Tag Search for "mother teresa"

Zyrxil

says...

>> ^bcglorf:
If neither of those are true, and you don't believe the local churches are practicing or advocating executions for heresy, then I'd ask how your question has ANYTHING at all to do with what I said?

"Scientology gets to be treated like other religions when it starts to act like one."

Scientology is exactly acting like one. It simply hasn't had enough time to update its public image marketing with enough Mother Teresas or Pope John Paul IIs. Give them time, they're young. Another century and the only controversies they'll have will be in countries you don't care about, like preaching against birth control, denying the HIV to AIDS connection, or the systematic protecting of child molesters at the highest levels.

Lawdeedaw

says...

It could be the Virgin Mary, she is worshiped. It could be Mother Teresa, she is revered.

Joan of Arc... Of course all of these women are put down and held back as sluts... After all, they were not the head of households, nor the top of the food chain... I mean, being a Patron Saint of France must have been so degrading--such a lowly place... (Of course, politics led to her later execution, but then doesn't it always?)

Also, Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in eternal punishment. And they are Christian. They think that is beyond god's wrath. Of course they are a peaceful Christian and as such an exception to most religions... And their Dogma, as such and for countless other reasons of peaceful intent, is not very well liked.

So yeah, it has to be the gloom-and-doom that attracts people. But wait? Isn't that true for politics? I mean, that is what the Republican part is based on! Hold, isn't that true for the Entertainment? I mean, who actually paid attention to sex-ed class documentaries? But switch to Titanic and BOOBIES!

Just sayin...

chilaxe

says...

Isn't Mother Teresa a bit of a lowly role for someone of Megan Fox's stature? Couldn't they make a movie in which she plays God?

joedirt

says...

quantumushroom

says...

>> ^quantumushroom:
By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.

I do love that assertion about the human heart, stated as
fact... makes little to no sense, but let's continue.

Let me rephrase, because I want this to be crystal clear: the
atheist, by default, has declared him or herself to be the
sole judge of what is right and what is wrong, and no other
standards other than their whims or how they're feeling at any
given moment defines morality, goodness, evil, etc.

Even if they do not do so, atheists still must believe that
they are free to pick and choose which laws to obey, the
same exact way those hypocritical religious people pick and
choose which parts of their religion they will follow.

Atheists' highest authority is...themselves.

Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

No, completely missing the point. People who blindly follow
the bible do so with no reason. They don't stop and think
"Hmmm, is it wrong to hate gay people? On what grounds am I
actually hating them?".

Who is to say you're not blindly following the people
declaring that, 'Christians all hate gays?'

Whereas when you're an atheist you base your morals and are
open to discourse, rather than the blanket 'nope, not talking
about it, the bible says it... end of story'. Trying to
suggest that this is somehow hiding emotionality is bullshit,
emotions can come into said discourse just as much, in fact
moreso than in religion, which teaches to SUBDUE your
emotions, IGNORE your feelings... if you're a man and you feel
love for another man... well, that's wrong buddy, the bible
says so.

The Bible has many passages about slavery, yet it was the
political movements of religious people the world over that
freed the slaves. To blanket-condemn the Bible or even the Quran seems a tad harsher even than the false assertion that all Christians must hate gays.

I understand atheists' contempt for the blind obedience of
fundamentalists, but if you're declaring all religion as evil
because of one segment of an infinite human endeavor, I'd
suggest you're being a tad closed-minded.

I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with
certainty that, "There is no God." My opinion.

STOP DOING THAT! Gah, I hate that fr*cken bullshit of
saying 'you can't be certain there's no god'... WE DON'T SAY
THERE'S NO GOD. We're saying there is no evidence to suggest
there is one, so to spend every sunday worshiping something
that by all accounts doesn't exist seems a bit silly. We're
happy to be shown to be wrong by SOME SORT of evidence... ANY
would be nice. Stop saying that we are saying for certain that
there is no god. We are saying that we THINK there's no god,
but those with an open mind are happy to accept further
evidence on the matter.

I understand what you're saying, yet the definition of an
atheism is "The doctrine or belief that there is no God" and
"Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings". I
could be wrong, but you have stated in other words that
atheism is "The doctrine or belief that there is no
God...until proven otherwise."

Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA,
usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

OK, firstly... Atheists are hardly a 'tiny minority', you
may wish to think so, but sorry, it ain't true. First link off
google on the matter 16% are non religious. That's not a 'tiny
minority' by any stretch of any imagination. Then, if we look
at the wikipedia entry we can see that just getting any sort
of number is fraught with problems in classification, self
identification etc.

I agree it's hard to quantify atheists. You could've just
said, "China makes up one-quarter of the world's people and
they're atheist."

THEN secondly... it's HARDLY that anyone is trying to
eliminate all traces of religion from a country... it's a case
of everyone is perfectly free to believe what they want... BUT
when ONE religion starts enforcing IT'S beliefs on the
populous via government THEN things are wrong. Passing law
based on the bible, making Creationism be taught in science is
all absolute bullshit and SHOULD be stopped. But that in no
way is trying to suggest that people can't go to church, be
religious, pray or whatever and do so without fear. It's the
religious folk who are making those without religion feel
fearful because of the way they are being treated.

You bring up many issues here, most of them political. The
ACLU is trying their damnedest to remove all traces of
religious expression from public life. Not all atheists are in
the ACLU, but there are zero I know of protesting the ACLU's
bullying either. Government schools are screwed from all
sides. Not to make light of your plight, but everyone claims
to be persecuted these days.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad
consequences except when discovered by others.

This is such tripe. What you're saying is that religious
people are only good because they fear for the repercussions
of a vengeful god. The way I live my life is that I don't do
bad things because I wouldn't like those things done to me, so
why should I inflict them on someone else. To me that's
FAIR... if the only reason you're 'good' is due to fear of
repercussions, then really... you're not good at all.

But what happens when you meet an atheist who thinks what's FAIR isn't what YOU think is FAIR. There's no ultimate authority, even something as open-ended as the golden rule may not apply.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.

Um... yep. I see no issue here.

Then why be "good?" Why punish evildoers at all?

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.

Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than
anyone else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass
"conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil
governments.

I don't think atheism is an instant trip to being happier
either, never said it was. I also don't think that you are
necessarily unhappy if you're religious. I know plenty of
lovely religious people... I have no issue with them being
religious, I go to their religious ceremonies, quite like
their pastor in fact... they don't try to convert me, and I
don't try to convert them... everyone is happy.

And how many of those lovely religious people would be upset
by your approval/endorsement of this obnoxious video? Some might get "the joke" but then others may not...

Geeze... trying to suggest that 'evil' governments have
converted people to atheism... man... firstly where the hell
does that come from, and secondly don't even start on that
unless you want to defend the crusades and violent
missionaries 'converting' savages to Christianity... don't
even go there, that's just nuts...

Communism makes the state the highest authority, therefore any
and all religious belief and expression was banned in those countries by human monsters, inflicted a nightmare on their own people. These dictators were atheist NOT because they wanted to usher in an Age of Reason but to
maintain their power.

The Crusades were an anomaly compared to the 100 million murdered worldwide by communism.

And no, I'm not saying all atheists are commies, but when one form of "control" like religion dies, another fills the void. Maybe we should all just honor each others' delusions instead.

quantumushroom

says...

I don't disagree with the intention of your words, but I
have a few problems:

Why would it matter whether Hitler or Mother Teresa go to
heaven or hell, or anywhere in between? I've never understood
the significance of an afterlife. In my opinion, the idea of
an afterlife is gluttonous. Why are we so obsessed with living
forever?

Most people wish to see good deeds and work rewarded and bad
deeds and evil punished. That's how we roll on earth. I find it amusing that you wouldn't care about rewards versus punishment for MT and Hitler, yet you find the 'golden parachute' concept upsetting.

Yes, for most people, God serves in part as a kind of Keeper of Scorecards, but rewards and punishment may be only one aspect of an "afterlife" which technically is consciousness after this life.

You're perhaps assuming that the endgame of religion is to
follow rules now to live in a Heaven forever, which would mean
some sort of consciousness apart from a Creator. That may not
be it at all. Buddha described Nirvana as 'the end of
suffering' and left it at that. Buddhism is atheistic.

Also, moral relativism exists whether you choose to believe
so or not. If it didn't, we wouldn't need police, jail and
prison systems, mental health facilities, military or
psychiatrists. The fact is, people can and will do what they
want (or what the voices in their head want) when they want.
Whether or not a god or gods exist has no bearing on this
reality. Even if you believe it does, your belief does not
change the fact that murder, rape, disease, supernovas and
golden parachutes happen. It's our responsibility to prevent
these things from happening, not a gods.

You claim moral relativism exists, but for the atheist, does evil exist?

Which way of living demands more responsibility, the
religious person trying to follow moral precepts or someone who
doesn't necessarily care what happens because nothing finally
matters; death is the End? I don't want to live in a society
where everyone makes their own rules up as they go along; few
atheists would either.

Since for the atheist there is no Prime Mover behind what
society commonly defines as "goodness", why would an atheist
seek to enforce any kind of (self) responsibility at all? If
you felt bad about hurting someone because you didn't treat
them according to the Golden Rule, why not just kill them? If
there was no afterlife they would simply cease to exist along
with their pain and the question of right or wrong would be moot.

Yes, I'm being a tad silly, but hopefully I've made some half-assed point that, "Morality has to come from somewhere."

Now, if you're thinking the way I think you're thinking,
which is that religion provides us with absolutes, the problem
becomes thus: Which god or gods, tenet, belief system do I
believe in? There really is no absolute answer, and if there
is, only a handful of people in the world (universe?) will
ever know. There's this thing called truth (which even itself
is somewhat difficult determine) -- does truth matter or is it
merely the idea that matters? If it's only the idea of
religion that matters, you haven't solved the so-called
problem of moral relativism, you've only hidden the truth from
the believer so that they do the "right" thing. So in other
words, you're lying. Is lying bad? Yes.

You are perhaps basing your argument against either the
existence of God or belief in God on the idea that since
religions provide conflicting statements, all of them must therefore be
false.

Religions are not God. Religion is a human endeavor and
therefore flawed, whereas the nature (or concept) of God is
perfection.

If I say, "We are breathing air" in English and you say it in
French, is one of us 'lying?'

Also, to many atheists why is 'lying' only a feature of religion? You mean atheists never tell lies--even little ones--when it suits them?

Faith is not logical and much of religion isn't either, but to dismiss them all out of hand seems rather absolute, in a world where "there are no absolutes".

We can all agree when out brains die, if there is nothing, we will "experience" nothing forever. If there is an afterparty, atheist and believer alike will go "somewhere" even if it's only within their own consciousness.

quantumushroom

says...

Your post is peppered with so many logical fallacies that I don't want to validate it as an argument.

It's a fine rant, neither proving nor disproving a God-Force.

I WOULD however like to point out that most of the post makes little sense unless you make huge assumptions about a variety of different topics.

Mayhaps. Faith and reason remain polite opponents, but unfortunately for some, people are not logical or reasonable most of the time.

We can always fall back on what Napoleon said about religion: it has kept the poor from murdering the rich.

In reply to this comment by JiggaJonson:
Your post is peppered with so many logical fallacies that I don't want to validate it as an argument. I WOULD however like to point out that most of the post makes little sense unless you make huge assumptions about a variety of different topics.

In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
People are saying it more now, and you're seeing it more
now, because they're just rallying against the stigma of
saying it at all. People are saying it loud and proud because
they don't want it to be considered a BAD thing anymore.

By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.
Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with certainty that,
"There is no God." My opinion.

Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA, usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad consequences except when discovered by others.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.

Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than anyone
else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass "conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil governments.

spoco2

says...

>> ^quantumushroom:
By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.

I do love that assertion about the human heart, stated as fact... makes little to no sense, but let's continue.

Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

No, completely missing the point. People who blindly follow the bible do so with no reason. They don't stop and think "Hmmm, is it wrong to hate gay people? On what grounds am I actually hating them?". Whereas when you're an atheist you base your morals and are open to discourse, rather than the blanket 'nope, not talking about it, the bible says it... end of story'. Trying to suggest that this is somehow hiding emotionality is bullshit, emotions can come into said discourse just as much, in fact moreso than in religion, which teaches to SUBDUE your emotions, IGNORE your feelings... if you're a man and you feel love for another man... well, that's wrong buddy, the bible says so.

I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with certainty that,
"There is no God." My opinion.

STOP DOING THAT! Gah, I hate that fr*cken bullshit of saying 'you can't be certain there's no god'... WE DON'T SAY THERE'S NO GOD. We're saying there is no evidence to suggest there is one, so to spend every sunday worshiping something that by all accounts doesn't exist seems a bit silly. We're happy to be shown to be wrong by SOME SORT of evidence... ANY would be nice. Stop saying that we are saying for certain that there is no god. We are saying that we THINK there's no god, but those with an open mind are happy to accept further evidence on the matter.

Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA, usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

OK, firstly... Atheists are hardly a 'tiny minority', you may wish to think so, but sorry, it ain't true. First link off google on the matter 16% are non religious. That's not a 'tiny minority' by any stretch of any imagination. Then, if we look at the wikipedia entry we can see that just getting any sort of number is fraught with problems in classification, self identification etc.

THEN secondly... it's HARDLY that anyone is trying to eliminate all traces of religion from a country... it's a case of everyone is perfectly free to believe what they want... BUT when ONE religion starts enforcing IT'S beliefs on the populous via government THEN things are wrong. Passing law based on the bible, making Creationism be taught in science is all absolute bullshit and SHOULD be stopped. But that in no way is trying to suggest that people can't go to church, be religious, pray or whatever and do so without fear. It's the religious folk who are making those without religion feel fearful because of the way they are being treated.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad consequences except when discovered by others.
This is such tripe. What you're saying is that religious people are only good because they fear for the repercussions of a vengeful god. The way I live my life is that I don't do bad things because I wouldn't like those things done to me, so why should I inflict them on someone else. To me that's FAIR... if the only reason you're 'good' is due to fear of repercussions, then really... you're not good at all.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.
Um... yep. I see no issue here.

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.
Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than anyone
else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass "conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil governments.

I don't think atheism is an instant trip to being happier either, never said it was. I also don't think that you are necessarily unhappy if you're religious. I know plenty of lovely religious people... I have no issue with them being religious, I go to their religious ceremonies, quite like their pastor in fact... they don't try to convert me, and I don't try to convert them... everyone is happy.

Geeze... trying to suggest that 'evil' governments have converted people to atheism... man... firstly where the hell does that come from, and secondly don't even start on that unless you want to defend the crusades and violent missionaries 'converting' savages to Christianity... don't even go there, that's just nuts...

poolcleaner

says...

>> ^quantumushroom:
People are saying it more now, and you're seeing it more
now, because they're just rallying against the stigma of
saying it at all. People are saying it loud and proud because
they don't want it to be considered a BAD thing anymore.
By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.
Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.
I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with certainty that,
"There is no God." My opinion.
Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA, usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.
As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad consequences except when discovered by others.
As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.
I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.
Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than anyone
else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass "conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil governments.

I don't disagree with the intention of your words, but I have a few problems:

Why would it matter whether Hitler or Mother Teresa go to heaven or hell, or anywhere in between? I've never understood the significance of an afterlife. In my opinion, the idea of an afterlife is gluttonous. Why are we so obsessed with living forever?

Also, moral relativism exists whether you choose to believe so or not. If it didn't, we wouldn't need police, jail and prison systems, mental health facilities, military or psychiatrists. The fact is, people can and will do what they want (or what the voices in their head want) when they want. Whether or not a god or gods exist has no bearing on this reality. Even if you believe it does, your belief does not change the fact that murder, rape, disease, supernovas and golden parachutes happen. It's our responsibility to prevent these things from happening, not a gods.

Now, if you're thinking the way I think you're thinking, which is that religion provides us with absolutes, the problem becomes thus: Which god or gods, tenet, belief system do I believe in? There really is no absolute answer, and if there is, only a handful of people in the world (universe?) will ever know. There's this thing called truth (which even itself is somewhat difficult determine) -- does truth matter or is it merely the idea that matters? If it's only the idea of religion that matters, you haven't solved the so-called problem of moral relativism, you've only hidden the truth from the believer so that they do the "right" thing. So in other words, you're lying. Is lying bad? Yes.

HollywoodBob says...

>> ^quantumushroom:
As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.

Depending on what you know of the history of both figures, even a believer could contend that they both ended up in the same place.

On another note, I have to hand it to you QM, that was the most non-hostile, least trolling comment I think I've ever seen from you. Keep up the good work.

quantumushroom

says...

People are saying it more now, and you're seeing it more
now, because they're just rallying against the stigma of
saying it at all. People are saying it loud and proud because
they don't want it to be considered a BAD thing anymore.

By itself, atheism is not a bad thing. But since the human
heart is infinitely deceptive, atheism solves nothing either.
Religious superstition is replaced by moral relativism and
"rationality" that is masterful at hiding its own emotional
drives. You're in the same boat as everyone else.

I don't think beings who cannot see germs or x-rays with their
plain eyes or past the 13 billion light year "edge" of the
universe with technology have any business announcing with certainty that,
"There is no God." My opinion.

Atheists remain a tiny minority and their bases for
eliminating all traces of religion from American society are
plainly wrong. Whether you accept it or not, religion has
always been a vital force in countries' historical DNA, usually with a surplus of goodness over evil.

As an atheist you must accept that all actions have no bad consequences except when discovered by others.

As an atheist you must accept that Hitler and Mother Teresa
both ended up in a void of nothing.

I don't believe "the gods" condemn anyone for being an atheist
but I do believe all are subject to laws of karma. Again, an
opinion.

Above all, I don't think atheists are necessarily happier than anyone
else. That's probably why there's never been any kind of mass "conversion" to unbelief, except at gunpoint by evil governments.

10898 says...

>> ^imstellar28:
when a company loses money, often the first person to receive blame is the CEO. by accepting a low salary, he becomes popular with the workers and gains support which helps him keep his job. this makes it for a board of directors to fire him, when it might have been a better for the company (and thus for the workers) to take on a new, better CEO. put it on the local news, and just try and fire him.
nobody turns down $1,000,0000 for the "sake of the company" when the ink runs red, they are doing it for the sake of their own job. he will wait it out and happily take the $5,000,000 a year again when the ink turns black. show me a CEO at the height of profit margins who accepts a lower salary than offered, and i'll point you to a "humanitarian". once again, by looking at everything skin-deep, the whole point was missed and a typical, "selfish", CEO is being praised as the next mother teresa.
sly CEO: 1
two dozen videosift posters: 0

I can't show you a CEO who has turned down high pay when a company was in the black, but we do have an abundance ... an overabundance of CEOs who have padded themselves in luxury while their companies fell into ruin.

For now he is doing the right thing, which many others have not. We should look upon him favorably for it.

Really, even in our heavily flawed world there's such a thing as being too cynical.

imstellar28 says...

i know what ya meant, what i mean is the new CEO (in the video) -- i wonder what his last job is--why he quit it or why he was fired. why would he go from a well paying job to take a 90k CEO job unless he was unemployed and desperate or ambitious.

In reply to this comment by Krupo:
glad you like the joke

CEO in video = still there

CEO who left -> gone.

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
nah, i think i've just lost too many brain cells from posting here too much. that new (to me) information just raises the question of why was he fired/leave from his old job.

In reply to this comment by Krupo:
>> ^imstellar28:
when a company loses money, often the first person to receive blame is the CEO. by accepting a low salary, he becomes popular with the workers and gains support which helps him keep his job. this makes it for a board of directors to fire him, when it might have been a better for the company (and thus for the workers) to take on a new, better CEO. put it on the local news, and just try and fire him.
nobody turns down $1,000,0000 for the "sake of the company" when the ink runs red, they are doing it for the sake of their own job. he will wait it out and happily take the $5,000,000 a year again when the ink turns black. show me a CEO at the height of profit margins who accepts a lower salary than offered, and i'll point you to a "humanitarian". once again, by looking at everything skin-deep, the whole point was missed and a typical, "selfish", CEO is being praised as the next mother teresa.
sly CEO: 1
two dozen videosift posters: 0

Dude, are you on crack, cocaine, or both? Read the background. He took over this year after they ousted the last CEO for incompetence. He got the job in the first place once it was all bad.

If anything, this helped me ask (or FORCE) the labour unions to accept cutbacks in their pay. Sharing the pain all around, not just grandstanding, silly.

imstellar28 says...

nah, i think i've just lost too many brain cells from posting here too much. that new (to me) information just raises the question of why was he fired/leave from his old job.

In reply to this comment by Krupo:
>> ^imstellar28:
when a company loses money, often the first person to receive blame is the CEO. by accepting a low salary, he becomes popular with the workers and gains support which helps him keep his job. this makes it for a board of directors to fire him, when it might have been a better for the company (and thus for the workers) to take on a new, better CEO. put it on the local news, and just try and fire him.
nobody turns down $1,000,0000 for the "sake of the company" when the ink runs red, they are doing it for the sake of their own job. he will wait it out and happily take the $5,000,000 a year again when the ink turns black. show me a CEO at the height of profit margins who accepts a lower salary than offered, and i'll point you to a "humanitarian". once again, by looking at everything skin-deep, the whole point was missed and a typical, "selfish", CEO is being praised as the next mother teresa.
sly CEO: 1
two dozen videosift posters: 0

Dude, are you on crack, cocaine, or both? Read the background. He took over this year after they ousted the last CEO for incompetence. He got the job in the first place once it was all bad.

If anything, this helped me ask (or FORCE) the labour unions to accept cutbacks in their pay. Sharing the pain all around, not just grandstanding, silly.

Krupo

says...

>> ^imstellar28:
when a company loses money, often the first person to receive blame is the CEO. by accepting a low salary, he becomes popular with the workers and gains support which helps him keep his job. this makes it for a board of directors to fire him, when it might have been a better for the company (and thus for the workers) to take on a new, better CEO. put it on the local news, and just try and fire him.
nobody turns down $1,000,0000 for the "sake of the company" when the ink runs red, they are doing it for the sake of their own job. he will wait it out and happily take the $5,000,000 a year again when the ink turns black. show me a CEO at the height of profit margins who accepts a lower salary than offered, and i'll point you to a "humanitarian". once again, by looking at everything skin-deep, the whole point was missed and a typical, "selfish", CEO is being praised as the next mother teresa.
sly CEO: 1
two dozen videosift posters: 0

Dude, are you on crack, cocaine, or both? Read the background. He took over this year after they ousted the last CEO for incompetence. He got the job in the first place once it was all bad.

If anything, this helped me ask (or FORCE) the labour unions to accept cutbacks in their pay. Sharing the pain all around, not just grandstanding, silly.

VideoSift

/Learn

5.0

search results matching tag: `mother teresa`

Politician Tweets About "Stupid Scientology"

Atheism is NOT a religion (but let's make it one!)

Mother Teresa - The Making of a Saint (Trailer)

Holy Smokes, Chartbeat is Goooood! (Sift Talk Post)

Don't let your kids become infected with the "atheism"!!!

Don't let your kids become infected with the "atheism"!!!

JiggaJonson (Member Profile)

Don't let your kids become infected with the "atheism"!!!

Don't let your kids become infected with the "atheism"!!!

Don't let your kids become infected with the "atheism"!!!

Don't let your kids become infected with the "atheism"!!!

Wouldn't It Be Cool If US CEOs Were Like This

Krupo (Member Profile)

Krupo (Member Profile)

Wouldn't It Be Cool If US CEOs Were Like This

Send this Article to a Friend

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon

search results matching tag: mother teresa

Holy Smokes, Chartbeat is Goooood! (Sift Talk Post)

JiggaJonson (Member Profile)

Krupo (Member Profile)

Krupo (Member Profile)

Member Login

Sign Up

Account Recovery

search results matching tag: `mother teresa`