Winning Lottery trough psy powers VS morality

[Sharpe]

Well Mez, you can't actually choose being rich right?
Just like how you can't quit poverty.
Being rich has more to do with luck than anything else.

Just from my expirience, if you read a lot of get-rich books, you'll see that there's absolutely no pattern.
They try, they really do to find one, but becoming rich has absolutely no pattern, it's just luck.

[Mez]

I see where you're coming from and i disagree with you there but thats ok we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Although I will say this...

Maybe there is no pattern in the actions people take to get rich but there are patterns in their thinking?

If getting lucky is the only way to get rich and luck implies that things have no set pattern then rich people have no set pattern in their thoughts OR actions? If this is the case then one rich man could be a total dumbass and the next a genius but i think the case is different. There are patterns in their thinking.

[Sharpe]

Ofc, they have patterns in their thinking.
I said before, my beliefs on humans is that all of them are programmed the same way.
But dumbasses get rich sometimes, and sometimes geniousses get poor.
Money doesn't look at someone being smart or dumb.
They... just get lucky...

[Awakened_Mind]

That particular example wasn't my point. I was talking about the role of ethics in politics. Why we are intelligently arguing about subjectivity, people are starving. That's unethical to me.

Yes I'd agree some people do donate to Charity to relieve guilt. Some give for good reasons as well. Usually if it's not our problem we ignore it. I can get away with a lot of things because it doesn't immediately effect me. Well that was the case decades ago, now global warming does effect us. Things are continually going to effect us. That's what I'm saying. Africa is but one example of a much larger problem. The lottery is another.

The Japanese consider luck a type of emotion not an influencing factor in things.

-AM

[Mez]

well you made your point when you said most poeple say "it doesnt affect me"... most poeple just dont care...

well if you wanna win the lottery get as much skill as derron brown has then hit up the casino. Then you can buy africa a meal if you want.

[Awakened_Mind]

I don't see a problem in using psychic powers to win money. Are there any psychics online who have tried this before?

-AM

[Kazbadan]

My moral is very simple:
1) I try to help myself 1st. If i cant help myself i cant even think on helping others
2) Then i will help other people, sometimes with some sacrifice:
a) Sacrifice for myself (Like: "if i help my boss covering the fact that he has an affair with XYZ girl, i will risk myself at the eyes of other people, but i may get a promotion" whatever)
b) Sacrifice because i like someone (its like a) option for all effects).
c) Real sacrifice because sometimes i feel good
3) Then i wil start thinking on helping other people, if that doens harm myself. So if i get rich i will help other people if that does not cost me a lot.
4) I will avoid at all costs to get up in my life by using other people or having it get unhappy because of my acts. This is very important to me. Sometimes i most to choose...in that case:me and my family 1st, then...the others. Thats selfish, isnt it? I dont care, i am not Buddha yet -_-

About being rich: luck & using people. I see some rich people in my family. How do they get there? By luck and by being mother f*** to some people. That goes against 4). So i dont use it. Thats why i am not rich and thats why winning lottery by the use of psy poweres make sense to me (because i am not doing any bad to anyone and because i dont believe on bullshits [like: "using psy powers for winning moneyyaddayadda will make spirits get anger" an shi** like that...].

[Kazbadan]

If that would really stop hunger in Africa, believe me that i be the 1st supoorting that cause.
But i am selfish enough to say that if i win the money, it wouldnt be me giving the money.

Well that's the whole thing about lottery I suppose. Is the money being put to good use in the first place. Say we have in Australia a 32 million dollar lottery, which has happened before. Without using psychic powers to get the numbers, that amount of money could feed over 8000 families for 10 years in Africa.

Psychic or not, the money could be put to better use than to give it all to one person who could afford the luxury to gamble in the first place. I think we have a responsibility as men and women that is not currently being fully recognised.

-AM

[Awakened_Mind]

That particular example wasn't my point. No wonder no one ever brings up Africa.

-AM

[Sharpe]

If global warming is an actual problem, which I do not believe.
Then it would be wise NOT to give Africa money because they could increase the problem by raising consumers.

I just gotta be honest and absolutely objective here, it would work better for everyone if they would just be dead...
I mean they bring more problems than solutions.
They have AIDS anyway, someone obviously doesn't want them.
I don't blame him...

[Mez]

lolll. thats one way to look at it. You know theres FAR worse things than global warming... Global warming probly wont kill us in the next decade but codex alimentarius just might. Soon we'll all be like africa... sick and starving. Only the rich people will have enough money for medicine the poor people will just die. Fun stuff.

[Sharpe]

How would THAT ever happen lol...
I mean I agree humans are way dumb, espescially with using multiple languages or measurings like celcius/kelvin/fahrenheit and kilometer and miles.
They all mean the same thing... so why?

Anyway, I do believe that we DO know how to survive and I don't think we'll see any armageddon untill the sun reaches its expiration date lol.

[Doringo]

I mean I agree humans are way dumb

Well, you just proved your idea about human intelligence. Good job!

People use different languages because they made up different languages. The effort required to teach all six billion people the same language fluently, as well as to convince everyone that this one language was better than their native languages (and native tongues die hard) would be significantly greater than any possible advantages of doing so. So what if everyone speaks English? All that effort just means that you don't have to use translators or learn foreign languages anymore. A colossal waste of time, effort and resources.

Different measurements are applied in different circumstances. Kelvin is used scientifically (in fact, it's the SI unit for temperature) because it is impractical to use celsius/fahrenheit when talking about sub-zero temperatures. However, celsius and fahrenheit are used by most people because they are suited to the range of temperatures that normal people tend to use, such as on weather reports or recipes.

Next you'll be suggesting that the government should just print out money and give it to everyone to get rid of poverty.

[Awakened_Mind]

A common language is necessary to unite mankind. How are we to co-operate without clear understanding. Hence the evolution of telepathy, a language that is not defined by culturally sanctioned dictionaries or geographic location. A language that is written in the human DNA.

-AM

[Sharpe]

Doringo, we don't need celsius or fahrenheit, kelvin is enough for everything.
Beside that point we DO NOT need more than 1 language.

You obviously didn't think this through.
The way that you only use 1 language globally could work like this: You only teach 1 language to the new generations of children.
Now the older generation will still know the native language the new generation and older will communicate through this language (if the older generations do not know the 1 language) (this language will be tought in school because of the unknowingness of the older generation).
After the new generation has offsprings they will only speak in the 1 language used.
After the oldest generation has past away, everyone will know the language so using other languages would be unneccesary.
That's it, now everyone speaks 1 language.
This is a very logical solution to a dumb problem humans have created.
Removing celsius and fahrenheit would be way easier than this.

"Next you'll be suggesting that the government should just print out money and give it to everyone to get rid of poverty."

I believe that this metaphor was absolutely irrelevant to what I said.
This leads to my conclusion that everything you have mentioned in your post is of no value to me.
And that my solutions would work if used, contrary to not doing them and wasting time in learning these languages instead of investing time to learning the "truth" of our universe.

Good day!

[Selski]

Doringo - methinks someone has just thrown his toys out of the pram... 

Sarah

[Doringo]

The way that you only use 1 language globally could work like this: You only teach 1 language to the new generations of children.
Now the older generation will still know the native language the new generation and older will communicate through this language (if the older generations do not know the 1 language) (this language will be tought in school because of the unknowingness of the older generation).
After the new generation has offsprings they will only speak in the 1 language used.
After the oldest generation has past away, everyone will know the language so using other languages would be unneccesary.
That's it, now everyone speaks 1 language.
This is a very logical solution to a dumb problem humans have created.

But here's the thing: To educate the entire 'new generation' of humanity, you'd need to convince every single government to teach in what is most likely a foreign language to them. Such a drastic change to the status quo probably won't be taken well, so they won't agree. So I guess you'd need to conquer the world, wouldn't you?

Besides, if you destroy every other language except one 'human' language, you will lose the individuality and uniqueness of all the other languages. While language barriers can sometimes be quite awkward (but easily bypassed), language itself is a work of art and a terrible thing to just get rid of.

If you meant to suggest that everyone be taught the 1 language as a 'second language', consider that French is required learning in schools in the UK. How many English people are fluent in French? Exactly.

I believe that this metaphor was absolutely irrelevant to what I said.

This was in response to your apparent supposition that all it would take to make all these things a reality would be for the government to take action. e.g. to all start teaching one language only. The rather obvious disadvantages caused by that are ignored and instead the fact that it hasn't happened yet is used as evidence that humanity is somehow 'dumb'.

[Sharpe]

Yeah...
But, I didn't mean that the government would approve it, I meant that IF they did, it would work.

[Mez]

The people would never go along with it.

[Sharpe]

When did that ever stop the goverment?

[Mez]

the goverment engineer it so that the people beg for crap like that.  thats how they roll