Tiger Woods Admits Affair!

[Ironslave]

My point is that consumerism is damaging to the intellectual progression of America b/c of the values that are a part of it. Again sports is the bastard i choose to express my point. I am not so much concerned with marriage problems as i am with extreme excess and the idea that more is better causes. This leads to the idea that "I do what I want to get what I want, and forget everyone else to mimic these lifestyles." I agree that the medias propaganda is at fault for presenting it to the public as often as they do.

So what's the solution?

 

[tim290280]

I think he's trying to save face. I could see his marriage being repaired if he had an affair with one or two women, but after fifty kajillion mistresses came out of the woodwork it's pretty clear the man doesn't want a monogamous relationship with his wife. Now he's being labeled or, rather, allowing himself to be labeled as an addict of several things, which is akin to playing victim. Unfortunately, while he saves his own skin, the PGA tour faces serious financial problems.

He paid for some, scored other. The man seems to like his sex.

Hard to know if the wife wasn't aware of the philandering. What might have annoyed her was finding out the extent of it.

I agree though that he should just own up and tell the truth. "I like sex, I travel a lot, so I bang chicks other than my wife. I still love her and she's agreed to come along for threesomes." The PGA looses out big time while he isn't playing. Plus the female groupies want him back on the course.

 

[BigBen]

So what's the solution?

Ironslave, this post is in no way directed at you personally. I am just answering your question about how I feel to the problem I posted.


Education, teaching the population how to think logically and the idea that a person should never accept any truth with out sound firm reason as its back bone. These people would care less about excess b/c excess is less of an interest when creating new ideas is so important and fulfilling.

On that corner stone we can build a true democratic society b/c these individual personalities/people would refuse to allow fear and uncertainty and complexity of a problem to stop them from becoming involved and organized and demanding what is best for them based off of what the majority has truly decided.

These people are beyond bribery and the influence of moneys usefulness past what is necessary to exist b/c they know material things as a source of joy belong to the simple minded and are temporary happiness at best.

The glorification of consumerism, the idea of showing off the possessions a person owns is laughable to these people b/c these people see that for what it is, revenge. " I have this, you do not, don't you desire what I own? Aren't you dissatisfied with what you have in light of what I own?" Even if the possessions of the rich are used as motivation to a positive person who is poor the same idea is portrayed the poor is motivated b/c of their desire to have what the rich have. The idea of envy from desire is laughable for someone who sees that type of showing off for what it is at its core. In this case they would not care if the person was rich if that person did great things with their money, b/c no one person in a society is greater than that societies whole.

/ENDS IDEALISTIC RANT

EDIT: Even if you disagree with me, even if you think what I posted is crazy, I appreciate your discussion b/c it allowed me to express a belief I hold, that education and learning how to think is critical.

 

[Ironslave]

Ironslave, this post is in no way directed at you personally. I am just answering your question about how I feel to the problem I posted.


Education, teaching the population how to think logically and the idea that a person should never accept any truth with out sound firm reason as its back bone. These people would care less about excess b/c excess is less of an interest when creating new ideas is so important and fulfilling.

On that corner stone we can build a true democratic society b/c these individual personalities/people would refuse to allow fear and uncertainty and complexity of a problem to stop them from becoming involved and organized and demanding what is best for them based off of what the majority has truly decided.

These people are beyond bribery and the influence of moneys usefulness past what is necessary to exist b/c they know material things as a source of joy belong to the simple minded and are temporary happiness at best.

The glorification of consumerism, the idea of showing off the possessions a person owns is laughable to these people b/c these people see that for what it is, revenge. " I have this, you do not, don't you desire what I own? Aren't you dissatisfied with what you have in light of what I own?" Even if the possessions of the rich are used as motivation to a positive person who is poor the same idea is portrayed the poor is motivated b/c of their desire to have what the rich have. The idea of envy from desire is laughable for someone who sees that type of showing off for what it is at its core. In this case they would not care if the person was rich if that person did great things with their money, b/c no one person in a society is greater than that societies whole.

/ENDS IDEALISTIC RANT

EDIT: Even if you disagree with me, even if you think what I posted is crazy, I appreciate your discussion b/c it allowed me to express a belief I hold, that education and learning how to think is critical.

I don't think it's crazy, I think you're showing frustration with glorifying celebrities and the "dumbing down of society"..... but I'm not sure what you're still really advocating. How would wanting to place some kind of cap somehow on the salaries of athletes so they make average Joe salaries fit in with this?

 

[BigBen]

I don't think it's crazy, I think you're showing frustration with glorifying celebrities and the "dumbing down of society"..... but I'm not sure what you're still really advocating. How would wanting to place some kind of cap somehow on the salaries of athletes so they make average Joe salaries fit in with this?

I apologize for not showing more clarity. I am advocating that their is no need for any one to be super rich. The idea of being super or rich in general for some, seems to cause a lot of problems both socially and personally. And that with our current system money seems to be what motivates people to perform

I am suggesting that we replace the love for money and consumerism with the love for societies betterment, true democracy, creating new ideas, and the evolution of the average man into something better than what exists now.

 

[Ironslave]

I apologize for not showing more clarity. I am advocating that their is no need for any one to be super rich. The idea of being super or rich in general for some, seems to cause a lot of problems both socially and personally. And that with our current system money seems to be what motivates people to perform

I am suggesting that we replace the love for money and consumerism with the love for societies betterment, true democracy, creating new ideas, and the evolution of the average man into something better than what exists now.

It's a nice thought, and I certainly agree people should strive to further themselves without money always being the extrinsic reward... but how could it be done though?

 

[BigBen]

It's a nice thought, and I certainly agree people should strive to further themselves without money always being the extrinsic reward... but how could it be done though?

It is a very long answer when all the points are addressed. The short answer is to provide a choice for people to move onto something new that will make the majorities existence better. And to work on adopting new values that further our understanding of reality, ie values that allow the sciences and philosophers to think about and experiment what comes to their imaginations and is backed by strong evidence based theory. That science not be limited to politics and money but by the imaginations of the people involved. Also to discredit ,with sound argument, the major beliefs held today that prevent people from adopting the values that can benefit us. I think most people want to live in a better world. So what better way to adopt the different disciplines than with the theme of bettering the society as a whole and bettering each individuals quality of life rather than just those who are rich.

This will also help end the cycle of the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor. And this will put and end to the idea of "well the poor are just poor b/c they are lazy and don't work hard."

The poor remain poor b/c of the social problems they face that makes them adopt different beliefs than the rich adopt b/c the rich do not have some of the basic stresses that exist in a poor/middle class persons life that prevent them from success. Nor are the rich exposed to the same environment, in most cases, as the middle class/ poor. The rich are exposed to an environment that teaches them to be rich by adopting those values and beliefs that make one rich.

 

[tim290280]

It's a nice thought, and I certainly agree people should strive to further themselves without money always being the extrinsic reward... but how could it be done though?

Therein lies the problem with every idealogue. Utopia gets lost in the sea of compromise.

 

[Ironslave]

It is a very long answer when all the points are addressed. The short answer is to provide a choice for people to move onto something new that will make the majorities existence better. And to work on adopting new values that further our understanding of reality, ie values that allow the sciences and philosophers to think about and experiment what comes to their imaginations and is backed by strong evidence based theory. That science not be limited to politics and money but by the imaginations of the people involved. Also to discredit ,with sound argument, the major beliefs held today that prevent people from adopting the values that can benefit us. I think most people want to live in a better world. So what better way to adopt the different disciplines than with the theme of bettering the society as a whole and bettering each individuals quality of life rather than just those who are rich.

This will also help end the cycle of the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor. And this will put and end to the idea of "well the poor are just poor b/c they are lazy and don't work hard."

The poor remain poor b/c of the social problems they face that makes them adopt different beliefs than the rich adopt b/c the rich do not have some of the basic stresses that exist in a poor/middle class persons life that prevent them from success. Nor are the rich exposed to the same environment, in most cases, as the middle class/ poor. The rich are exposed to an environment that teaches them to be rich by adopting those values and beliefs that make one rich.

Ben, I love ya, but you're not making much sense, lol. Again it's a nice thought, but I seriously don't see what can be done. You want athletes to make average Joe salaries, yes? How can this be done though? Who regulates this?

It really sounds like you're in favor of a communist society with massive wealth redistribution to try and provide the same opportunities for all and everyone earns the same salaries with nobody being rich, and etc etc. Plus, you can't help it that people are drawn to the sensational stories of sex, drugs, violence, and so forth, that's their right. What should we do, ban the media from focusing on these stories and make them cover politics and science?

 

[BigBen]

Ben, I love ya, but you're not making much sense, lol. Again it's a nice thought, but I seriously don't see what can be done. You want athletes to make average Joe salaries, yes? How can this be done though? Who regulates this?

It really sounds like you're in favor of a communist society with massive wealth redistribution to try and provide the same opportunities for all and everyone earns the same salaries with nobody being rich, and etc etc. Plus, you can't help it that people are drawn to the sensational stories of sex, drugs, violence, and so forth, that's their right. What should we do, ban the media from focusing on these stories and make them cover politics and science?

We have to change the values that make people glorify those things: drugs, sex, drastic excess ect. We have to change peoples values by showing them the harm in what they believe and replace it with a value that is good for the whole of society rather than just one person. If we change peoples values then people will demand different news, the news will supply it or go out of business b/c no one is watching. Thats what i am in favor of doing. I am against people being super rich because the extreme excess allows for the glorification of those harmful values like the drive for success for excess money. Why not make it the drive for success in bettering humanity? I mean i do realize how far off this idea is from where we are at today but we need to start taking baby steps in this direction. To steal a phrase form a past psychology professor "We are the united states of entertainment now a days, and it is really damaging our society."

 

[pegasus]

I took issue with some parts of your posts, so sorry if i'm just responding to excerpts of you entire posts.

If money and consumerism does not victimize the athlete ,and the fans, and money is not an issue then let the athletes get paid the average American salary b/c that is who pays them, the average American. If the athletes really want to benefit society let their excessive salaries go towards something that can benefit the entire society rather just one person. The athlete is already beneficial enough to be doing something they love, assuming they chose their job b/c they really like it as portrayed, and not b/c what it offers them financially. Let athletes excessive salaries go towards education programs for people who do not have money to pay for college or school in general, or some other worthy cause.

Its true that some athletes (not talking about the superstars) make a lot of money every year compared to the average successful person, but one main reason is that these athletes have a relatively short career span in comparison with the average person who can work for however long he wants to. I mean some guys careers only last 10 years or so. Also there's the fact that a lot of athletes come from deprived backgrounds, so one should be happy for them, instead of expecting them to give away their money for others to go to university which they probably them selves probably didn't do. Then there is the fact that I think university is a useless place unless people go there to study real subjects like medicine, engineering, maths etc. I would say that community collages can be more useful in teaching people useful skills, but that's a whole different topic.

This will also help end the cycle of the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor. And this will put and end to the idea of "well the poor are just poor b/c they are lazy and don't work hard."

The poor remain poor b/c of the social problems they face that makes them adopt different beliefs than the rich adopt b/c the rich do not have some of the basic stresses that exist in a poor/middle class persons life that prevent them from success. Nor are the rich exposed to the same environment, in most cases, as the middle class/ poor. The rich are exposed to an environment that teaches them to be rich by adopting those values and beliefs that make one rich.

You failed to mention that some of the rich become poor, and some of the poor become rich. The examples are out there for everyone to see. It's not like everyone who's rich got there because they inherited it.
Look at this guy for example:

He made a 100mil in the tech bubble, and lost it during the housing bubble. Whats he doing now? he's trying to climb back up.

The argument you make in regards to the different environments etc doesn't wash with me. Money comes with success, not the other way round. Many who are rich today didn't start off trying to become rich, but only aimed to become successful, and the money followed. You fail to see most rich people backgrounds, but only chose to see how they live now, which is wrong. I mean warren buffett and wife where living in a tiny flat infested with mice when they first got married, the guys who invented google financed there venture with borrowed money in their garage and the list goes on.

It is silly to think that the rich don't have stress in their lives, because they do, and a lot of it, very often they're making decisions which could come back to ruin them or make them profit. The way you make it sound it's as if once you enter the rich club they give you a secret formula which is hidden away from the masses, which enables you to stay rich and the others who don't know it will stay miserable. The formula is this, hard work and persistence, now this can be applied to any kind of endeavour, be it bodybuilding, building wealth etc. That is what sets America apart from other countries, because if you really work hard, save your money, learn from your mistakes and keep going at it then you can make it. Not everyone will become billionaires, but hey not everyone can build a body like coleman, so should we be mad at him for being blessed with good genes?

The rich usually make their money by building companies or investing in the future of companies, they take the risk that the venture might go sour and they might be left penny-less, a risk which the average 9-5er doesn't really take. Its the same for the kid who spends all his time practising for a sport all day long instead of studying, he might not get drafted for a team, but he's taking the risk. If you take away the incentives then why would any of them do that when they know they wouldn't be rewarded for their hard work, and for taking the risk? The American system rewards risk taking, the greater the risk the greater the rewards, that is what made it so great. It is wrong to look past at all the success this system has brought with it, or the failure that communism is, because there are people who are more successful than you, and you can not try to say we should have a bit of communism here and there, because the two are exact polar opposites of each other. America might be consuming too much and not producing enough, but that imbalance is not something that communism will fix, its what free markets can fix, and the government is preventing that.

 

[BigBen]

I took issue with some parts of your posts, so sorry if i'm just responding to excerpts of you entire posts.



Its true that some athletes (not talking about the superstars) make a lot of money every year compared to the average successful person, but one main reason is that these athletes have a relatively short career span in comparison with the average person who can work for however long he wants to. I mean some guys careers only last 10 years or so. Also there's the fact that a lot of athletes come from deprived backgrounds, so one should be happy for them, instead of expecting them to give away their money for others to go to university which they probably them selves probably didn't do. Then there is the fact that I think university is a useless place unless people go there to study real subjects like medicine, engineering, maths etc. I would say that community collages can be more useful in teaching people useful skills, but that's a whole different topic.



You failed to mention that some of the rich become poor, and some of the poor become rich. The examples are out there for everyone to see. It's not like everyone who's rich got there because they inherited it.

There will be an exception to any generalization I am talking about the majority.
Look at this guy for example:

He made a 100mil in the tech bubble, and lost it during the housing bubble. Whats he doing now? he's trying to climb back up.

The argument you make in regards to the different environments etc doesn't wash with me. Money comes with success, not the other way round. Many who are rich today didn't start off trying to become rich, but only aimed to become successful, and the money followed. You fail to see most rich people backgrounds, but only chose to see how they live now, which is wrong. I mean warren buffett and wife where living in a tiny flat infested with mice when they first got married, the guys who invented google financed there venture with borrowed money in their garage and the list goes on.

Great stories. How many people in the untied states will do that? The possibility of extreme success should not be reason enough to keep a system in place that is not good for the majority.

It is silly to think that the rich don't have stress in their lives, because they do, and a lot of it, very often they're making decisions which could come back to ruin them or make them profit. I never said the rich did not have stress. But honestly if someone were to allow one decision to make or break them then deserve to be broke. I can not think of one case where a person must put all of their money on the line that does not involve greed. The way you make it sound it's as if once you enter the rich club they give you a secret formula which is hidden away from the masses, which enables you to stay rich and the others who don't know it will stay miserable. No, different values are learned by the rich population than are learned by the poor b/c society puts different stresses on them. These values are learned as a response to the different stresses. The majority of rich learn how to become rich and stay rich b/c the generation before them was also. Rich people know other rich people, and the rich also tend to be the powerful.The formula is this, hard work and persistence, now this can be applied to any kind of endeavour, be it bodybuilding, building wealth etc. That is what sets America apart from other countries, because if you really work hard, save your money, learn from your mistakes and keep going at it then you can make it. Not everyone will become billionaires, but hey not everyone can build a body like coleman, so should we be mad at him for being blessed with good genes?Ok so who is more likely to have success with that formula as a mind set: someone who has an easier task b/c they start with more and a better mentality and knows people and has parents and family that will help him if he/she messes up, or someone who does not all of those or has them in a much lessened way and starts from the very bottom?

The rich usually make their money by building companies or investing in the future of companies, they take the risk that the venture might go sour and they might be left penny-less, a risk which the average 9-5er doesn't really take. Its the same for the kid who spends all his time practising for a sport all day long instead of studying, he might not get drafted for a team, but he's taking the risk. If you take away the incentives then why would any of them do that when they know they wouldn't be rewarded for their hard work, and for taking the risk? The answer to that can come with a change in values. The American system rewards risk taking, the greater the risk the greater the rewards, that is what made it so great. It is wrong to look past at all the success this system has brought with it, or the failure that communism is, because there are people who are more successful than you,Where did you get the idea that becasue i am challenging beliefs that i am not successful? Where did u get the idea that i harbor such a wasteful emtion as revenge? You made an error in judging me. I am the way that i am b/c i look at the big picture and where we are headed as a country and it is disturbing. and you can not try to say we should have a bit of communism here and there, because the two are exact polar opposites of each other. America might be consuming too much and not producing enough, but that imbalance is not something that communism will fix, its what free markets can fix, and the government is preventing that.

A free market? Is that why the GOV just voted against allowing people to buy RX from Canada at 1/10th of the price and force citizens to purchase the same product at a significantly higher price from an RX in America.This is freedom? As long as freedom is what is decided best for us by corporate America, who pays for the campaigns of the representatives, who in turn vote the way the companies want, yes we are free.

Your response is an example of the mentality i am against b/c it is about the individual and not the whole. It is about individual prosperity and not about prosperity of all. Take those same attributes of desire and intelligence and apply them towards the goal of bettering the country and society/man/woman.

 

[Ironslave]

We have to change the values that make people glorify those things: drugs, sex, drastic excess ect. We have to change peoples values by showing them the harm in what they believe and replace it with a value that is good for the whole of society rather than just one person. If we change peoples values then people will demand different news, the news will supply it or go out of business b/c no one is watching. Thats what i am in favor of doing. I am against people being super rich because the extreme excess allows for the glorification of those harmful values like the drive for success for excess money. Why not make it the drive for success in bettering humanity? I mean i do realize how far off this idea is from where we are at today but we need to start taking baby steps in this direction. To steal a phrase form a past psychology professor "We are the united states of entertainment now a days, and it is really damaging our society."

Ben, I agree with you, I'd like to see sex/drugs/violence glorified much less too, but unfortunately that is what people want to hear. It's not the role of a small few central planners to decide what people should value, that should be up to themselves. On an individual level you can attempt to discuss and influence your peers (as I like to do on Mecca), but it's not right to tell people what they can and can't do and make it the letter of the law.

Again, since this started with discussing athletes, what gives anybody the right to advocating someone else having their salary determined in a free market slashed by 99% (an athlete making 5 million to making 50,000) or more?? How would you go about doing this?

I don't mean this in an insulting term, but you're really sounding extremely communist with these views. You're right, people born with a silver spoon in their mouth DO have many advantages over those born in poverty. It does seem unfair, but do you know what the most unfair thing in the world is? Life. All you can do is give people the right to live their lives as they see fit, and encourage and hope those more fortunate to help those less fortunate.

The Declaration of Independence was written to give everybody 3 things, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... you're really arguing against this.

 

[BigBen]

Ben, I agree with you, I'd like to see sex/drugs/violence glorified much less too, but unfortunately that is what people want to hear. It's not the role of a small few central planners to decide what people should value, that should be up to themselves. On an individual level you can attempt to discuss and influence your peers (as I like to do on Mecca), but it's not right to tell people what they can and can't do and make it the letter of the law.

I AGREE, it should not be made law to force people to think one way or another. This is the very reason education is so important so we can all develop our own values.It is just my idealistic view that people think about the future while they create their own values. Most do not even create their own values they just accept what is offered to them with out even knowing what or why it is the way they react to things the way they do, or why they defend their beliefs so firmly against change.

Again, since this started with discussing athletes, what gives anybody the right to advocating someone else having their salary determined in a free market slashed by 99% (an athlete making 5 million to making 50,000) or more?? How would you go about doing this?

I dont think it is possible to do it immediatelyAnd really no one has teh right to say to a company pay your athletes this much. The decision would have to be internal and made by all companies to have an effect. I think it would have to occur as values changed and generations moved forward towards the goal of a more productive and sustaining future. This way athletes would be willing to accept less money for their talents. But that might not even be necessary if the majority of the public was not after the extreme excess as a result of what got portrayed to them by tv, magazines, ect. The only reason i really went after sports was b/c of the topic of the thread, and b/c excess does get portrayed nationally by athletes on shows like cribs and what not.

I don't mean this in an insulting term, but you're really sounding extremely communist with these views. You're right, people born with a silver spoon in their mouth DO have many advantages over those born in poverty. It does seem unfair, but do you know what the most unfair thing in the world is? Life. All you can do is give people the right to live their lives as they see fit, and encourage and hope those more fortunate to help those less fortunate.

Lets not look at the justice of the situation b/c I am not much one for pity. lets look at the situation for what is best for the future and sustained progress of humans. If we can maintain all these things we have currently, all these systems, let their use be to benefit and aid the human cause rather than the cause of the market place. The prior is beneficial to all, the latter seems to bring about values that cause the death of progressive society and progresses the "im getting mine, i dont care what happens," type attitude. People should have the rigt to live their lies as they see fit, but lets not influence their thinking so drastically by what becomes popular b/c of the propaganda systems and the ideas that are themes for what is played on tv. news, all media.

The Declaration of Independence was written to give everybody 3 things, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... you're really arguing against this.

We have life, but what will become of the quality of life if we do not try to change our paradigms and beliefs from what they are to what will bring about a future? We have liberty, but every person on the face of this earth does also, b/c we can all think what ever we choose to think, and believe whatever we choose believe. NO ONE can stop us from that, but government can influence us with propaganda systems, and it does. Happiness is subjective and relates to the values people believe. What would bring a person more happiness and joy in life, if he/she believes in those things that further man and society, than working every day to work daily on progressing man/woman and their future through their individual disciplines/studies/job.

This change is not something that would be good if it happened fast. It has to happen slowly and people have to first be taught to understand and think and realize that they do have an influence on their situation beyond deciding what is for lunch and what kind of car they drive.

 

[pegasus]

A free market? Is that why the GOV just voted against allowing people to buy RX from Canada at 1/10th of the price and force citizens to purchase the same product at a significantly higher price from an RX in America.This is freedom? As long as freedom is what is decided best for us by corporate America, who pays for the campaigns of the representatives, who in turn vote the way the companies want, yes we are free.

Your response is an example of the mentality i am against b/c it is about the individual and not the whole. It is about individual prosperity and not about prosperity of all. Take those same attributes of desire and intelligence and apply them towards the goal of bettering the country and society/man/woman.

When I said "people more successful than you" I wasn't pointing at you specifically, I meant anyone who thinks like that.

What you see now is nothing like a free market, tts a big ponzi scheme. I mean if it wasn't for the government the banks wouldn't have survived to make profits using other people money again, at least some people would've been prosecuted, the same person who designed credit default swaps wouldn't be in charge of developing the carbon trading mechanism. No, that's not what I'm advocating, what you see now isn't capitalism or free markets, these are the symptoms of big government, and the cure isn't making government bigger and more involved in people lives, which is what communism is all about.

 

[rz3300]

I do not care how cheap or corny or whatever way you want to put that the picture in the first post is, but I thought it was hilarious, and I got a really good laugh, even all this time removed from the actual incident. That was an interesting time when that was all going on, and I really had no idea it would be the absolute end of the guy being a decent golfer.

 

[Decentlady]

What I don't understand is why are celebreties personal life so amplified? So what if Tiger Woods or Bill Clinton had an affair? Aren't every other Tom, Dick and Harry having affairs on daily basis? They are humans too and no human is perfect so why make a big deal out of it.

It's their personal life, stop being nosy!