinion is that small is beautiful and if our rights are to be safe guarded they would be best safe guarded in smaller areas like villages, towns or cities and not nation states.    Not only is a nation state becomes more unmanageable economically as it grows it becomes more unmanageable to contain the growth and intrusion of government that accompanies the expansion of territory. 

Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2015, 07:10:53 AM
It would appear you are an advocate for govt intrusion in the private sector.

Never said that!

Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2015, 07:10:53 AMAgain, the unique thing about America is the unbridled ability for all to succeed, no single individual is afforded special rights when pursuing their dream in the private sector.

This is an extraordinary claim to make.  Do you have the extraordinary evidence to back this up?   Like I said, if someone says all Swans are white and one finds a Swan that is not white then one has refuted the claim that all swans are white.   

Let's look for some black swans.

a.  You would have to demonstrate how coma patients could satisfy your claim.  How can they make a life for themselves and how do they have the unbridled ability to succeed?

b.  I know of someone who has both cerebral palsy and extreme low functioning autism.   He is non-verbal and for the most part all he does is rocks back and forth all day.   He can only walk a few feet.   How can he make a life for himself and how does he have the unbridled ability to succeed?

The point is that you should be able to examine any scenario and show how your claim holds up.  In other words, you should be able to show how a black Swan is actually a white Swan.  If these two clear cut examples exist then why couldn't other possible examples exist as well that may possible be a black swan?

Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2015, 07:10:53 AMAs an employer, I can refuse to employ you for a myriad of reasons, and for tghe same reason, you as an emploiyer are afforded the right to hire anyone you choose.

That is most certainly true.   As an employer who are you more likely to hire?   What are the characteristics of that person?  What standards would you have?   I'm talking about the minimalist ones that would fit all of your hires.  It is true that one would need different requirements for different jobs. 

Based upon what I've written here

Quote from: cubedemon on July 29, 2015, 01:52:51 PM
I was just thinking about this and I this criteria would be great for me in a job.

a.   Like my psychiatrist says, the tasks have to be concrete.

b.   Since I am a very concrete thinker, any job can't be ones that require inference of things that are vague or open to my interpretation.

c.  Any rule that is changed has to be told to me in a direct manner.

d.   The job would have to have a base routine and can't just change with the wind.  Corollary, if there is any change then I need to be told directly and when this change will be.

e.  I need to know when things are due.   Don't ask me when I will have them done because I have no idea as to how to give that information as there are many variables that can fudge this up.   If you tell me when things are due I can tell you  if I can do it by that time or not since I'm mulling through the details of what I need to do.   If there is an issue then I can state why I am unable to get it by that date and tell you the date that I can get it by.

f.   I need to know what I'm authorized to do when at the facility and where I can walk to or ride to.

g.  I need to know what I'm required to do as in my list of duties for each day for my job.  If it is required, then please state in direct terms that it is required.  Don't make it sound like it is optional. 

h.  I need to know what is not required.   Example,If there is a company picnic, is my attendance required?

i.  I need to know what I'm not authorized to do.  Let's say somehow I become a janitor.   Are there areas I'm not allowed to clean and rooms I'm not supposed to go into.   

j.   Any communication sent to me, please send it by email and tell me the facts only.

k.  If I do something wrong or inappropriate like being rude, then I need examples of when I was rude, how I was rude and what I need to do to correct myself.   Same thing with taking initiative. If someone says or the boss says I lack initiative, I need to know specific examples of how I didn't and what steps and measures I need to take to display initiative. 

What do you guys think?  Am I asking for too much?  If yes, is there anything I can (techniques) do for myself to lessen these needs for myself and attempt to adapt on other people's terms?

Would you hire me yourself especially if you as an employer would have to provide these accommodations to me especially if you could hire others who wouldn't need them and who would be less cost in terms of both time and money?   

Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2015, 07:10:53 AMAre you saying we need govt to step in and make mandatory that the private sector adhere to PC rules on hiring, that despite impairment, private business should be forced to hire handicapped?

Never said that!  I never said or made the claim that the government can or should get involved.  Honestly, we already have the disabilities act anyway.  It has not helped one iota.   All employers have to make their processes fit the law.  Doesn't mean it will benefit those whom it was supposed to benefit.  That's not the point.  All I'm doing is disputing the claim that everyone and anyone can make their own life no matter what their circumstances.   That is easily demonstrated by at least the black swans I have shown.  You have to demonstrate how all non-white swans can become white swans. 

Quite honestly, the disability act has the opposite effect in my opinion.   It has made those with disabilities more of a liability because employers have to be even more careful so they can avoid costly lawsuits.  Government involvement at least in this case has done us no good.

Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2015, 07:10:53 AMBlind taxi drivers have rights too, right?

Never said that blind taxi drives should be able to drive.   You've made some strawman arguments it seems like.

Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2015, 07:10:53 AMSo regardless of impairment, you have a level playing field where employment is concerned.

How is that so?
 

Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2015, 07:10:53 AM
Why don't you come out and admit it? You're a lib at heart.

What I am at heart is irrelevant to the actual claim that you make. 

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2015, 06:18:00 AM
It's all relative. Ask a poor man what success is, and he may tell you it's getting a bath that week, or a better fitting pair of used shoes.
Ask a man suffering from cancer, and to him, just keeping a meal down, or getting 10 minutes of reprieve from pain is success/winning.

Yes, it is true that these things are success/winning.   I will buy that.   I'm talking about a particular type of success/winning.   What I'm talking is being able to provide for oneself and becoming and remaining employed either by being self-employed or employed by someone else.   I'm not talking about climbing a mountain, drinking a cup of tea and holding my pinky out the correct way.  I'm talking about success in employment so one can support and sustain himself  in America in the year 2015.  This is what I'm talking about.

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2015, 06:18:00 AMYou on the other hand are whining, you fail to recognize what you already have, your pessimism will always be your barrier to winning.

Well, let's use your own logic.   By your own logic, it shouldn't even matter what I fail to recognize or not fail to recognize.   Pessimism shouldn't even be a barrier whatsoever to winning anything in any context.   By your own logic, that anyone and everyone can succeed in the USA no matter who they are, what their disablities, abilites, personalities, genetics, etc are including those who fall in the pessimism camp and those who you say are whiners and complainers.   

By your own logic if we consider success as defined in getting and keeping a job in 2015 America as the y variable and one's emotional state including their pessimism and whining as the x variable and this is on a 2-d Cartesian plane then again by your own logic the y variable (success as per the definition I presented or any other definition that exists) should not be dependent upon the x variable (pessimism and whining).  Y should be an independent variable to X by your own logic yet you're saying that it is not.  Why?

Why can't one be pessimistic against pessimism itself?   If one used your logic that pessimism can be a barrier to winning then by your own reasoning then your own pessimistic beliefs against pessimism and whining should be a barrier to winning as well.   If we take the negation of negation of something than in formal boolean logic then we would have the positive and by your own logic positivity, optimism and belief in one's self and one's own abilities should be a barrier to one's success as well?   So, which is it?

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2015, 06:18:00 AM]In comparison to the cancer sufferer or poor man, to them you are the winner, in your world, while all you see is a victim/loser.

You see success as an ultimate end game winner, it is not, for you're incapable of recognizing success.

Maybe we're talking about two different things.  I'm talking about being able to sustain oneself in America by getting and keeping a job whether it is self employed or employed by someone else.   

Why does it even matter whether I am incapable of recognizing success as per your definition? 

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2015, 06:18:00 AMYou are an answer in search of a question.

Yes sir!  Indeed I am!

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2015, 06:18:00 AMTry looking at daily accomplishments instead of an end goal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_7_Habits_of_Highly_Effective_People

Sometimes one has to look at the end goal of what one is trying to accomplish.   Even Steven Covey who in his 2nd habit of highly effective people wrote that one has to begin with the end in mind.  One has to be able to envision the future to achieve what one desires to achieve.   Here is the problem with me.  What I am missing is the concrete and specific steps as to what one is supposed to do to proceed further.

Let's say I wanted to work for walmart for whatever reason as a bag boy, cashier, deli, etc. 

Now, I go online or to their kiosk at the store and fill out the application and their other stuff including personality tests, place of residence, race, etc.  I've been told to call back to determine if I have the job or not.  Here is what happens.   I'm usually told that they will hire me when they need me.   What did I do wrong?   What were the steps that I needed to do next?   I've applied at hotels to carry luggage as well.   Again, same exact result.   Is there something specific that I am missing?   What I need are specifics not some sloganized and hackneyed ideas about attitude and success which state nothign.   It is the same thing with IT?   What specific steps do I need to take exactly? 

It is true that I have had some excellent accomplishments in my life but again it is irrelevant to what I am asking and saying in all of the posts that I've written here. 

Quote from: cubedemon on August 04, 2015, 06:56:22 AM
This is totally from left field.   Where did this come from?   Why was govt brought up?   

Because we live in a society that allows personal Freedom to achieve.

QuoteIf you want to know my opinion, I will tell you.   I think the idea of the nation state is a failure especially with the idea that one can have unlimited growth especially in a world of limits.

Right out of the Marxist play book.

QuoteIf one looks in the past at past empires like the Roman Empire the British Empire, the old Soviet Union and others what happened is that they reached their limit and the point of diminishing returns.

Study your history, Rome was nothing like the USSR, Rome had a working society, a Republic, it was fine till the people voted themselves freebies and taped the Treasury, and with it destroyed their own culture through immorality. Much like we are diong today.

QuoteThey become unmanageable by their respective governments.   Eventually, more than likely, the USA will reach that limit as well.  My opinion is that small is beautiful and if our rights are to be safe guarded they would be best safe guarded in smaller areas like villages, towns or cities and not nation states.    Not only is a nation state becomes more unmanageable economically as it grows it becomes more unmanageable to contain the growth and intrusion of government that accompanies the expansion of territory.

Think States Rights, something the Fed is usurping.

QuoteThis is an extraordinary claim to make.  Do you have the extraordinary evidence to back this up?   Like I said, if someone says all Swans are white and one finds a Swan that is not white then one has refuted the claim that all swans are white.   

YUeah, it's called the Bill of Rights and a Constitution spel;ling out said Rights.

QuoteLet's look for some black swans.

a.  You would have to demonstrate how coma patients could satisfy your claim.  How can they make a life for themselves and how do they have the unbridled ability to succeed?

Silly example, is the black swan not afforded the same freedoms as the white one?

Quoteb.  I know of someone who has both cerebral palsy and extreme low functioning autism.   He is non-verbal and for the most part all he does is rocks back and forth all day.   He can only walk a few feet.   How can he make a life for himself and how does he have the unbridled ability to succeed?

This goes back to "Life isn't fair" but he still has the same rights as you and I.

QuoteThe point is that you should be able to examine any scenario and show how your claim holds up.  In other words, you should be able to show how a black Swan is actually a white Swan.  If these two clear cut examples exist then why couldn't other possible examples exist as well that may possible be a black swan?

Your analogy sucks, because you based it on a false premise.

QuoteWould you hire me yourself especially if you as an employer would have to provide these accommodations to me especially if you could hire others who wouldn't need them and who would be less cost in terms of both time and money?   

That depends. Do your disabilites out weigh your abilities?
Think about it, if your disability interferes with your ability to complete the job you were charged with, then why would I hire you? But if your disability can be turnd into an asset, then it's really not a disability, is it?

QuoteNever said that!  I never said or made the claim that the government can or should get involved.  Honestly, we already have the disabilities act anyway.  It has not helped one iota.   All employers have to make their processes fit the law.  Doesn't mean it will benefit those whom it was supposed to benefit.  That's not the point.  All I'm doing is disputing the claim that everyone and anyone can make their own life no matter what their circumstances.   That is easily demonstrated by at least the black swans I have shown.  You have to demonstrate how all non-white swans can become white swans.

Now you're repeating my argument. But your swan analogy still falls flat, and maybe that's because you never premised it's use correctly.

QuoteNever said that blind taxi drives should be able to drive.   You've made some strawman arguments it seems like.

Neither did I, it was a question, not a statement