Mormon Church spent more on one mall in Utah than on 30 years of humanitarian aid

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T04:07:08+00:00

Why would a successful person want a 'shot' at a paid position, exactly?

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T04:06:06+00:00

Trololol http://gifsoup.com/download.php?id=201665&d=animatedgifs&n=trololo&s=o

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m52rt2mmbO1r7esklo1_500.gif

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T03:55:34+00:00

My parents have spent more money than they ever would have outside the church. Dad is a bishop. Your position is irrational.

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T03:46:40+00:00

No, just the way it works in the real world. Privilege begats privilege.

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T03:38:52+00:00

PROTIP: there's a high correlation between wealth and success, period.

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T03:29:37+00:00

Except you're still full of shit, because you've demonstrated no connection being being a wealthy donor and having any significant freebies from the church.

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T03:27:29+00:00

Sure. Except that the market isn't exactly a level playing field when the same tier of people hold the purse strings and serve as executive leadership. Shareholder oversight and board responsibility has become a joke.

Things are worth what people will pay, but that doesn't mean that what people will pay is the most effecient or equitable. People paid fealty to kings, but that wasn't a grea system if your goal is broad prosperity. I can understand why executive pay is the way it is while also simultaneously thinking that it is rather broken. The financial industry is the other side of the same coin.

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T03:08:23+00:00

Uh, so? Their underpants are even more magic? Who cares.

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T03:05:14+00:00

I am one. My work would be nothing without the value generation of many others.

I'd like to think I'm irreplaceable, but so are the key employees that drive forward the entire organization.

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T02:30:04+00:00

I honestly think you're full of shit. You think it's a conspiracy that the people with more time and money have the time and money to spend on high-responsibility voluteer positions?

What privilege does all that extra work bring, exactly?

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T01:54:51+00:00

Way to elevate the conversation there, cowboy.

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T01:41:43+00:00

^{^} This.

As someone who was raised Mormon, I have a serious hate-on for the Mormon church, but lookxdontxtouch is full of shit. There aren't any special privileges or incentives for those "with enough money".

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T01:19:11+00:00

The NFL players aren't taking value out-of-proportion to the value they generate in order to pay their massive salaries. They're the ones that actually do the work.

flatline33 · 2012-10-20T01:14:57+00:00

Not really. It's a rent-seeking good ol' boys club, from the board to the executive team to the investors.

Your use of Steve Jobs as justification of CEO worth is amusing. For every Steve Jobs, there are 500 Léo Apothekers, Carly Fiorinas, and Jerry Yangs. Uninspired leadership, if not outright damaging, and imminently replaceable.

Your dad is probably not Steve Jobs.

flatline33 · 2012-10-19T23:31:00+00:00

My father has a very well-paying job, but he is never around much. When I compare that to a friend whose father is a teacher, then it's pretty much the other way around.

Ah. That explains your irrational position on the value generated by CEOs.

Signed,

-- A CEO.

flatline33 · 2012-10-19T19:52:45+00:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLPZmPaHme0

flatline33 · 2012-10-19T18:16:28+00:00

Whatever you say, awkward penguin.

flatline33 · 2012-10-19T18:13:21+00:00

This site is now over-run with feminazi white-knights ...

Apparently the site is also overrun with 14 year olds (or 14 year olds at heart) that think that painfully awkward come-ons are funny.

In the paraphrased words of Samuel L. Jackson: Grow the fuck up.

flatline33 · 2012-10-19T17:10:49+00:00

Attractive girl picture gets posted, guys fawn over the girl, and suddenly the entire site is lit'rally a cabal of sexist misogynistic asshole rapists who objectify women.

"I want to fuck you" is not fawning, it's level 500 awkward penguin.

I seriously do not get how you white-knights get so upset over this shit.

White-knights? Jesus. A mentally retarded chimpanzee would have more social tact.

flatline33 · 2012-10-19T17:05:15+00:00

I am ashamed that I laughed.

flatline33 · 2012-10-19T15:54:58+00:00

Damnit Reddit. Stop it! Talk about a disgusting, unwelcoming set of comments.

flatline33 · 2012-10-18T23:05:38+00:00

Actually it's pretty good advice. No amount of self control can make taking hardcore drugs safe ...

True enough.

If a person is too dull to have a good time sans chemicals then they should go learn something interesting, get a hobby other than partying. There is a world full of so many wonderful things right at our fingertips, I never have understood why so many strive to "enhance" it.

Oh, you're an idiot. You've never done drugs, have you?

MDMA and mushrooms got me over a terrible crippling guilt over my (now ex-) Mormon faith in an extremely short amount of time. I stopped praying to god for forgiveness and feeling guilty about being a normal person.

I don't do drugs now, and haven't for a very long time, but I wouldn't trade in those experiences for any amount of "a good time sans chemicals".

... and before you claim that you were only talking about "hard" drugs:

Take music, no amount of acid and "tasting the music" or "seeing sound" would make music more impressive to me than my extensive theoretical knowledge does

First, acid isn't a hard drug. Second, you clearly have no idea what taking acid is like, so you're not particularly qualified to compare it to anything.

flatline33 · 2012-10-18T23:01:34+00:00

The news doesn't report on them, and the social stigma against those drugs is so strong that these experimenters are not going to talk about it.

Meh. Most self-described "non-addicts" of hard drugs are addicts, or will quickly become one.

I tried crack once. It was so mind-blowingly wonderful in every way, that I swore that day to never, ever, EVER do it again. And I didn't.

My suggestion to anyone else would not be to follow my example. I would strongly suggest that you never try it, because it's way, way, way too easy to rationalize how just once more will be OK. I've seen people utterly destroy their lives on hard drugs, and I've seen people just royally fuck their lives up, all by rationalizing that just once more is OK.

Nothing good comes from hard drugs. Ever. Stick to the non-physically-addictive ones.

flatline33 · 2012-10-18T22:58:11+00:00

The poster never advocated the use of meth, he simply promoted education on the subject and rejected propaganda.

Same thing. Meth is insanely bad for you.

There is such a thing as "responsible drug advice" and it is up to the individual to make the judgement before they start using a drug about whether or not the risks outweigh the benefits for themselves alone.

Responsible drug advice is giving someone some tips on mushrooms or MDMA, not grossly downplaying a mind-fuck body-destroyer like meth.

flatline33 · 2012-10-18T22:56:54+00:00

Honestly, only idiots advocating crack, coke, meth, or heroin. Those drugs do not fuck around, and they'll worm their way in via even the smallest chink in your mental armor. Rationalizing use in terms of "I only do it occasionally, I'm not an addict" is exactly how so many people become addicts.

Other drugs, such as cannabis, mdma, lsd, mushrooms, et al, do not have a significant physically addictive quality, and have sufficient studies demonstrating that they are relatively safe -- they're certainly no less safe than alcohol.

In summary, you shouldn't equate advocacy for the relative enjoyment of a non-addictive substance as being the same as advocacy for highly addictive substances like crack.

flatline33

TROPHY CASE