YAY The #Freemasons got back to me about my application and we will be begining the first steps soon with a discussion! excited!

@freemo If the application requires money, might i interest you in financing my twilight years as well?

@admitsWrongIfProven You only need to pay your local lodge if you want to be an active member, which is only once your accepted anyway.

@freemo Hmm, no end to senseless toil then. A lot of good it does, huh?
Sorry if i'm ranting, just so done with doing what will not help anyone to continue to habitate and eat. Could do without.

@freemo Got a brain teaser for you: if freemasons do well to address such, why is it not addressed yet?

@admitsWrongIfProven If everyone on my block is a good person, why isnt the world a good place?

Because being good and effective in your little world isnt enough since you are so small in a big wide world.

@freemo I see. Freemasons are small?

I do wish you find happiness, i just doubt you will find it this way.

Good luck :-)

@admitsWrongIfProven I wouldnt say small... but a small enough portion of the population they cant fix the whole world on their own.

@freemo Good luck in any case. Apply logical thinking and test anything thrown at you the same way you would if a rambling person on the street said it. And keep in mind the sunk cost fallacy.

@admitsWrongIfProven Yup, always think for yourself. That is usually my concern with these sorts of things, they may demand falling in line in a way I may not agree with.

@admitsWrongIfProven Also it isnt about finding "happiness"... The idea is to support eachother to be a better person and largely to spend timein the fraternity engaging in charitable work. In fact almost all of what they do outside the lodge is charity.

@freemo "charity" is a dangerous concept... the moment you achieve the wealth to do so, how many people did you need to step over to gain it?

@admitsWrongIfProven

There also seems to be a gross disconnect here i just cant see in line with reality... The vast majority of people who have moderate to high wealth (millionairs) most didnt step on anyone.. I mean they are good people about as often as the poor... but most of them got where they were by working hard and treating their colleagues, clients, and employees fairly (which is why they excelled, because they supported so many people they got the best out of them). Shitty people sometimes make it rich, but more often than not they dont.

@freemo It is common for rich people to rationalize what they do.

There is so much wealth to go around, so much chances to be realized as profit.

Not everyone can be wealthy. In the end, one winning (more than others) needs another to sacrifice.

So, we could all have enough, but if some have more, others have less.

No economic shenanigans can defeat the physics behind having stuff. Stuff might be in abundance, but if you take all, none is left.

So, no rich person personally made anyone poor. It's just a general shifting of rules, chances. Nobody is to blame, but results are there.

@admitsWrongIfProven yes rich people whoa re bad rationalize it all the time.. poor people who are bad also rationalize it... rich and poor have about the same perprotions of bad people who rationalize what they do.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> So, we could all have enough, but if some have more, others have less.

Also no, this is fundementally false and easily disproven... wealth isnt a fixed value you need to take from others to have more.

@freemo You cannot disprove physics. There are ten loafs of bread for five people. One takes all ten, the other four starve.

All economics arguments are invalid if that happens. And as long as food goes bad while people starve in roughly the same area, it does happen.

Your economic arguments come back into play if we have a less unfair power structure, but right now we do not.

@admitsWrongIfProven except there arent a fixed 10 loafs.. some guy might go out and harvest some seeds and make 100 loafs and come and now is loaf rich, all without taking any loafs from anyone.

@freemo That would be true if land was not owned :-)

Look at it from the result: we know starving people exist, way beyond the people that fast willingly.

So if the economic theory says that cannot happen, it must be wrong. Maybe only wrong due to circumstances beyond what is accounted for in the theory, but wrong none the less.