The KK

[exnihilo]

Over the course of the last 13 years I have known literally hundreds of KK members, and they have been overwhelmingly nice, decent people.

Doubtles there will be little social crusaders on here whose ideology can hold true even in the face of overwhelming evidence though.

Some people will never be convinced that they're anything but a bunch of posh, rich bastards - rather, as I suspect, they think many people are at St Andrews, which makes you wonder why people apply to a university they know they're going to hate.

[McK]

Quoting exnihilo from 00:09, 3rd May 2006
Over the course of the last 13 years I have known literally hundreds of KK members, and they have been overwhelmingly nice, decent people.

Doubtles there will be little social crusaders on here whose ideology can hold true even in the face of overwhelming evidence though.

Some people will never be convinced that they're anything but a bunch of posh, rich bastards - rather, as I suspect, they think many people are at St Andrews, which makes you wonder why people apply to a university they know they're going to hate.

With respect, your vouching for countless KK members you have known throughout a very long association with this university would not even begin to constitute 'overwhelming evidence' or evidence of much worth since who you deem 'nice, decent people' is entirely subjective.

[October]

Quoting exnihilo from 00:09, 3rd May 2006
Over the course of the last 13 years I have known literally hundreds of KK members, and they have been overwhelmingly nice, decent people.

I can only judge a group on the members that I have meet.
And sorry to say all the KK I've meet have been pricks.
That's Not saying here isn't any nice ones out there. Just I'm yet to meet them/him/it.
That's the way it is, for me at lest.

[hr]

your friendly hall robot

[Lodestone]

Quoting Boxers from 22:19, 2nd May 2006
It pisses me off people who bitch about other people having more money than they do and automatically therefore think they are pricks because of it.

I said nothing about the character of such people; just that it's morally suspect to hold on to and spend more money than is in any way useful to you.

What's wrong with parents who have worked hard, got some money, wanting to support their kids through uni?

If that means giving them more than they have use for, rather than giving to those who would have use for it, then yes, there's clearly something morally wrong with it.

Also this crap about capping the amount of money that people can have at uni is absolutely ridiculous!

I very deliberately said nothing about anything legalistic or prescriptive: I expressed only moral disapproval.

[Captain_Spanky]

Quoting Lodestone from 00:24, 3rd May 2006

Quoting Boxers from 22:19, 2nd May 2006
It pisses me off people who bitch about other people having more money than they do and automatically therefore think they are pricks because of it.

I said nothing about the character of such people; just that it's morally suspect to hold on to and spend more money than is in any way useful to you.

Define useful. People can live off tesco value meat, rice etc, and that's what's useful to the body. Is the purchase and consumption of alcohol useful? Is spending money on cds/dvds/books/games/any form of entertainment? Is there a limit to how much of such entertainment is useful?

I'm drinking a cup of tea now...useful?
Listening to the new Tool album...useful?
Watching POTC on my PS2...useful?

Just saying...it's not really up to you to pick and choose what's a useful, and saying that's the criteria for how much money people should have...well dude, it's flawed as fuck.

[hr]

Beatrice - Darling. Dearest. Dead.

[Boxers]

Quoting Lodestone from 00:24, 3rd May 2006

I said nothing about the character of such people; just that it's morally suspect to hold on to and spend more money than is in any way useful to you.

It's all relative though, what you see as being a useful way of spending money maybe entirely different to someone else's view. I also don't understand why you think it is "morally suspect". Frivolous maybe, but I don't see what morals has to do with spending money, unless you are financing illicit activities etc.

If that means giving them more than they have use for, rather than giving to those who would have use for it, then yes, there's clearly something morally wrong with it.

Why should they have to give it to some else? It's their hard-earned cash! And who else were you proposing that they give it to?

[Lodestone]

Spanky,

Define useful. People can live off tesco value meat, rice etc, and that's what's useful to the body. Is the purchase and consumption of alcohol useful? Is spending money on cds/dvds/books/games/any form of entertainment?

I said "in any way useful". I don't have to define useful to that: I'm talking, in very general terms, about holding on to or spending money that in no way improves your life.

Is there a limit to how much of such entertainment is useful?

Yes, certainly: the point beyond which any extra entertainment is no longer any more entertaining, giving any more pleasure or happiness.

Just saying...it's not really up to you to pick and choose what's a useful, and saying that's the criteria for how much money people should have...

I think I've answered this now, but just to pount out again that the "should" is descriptive (moral) and not prescriptive (legal).

Boxers,

It's all relative though, what you see as being a useful way of spending money maybe entirely different to someone else's view.

Hopefully I've better explained what I meant by this now, in my reply above. By being very general, I can move beyond relativity on this one.

I also don't understand why you think it is "morally suspect". Frivolous maybe, but I don't see what morals has to do with spending money, unless you are financing illicit activities etc.

Why should they have to give it to some else? It's their hard-earned cash! And who else were you proposing that they give it to?

It depends what code of morality you're following. I don't really want to go into it, and I deliberately said "morally suspect" because I can't yet argue it out fully, but two positions spring to mind:

The first is the hard utilitarian argument, which would say that beyond the point where one's money no longer improves one's life, one should simply give it away so that it can improve others' lives. If it can bring benefit where it is currently bringing zero benefit, then it should be given away.

The second is the argument from chaotic responsibility: it may be their hard-earned cash, but it is only so because the circumstances of their life allowed them to earn it, and to be such a person who could earn it. Moreover (and more empirically), anyone with that much money has probably stomped on some proverbial toes in order to get there, preventing others from getting there. Thus one could argue that the rich person owes a debt to society.

[DrAlex]

Quoting Lodestone from 11:44, 3rd May 2006
The first is the hard utilitarian argument, which would say that beyond the point where one's money no longer improves one's life, one should simply give it away so that it can improve others' lives. If it can bring benefit where it is currently bringing zero benefit, then it should be given away.

Yes, but you as an outside agent are assuming that these people have that level of money that their lives aren't benefiting from it. I submit that, as everything in your argument is based on internal and subjective interpretations of concepts like "is this money useful to my life?" and "am I benefiting from this money?", your line of argument as a disapproving third party is moot.

Moreover (and more empirically), anyone with that much money has probably stomped on some proverbial toes in order to get there, preventing others from getting there. Thus one could argue that the rich person owes a debt to society.

Just out of curiosity, are you a Socialist? I simply don't buy this, as it completely reads of opinion presented as fact. Show me the empirical evidence.

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

[Guest]

isnt membership invite only?

or isnt there some process that you are askedto do somestuff at the interview?

[womble chris]

okay.. let me get this straight. the KK are a men only group right? so why do they take female money? we're good enough to give money but not to join? isn't that a little bit hypocritical..? i mean, correct me if i've got this wrong...

I think you are missing the point. Namely that isn't it foolish of those women who do give money to the KK, considering they can't even join.

I wouldn't give money to a womens' only commercial and social club, so surely it is the cleverness of the KK and foolishness of the female species, is it not?

And if you give them money due to the charitable aspect, it would be more efficient to give the money straight to the charities themselves.

[exnihilo]

Quoting McK from 00:15, 3rd May 2006ith respect, your vouching for countless KK members you have known throughout a very long association with this university would not even begin to constitute 'overwhelming evidence' or evidence of much worth since who you deem 'nice, decent people' is entirely subjective.

In fairness I didn't say this constituted overwhelming evidence, I said there were people whose ideology could withstand overwhelming evidence. That being said, if I tell someone that I know hundreds of people in a club where they know no, or few, people and have found the majority to be perfectly pleasant people, that should count for something. At least my opinion here is actually based on some knowledge and not just on spouting outdated (and, frankly, disgustingly envious) political soundbites.

It has been my experience so often on here that people attack or denigrate people they don't know and are utterly uninterested in being informed about the actual people or in opening their mind in any way to anything that ill-suits their self-created class warrior universe. It has happened countless times, it's pathetic, it's mean-spirited, it's moronic, and it bores me.

[motorhead]

If i was born into a situation whereby i had more money than anybody else, i would do exactly what the rich boys do, spend it on holidays cars and clothes and i would have a whale of a time, therefor i am not grumbling about the fact that i have to work hard to acheive my luxuries because i dont take them for granted and possibly enjoy them more than the rich motherfuckers do

[McK]

Quoting exnihilo from 14:01, 3rd May 2006

Quoting McK from 00:15, 3rd May 2006ith respect, your vouching for countless KK members you have known throughout a very long association with this university would not even begin to constitute 'overwhelming evidence' or evidence of much worth since who you deem 'nice, decent people' is entirely subjective.

In fairness I didn't say this constituted overwhelming evidence, I said there were people whose ideology could withstand overwhelming evidence. That being said, if I tell someone that I know hundreds of people in a club where they know no, or few, people and have found the majority to be perfectly pleasant people, that should count for something. At least my opinion here is actually based on some knowledge and not just on spouting outdated (and, frankly, disgustingly envious) political soundbites.

It has been my experience so often on here that people attack or denigrate people they don't know and are utterly uninterested in being informed about the actual people or in opening their mind in any way to anything that ill-suits their self-created class warrior universe. It has happened countless times, it's pathetic, it's mean-spirited, it's moronic, and it bores me.

However it's also fair to say that you are perhaps tinged by bitterness at having been attacked (unfairly or not) a number of times on this forum yourself. What you therefore call "outdated (and, frankly, disgustingly envious) political soundbites" as part of a "self-created class warrior universe" are only so in your own created perception.

In fact, after a number of years reading posts you call pathetic, mean-spirited and moronic and your own equally repugnant responses I find both utterly tiresome.

[Boxers]

Quoting Lodestone from 11:44, 3rd May 2006
Moreover (and more empirically), anyone with that much money has probably stomped on some proverbial toes in order to get there, preventing others from getting there. Thus one could argue that the rich person owes a debt to society.

In no way whatsoever can you assume that people who have money have probably stepped on other people's toes to get it! Not everyone has made money by elbowing their way to the top of their profession. For example, what about people who have say invented something, like some sort of medical equipment or drug that saves people's lives and its been developed and they have made a substantial amount of money from it. In this case, if anything, society owes a debt to the rich person!

I pose the same question as DrAlex, are you a Socialist? Your arguements just seem to smack of redistribution of wealth and an unwillingness to accept a meritocratic system.

[Grandpa]

Quoting McK from 15:35, 3rd May 2006

Quoting exnihilo from 14:01, 3rd May 2006

Quoting McK from 00:15, 3rd May 2006ith respect, your vouching for countless KK members you have known throughout a very long association with this university would not even begin to constitute 'overwhelming evidence' or evidence of much worth since who you deem 'nice, decent people' is entirely subjective.

In fairness I didn't say this constituted overwhelming evidence, I said there were people whose ideology could withstand overwhelming evidence. That being said, if I tell someone that I know hundreds of people in a club where they know no, or few, people and have found the majority to be perfectly pleasant people, that should count for something. At least my opinion here is actually based on some knowledge and not just on spouting outdated (and, frankly, disgustingly envious) political soundbites.

It has been my experience so often on here that people attack or denigrate people they don't know and are utterly uninterested in being informed about the actual people or in opening their mind in any way to anything that ill-suits their self-created class warrior universe. It has happened countless times, it's pathetic, it's mean-spirited, it's moronic, and it bores me.

However it's also fair to say that you are perhaps tinged by bitterness at having been attacked (unfairly or not) a number of times on this forum yourself. What you therefore call "outdated (and, frankly, disgustingly envious) political soundbites" as part of a "self-created class warrior universe" are only so in your own created perception.

In fact, after a number of years reading posts you call pathetic, mean-spirited and moronic and your own equally repugnant responses I find both utterly tiresome.

At last, someone else who can see sense.

[hr]

We are gentlemen that neither in our hearts nor outward eyes envy the great nor shall the low despise.

[exnihilo]

Quoting McK from 15:35, 3rd May 2006However it's also fair to say that you are perhaps tinged by bitterness at having been attacked (unfairly or not) a number of times on this forum yourself. What you therefore call "outdated (and, frankly, disgustingly envious) political soundbites" as part of a "self-created class warrior universe" are only so in your own created perception.

I'm sorry? What? What bitterness? And what on Earth has any attack on me got to do with the air of resentment exhibited by many at the seeming wealth of others? I see no connection.

In fact, after a number of years reading posts you call pathetic, mean-spirited and moronic and your own equally repugnant responses I find both utterly tiresome.

Repugnant? There's a strong word. Care to back it up?

[exnihilo]

Quoting Grandpa from 16:20, 3rd May 2006At last, someone else who can see sense.

Now that is bitterness. Just can't hack the fact that someone points out your innumerable errors and isn't cowed by your extreme age! Pah.

[scratter]

exnihilo,

I was just wondering if you live in st andrews or somewhere completely different, and if so for how long have you not been here?

[tintin]

I think he lives in Glasgow and left St Andrews some years ago though I may be mistaken. I am sure he will correct me if I am.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/mat_salleh

[McK]

Quoting exnihilo from 16:31, 3rd May 2006

Quoting McK from 15:35, 3rd May 2006However it's also fair to say that you are perhaps tinged by bitterness at having been attacked (unfairly or not) a number of times on this forum yourself. What you therefore call "outdated (and, frankly, disgustingly envious) political soundbites" as part of a "self-created class warrior universe" are only so in your own created perception.

I'm sorry? What? What bitterness? And what on Earth has any attack on me got to do with the air of resentment exhibited by many at the seeming wealth of others? I see no connection.

In fact, after a number of years reading posts you call pathetic, mean-spirited and moronic and your own equally repugnant responses I find both utterly tiresome.

Repugnant? There's a strong word. Care to back it up?

Absolutely, although I will not trawl through Sinner archives to do it. Your post at 14.01 today is pretty exemplary, containing as it does what might be considered to be a narrow-minded and displeasing commentary on posters whose opinions are no more ill-conceived than your own. My original point being that what you said (about the KK, or about 'class warriors) is all entirely subjective.

As regards your bitterness, it has merely been my observation that you have exhibited a pugnacious attitude to counter perceived attacks made by other users. Subsequently I was speculating that any discussion you enter into about wealth or class in St Andrews is necessarily influenced by those attacks made upon you in other similar posts.