TED Community » Ben Jarvis

More About Me

An idea worth spreading

Living in a country where English is not commonly spoken, various experiences have enabled me to realise the meaninglessness of words. Too often I think people hear a particular word and take offense to that word, without even considering the intention of the speaker. Say someone broke your favourite glass, surely your reaction would be different depending on whether it was done to deliberately hurt you, out of carelessness, or an unfortunate result of an unavoidable situation. The same thought process should occur when 'offensive' words are heard - is this person intending to be offensive, or not? If clearly they are then sure, get angry - at their intention to offend, not their words!

Comments

• TEDCred score: +86.90 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A reply on Conversation: What are some realistic and creative ways to reduce wealth inequality?

  1 hour ago: yes bounded capitalism continues to show the best results the world over.
  
  a lot of people who promote the libertarian argument don't understand the interconnections in society, and can't understand that free health care actually costs less. we each personally benefit when everyone else has good health, safety, and can get around freely.

• A reply on Conversation: What are some realistic and creative ways to reduce wealth inequality?

  1 hour ago: blade what case study are you referring to? i don't see it. however it is the boss' sole decision to go into debt to keep up with technology, so why should his employees be liable for any losses incurred? if they were equal partners i'd totally agree. but employer/employee relationships are different.
  
  do you really think company owners aren't making close to 10x what each of their employees are? the standard franchise owner can expect to make $75-125k a year, and that's after paying a large portion of profits to the franchise owner. a small business owner can expect to earn much more than that because they don't have those costs (but of course with more risk).
  
  i agree that owners are entitled to higher rewards for the reasons you've given, but not increasingly higher rewards. a 20% increase across the board means the boss gets a bigger raise because he earns more. you understand that giving an equal percentage raise means an unequal dollar amount right?
  
  if the boss gets 20% more why should the employees gets less than 20%? they're already on a lower salary. they may not have a contractual claim but surely they have a moral claim? fair pay for fair work.

• A reply on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?

  1 hour ago: it doesn't have anything to do with it, it's a different subject. galaxies are moving through space, what's your point? in what way does this prove science a liar?
  
  how have you ever proved science to be a liar? you keep saying that while showing absolutely nothing.

• A reply on Conversation: What are some realistic and creative ways to reduce wealth inequality?

  18 hours ago: why should they accept the risk of the company? the employer has a much higher salary to cover his risk, so even if his company makes no money and he still has to pay his employees, he still has more money than they do.
  
  say the employees are making $10k a year and the boss makes $100k. that's 10 times as much but that's right and fair because if the company fails, the employees lose their jobs but he loses his business. imagine for 2 years everything's fine and good, the company makes $200k a year so the employees get $10k each and the boss gets $100k. after 2 years then they have $20k and he has $200k. then disaster, the main client is lost and the company makes $0 profit for a year. the boss still has to pay the employees $10k for the year but he gets nothing. end result of a complete disaster is he has made $100k over 3 years while his employees have made $30k - he still made 3 times more money than them. why should they have to take a cut on top of already making less than he does?
  
  if an employee has produced 20% more profit why shouldn't he be entitled to a 20% raise?

• A reply on Conversation: Truths and Facts. Does Science prove anything?

  18 hours ago: in the article you posted: Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually just a single photon," he marvels.
  
  it wasn't a lie and i didn't make it up, as i said before: my mistake. it doesn't slow down, but gravity actually distorts space, which makes a straight line no longer straight, and light curves around the deformation. a good analogy is if you had a slight depression on a billiard table, so if you shoot the ball rolls straight but then curves off as it goes thru the depression. this was predicted by the current model, and since then we've actually seen it many many times. here is a very good image where the effect is very noticeable:
  
  http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111017.html
  
  dude i'm still waiting for you to tell me what your problem with gravitational lensing is. yet again you've avoided answering.

• A reply on Conversation: Is equality feasible and is it worth achieving? Subquestion: By your definitions, is equality synonymous with fairness?

  20 hours ago: what's that got to do with the dynamics of equality and the truth?
  
  i asked you to explain days ago and you've made many replies but avoided explaining your claim.

• A reply on Conversation: Is equality feasible and is it worth achieving? Subquestion: By your definitions, is equality synonymous with fairness?

  20 hours ago: yes please do.
  
  it might help to reply on the right thread too. this is about fairness and equality, you're i think referring to the facts in science discussion on another page.

• A reply on Conversation: Is equality feasible and is it worth achieving? Subquestion: By your definitions, is equality synonymous with fairness?

  20 hours ago: i didn't make that up, i got that from the site you posted yourself!

• A reply on Conversation: What are some realistic and creative ways to reduce wealth inequality?

  20 hours ago: blade brilliant question. i used to think the same thing that we all should just chip in to help our fellow man and everything would be better for all, but while that's a great ideal, it doesn't work in reality because it enables cheats. it's actually an interest in equality that prevents people from becoming more altruistic. it works really well in small groups, but it happens so often in wider communities that there's someone somewhere who only takes and never gives, and the other members can't stand being the 'sucker' who does the right thing while someone else doesn't.
  
  every dollar you have, but not every dollar everyone has. for example say there was a small business employing 10 people. they all worked hard and so their profits went up by 20%, and to reward their employees' hard work the boss gave them a 5% pay increase. why if they've produced 20% more do they only get 5% more? they have legitimate claims on the money the boss kept for themselves.
  
  me personally i prefer working for solutions and improvements and don't care for management and administration. i don't thin it's something i couldn't do, it just doesn't hold my interest.

• A reply on Conversation: Is equality feasible and is it worth achieving? Subquestion: By your definitions, is equality synonymous with fairness?

  1 day ago: yep that's how everyone replies with this system.
  
  those that profit from such what? how do they profit? how does that mean they must dumb down?
  
  if your idea has merit, explain it. if you can't, it's not an idea and you're just wasting people's time.