Why?
Some people don’t believe in the moral imperative to pay taxes they legally owe.
Samuel Hapák
Karma: 202
Well, these relationships have a very important characteristic which is that the younger catches up with the older quite quickly and often overcomes him/her. The asymmetry is often quite a temporary matter.
I would say that most visible is this on parent/child relationship. As the child reaches adulthood, he/she becomes more and more equal with the parent. I would claim that around 30 they are pretty much equals. And the relationships (at least from what I observed) become very symmetrical: parent brings up his/her problems as often as child. As the parent becomes older, the roles often reverse a lot. It’s the child that needs to help the aging parent to navigate the world.
Lastly, you mention 1⁄3 as somehow being a low factor. I don’t know what the true factor is but I would consider 1⁄3 to be quite a good ROI ;-)
I agree. But also, they often transform into friendship over time.
I would just say that it’s normal for many relationships to be asymmetric: mentor/mentee, parent/child, master/apprentice.
These don’t need to involve money. Investing your time on helping other human being to grow might be rewarding experience as of itself.
Wow. Once you start doing things in this bureaucracy manner it’s pretty much Game Over. The Moloch won.
I actually believe in a simpler solution: trust but verify. Let your managers make whatever decisions they decide and make sure that no form of corruption/nepotism will be tolerated. Then, if you happen to find an occurrence, fire the manager immediately and make it clear to his peers that this will happen to anyone who crosses the integrity line.
My understanding is that Jews were 1⁄3 of the total population, not 20%.
I agree though that the UN plan for Palestine was too generous to Israel, but that might have also be caused by Arab side essentially sabotaging it and not engaging in negotiations?
And the actual outcome for Israel turned out to be even more than the original UN plan was suggesting. Still, I don’t know how a good solution would look like here. Jews were the underdog here and if they wouldn’t secure the territory they secured, it would probably get pretty bloody bad for them. Simply, them having some smaller territory that wouldn’t really be defensible doesn’t seem like a stable equilibrium to me. Also, it’s not like they are discriminating against their Arab citizens (20% of today’s population). I don’t think there would be any Jews alive today would the roles be reversed.
Don’t get me wrong, this is not me trying to absolve them of the war crimes they did, nor me trying to say that it’s fair that they pretty much got most of the land while Arab’s live an an Apartheid state occupied by Israel.
I am just saying that I don’t think that there was some magic easy solution back in 1948 that would lead to magically better situation than there is today.
FYI: This is the proposal from 1937 rejected by Arabs that would have been IMO fair according to population criteria. I have no idea whether that kind of land would be viable from the military point of view. The long thin stretch of blue seems like really hard to defend.
I am not saying that displacing 700,000 people was okay. I am saying is that splitting the region between two people who were already living there was right. Especially given that these two people could not be realistically capable co-governing together given their not-so-great relationship.
But you are changing argument on the go. First, you start by saying it’s not ok to come to someone else’s land and steal it (100% agreement on that). Then you pretend that somehow there were not living Jews in Palestine (they were already). They had as much right for the land as all the muslims that lived there.
Wow. I didn’t know about these details honestly. I guess we can agree that Israel did many things that were wrong, and we can even call those war crimes.
I just don’t agree with your original claim that the very creation of Israel was wrong.
Well, I guess that our memories work differently then. I truly don’t have a single memory that I would wish not to have. I see them as value. I don’t really feel that I am paying any price just by having them.
Well, there is a strict difference between “Sorry, I can’t discuss this topic, I am under a strict NDA” vs sharing details of the contract you signed. Yes, I am aware that the content of contracts usually is protected by confidentiality, but not necessary the very existence of them.
Well, I am not a masochist. I don’t like experiencing pain. Do you? ;-)
Yet, I experienced lot’s of painful moments in my life, as I guess everyone. And I mean both physical and psychological. Now, I am not traumatised by these memories. I am not trying to get rid of them, why would I? They are often valuable lessons and they help me better calibrate what to expect from the future experiences.
For many, I am glad they happened. I believe that some amount of painful experiences is good for people to experience. Pain makes you grow.
For some, I don’t think the value for pain was good enough and if I could choose, I would rather not experience them. But, does that mean I should wish to get rid of the value (memory) now that the price is paid (pain?)? That would be silly, wouldn’t it?
Well, first I would prefer actual anesthetic that would render me unconscious. But if that’s not available, then I would rather retain my memories than not.
I think you are working under a wrong assumption that there was something as Palestine where Palestinians lived.
The reality was that there was an Ottoman Empire, they lost in a WW1, and thus they lost this region to British. There lived Jews and Muslims there, though there were more Muslims than Jews. It happened to go under the name of “Palestine region”, but thats similar like saying “What did those Czechs and Slovaks thought settling in the Hungary and carving out a portion of the country? Didn’t they notice that there were Hungarians living for like a thousand of years already?
If I would have to choose between drug A and no drug at all, I will take no drug any time. Why would I want to not have the memories but live through the experience? That’s really silly.
I would say it to be quite unusual to not be allowed to say that you are under NDA.
I am honestly confused with why everyone considers non-disparaging agreements bad in all contexts.
People often end up hating each other, eg sometimes bad break-ups happen. I do think that “I am not going to bad-mouth you, you’re not going to bad-mouth me” is a sensible fair thing to do that allows people a) move on with their lives without a fear of retaliation, b) allows more honest relationships when they work because you don’t have to be constantly collecting “evidence” for potential future defense?
And, the same way this makes sense in relationships, I see it making sense in employer-employee relationship?
I don’t know how it looks like at your work, so hard to judge. But, I would say that your wife and kids do owe you, and you do owe them. It’s not like you can stop carrying for your wife and kids tomorrow without breaching a strong (though informal) social contract.
And well, your colleagues are paid to do their job, but normally I would expect them to have a lots of freedom in how they do the job and how much of their attention will they spend helping other people? So, it’s still kind of a choice if they do? But, again, I don’t know your workplace, so maybe its more strict and formal?
I would say that for good workplaces the difference is smaller. Surely, especially in managerial position, you’ll have to help lots of people with their psychological issues, insecurities, troubles, etc… I would say that about 30% of my meetings are closed door, other happen in common spaces. In most of the cases when the meeting is closed door, it’s to provide the other person with privacy and feeling of security.
My oldest one is 6 and sometimes he really needs some privacy and thus we do sometimes close door behind us. It’s not as often as at work because a) I have less kids than employees, b) I suspect older he gets more private talks will he want to have.
At work people are paid to talk to me. If they like me or not, they kind of need to with with me. In real life, relationships don’t work that way. No one it’s getting paid to help me and every interaction with me is a choice.
Actually, I see it much the opposite way. You can choose to not to talk with people at work, eg by quitting.
It’s much more difficult to stop talking to your kids, wife. Sure, you can get divorce, but that’s kind of extreme compared to quitting the job :-)
Well, on the similarity/difference point, I would say that the line between legally rearranging one’s affairs and not paying what is owed is a very thin line. Government usually doesn’t like when you rearrange stuff to reduce your taxes and thus often the legal doctrine says that as long as your primary motivation in rearranging your affairs was lower tax it’s classified as a tax evasion and thus illegal.
On the morality point, I am not defending the deranged “the end justifies the means” principle. All I am saying is that many people don’t consider the power the government is exerting over them (eg the power to collect taxes) as legitimate and thus don’t see anything wrong with not paying the taxes.