Post by: Kazan on April 29, 2004, 09:46:22 am
Post by: an0n on April 29, 2004, 09:48:32 am
When are you people going to learn: Democracy doesn't work.
Post by: kasperl on April 29, 2004, 09:52:52 am
Quote
was conducted among 1,042 adults nationwide
dude, since when is a thousand out of quite a few million a good average?
Post by: J3Vr6 on April 29, 2004, 09:53:25 am
Post by: an0n on April 29, 2004, 09:53:48 am
That's why they said there's a 3-percent margin of error.
Post by: kasperl on April 29, 2004, 09:56:22 am
And i'm not kidding, heck, even in Holland we get survey's among like 3 or 4 thousand just to get the evening polls in papers 'round election time.
Post by: Janos on April 29, 2004, 09:56:55 am
Another four years of anti-americanism ahoy! (I am anti-Shrub.)
Post by: Stunaep on April 29, 2004, 09:56:58 am
Post by: an0n on April 29, 2004, 09:57:45 am
Post by: Setekh on April 29, 2004, 10:03:41 am
Post by: Stunaep on April 29, 2004, 10:03:42 am
Post by: Tiara on April 29, 2004, 10:25:36 am
Post by: an0n on April 29, 2004, 10:27:35 am
Post by: Tiara on April 29, 2004, 10:29:35 am
Post by: an0n on April 29, 2004, 10:35:47 am
Post by: HotSnoJ on April 29, 2004, 11:53:21 am
test: **** ****
Damn it. *tries something else* Kerry, Gore, Clinton
Damn it again.
Post by: Deepblue on April 29, 2004, 03:46:05 pm
Quote
CBS/New York Times
Post by: Grey Wolf on April 29, 2004, 03:49:07 pm
Post by: ionia23 on April 29, 2004, 04:07:14 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009:yes:
The more that they have people die in Iraq, the lower the approval rating falls. Inverse relationship.
Post by: Beowulf on April 29, 2004, 04:17:47 pm
Good. If **** looses it's because he's a ****ing socialist. Goddamn criminal amnesty, supports affirmative action, ****ing passed the largest welfare increase in decades...
Do I want Kerry? Who that liar? That ****ing douche-bag of vinegar tomatoes. That ****er who has NEVER had a solid stance on ANYTHING?
No. I want neither. If **** looses, I'll be happy because it will smack the ****ing republitards into shape. If **** wins, I'll be happy because the scum-bag Kerry is the most untrustworthy **** around.
****. America is ****ing dieing. Republitards == Demicommies.
Post by: ionia23 on April 29, 2004, 04:19:55 pm
I take it we aren't voting Republican this year? :p
Post by: Jiggyhound on April 29, 2004, 04:22:08 pm
Post by: Grey Wolf on April 29, 2004, 04:24:57 pm
Post by: Rictor on April 29, 2004, 04:53:48 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Beowulf
You know what?
Good. If **** looses it's because he's a ****ing socialist. Goddamn criminal amnesty, supports affirmative action, ****ing passed the largest welfare increase in decades...
Do I want Kerry? Who that liar? That ****ing douche-bag of vinegar tomatoes. That ****er who has NEVER had a solid stance on ANYTHING?
No. I want neither. If **** looses, I'll be happy because it will smack the ****ing republitards into shape. If **** wins, I'll be happy because the scum-bag Kerry is the most untrustworthy **** around.
****. America is ****ing dieing. Republitards == Demicommies.
Up is down, weak is strong, everything you know is wrong..
____________________________-
The thing is, the approval ratings are falling compared to American casualties, not Iraqi ones. Kill 10,000. Or a hundred thousand. Hell, kill the whole lot of 'em, just don't harm our precious soldiers.
America deserves ****, and worse. When people argue that the Republicans are leaning leftward, that the media is liberal and the Democratic candidate is a bonafide imperialist, I have no pity for any losses America incurs, be it soldiers of civil liberties.
Harsh? Sure. Truthful? You betcha.
Post by: ionia23 on April 29, 2004, 04:58:18 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
The thing is, the approval ratings are falling compared to American casualties, not Iraqi ones. Kill 10,000. Or a hundred thousand. Hell, kill the whole lot of 'em, just don't harm our precious soldiers.
Isn't that kind of the idea? Color me biased or something....
Post by: mikhael on April 29, 2004, 05:30:28 pm
God I hate agreeing with ionia.
Post by: Rictor on April 29, 2004, 05:34:39 pm
Hitler's 100 to 1 rule, was that just the way the world works? Or would you consider that to be a crime?
Post by: Grey Wolf on April 29, 2004, 05:36:10 pm
Post by: Jiggyhound on April 29, 2004, 05:37:32 pm
Post by: mikhael on April 29, 2004, 05:43:08 pm
Yeah, a soldier chooses to be on the battlefield. I, being a military sort, say that makes him worth more than the puling civilian that stayed home and let someone else fight. But hey, that's just my opinion.
As much as I consider the US invasion of Iraq contemptible, when it comes down to a choice between an american solider's life and any number of random iraqis, guess who wins in my mind? That's right, boys and girls, the american soldier.
Post by: Grey Wolf on April 29, 2004, 05:44:49 pm
Post by: ionia23 on April 29, 2004, 05:46:24 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
God forbid someone care about their countrymen. Yes, in the minds of the voters, an american soldier's life is of infinitely greater value than some iraqi. Get over it. That's the way the world works.
God I hate agreeing with ionia.
It's pure coincedence, I swear :lol:
Post by: mikhael on April 29, 2004, 05:48:26 pm
Not my tribe? Not my problem.
Over the Horizon? Not my problem.
The calculus of it is cold and terrible and beautiful in a way. What's that wonderful quote? "A death is a tragedy, million is a statistic." or some such.
Post by: Rictor on April 29, 2004, 05:56:56 pm
The fact remains, civilians are defenceless. And the fact also remains, they did not choose be be in harm's way. The fight came to them, literally.
This has nothing to do with national identity or whatever you choose to call it. You can hate the world outside the US for all I care. They're all Commies and appeasers and terrorsts and fanatics. I don't care what you think, so long as it does not have any negative effects on the rest os the world. Drape your house in the American flag, buy only American products...your choice. But once your opinions start ****ing with other people, its no longer up to you.
All people, Iraqi or American or Bulgarian are born with equal rights. No one is inferior or superior to anyone else. And here I can safely say that this is world opinion, not my own, becuase there are very few peope in the world who would disagree with that statement. Unless you are in the military yourself, you don;t really have the power to kill somone in Iraq, except through your support or lack thereof for the government doing the killing. When you say that you would rather see 10 Iraqi civies die than a single American, you are endorsing the superiority of Americans.
So again I ask, how is this different than the 100 to 1 rule implemented by Nazi Germany?
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
The calculus of it is cold and terrible and beautiful in a way. What's that wonderful quote? "A death is a tragedy, million is a statistic." or some such.
Stalin. He's a wonderful example to fololow isn't he?
Post by: ionia23 on April 29, 2004, 06:00:34 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
Sociologically, it gets very simple:
Not my tribe? Not my problem.
Over the Horizon? Not my problem.
The calculus of it is cold and terrible and beautiful in a way. What's that wonderful quote? "A death is a tragedy, million is a statistic." or some such.
That's the problem with working for the government, particularly in a decision-making capacity. You have to deal in abstractions. Stinks, but what's the alternative?
Post by: Grey Wolf on April 29, 2004, 06:01:07 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mikhaelThat's about right. This is primarily because our mind-set is still in the Neolithic Era and early Bronze Age. Our minds do not physically consider a nation to be much more than a massive tribe, and when members of our "tribe" are killed, we feel threatened. This will trigger one of two instinctive reactions, each of which an be represented in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts: Fight and flight. Fight through the eagerness of the public to support a war on Afghanistan. Flight through the public reaction to the continued death of our soldiers. You may think of it in higher terms, but for the vast majority these last few years have been reactions by instinct, not knowledge.
Sociologically, it gets very simple:
Not my tribe? Not my problem.
Over the Horizon? Not my problem.
The calculus of it is cold and terrible and beautiful in a way. What's that wonderful quote? "A death is a tragedy, million is a statistic." or some such.
Post by: ionia23 on April 29, 2004, 06:08:59 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
So again I ask, how is this different than the 100 to 1 rule implemented by Nazi Germany?
Just over 700 American soliders have been been killed in Iraq so far, not counting civilian worker casualties, Iraqis working with the coalition forces, and other members of the coalition.
They're a long, long ways from home in a foreign land where 1/2 the people there (estimated) don't want them, didn't want them, and celebrate when they get killed.
Every time a solider gets killed in Iraq someone has to call their families back home and explain why, sometimes that includes President ****. I'd hate to make one of those.
And yet, they keep doing it. For a country that, if you believe the media, could care less. Talk about a morale crusher.
You're right. You'd be hard pressed to find an American who would lose any sleep if one of the people who dragged and mutilated the bodies of those foreign workers got killed. You don't cry for the enemy.
It's different because obviously an Iraqi life has value or we wouldn't be there.
Of course, so does Iraqi oil. Might as well call a spade a spade.
Post by: ionia23 on April 29, 2004, 06:09:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009:yes:
That's about right. This is primarily because our mind-set is still in the Neolithic Era and early Bronze Age. Our minds do not physically consider a nation to be much more than a massive tribe, and when members of our "tribe" are killed, we feel threatened. This will trigger one of two instinctive reactions, each of which an be represented in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts: Fight and flight. Fight through the eagerness of the public to support a war on Afghanistan. Flight through the public reaction to the continued death of our soldiers. You may think of it in higher terms, but for the vast majority these last few years have been reactions by instinct, not knowledge.
Post by: Kazan on April 29, 2004, 06:16:26 pm
Ionia23: druggies should keep their opinions to themselves
Post by: 01010 on April 29, 2004, 06:22:58 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
Ionia23: druggies should keep their opinions to themselves
So should ego-maniacs, fundamentalists, children, porn stars, smokers, non smokers, **** it, you name them, they should keep it quiet.
Post by: Liberator on April 29, 2004, 06:24:20 pm
Rictor, they look like civvies because they are intentionally dressing like civvies to try and fool the Americans.
Post by: Kazan on April 29, 2004, 06:24:24 pm
Post by: 01010 on April 29, 2004, 06:26:21 pm
Post by: Kazan on April 29, 2004, 06:31:09 pm
Post by: Rictor on April 29, 2004, 06:34:58 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: you also have a habit of calling people who pick up a gun and fire on a soldier a civilian - until you fix that you're onpinion about military operations means exactly DICK
Ionia23: druggies should keep their opinions to themselves
No, I know the distinction quite well. I'm not talking about soldiers and militants. I'm talking about women, children, the elderly, and also men who were unarmed and not involved in any fighting. These number about 10,000 dead. If you were to take into account the legitimate targets (soldiers etc), this number would be closer to 100,000. Or are you going to claim that every man, woman and child in Iraq is an insurgent?
"Druggies' (I think the word you're looking for is junkies) do have the right to an opinio same as you. They often have much clearer views than most people. Try to be mature about the issue....
Quote
Originally posted by ionia23
Just over 700 American soliders have been been killed in Iraq so far, not counting civilian worker casualties, Iraqis working with the coalition forces, and other members of the coalition.
*snip*
Maybe it just me, but you never really answered the question. They're far from home - so what? That doesn't give them carte blanche to waste civilans. Neither does being in a country that wants them dead.
Are the Iraqis to blame that America invaded? Or do you expect them to love the occupation? Any nation, and especially America, would fight an invader tooth and nail. I dunno, maybe I just didn't get what you were trying to say.
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
That's about right....You may think of it in higher terms, but for the vast majority these last few years have been reactions by instinct, not knowledge.
And thats a bad thing, right? Should we defend millenia old faults of human nature, or try to better ourselves? I was under the assumption that humanity should try to rid itself of as many stupid, pointless faults as possible.
Progress, its called.
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
Since when is a guy with a gun in a combat zone a civilian? Or what about the guy with binoulars and a radio ontop of a mosque radioing enemy positions?
Rictor, they look like civvies because they are intentionally dressing like civvies to try and fool the Americans.
They live there for god's sake. They can't up and leave. 25 million people can't just evacuate cause America decided to invade. They have to live in a combat zone, how do you think that feels?
Post by: Kazan on April 29, 2004, 06:36:49 pm
Post by: Grey Wolf on April 29, 2004, 06:38:56 pm
Post by: 01010 on April 29, 2004, 06:40:52 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
01010: No, you just insist on that out of your own petulance - don't put words into my mouth
I'm not, it's plainly evident from the way you react to arguments that you will pick up on any tiny shred of anything to try to discount someone elses views, the fact that anyone has done drugs does not limit their thought capacity, it does not limit their ability to form a rational opinion and hold a productive conversation. You just choose to think that it does when that person disagrees with you, I'm a "druggie" as you so call it, yet when I've agreed with you before you've never questioned it. However if I disagree suddenly my opinion is invalid.
You aren't consistent with your own reasoning, it makes you look like a dick.
Post by: Kazan on April 29, 2004, 06:44:17 pm
Drug addicts are irrational people, all irrational people (especially fundies) need to go commit suicide - a little voluntary gene pool cleansing would do the world good
Post by: 01010 on April 29, 2004, 06:47:50 pm
Post by: Grey Wolf on April 29, 2004, 06:48:45 pm
Post by: Rictor on April 29, 2004, 06:48:49 pm
kara: well, we all (most of us anyway) know the facts of the matter. Whats your opinion on the subject, thats what I'm wondering.
Post by: Kazan on April 29, 2004, 06:55:46 pm
Simple reason: I NEVER take any stance that I cannot throw more evidance at you than shivans have beamweapons
Post by: Grey Wolf on April 29, 2004, 06:57:22 pm
Post by: Kazan on April 29, 2004, 07:00:35 pm
B) Show that I wasn't given new evidence
Post by: Rictor on April 29, 2004, 07:00:41 pm
I forsee lockage if this continues, and no one wants that. Make a new thread, whatever. Just don't derail this one.
Post by: Grey Wolf on April 29, 2004, 07:17:51 pm
Post by: Liberator on April 29, 2004, 08:05:41 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
They live there for god's sake. They can't up and leave. 25 million people can't just evacuate cause America decided to invade. They have to live in a combat zone, how do you think that feels?
Umm, I wasn't talking about the whole population, I was talking about the people in Fallugah(sp?) and Najaph(sp? again) who don't want to fight or take the risk of getting killed leaving until the fighting is over.
BTW, we're not indescrimately wasting civvies, major effort in being put into making sure that the ones being killed are enemy combatants. If we wanted to whack a bunch of civvies we could just carpet bomb the whole city like we did Dresdin. All we would need is one or two flattened cities and the resistance would stop.
You realize also, that a not-insignificant percentage of the enemy dead are non-Iraqi in origin. They are finding many Syrians, Iranians and even Saudis among the dead.
*edit*
Better that they come to Iraq to die than us having to go into whereever they're at. It's much easier to rebuild one country than 5 or 10.
Post by: Kazan on April 29, 2004, 09:22:29 pm
Post by: Bobboau on April 29, 2004, 09:49:37 pm
it's sort of a low pitched rumbling, getting louder...
it's...
OH MY GOD! THE LAWS OF PHYSICS HAVE COME UNDONE, IT"S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!
Post by: phreak on April 29, 2004, 10:20:55 pm
Post by: Rictor on April 29, 2004, 10:32:44 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
Umm, I wasn't talking about the whole population, I was talking about the people in Fallugah(sp?) and Najaph(sp? again) who don't want to fight or take the risk of getting killed leaving until the fighting is over.
BTW, we're not indescrimately wasting civvies, major effort in being put into making sure that the ones being killed are enemy combatants. If we wanted to whack a bunch of civvies we could just carpet bomb the whole city like we did Dresdin. All we would need is one or two flattened cities and the resistance would stop.
You realize also, that a not-insignificant percentage of the enemy dead are non-Iraqi in origin. They are finding many Syrians, Iranians and even Saudis among the dead.
*edit*
Better that they come to Iraq to die than us having to go into whereever they're at. It's much easier to rebuild one country than 5 or 10.
So, when you described "a guy with a gun in a combat zone" and a "guy with binoulars and a radio ontop of a mosque radioing enemy positions", you were describing the "the people in Fallujah and Najaf who don't want to fight or take the risk of getting killed leaving until the fighting is over"....what? Sorry, but you're going to have to be a bit clearer than that, cause your two statements are quite different. Maybe its my fault, but I just don't get what you're trying to say.
You do not indiscriminatly kill civies, you just make very little effort to keep them out of harm's way. The troops are trigger-happy 20 year olds, fresh out of basic training with a "kill 'em all" attitude. Even the British soldiers are complaining that the Americans are being too trigger-happy and heavy-handed when dealing with Iraqis. link (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621835663.html?from=storyrhs)
The fact that you could carpet bomb the city means nothing. Sure, you could do alot worse, but the ability to waste an entire city does not excuse killing civilians. If I have the ability to kill 1000 people, that does not make it right for me to kill 1.
Stop pretending like every person you kill is an insurgent in disguise. Women, children and people who could not in any way be mistaken for militants are being killed every day. The US is even killing members of its own police forces. Many times, the wounded are not allowed to be taken to hospitals, even after it has been established that they pose no threat. So, they bleed to death when they could otherwise have been saved with proper medical help. Why? Beats me, but I've read numerous artcles that detail such incidents, so it would appear to be more or less common practice.
What about shooting out ambulance tires, or shooting the driver through the windshield? These are not figments of my imagination, they are documented events.
What you can't bear the thought of, is that US troops are not noble, self-less, heroic, professionals. They're poor kids, who needed some structure in their lives and joined the Army cause they wanted to see things go boom. If you were to accept even the possibility that this is true, quite a number of your beliefs would go down in flames. So, despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary, you defend this romantic version of US soldiers. How many investigations into criminal conduct by soldiers have disappeared somewhere in the beaucrocracy of the Army. Remember when that tanked fired on the Palestine Hotel and killed several journalists? The Army insisted they were following the rules of engagement, but promised an investigation into the matter. And, what has become of it?
link (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621835663.html?from=storyrhs)
Post by: Bobboau on April 29, 2004, 10:41:57 pm
as are ambulances being used to transport munitions/hostile personel
though I'm not sure how connected that statement was to the one before it
Post by: Janos on April 30, 2004, 05:50:39 am
And Liberator, did you check out that 60 Minutes show about US prison guards in Iraq? That's pretty ****ed up **** there.
Post by: Bobboau on April 30, 2004, 09:02:16 am
they'd be prety stupid not to. either they move there stuff without harasment or they get us to start shooting at ambulances, ether way it's a win for them.
"...60 Minutes..."
those guys are getting courtmarsheled.
Post by: ionia23 on April 30, 2004, 10:40:06 am
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
I remember seeing video of an ambulance with people pulling guns and explosives out of it, don't remember were or when that was though.
they'd be prety stupid not to. either they move there stuff without harasment or they get us to start shooting at ambulances, ether way it's a win for them.
"...60 Minutes..."
those guys are getting courtmarsheled.
Israel.
Post by: Rictor on April 30, 2004, 12:07:06 pm
The incident I remember reading about had a US sniper shoot out the tires of an ambulance which was clearly carrying the wounded. IIRC, the ambulance showed up at the scene of a shooting, and tried to pick up an injured man and take him to a hospital. It makes no sense for an ambulance that arrived to take the wounded to get medical help to be carrying weapons.
And any way, is that an excuse? One ambulance carries weapons, and suddenly they're all legitimate targets. One child pulls out an AK, and all children get shot at, just in case. That Israeli logic, and it hasn't gotten them very far....
Post by: ionia23 on April 30, 2004, 12:12:05 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
So, its better to just shoot at all ambulances, in case they are carrying weapons? Many people will die, sure, but they're just Iraqis. Plenty more where they came from, eh?
The incident I remember reading about had a US sniper shoot out the tires of an ambulance which was clearly carrying the wounded. IIRC, the ambulance showed up at the scene of a shooting, and tried to pick up an injured man and take him to a hospital. It makes no sense for an ambulance that arrived to take the wounded to get medical help to be carrying weapons.
And any way, is that an excuse? One ambulance carries weapons, and suddenly they're all legitimate targets. One child pulls out an AK, and all children get shot at, just in case. That Israeli logic, and it hasn't gotten them very far....
It would get them further if they'd, well, finish the job.
Post by: Rictor on April 30, 2004, 01:02:46 pm
Post by: mikhael on April 30, 2004, 01:11:03 pm
These days, though, I advocate wiping out the entire region. Its hard for there to be an Israel-Palestine conflict if they're all dead, isn't it?
Post by: Rictor on April 30, 2004, 01:19:39 pm
...seems reasonable to me. I should look into getting myself an American citizenship, apparently it affords one all sorts of interesting powers.
Post by: Kazan on April 30, 2004, 01:22:04 pm
Post by: Rictor on April 30, 2004, 01:24:41 pm
..oh, you were being sarcastic.
Post by: mikhael on April 30, 2004, 01:35:31 pm
Post by: an0n on April 30, 2004, 01:45:00 pm
Before anyone knew what was happening, and after the US had issued a "We're not going to get involved in the conflicts of foreign nations" statement, Israel would be burning and a region-wide gangbang would ensue as everyone within 1000 miles moved in to try and grab whatever Israeli land they could.
Post by: Rictor on April 30, 2004, 02:07:07 pm
Post by: mikhael on April 30, 2004, 02:21:26 pm
Sure, it'd be bloody, but there's 6.5 billion people in the world. The herd needs thinning.
Post by: Ghostavo on April 30, 2004, 02:30:24 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
there's 6.5 billion people in the world.
:eek2: it has risen 0.5 billion since last time I check... damn chinese... :doubt:
Post by: ionia23 on April 30, 2004, 02:42:39 pm
Post by: an0n on April 30, 2004, 02:44:10 pm
Any country being run by a religion should be turned into one huge concave lense.
Post by: Turambar on April 30, 2004, 03:04:47 pm
Post by: Grey Wolf on April 30, 2004, 05:40:03 pm
1. Draconian international laws that were actually enforced
2. Bio-engineered plague
3. Nuclear winter
Hmm... None of those seem like very good ideas....
I guess we'll just end up with #4:
4. Population outstrips food-producing capacity, leading to mass starvation, rioting, and anarchy.
Post by: Rictor on April 30, 2004, 05:43:07 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
4. Population outstrips food-producing capacity, leading to mass starvation, rioting, and anarchy.
Which, of course, would not include you and your loved ones. You had the good fortune to be born in a First World nation. Quite easy to condone death when its not your own, ain't it?
Post by: Grey Wolf on April 30, 2004, 05:45:01 pm
Post by: Rictor on April 30, 2004, 05:56:58 pm
Post by: mikhael on April 30, 2004, 06:53:52 pm
Post by: Rictor on April 30, 2004, 07:29:53 pm
Post by: mikhael on April 30, 2004, 07:36:41 pm
Post by: Rictor on April 30, 2004, 08:11:27 pm
also, becuase I reconginze that the "not my tribe, not my problem" as you put it, attitude is going to lead to the ruin of humanity. Naturally, I have no wish to see that happen, so.....
Post by: Bobboau on April 30, 2004, 08:12:38 pm
Post by: Rictor on April 30, 2004, 08:18:26 pm
Post by: Bobboau on April 30, 2004, 08:22:37 pm
sure it would be good, but why should you look down on them for not careing, there is a diference between not helping and hurting
Post by: an0n on April 30, 2004, 08:27:37 pm
Quote
Originally posted by RictorAw, hell no.
Yeah, plenty of people would escape. The US, Western Europe, Japan, most of Eastern Europe...the First World. Not only do they control the capital, but they also have sizeable armies to look out for their interests. If there is ever a shortage of resources, you can bet your ass that Americans will be the last to be affected.
America will be the first to be affected. It's one of the downsides of having the most wasteful and most foreign-dependant nation in the world.
If other countries suddenly get poor, they cut their import markets to try and control the situation, then big companies move in to suck up all the cheap labour and 'outsource'. In America, if all the other countries suddenly get poor they also have to cut back on their imports, but due to **** like Minimum Wage and unions you can't get cheap American labour, so no-one would be interested. Thusly, America would have to resort to bolstering its internal economy which is a piece of **** to begin with. Add to this all the greed and 'looking out for number one' that's the foundation of America society and you've got a pretty sorry state of affairs.
Think of it this way: You take a loaf of bread from an Etheopian and he's pissed but he's used to it. You take a loaf of bread from an American and they'll ***** and whine and kick up a fuss on general principle.
THAT's why America would be the first to get ****ed, and by internal dickheadery, if the world economy suddenly went belly-up.
Post by: mikhael on April 30, 2004, 08:29:44 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Two reasons. First, is becuase I am partly responsible for their condition. And secondly, because I realize that I could just as easily have been one of them. The fact that I'm not is not through any merit of mine.
I'm not responsible for anyone's condition but my own and the people with whom I interact. Those other humanoid organisms on the other side of the dirt ball? I don't do a thing to affect their condition. You might argue that I interact with organizations that have affected their condition, but that's like arguing that lumberjacks are responsible for murder because someone beats someone else to death with a 2x4. Non seqitr, as the Romans like to say.
I could just as easily been born a cockroach. Actually, given the strict mathematical odds, I had more of a chance to be born a roach, or other arthropod, than I did of being born a mammal, let alone a hominid, or indeed a homo sapien. That doesn't mean I'm going to help them flourish.
All any rational person needs to care about is their segment of the world. Rational self-interest dictates the rest. What this actually boils down to is an exercise left to the reader.
Quote
also, becuase I reconginze that the "not my tribe, not my problem" as you put it, attitude is going to lead to the ruin of humanity. Naturally, I have no wish to see that happen, so.....
The herd needs thinning.
Post by: Rictor on April 30, 2004, 09:34:21 pm
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
I'm not responsible for anyone's condition but my own and the people with whom I interact. Those other humanoid organisms on the other side of the dirt ball? I don't do a thing to affect their condition. You might argue that I interact with organizations that have affected their condition, but that's like arguing that lumberjacks are responsible for murder because someone beats someone else to death with a 2x4. Non seqitr, as the Romans like to say.
I could just as easily been born a cockroach. Actually, given the strict mathematical odds, I had more of a chance to be born a roach, or other arthropod, than I did of being born a mammal, let alone a hominid, or indeed a homo sapien. That doesn't mean I'm going to help them flourish.
All any rational person needs to care about is their segment of the world. Rational self-interest dictates the rest. What this actually boils down to is an exercise left to the reader.
Among others things, you are a citizen of the United States and you are a consumer. Those two things are your clearest links to Third World exploitation and suffering.
Unless you disown your country, which I don't think you're doing, you are responsible for the government's actions. Good so far? OK, then we have the US government using its influence (sanctions, trade threats, military threats, debt, media representation etc) to push what is commonly reffered to (though rarely in the States) as neo-liberal economic programs. Countries which are too weak to resist, as most are, really have no choice but to accept. The damage that could be inflicted on them by refusing is just too great. So, under "globalization", several things happen to a country's economy. First, all government works are privatized and sold off at bargain prices. And who buys them? American and British corporations mostly. Another thing that happens is that borders are opened up to free trade. Imports from heavily subsidized foreign nations (First World) flow in, while the local goverment is prevented from subsidizing its own economies under the rules which they accepted. This destroys local industries, who can not compete with foreign imports. You then have a large number of jobless people, who flock to the cities in hopes of finding work there. A massive influx of people creates a large pool of cheap labourers. Wages go down, work conditions worsen. The government, in an effort to attract foreign investors which they believe will get their economy out of the gutter, creates Export Processing Zones (EPZs), which are factory complexes where foreign companies get a several years (5-10) tax holiday. American corporations (Nike, Walmart, GAP etc etc) use these EPZs as a means of ultra-cheap manufacturing. Materials are brought it, tax free, the workers assemble them, tax free, and the final goods are exported again, tax free. Within the EPZs, local government allow gross violations of labour law, all in an effort to keep the foreign investors. Sometimes, they even use the military to crush unionization attempts. When the 5 year tax holdiay runs out, the American corporations either move to a new country or sign up with a new contractor to get the tax break all over again. The workers are paid so little that they can not contribute to the local economy in any meaningful way. The corporations contribute nothing at all to the economy, so instead of being a give-take relationship as it usually is, it is what amounts to economic plunder. The wages are kept down by competing nations using the low wages as an incentive to attract foreign corporations. A race to the bottom. All this is conductedthrough smany layers of contracting and sub-contracting to excuse the multination corporations from any responsibility.
Thats the first part, thats how you as an American citizen are responsible. As a consumer, its much simpler. You buy the goods which are manufactured by these companies, thus supporting them. At no point do you question their unethical practices. These goods that are produced in sweatshops around the world, they're made for you. A $30 shirt is not made to be bought by an Indonesian making 20 cents an hour.
Furthermore, you defend (as I understand it) the government which allows these corporations to do as they please. The fact that Dubya (and Kerry and most politicians) are feasting at the corporate trough is no secret. Nor is the fact that they consistantly make policy to help their corporate buddies get off the hook.
This is not an abstract link, its quite direct if you think about it. What you are implying, is that might makes right. There is no such this an justice or injustice, because it doesn't concern you.
You can disregard others, so long as your are not actively harming them. If you are, you are responsible.
Post by: mikhael on April 30, 2004, 10:36:03 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Among others things, you are a citizen of the United States and you are a consumer. Those two things are your clearest links to Third World exploitation and suffering.
Ah, so lumberjacks are responsible for murder, yes?
Quote
Unless you disown your country, which I don't think you're doing, you are responsible for the government's actions. Good so far? OK, then we have the US government using its influence (sanctions, trade threats, military threats, debt, media representation etc) to push what is commonly reffered to (though rarely in the States) as neo-liberal economic programs. Countries which are too weak to resist, as most are, really have no choice but to accept. The damage that could be inflicted on them by refusing is just too great. So, under "globalization", several things happen to a country's economy. First, all government works are privatized and sold off at bargain prices. And who buys them? American and British corporations mostly. Another thing that happens is that borders are opened up to free trade. Imports from heavily subsidized foreign nations (First World) flow in, while the local goverment is prevented from subsidizing its own economies under the rules which they accepted. This destroys local industries, who can not compete with foreign imports. You then have a large number of jobless people, who flock to the cities in hopes of finding work there. A massive influx of people creates a large pool of cheap labourers. Wages go down, work conditions worsen. The government, in an effort to attract foreign investors which they believe will get their economy out of the gutter, creates Export Processing Zones (EPZs), which are factory complexes where foreign companies get a several years (5-10) tax holiday. American corporations (Nike, Walmart, GAP etc etc) use these EPZs as a means of ultra-cheap manufacturing. Materials are brought it, tax free, the workers assemble them, tax free, and the final goods are exported again, tax free. Within the EPZs, local government allow gross violations of labour law, all in an effort to keep the foreign investors. Sometimes, they even use the military to crush unionization attempts. When the 5 year tax holdiay runs out, the American corporations either move to a new country or sign up with a new contractor to get the tax break all over again. The workers are paid so little that they can not contribute to the local economy in any meaningful way. The corporations contribute nothing at all to the economy, so instead of being a give-take relationship as it usually is, it is what amounts to economic plunder. The wages are kept down by competing nations using the low wages as an incentive to attract foreign corporations. A race to the bottom. All this is conductedthrough smany layers of contracting and sub-contracting to excuse the multination corporations from any responsibility.
This is as it should be. The third world exists to provide for whomever can exploit them the most efficiently. Its an excellent system.
Quote
Thats the first part, thats how you as an American citizen are responsible. As a consumer, its much simpler. You buy the goods which are manufactured by these companies, thus supporting them. At no point do you question their unethical practices. These goods that are produced in sweatshops around the world, they're made for you. A $30 shirt is not made to be bought by an Indonesian making 20 cents an hour.
I do question their unethical practices. I wonder, for example, why, if a clothing manufacturer can get piecework done for $.50 I have to pay $30. It really isn't fair. I should only have to pay $10-15. The markup is outrageous.
Quote
Furthermore, you defend (as I understand it) the government which allows these corporations to do as they please. The fact that Dubya (and Kerry and most politicians) are feasting at the corporate trough is no secret. Nor is the fact that they consistantly make policy to help their corporate buddies get off the hook.
This is not an abstract link, its quite direct if you think about it. What you are implying, is that might makes right. There is no such this an justice or injustice, because it doesn't concern you.
You can disregard others, so long as your are not actively harming them. If you are, you are responsible.
Me? Actively harming them? Nope. By your description I am harming them through passivity. Check your logic.
I don't defend the government. I just don't care what they do. I'm content to enjoy the fact that I'm born lucky and other people aren't. Does this hurt my feelings or make me feel guilty? Nope. They're not people. They're statistics.
Remember, though: justice is blind. All you have to do is slip her the right bribe and she doesn't see anything you do.
Post by: Liberator on April 30, 2004, 11:07:50 pm
Post by: mikhael on April 30, 2004, 11:15:11 pm
You know what they can do with tape these days... It wasn't me. I was digitally editted in after the fact. You gotta believe me, Lib. Honest!
Post by: an0n on April 30, 2004, 11:21:20 pm
Post by: Rictor on May 01, 2004, 09:33:48 am
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
Ah, so lumberjacks are responsible for murder, yes?
This is as it should be. The third world exists to provide for whomever can exploit them the most efficiently. Its an excellent system.
Just so we're clear. And people wonder why the world hates America.
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
I do question their unethical practices. I wonder, for example, why, if a clothing manufacturer can get piecework done for $.50 I have to pay $30. It really isn't fair. I should only have to pay $10-15. The markup is outrageous.
Poor thing, they've cheated you. I'll have them sent to a firing squad at once.
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
Me? Actively harming them? Nope. By your description I am harming them through passivity. Check your logic.
Passivity would imply you have nothing to do with the situation. You're responsible for the actions of your government.
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
I don't defend the government. I just don't care what they do. I'm content to enjoy the fact that I'm born lucky and other people aren't. Does this hurt my feelings or make me feel guilty? Nope. They're not people. They're statistics.
Same as #1.
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
Remember, though: justice is blind. All you have to do is slip her the right bribe and she doesn't see anything you do.
Same as #1.
Post by: Kazan on May 01, 2004, 09:39:38 am
while I don't agree with his grounds - we shouldn't bend over backwards to help them. We shouldn't feel guilty for being where we're at.
That however doesn't mean we should take advantage of them at every opportunity possible.
Post by: vyper on May 01, 2004, 09:44:29 am
Post by: Kazan on May 01, 2004, 09:48:55 am
Post by: Rictor on May 01, 2004, 09:49:02 am
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
I do notice some slight inconsistency to mikhael's views
while I don't agree with his grounds - we shouldn't bend over backwards to help them. We shouldn't feel guilty for being where we're at.
That however doesn't mean we should take advantage of them at every opportunity possible.
If you magically, suddenly got to where you are, no. But it didn't just happen, and its not being maintained at no cost. No cost you you, but there is a cost.
As I said, if you responisble for their suffering, you are responsible. The "we have no obligation to help them" stance is valid so long as you are not to blame for it.
You can choose not the help them, if you do not hurt them. Once you hurt them, and continue to do so, you are obliged to help, unless you want to take mik's position.
Post by: Kazan on May 01, 2004, 09:50:49 am
Post by: Rictor on May 01, 2004, 09:53:36 am
It one thing to claim you're not responsible, and another to prove it.
Post by: mikhael on May 01, 2004, 09:59:44 am
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
I do notice some slight inconsistency to mikhael's views
while I don't agree with his grounds - we shouldn't bend over backwards to help them. We shouldn't feel guilty for being where we're at.
That however doesn't mean we should take advantage of them at every opportunity possible.
Oh, fine, I give up.
I've been trying to play to the stereotype that Rictor seems to think we all fit into. The problem is that he's too dense to see that everything I've been saying has been pretty much 100% diametrically opposed to everything I've ever said on the subjects before.
Post by: Kazan on May 01, 2004, 09:59:57 am
Post by: mikhael on May 01, 2004, 10:05:03 am
Post by: Rictor on May 01, 2004, 10:07:19 am
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
Oh, fine, I give up.
I've been trying to play to the stereotype that Rictor seems to think we all fit into. The problem is that he's too dense to see that everything I've been saying has been pretty much 100% diametrically opposed to everything I've ever said on the subjects before.
I call it as I see it. The above does not contradict some things which you've been saying of late, which IO assumed were not sarcastic.
You either give a **** about the problems facing the Third World, or you feel that "The third world exists to provide for whomever can exploit them the most efficiently. Its an excellent system.". Can't have it both ways.
_________
Kaz: unsubstantiated? would you like me to quote some examples? Again, you say they're unsubstantiated, and yet you have zero proff for that. I've read quite a bit on the subject, and both the proof and the logic used were quite real.
Post by: Gank on May 01, 2004, 10:12:12 am
Quote
Originally posted by an0n
Aw, hell no.
America will be the first to be affected. It's one of the downsides of having the most wasteful and most foreign-dependant nation in the world.
snip
THAT's why America would be the first to get ****ed, and by internal dickheadery, if the world economy suddenly went belly-up.
On the ball there boy. And you'll see it happening too :)
Post by: Kazan on May 01, 2004, 10:12:53 am
rotfl... you don't understand the word "unsubstantiated" - you don't need proof that something is unsubstantiated, saying something is unsubstantiated means you SEE NO PROOF FOR IT.. You're outside your vocabulary little boy
[Anecdote != Evidence]
Post by: mikhael on May 01, 2004, 10:13:46 am
If you want to lead the charge to help the Third World, be my guest. Me, I'd rather take care of my own country. Its ****ed up and needs fixing and THAT MY JOB as a citizen. Don't go spouting off about being a citizen of the world, either: I'm not a citizen of the world. I'm a citizen of the United States. I think I've made that abundantly clear before.
If this is a position distasteful to you, tough. I won't debate it, or discuss it further.
Post by: Rictor on May 01, 2004, 10:27:50 am
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
You see through distortion glasses
rotfl... you don't understand the word "unsubstantiated" - you don't need proof that something is unsubstantiated, saying something is unsubstantiated means you SEE NO PROOF FOR IT.. You're outside your vocabulary little boy
[Anecdote != Evidence]
Forgive me, I used a meaning other than the dictionary one. A grave crime.
And it is not true that the its unsubstantiated. There is proof, lots of it, so your claim that its unsubtantiated is false.
I'm not about to go hunting around the Net to dig up proof for you, sorry but your opinion just aint that important to me. Heres a quick scan of some proof I have sitting on my bookshelf, it'll have to do.
http://home.cogeco.ca/~dlebl/blasw.gif
Post by: Kazan on May 01, 2004, 10:31:31 am
so your claim is unsubstantiated due to misstatement
Post by: Gank on May 01, 2004, 10:35:48 am
Quote
Sweatshops are not the RESULT of globalization, they're an ABUSE of globalization
:rolleyes:
Post by: Rictor on May 01, 2004, 10:38:05 am
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
No Rictor, I don't give a **** about the Third World--or rather, they are of lower priority than the problems in my country. I'm a firm believer in taking care of your own house before you try to take care of anyone else's.
If you want to lead the charge to help the Third World, be my guest. Me, I'd rather take care of my own country. Its ****ed up and needs fixing and THAT MY JOB as a citizen. Don't go spouting off about being a citizen of the world, either: I'm not a citizen of the world. I'm a citizen of the United States. I think I've made that abundantly clear before.
If this is a position distasteful to you, tough. I won't debate it, or discuss it further.
As I said, help who you want. Just don't harm anyone else. Don't support those harming others. If you profit from actions that harm others, you are responsible.
To use your lumberjack analogy, the lumberjack would be responsible if he knew the 2x4 was going to be used to kill someone, and sold it anyway just to make a buck. You know that your support of the US government is going to cause people harm, and you give it anyway.
My objection to the Country First, Everyone else Second crap is that a country is random. The borders of the US are arbitrary. Where does America stop and Canada start? Are the people on the Canadian side of the Niagra Falls any different than people on the American side. What makes the people of America more deserving of anything than anyone else. Random geographic location. If tommorow, Mexico were to annex Texas, it would no longer be part of the US. By your logic, you would no longer give a **** about the people of Texas. And what has changed? Nothing. A different flag would be flown, and someone would make a scribble on a piece of paper. Thats it.
Post by: Rictor on May 01, 2004, 10:42:50 am
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
Sweatshops are not the RESULT of globalization, they're an ABUSE of globalization
so your claim is unsubstantiated due to misstatement
Whether something is the rule of the excpetion depends on how often it happens. If a man kills once, it can be forgiven. There is little reason to believe he is a "born and bred killer'. If he kill 100 times, it is reasonable to assume that he is a killer by nature.
If globalization brought glorious rewards to Third World countries, as it is "meant to", and only produced a few sweathsops here and there, you would be correct. But "globaliation" has brought harm and exploitation to Third World nations, time and time and time again. The track record speaks louder than the well meaning intentions espoused by economists.
No one has benefited from it, except the rich.
Post by: Kazan on May 01, 2004, 10:44:25 am
you hear about the bad much more often than the good - use some critical thinking skills
furthermore: which is better A) No Job B) Low paying job
even worse - a great many of your 'sweatshop' hyperventalators (i'm not denying they exist, just that many people exaggerate them) forget to normalize their pay for THEIR countries economy
most of you compare their wage to the cost of living in a 1st world country so your're getting incorrect numbers and are hyperventalating about sweatshops because of it. NORMALIZE IT FOR THEIR ECONOMY
Post by: Bobboau on May 01, 2004, 10:46:33 am
yay anti-globalization!
Post by: Kazan on May 01, 2004, 10:48:35 am
Post by: Gank on May 01, 2004, 10:57:55 am
Post by: SadisticSid on May 01, 2004, 10:59:48 am
Westerners denounce sweatshops out of guilt that their own way of life is better than those who work in them. Capitalists who exploit third world countries may profit by it, but third world citizens also profit from this practice. Those who express their moral outrage to it aren't thinking things through.
Post by: Bobboau on May 01, 2004, 11:00:03 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Wankers
oh, so now it's insult time, ok
fucktard!
Post by: SadisticSid on May 01, 2004, 11:00:34 am
Post by: Rictor on May 01, 2004, 11:02:20 am
OK, first of all let me say this. The current form of globalization is just one method of "global integration". Global integration is not by itself a bad thing, I am just against the current mode of it. It could be made to work, though many of the rules would need to be changed.
OK, now, why are these people working in sweatshops and where were they working before. They were surviving by some other means before globalization showed up. This is mostly from agirculture and government works AFAIK. A country like Canada employs a HUGE number of people in all the various governmental areas. They are a major source of jobs. When an ecnomy becomes privatized, all those jobs are gone. Or most of them anyway. Some remain, employed by the mutlinationals who buy up the public works. Thats one thing. The other source of income, agrivulture, disappears when borders are opened up to foreign imports. The peasants cant comepete, so they are forced to find a new source of income.
You have to look at the whole system, before and after "globalization". You can't just take away one aspect of it. This includes opening up borders and liberalizing the economy (privatization).
______
Kaz: even when adjusted to local prices, these wages are still next to nothing. There is a difference between minimum wage and a living wage. The corporations mostly pay the former.
I have found very little good coming from globalization. If you can find me some examples of places that have benefited, by all means show me. I am not getting a biased picture, at least not much. Its just that I haven't seen anywhere where the fantasies of globalization's *expected* performance have been the same as the much harsher realities on the ground.
Post by: Kazan on May 01, 2004, 11:02:56 am
Du bist einen arschleckendenschweinehund
SadisticSid: Hole in one :P
Post by: Gank on May 01, 2004, 11:08:41 am
As for the countrys economys being ****, the fact that the west colonised most of them and ****ed them over has nothing to do with that, the fact that most developing countrys are busy paying off the wto and world bank to improve the quality of life at home has nothing to do with that.
Post by: SadisticSid on May 01, 2004, 11:13:51 am
Quote
They were surviving by some other means before globalization showed up. This is mostly from agirculture and government works AFAIK.
First off, agriculture (in the subsistence sense) is what most people would do without working as cheap labour. Third world governments do NOT provide millions of jobs, and those that they would provide would probably pay as much as sweatshops - because the states are already incredibly poor and rake in **** all from tax revenue.
Quote
Kaz: even when adjusted to local prices, these wages are still next to nothing. There is a difference between minimum wage and a living wage. The corporations mostly pay the former.
I have found very little good coming from globalization. If you can find me some examples of places that have benefited, by all means show me. I am not getting a biased picture, at least not much. Its just that I haven't seen anywhere where the fantasies of globalization's *expected* performance have been the same as the much harsher realities on the ground.
You don't get it. If these wages, whatever you want to classify them as, made people worse off, then there would be no-one willing to work for them. No doubt you see this as one-way exploitation, which you'd realise is an absurd concept if you knew anything about basic economics. Any kind of employment benefits ALL the parties involved - the employer expends money to obtain what is to them a service of greater value. Likewise, the employee exploits the opportunity to expend effort and use their skills to earn money that to them is of greater value than what they have given for it.
Post by: Rictor on May 01, 2004, 11:23:34 am
Quote
Originally posted by SadisticSid
First off, agriculture (in the subsistence sense) is what most people would do without working as cheap labour. Third world governments do NOT provide millions of jobs, and those that they would provide would probably pay as much as sweatshops - because the states are already incredibly poor and rake in **** all from tax revenue.
You don't get it. If these wages, whatever you want to classify them as, made people worse off, then there would be no-one willing to work for them. No doubt you see this as one-way exploitation, which you'd realise is an absurd concept if you knew anything about basic economics.
And again I say, you have to look at the whole thing. Sure, any wages are better than no wages. Lets just assume for a minute that these people were not surviving pre-globalization. So, lets assume it sweatshops or nothing.
Whats wrong with requiring corporations to pay better wages, improve conditions and generaly treat the workers fairly. First World workers were being exploited just as Third WOrld workers are now, a century ago. How did the wages and work conditions improve? Unions came in and forced the corporations to act fairly. The same would happen in the Third World if not for two thing.
1. Unions are put down by force, often by the military or private security hired by the corporations.
2. When a factory is unionized, the corps just pick up and move somewhere else where there is no union. And obviously, getting the entire Third World to unionize at once is not possible.
You may think unons are crap, but thats in a modern country under very different citcumstance. When workers are exploited, unions are a way for them to band together and get real improvements.
Whats wrong with forcing corporations to double worker wages. They can afford it. As it stands, the workers have barely enough to live on, and the situation shows no sign of improving. The general idea here, at least according to the pro-globalization economists, is that though sweatshops etc are bad, they will lead to an improved economy and improved living standards in the future. But this just ain't happeneing, the local ecnomy is not profiting from the corporation's presence.
Post by: Gank on May 01, 2004, 11:35:47 am
Post by: SadisticSid on May 01, 2004, 11:36:24 am
Quote
Whats wrong with forcing corporations to double worker wages. They can afford it. As it stands, the workers have barely enough to live on, and the situation shows no sign of improving. The general idea here, at least according to the pro-globalization economists, is that though sweathsops etc are bad, they will lead to an improved ecnomy and improved living standards in the future. But this just sin't happeneing, the local ecnomy is not profiting from the corpoartion's presence.
You are wrong about the local economy not profiting from this, first of all. Taking your hypothetical about 'sweatshops or nothing', NO trade and thus zero economic benefit is generated by anyone without the inflow of money from outside. And if it's better worker conditions you're after, time has shown that Western interference - in the monoubiquitous form of aid - only creates a dependency which distorts things. The problem here is not the corporations but the governments which lavish what tax revenue they do generate on armies and things they don't need, rather than making their countries better.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Methinks the three of you should be sent to work in one for a week, then come back and tell us how much of a service its providing. Preferably one in Burma.
Do you have a point to make or are you just going to resort to this emotional blackmail garbage? Read Kazan's point on normalisation - applying first world standards to this problem isn't valid
Post by: Rictor on May 01, 2004, 11:37:39 am
seriously....96 hours...
Post by: Kazan on May 01, 2004, 11:45:30 am
remember also - there is very LITTLE western interference in China since it's a very staunch communist country.
Post by: Rictor on May 01, 2004, 11:54:28 am
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
96 hours is very excessive - but are they forced at gun point, or threatened with their jobs if they don't work that much
remember also - there is very LITTLE western interference in China since it's a very staunch communist country.
Actually, they are threatened with their jobs is they don't work this much. Check the picture I posted, and look at the "Circumstances" column or whatever. See how many of these factories have "fired is refusing to work overtime", or "fined if refusing to work overtime". For that matter check how many include "overtime not payed" or "forced to work for 24-hour streches at time of high demand" or something along those lines.
Though Western governments have little influence in China, the corporations choose to go there, preciesly becuase the control is lax. And there are many, many nations which have sweatshop and their governments are nowhere near as powerful as China. You can't put pressure of China to imrpove conditions, but you can on the vast majority of other countries. But, as I said, its the corporations that are in charge, the governments play a minor role.
Post by: Bobboau on May 01, 2004, 11:57:16 am
if it wasn't better than the alternative they wouldn't be doing it.
Post by: Kazan on May 01, 2004, 12:06:32 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
if it wasn't better than the alternative they wouldn't be doing it.
Econ 101
Post by: Grey Wolf on May 01, 2004, 12:15:33 pm
Company: We're upgrading your factory. 5% will lose their jobs.
Union: You fire anyone, we're striking.
Company: On second thought, never mind.
Then, 20 years later:
Company: Since this factory has very low productivity, we're closing the entire building and moving production to China.
Union: You've betrayed us!
Unions have served a purpose. But that purpose is largely complete. They are not needed in a First World country.
Post by: Rictor on May 01, 2004, 01:02:33 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
if we preasure every nation but china, and are sucsesful then everyone will go to china, and thousands of people will die.
if it wasn't better than the alternative they wouldn't be doing it.
The choice is not the government's hand, but rather in the corporations. They go where they can exploit the workers the most. Put pressure on the corps, not the governments, to stay in unionized factories. Some corporations like Nike have already done this IIRC, though in very, very limited ways, such as staying in one unionized factory out of 100.
If the corporations run like hell away from factories and countries that have managed to improve their wages and work conditions, this quite clearly shows their commitment to exploiting the Third World for all it's worth.
_________________________
Quote
Originally posted by Milton Friedman, economist and father of globalization
Asking a corporation to be socially responsible makes no more sense than asking a building to be.
edit: fixed, thats the exact quote.
Post by: mikhael on May 01, 2004, 11:31:11 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Unions have served a purpose. But that purpose is largely complete. They are not needed in a First World country.
I dunno. If there was an IT workers union, I might still have a job, and all the jobs I used to do might not be in ****ing India.
But I'm not bitter.
Post by: Gank on May 02, 2004, 06:02:47 am
Quote
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Do you have a point to make or are you just going to resort to this emotional blackmail garbage? Read Kazan's point on normalisation - applying first world standards to this problem isn't valid
Emotional blackmail? **** off. My point would be that a company that pays someone 20 cents a day to make a pair of runners and then sells the same runners for 80 euros can afford to treat its workers like human beings instead of pack animals. You three are saying its ok to treat these people like ****e because they have no other choice but to let you. I suppose you'd be the sort that would have argued slavery was a benefit to the black man in the 1800s, class A wankers.
Post by: Kazan on May 02, 2004, 09:26:07 am
in some econonmies around the world paying your worker $0.20/day is the equivilent of getting $80/day (8 hours @$10/h) in the us, due to economic normalization
if you were to pay them first-world payrates their economy would crash because you would have just caused galatic levels of inflation
Post by: Bobboau on May 02, 2004, 09:37:51 am
/*fails to find my endorsement as it being 'OK'*/
I never said it was ok or a great thing, I said it was better than the alternative, yes it could quite definatly be better for all parties involved (except the corperations) but just becase there is room for improvement deasn't mean it's the most horable thing ever.
I do however find someone makeing personal atacks wich is generaly considered the last line of defence when someone has lost an argument and has no more points to put forward.
Post by: Gank on May 02, 2004, 10:46:07 am
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
Gank: you're still missing the point about economic normalization
in some econonmies around the world paying your worker $0.20/day is the equivilent of getting $80/day (8 hours @$10/h) in the us, due to economic normalization
if you were to pay them first-world payrates their economy would crash because you would have just caused galatic levels of inflation
Kazan you're missing the point. Nobodys saying pay them the same as we get, they're saying stop abusing them for profit. the fact that you seem to think its all a matter of paying them more shows how little you know about the subject, else you're deliberatly simplifing it to justify it.
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
/*looks back*/
/*fails to find my endorsement as it being 'OK'*/
I never said it was ok or a great thing, I said it was better than the alternative, yes it could quite definatly be better for all parties involved (except the corperations) but just becase there is room for improvement deasn't mean it's the most horable thing ever.
I do however find someone makeing personal atacks wich is generaly considered the last line of defence when someone has lost an argument and has no more points to put forward.
You're making excuses for it, and if you didnt think it was ok I cant see why you would want to do that. Your alternative is bull****, you're saying its either a case of treat them like ****e or dont employ them at all. As for me losing an arguement and having no more points to put forward, why the hell are you agreeing with me?
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
yes it could quite definatly be better for all parties involved (except the corperations) but just becase there is room for improvement deasn't mean it's the most horable thing ever.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
How about they get decent working conditions instead? Cant you retards see that there could possibly be a middle ground?
And if you dont want personal attacks, dont defend something like sweatshops.
Post by: Kazan on May 02, 2004, 11:59:24 am
however people hyperinflate the number of sweatshops by including 'low pay' which they haven't normalized that that countries economy.
sweatshops happen everytwhere, globalization doesn't cause them
Post by: Rictor on May 02, 2004, 12:15:22 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
Gank: you're still missing the point about economic normalization
in some econonmies around the world paying your worker $0.20/day is the equivilent of getting $80/day (8 hours @$10/h) in the us, due to economic normalization
if you were to pay them first-world payrates their economy would crash because you would have just caused galatic levels of inflation
Quick fact, one which I know off the top of my head without having to dig around for it.
Workers in Haiti in a factory producing Disney shirts make hundreds of shirts a day. They get paid 00.20 per hour, and the shirts are sold in America for around $11. It would take a worker 5 full day's wages to afford a single shirt. Does this seem like fair compensation?
The thing is, paying them 00.50 per day is NOT the same as someone making $70 in America. It is much, much less. Consider for a minute the cost of AIDS medicine in Africa. If the people there were to purchase the medicines by brand name US manufacturers, as they are mostly forced to, its costs between 5000 and 10,000 per year for the medicine. Can someone making 2 dollars a day afford this? You assume that if their wages are X times lower, that their prices and costs of living are also X times lower. This just isn't true. If it was, the workers wouln't be complaining, they'de be too busy living the high life.
And like Gank said, this isn't just about money, though that is a very important issue. There is also the matter of work conditions, forced overtime and no unions. No matter the matter, employers have no right to beat their workers, fire women for being pregnant, force them to work 24 hour shifts, work in seriously unsafe conditions and so on.
Post by: Kazan on May 02, 2004, 12:21:35 pm
gank is halfway intelligent, you keep ranting half-cocked
Post by: Gank on May 02, 2004, 01:40:38 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
gank: i'm talking about pay because that's what most of people ***** about... employee treatment should have standards, and if they're substandard *****
however people hyperinflate the number of sweatshops by including 'low pay' which they haven't normalized that that countries economy.
sweatshops happen everytwhere, globalization doesn't cause them
Yeha well thats not what I'm *****ing about Kazan, maybe you should read my posts before you get up on your high horse. I'm talking about people being treated like ****e and you're spouting off about normalizing economys. The fact that they're poor is no excuse for exploiting them.
Post by: Rictor on May 02, 2004, 02:25:54 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: actually it DOES because those shirts cost a lot less in Haiti than they do here, do your ****ing econ homework
gank is halfway intelligent, you keep ranting half-cocked
You're right, I'm wrong. Your logic is beyond question, and I am simply unable to sort through the vast amounts of proof you have provided. You've proven me wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'm sorry for wasting your time on something so obvious.
Think what you want, but please be sure to notify me becuase I also would very much like to also think what you think from now on.
Post by: Janos on May 02, 2004, 02:38:12 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: actually it DOES because those shirts cost a lot less in Haiti than they do here, do your ****ing econ homework
gank is halfway intelligent, you keep ranting half-cocked
Hey, off to Myanmar we head to buy those cheap Nike shoes since they only cost 2-5 dollars there!
oh wait
Post by: Kazan on May 02, 2004, 02:50:31 pm
anyway - it's like the others said, if they thought it was so bad they'd quit
Post by: Gank on May 02, 2004, 08:33:03 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
anyway - it's like the others said, if they thought it was so bad they'd quit
Wanker. THEY HAVE NO ****ING CHOICE.
Post by: Kazan on May 02, 2004, 09:18:38 pm
Post by: Rictor on May 02, 2004, 11:34:16 pm
Buit thats bull**** logic. Why shouldn't the corporations pay a living wage? Why should they be able to abuse the workers, force them to work overtime without paying them, fire them at random, have them work in conditions where they are exposed to toxins? There are basic human rights, and no one has a right to infringe upon them.
These people didn't put thrmselves in the situation where they either work in the sweatshops or starve. They never chose that, it was forced upon them. Perhaps you live in a perfect world where every Third World schmuck is asked for his say so before the IMF proceeds to **** over their economy, but reality speaks differently. They never chose to privatize the public works, they never chose to open the borders. The decisions was made for them, without consultation, by their government under enormous pressure by the US.
Go back to page 6 and read the quote by Milton Friedman. This is the guy who wrote the book on globalization, its his lifes work. Now, if he wrote the rules, and he believes that corporartions have no responsibility to be ethical, what does that tell you about how thr system functions.
You don't want to have a dicussion, you just want people to listen to you and then shut the hell up. See, you've got the listen to what I'm saying as well, cause your statements have 0 proof backing them up and frankly I call bull****.
Post by: Liberator on May 02, 2004, 11:43:34 pm
The treatment of their citizens falls within the purview of the government of the nation where the company is doing business. It is their responsibility to ensure that their citizens are treated fairly by external entities, not the Company that they work for.
Post by: Kazan on May 02, 2004, 11:44:02 pm
"Abuse workers" as in poor treatment, i already said i'm all for standards on how they can treat workers
"Force them to work overtime without paying them" do you mean without paying period or without paying 'time and a half' - if the first the corp should be in trouble, if the second then not every country mandates time and a half
"Fire them at random" *cough* cry baby *cough* you can be "fired at random" here too
"work in conditions exposed to toxins" see: worker treatment standards
You do not have a basic human right NOT to get fired, actually you don't have a basic human right to a job nor do you have a basic human right to a certain ammount of pay - certain ammount of pay is a NICETY that is almost always necessary for the company to get the worker, but even here in the united states there are a lot of jobs that don't pay what i consider a living wage in this economy. Minimum wage laws don't help either, because if you raise the minimum wage you just caused inflation and therefore you just raised the cost of living - the raise in the mimimum wage had no effect on "real wages"
"Work in the sweatshop or starve" very bloody unlikely, you act as if the sweatshop is the ONLY job available, i'm sorry but in most of the places we outsource those type of jobs too this situation doesn't happen.
Stating that the "IMF proceeds to **** over" places economies just shows a lack of understanding for economics.
"privatize the public works" their governments **** up, 'US govt leaning on them' our government being assholes - don't blame it on the people
Friedman wrote _A_ book on globalization as HE knows it/wants it, that's not globalization the PROCESS. Friedman is a known arsehole
I want to have a discussion with people who aren't hyperemotional and believe everything they're guilt-tripped into.
"your statements have 0 proof" GO READ A REAL ECONOMICS TEXT
Post by: Kazan on May 02, 2004, 11:44:46 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
The treatment of their citizens falls within the purview of the government of the nation where the company is doing business. It is their responsibility to ensure that their citizens are treated fairly by external entities, not the Company that they work for.
I hate to have to agree with liberator, but once in a while he does make an accurate statement
Post by: Rictor on May 02, 2004, 11:50:55 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
A corporation is a legally recognized entity with the sole purpose to make as much money as they can legally. Anything beyond this is superfluous and not necessary.
The treatment of their citizens falls within the purview of the government of the nation where the company is doing business. It is their responsibility to ensure that their citizens are treated fairly by external entities, not the Company that they work for.
But, as you may have noticed, corporations have grown powerful enough to circumvent governments or bend them to their agenda. Like it or not, corporations are the predominant insitutions of our time. When 51 of the world's top 100 economies are private entites, with no obligation to uphold morals, we're in trouble.
Why is it that no person or government has a right to ignore ethics, while a corporation does. Do you feel it is fine and dandy to have amoral insitutation determining government policy? Because they are.
Post by: Rictor on May 03, 2004, 12:12:32 am
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
Rictor: YOU CONTINUE TO FAIL ****ING ECON 101, Jesus christ - yes some of them really don't pay a living wage, but a great deal of them that get accused of being sweatshops based off pay DO because people like you neglect to calculate what a LIVING WAGE is in THAT COUNTRY.
Can you make one post without the use of caps? I can hear you just fine. Do you think people would really be dumb enough not to wager in the cost od living difference when calculating wages? Its convenient to tell yourself that these people are making enough money, if we only compensate for the difference in prices. But the fact is that most workers working in these places are not paid a living wage, even when this is factored it.
Also, enough with the Econ 101 crap, I know how economies work damnit. And yes, I;'ve taken econ courses, so shut up about it.
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
"Abuse workers" as in poor treatment, i already said i'm all for standards on how they can treat workers
"Force them to work overtime without paying them" do you mean without paying period or without paying 'time and a half' - if the first the corp should be in trouble, if the second then not every country mandates time and a half
"Fire them at random" *cough* cry baby *cough* you can be "fired at random" here too
"work in conditions exposed to toxins" see: worker treatment standards
Abuse workers: Yes, but what should the punishment be if corpporations fail to uphold these standard?
Forced overtime: It means forcing them to work overtime without paying them the legal wage for it. This is not necessarily 1.5x, it is whatever it is in that country. They don't pay what is legal overtime.
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
You do not have a basic human right NOT to get fired, actually you don't have a basic human right to a job nor do you have a basic human right to a certain ammount of pay - certain ammount of pay is a NICETY that is almost always necessary for the company to get the worker, but even here in the united states there are a lot of jobs that don't pay what i consider a living wage in this economy. Minimum wage laws don't help either, because if you raise the minimum wage you just caused inflation and therefore you just raised the cost of living - the raise in the mimimum wage had no effect on "real wages"
How about if pregnant women are regularly fired becuase the company does not want to pay benefits. Is that fair?
And yes, the empoyer does have an obligation to pay living wages. Miminum wages are whatever some jackass politician decides, living wages are what is required to eat. And don't pretend like this is anything akin to the situation in the US., Yeah, workers are getting ripped off in the US too, but there's a million ways to get by . Welfware, homeless shelters. And the standard of living in the US that is provided by a "low paying" job is nothing like what the living standard is in the third world.
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
"Work in the sweatshop or starve" very bloody unlikely, you act as if the sweatshop is the ONLY job available, i'm sorry but in most of the places we outsource those type of jobs too this situation doesn't happen.
Would you like to see some figures as to what percentage of employment in certain third world countries is in the textile industries? Or what even more significant, how much this percentage has gone up in the past 20 years?
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
Stating that the "IMF proceeds to **** over" places economies just shows a lack of understanding for economics.
"privatize the public works" their governments **** up, 'US govt leaning on them' our government being assholes - don't blame it on the people
Would you like me to find some IMF "action plans" for various third world countries? I'll post it tommorow, and you tell me if it ****ing up the economy or not. the WTO et al are not interested in improving the lives of Third World people, they interested in creating cheap sources of labour. That, or they are the single most inept organization in the history of mankind. Globalization has not helped the working class in a single country. The rich profit, the poor are screwed.
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
Friedman wrote _A_ book on globalization as HE knows it/wants it, that's not globalization the PROCESS. Friedman is a known arsehole
I want to have a discussion with people who aren't hyperemotional and believe everything they're guilt-tripped into.
"your statements have 0 proof" GO READ A REAL ECONOMICS TEXT
Actually, he wrote many books. Friedman is the architect of globalization. It is his vision made real. The people spearheading the globalization movement all studied economics in Chicago under Friedman. Just like Marx could be said to be the intellectual father of Communism, Friedman is the guy who's ideas were implemented.
For all his faults, I consider him to be a pretty brilliant man. Its just his vision that I don't like. Don't pretend like he's a minor player, his the "man with the plan".
Post by: Kazan on May 03, 2004, 12:41:16 am
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Can you make one post without the use of caps?
Not when the other person is being thick skulled incessantly
Quote
Do you think people would really be dumb enough not to wager in the cost od living difference when calculating wages?
I don't "think" i KNOW - when i've had the time and the patience to sit down with people taking your position before and they've shown me numbers i've quickly refuted their position because I pulled up economics info on that country and properly normalized the numbers.
You would be astonished how often people do not properly normalize
Quote
Its convenient to tell yourself that these people are making enough money, if we only compensate for the difference in prices.
I don't deal in matters of convience when it comes to whether something is real or not, remember I easily overcome my emotions when it comes to making decisions and judging what is factual
Quote
But the fact is that most workers working in these places are not paid a living wage, even when this is factored it.
Obviously 'living wage' must include a car, and tv for you or some really unncessary **** for a 3rd world person
Quote
Also, enough with the Econ 101 crap, I know how economies work damnit. And yes, I;'ve taken econ courses, so shut up about it.
define:
LRAS
SRAS
LRAD
SRAD
tell me how you find equalibrium given an equasion for supply (tons in terms of price) and an equasion for demand (price in terms of tons)
Quote
Abuse workers: Yes, but what should the punishment be if corpporations fail to uphold these standard?
Fines large enough that it actually hurts them (determine fine in percent of how much they made internationally the previous year)
Disallow them to do business in that country
Quote
Forced overtime: It means forcing them to work overtime without paying them the legal wage for it. This is not necessarily 1.5x, it is whatever it is in that country. They don't pay what is legal overtime.
Then it's a simple pay dispute since they are atleast paying them - the local govt should have the balls to take care of it
Quote
How about if pregnant women are regularly fired becuase the company does not want to pay benefits. Is that fair?
See: WORKER TREATMENT - emotionally loaded questions piss me off because using them is a sign of a weak arguement. This is CLEARLY a descriminatory practice and should be illegal. If you don't know enough about me by now to know that I would think this than you're just as large of a bigoted moron as I sometimes think you are
Quote
And yes, the empoyer does have an obligation to pay living wages.
Incorrect - price of labor is determined by basic supply and demand curves. "Labor" = service, "Job" = demand for service
Quote
Miminum wages are whatever some jackass politician decides, living wages are what is required to eat.
Then a lot more places are paying living wages then what you are implying.
You also seem to think this is their ONLY incoming / only means of aquiring food [legally] which is just about gauranteed to be incorrect.
Quote
And don't pretend like this is anything akin to the situation in the US.,
It all follows the rules of economics, time for a reality check if you don't know this
Quote
Yeah, workers are getting ripped off in the US too, but there's a million ways to get by .
JUST LIKE IN MOST EVERY OTHER COUNTRY - EVEN THE THIRD WORLD and that's ignoring government help
Quote
Welfware, homeless shelters.
Which are descreasingly existant thanks to the neoconservative movement. These facilities help women escape abusive relationships and help them escape the environment where they're treated as property - therefore the NeoCons (Christian Taliban) are opposed to these
Quote
And the standard of living in the US that is provided by a "low paying" job is nothing like what the living standard is in the third world.
**** happens - while you're *****ing about their standard of living not being high enough a lot of them are busy wondering WTF "I have a job that's paying me more than bare minimum to live, go worry about something else"
Quote
Would you like to see some figures as to what percentage of employment in certain third world countries is in the textile industries?
A lot
Quote
Or what even more significant, how much this percentage has gone up in the past 20 years?
ditto
Quote
Would you like me to find some IMF "action plans" for various third world countries?
Sure
Quote
I'll post it tommorow, and you tell me if it ****ing up the economy or not.
ok
Quote
the WTO et al are not interested in improving the lives of Third World people
that's not they're job, and they have no moral obligation - thats the job of said third world country
Quote
they interested in creating cheap sources of labour.
That's business
Quote
That, or they are the single most inept organization in the history of mankind.
Or you're trying to attribute tasks to them which are not their responsibility
Quote
Globalization has not helped the working class in a single country. The rich profit, the poor are screwed.
Just because the people in those countries are not standing up to the rich assholes. Economic Globalization is a REQUIREMENT for the furtherance of governments and economies on this planet. What is done with that global access is completely different from globalization itself
Quote
Actually, he wrote many books. Friedman is the architect of globalization. It is his vision made real.
Globalization as he sees it - so let's become specific capital G Globalization for Friedmans, lowercase g globalization for nonspecific from now on
Quote
The people spearheading the globalization movement all studied economics in Chicago under Friedman. Just like Marx could be said to be the intellectual father of Communism, Friedman is the guy who's ideas were implemented.
most the pity
Quote
For all his faults, I consider him to be a pretty brilliant man. Its just his vision that I don't like. Don't pretend like he's a minor player, his the "man with the plan".
i don't pretend he's a minor player, but he is an ass
Post by: Bobboau on May 03, 2004, 01:06:53 am
Post by: mikhael on May 03, 2004, 01:40:52 am
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
A corporation is a legally recognized entity with the sole purpose to make as much money as they can legally. Anything beyond this is superfluous and not necessary.
Ambrose Bierce defined corporation slightly differently, and far more accurately, I think.
Quote
CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
Even if we stay away from Bierce's wit, I would have to argue with your definition on but one point: A corporation's sole purpose is to gain as much advantage for itself as it can legally. Money is rather narrow, and is certainly a subset of 'advantage'.
Post by: Bobboau on May 03, 2004, 02:49:24 am
I mean it all boils to that in the end doesn't it?
Post by: mikhael on May 03, 2004, 03:15:23 am
Money is a polite fiction. Its a numbering system for advantage. It a means of trading in power of various sorts.
Advantage is power itself. Advantage is being able to tell a cop '**** off' not because you have cash, but because you and the mayor are good buddies. Advantage is being able to blithely ignore your grades and collect that Yale degree you never really deserved. Advantage is being able to walk past the line of mensch into that exclusive nightclub. Advantage is being able to say, "Kill that man," and know that it will be done and that you'll never get in trouble for it.
Money buys advantage, but advantage is the goal.
Post by: Liberator on May 03, 2004, 01:36:22 pm
Speaking as a Conservative, Kaz, you continue to assume that because we do one thing, we intend to do harm to the people who are on the opposite side. In point of fact the Welfare and Shelters that you seem to think we've done away with are being heavily abused and are not functionion as to their intended function. Welfare was intended to act as a short term support mechanism for those who had lost their job unexpectedly. It was not meant to be used as a permanent source of income.
Post by: Kazan on May 03, 2004, 02:02:14 pm
I'm a "liberal" in terms of rights - fiscally I'm for USING OUR FREAKING BRAINS
The only social welfare programs I'm for is socialized education (k-12 and college) and medicine. When you socialize these you spend the least and get the most benefit. Infact socializing these often prevents you from having to socialize other things
Post by: Rictor on May 03, 2004, 02:15:07 pm
It comes down to what kind of world do you want to live in? I for one do not want to live in a world where ethics are secondary to profit. I do not want to be governed by law made by psychopaths. How any rational person can defend a corporation's "right" to disregard moral responsibility is beyond me. This very concept flies in the face of 500 years of democratic progress. It is fascism with a happy face.
There is an something being discussed in the WTO, this was in 2001 so it might have already been implemented, the VIA articles of GATS. This article takes power out of the hands of democratic bodies (congress, parliments, elected officials) to decide policy. Any law passed can be struck down if it is "more burdensome than necessary” to business. This authority overrides all sovereign powers for a country to govern itself as it wishes, according to the will of the people, and places it squarely in the hands of business. Basically, profits before people.
I've pimped it a few times before, but I will again recommend a documentary called The Corporation, which discusses many of these same issues. It coming to most major US cities around June/July, and I'de recommend shelling out the $5 to see it.
kaz: thats alot of respond to, so later today.
Quote
Originally posted by Liberator
Welfare was intended to act as a short term support mechanism for those who had lost their job unexpectedly. It was not meant to be used as a permanent source of income.
The economy is a-changin'. Job stability is way down, and people are changing jobs more often with longer periods of time inbetween.
Post by: ionia23 on May 03, 2004, 02:54:19 pm
"Greed is good. Greed works." - "Wall Street"
Post by: Ghostavo on May 03, 2004, 03:09:06 pm
Post by: Bobboau on May 03, 2004, 08:27:38 pm
Post by: Rictor on May 03, 2004, 10:53:25 pm
Capitalism is an inherently flawed system, and certain laws must be passed to ensure that the people get the most out of it. The flaw is that greed, exploitation, and generally unethical behaviour is rewarded with power and wealth. So, bad deeds are rewarded, which, I think most people will agree, is not the world you would like to live in.
Post by: Liberator on May 03, 2004, 11:56:28 pm
Post by: mikhael on May 04, 2004, 01:39:39 am
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
Since when are there only two options, communism or unrestrecited capitalism?
Since when are there only two options, Rictor's way or anyone else's?
Seriously, in most of your arguments its always TWO options: your narrow opinion, and THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!!11!!
If you're going to condemn a schtick, I guess you might as well condemn your own.
:lol:
Post by: Ghostavo on May 04, 2004, 01:58:26 am
Quote
Originally posted by Bobboau
you just _now_ figured that out?
I'm slow, so sue me :D
Post by: Rictor on May 04, 2004, 02:03:43 am
What it comes down to for me is, do I believe that corporations are psychopathic institutions, and do I want to live in a world run by psychopaths? Yes and no, respectivlley, so I favour restrictions on corporate activity, to control their inherent impulse to act in an unethical manner.
The "opposition" is always going to have to be more vocal. The man content with the status quo, all he needs to do is expend minimal energy and keep his mouth shut, and he wins. Anyone unhappy with a situation and attempting to change it is going to have to be far more active and vocal, cause they have to actually change the current conditions instead of just preserving them. Hence, most reformers throughout history have been branded radicals, extremists, fringe lunatics and so on.
And I have never imposed my views on others, nor have I stated that my opinion is the only one and/or The Truth. I think you're confusing me with certain others, who shall remain unnamed. You know who you are, you dirty fascist bastards :lol: :lol:
Post by: mikhael on May 04, 2004, 12:27:40 pm
I am not confusing you for anyone else, Rictor. You are the one who has said, repeatedly, if you're not helping the third world then you're actively raping them, or words to that effect. You've implied, or outright stated on numerous occasions that anyone who disagrees with your position on an issue is not only completely wrong, but is actually the cause of the problem you're railing again.
Though its wrong of me, I can't help but dismiss most any position you take because of your inability to consider that there might be shades of grey between the extremes you always present as the sole options for the world.
Post by: Rictor on May 04, 2004, 02:19:31 pm
What I fault you and Kazan for is inconsitancy. So, you hold Opinion A for one situation, but hold the oppoisite opinion for another, even though the same logic used to arrive at Opinion A the first time is the same as should have lead you to Opinion A the second time....I hope that made sense.
______________________________________________
For example, the corporate issue. My logic goes something like this, and if I can find no flaws in it, than I accept the conclusion.
1. Do corporations have an obligation to act in an ethical manner?
No
2. Do corporations have a great amount of power and influence in the world today?
Yes
3. Do corporations in general, and the powerful ones specifically, have a long history of acting in an unethical manner?
Yes
If 1=No, 2=Yes and 3=yes, then I conclude that psychopathic institutions are "running the world" to a large degree. Do I like this situation, or do I think that the majority of the world's population likes it, no.
So, I think that it would be a "good thing" if institutions or people which DO have an obligation to act in an ethical manner were to have some degree of control over the actions of corporations, in order to prevent them from harming others.
If you answered No, Yes and Yes, I fail to see how you could not reach the same conclusion I have, unless you consider unethical behaviour (by very, very powerful bodies no less) to be dandy. However, this is my opinion and though I consider it to be the truth, I do accept that other have the right to hold different opinions.
______________________________
As for the Third World thing, there are three positions in the matter.
1. Actively harming the people of the Third World
2. Being neutral
3. Actively helping the peope of the Third World.
Being neutral would entail you neither supporting nor attacking the organizations which bring harm to the Third World, and very few people would fall into that category (we are after all consumers).
So, I reason that it if you are supporting an organization( that harm the Third World, you are yourself harming it to some degree. Same thing for helping. However, harming or helping does not mean that you are only harming or only helping, it only means that you help more than you harm or harm more than you help. Someone can harm the Third World, but offset that by helping it to a greater degree.
Now, as I see it, if you want to be considered than ethical person, you must either be neutral or helpful. Anyone who is neutral has no obligation to help. However, you (and most others here, myself included) do not fall into this category. Why? Becuase we support certain organizations that are harming the Third World, with our votes, our money, our voice and so on. Furthermore, we are subverting democracy by supporting organizations (such as the US government, certain corporations etc) that take away the right of self-determination from some countries, in order to make a profit. Support for dictators, instigating coups, bribes and so on.
Where you and I probably disagree with me is what constitutes support for organizations harming the Third World. I consider support to be financial support (buying Nikes), vocal or "moral support" (voicing your support for them, the opposite of what I'm doing now) or direct support (picking up a gun and breaking up a union meeting, lobbying Congress on their behalf etc ). I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of any more right now. The way I see it, you are supporting them in 2 of 3 ways, which means that you are to some degree responsible for suffering in the Third World. Also, you vocally (and perhaps fincancially via campaign contributions?) support another organization which gives tremendous financial, vocal and direct support to corporation harming the Third World, the United States government.
So, I reach a conclusion that you are harming the people of the Third World, which I consider to be unethical.
__________________________
How you can call be an extremist an not Kazan or Liberator (or ionia etc) is beyond me. All I do is apply some basic logic and keep in mind the principles which I hold dear (freedom, democracy, blablablabla), and I come up with a concludion. And I do this for ever (or almost every) situation. I am, essentially, consistant in my views. I don't see how anyone can love self-determination and yet consider himself right in denying to to others. I also don't see how someone can be against an invasion of a soverign nation, and feel sympathetic towards the deaths of defenseless civilians, and yet support the people who are doing the killing. And so on and so forth, you get the idea.
And I'll say it again, just for effect: I do not remember when I have ever stated that my opinions were fact, and everyone else is wrong. I don't remember when I have ever supported extremist views, or betrayed the principles which are generally held to be important (peace, freedom etc). If I have ever stated that your or anyone else is the cause of any problem, it is becuase I genuinly believe that you/they are, and not becuase your/their views differed from my own.
________________
Alright, **** that was pretty long. I figure if I wrote this much every day instead of debtaing on HLP, I'de have my first book ready to go in about a month. Ah well....
Post by: karajorma on May 04, 2004, 02:51:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
What I fault you and Kazan for is inconsitancy. So, you hold Opinion A for one situation, but hold the oppoisite opinion for another, even though the same logic used to arrive at Opinion A the first time is the same as should have lead you to Opinion A the second time....I hope that made sense.
Rubbish. You're completely inconsistant yourself. For all your complaints about poor countries you were the one who advocated letting the starving in Africa continue to starve rather than letting them use GM food to feed them.
In the Macedonia thread dispite all your other rants about the evils commited in the War on Terror you suddenly refused to believe that one could come out of Macedonia for no good reason other than your racist belief that any pakistanis in the country must be terrorists.
You're as inconsistant as the people you're complaining about. Don't try to pretend to me that you're following any kind of logic here. [/B][/quote]
Post by: Kazan on May 04, 2004, 03:08:44 pm
Furthermore if you think my views are inconsistent then you simply don't understand the logic behind them and all the factors i'm taking into account to reach the conclusion
Different Situation Different Solution
Post by: mikhael on May 04, 2004, 03:18:40 pm
In not understanding (or, really, ACCEPTING) this, you fail, Rictor.
For most human beings, conclusions are based on a plurality of ideas and facts and beliefs. Ideas, facts and beliefs that apply to ONE situation are not always considered when making decisions on OTHER (possibly related) situations. All human decision making is purely, compltely, and utterly situational.
In not understanding (or, really, ACCEPTING) this, you fail, Rictor.
I do call Kazan, Liberator and ionia's views extremist. However, their views are at least in touch with reality. Yours, however, are not. Consider: you espouse the idea that people should feel no loyalty to their nation because their birth as a citizen of that nation was random circumstance. While you are correct about your STATEMENT ("Birth into any given nation is a random circumstance."), your PREDICATE ("you should feel no loyalty to your nation.") does not logically follow. It is, truly, non sequitr. In the realm of logic, your implication is false. You set up false dilemmas ("Either you believe corporations are evil, or you're helping the corporations rape the world"), wherein two logically disconnected propositions are joined in an XOR relationship. This sort of logic may serve to further your arguments, since it is trivial to find a counterexample (I neither believe corporations are evil, nor am I helping them rape the world).
Even when your logic is flawless, it, unfortunately, ignores human factors. In an idealized world, human factors would be perfectly logical. In the real world, however, they are not. People are going to feel loyalty to their country. Its a basic extension of the herd instinct.
Rictor, you must simply accept that what you see as 'logical' is not necessarily 'logical' to anyone else. I'm sure, like you, Liberator believes he's being perfectly logical when he espouses both fundamental Christian beliefs AND a willingness to invade a sovereign nation. I see this as a logical contradiction. Your "logic" is no more logical than anyone elses. The same, of course, can be said about your notion of "ethics".
I think I'm going to avoid any such discussions with you in the future. You'll always claim the moral, ethical and logical high ground, and then defend it with bizarre arguments that are inconsistent, or make no logical sense (I make absolutely no claim as to the consistency or logical defensibility of my own arguments). In the end, its simply not worth it.
Post by: Rictor on May 04, 2004, 04:11:50 pm
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma[/B][/quote]
Rubbish. You're completely inconsistant yourself. For all your complaints about poor countries you were the one who advocated letting the starving in Africa continue to starve rather than letting them use GM food to feed them.
In the Macedonia thread dispite all your other rants about the evils commited in the War on Terror you suddenly refused to believe that one could come out of Macedonia for no good reason other than your racist belief that any pakistanis in the country must be terrorists.
You're as inconsistant as the people you're complaining about. Don't try to pretend to me that you're following any kind of logic here.
If you recall, I was against Terminator genes because poor nations have to pay up every season to get new seed. I never made general statements about GM foods, cause I don't know enough about them to speak intelligently on the overall pros/cons.
As for Macedonia, I'm just going to come out and say it, call me a rascist if you want. I am extremely sceptical as to the innocence of any Muslim in and around Macedonia. If it was Kosovo, it would be a somewhat different matter, but there has not traditionally been an Albanian population in Macedonia. And certainly not a Pakistani one. As for "in transit", they've got airplanes now a days. And no, there is no destination which would require a stopover in Skoplje, and certainly not for any extended period of time. Just like I would be suspicious if someone tried to claim that the Iranian government imported 7 Americans, just to have them killed. Perhaps you're blind to it, but certain people don't get along. If indeed they were innocent, it was sheer insanity to go there in the first place, with a known conflict going on. It would be like an American civilian going to Iraq and expecting to be safe.
During the Cold War, the US parachutes a guy into Soviet territory. He's got the perfect accent, perfect clothing, he has Soviet cigarettes, his shoes are perfect fakes. His papers are immaculate. He walks into the first bar he sees and tries to blend in. Right away, the bartender walks up to him and says "You're American aren't you"? "But how could you possibly tell, my disguise is perfect". "Yeah, well, we don't get many black Russians around here".
Quote
Originally posted by Kazan
Furthermore if you think my views are inconsistent then you simply don't understand the logic behind them and all the factors i'm taking into account to reach the conclusion
ditto, which is why it would be nice to try and explain it in the future.
Post by: ionia23 on May 04, 2004, 04:23:54 pm
Post by: Gank on May 04, 2004, 04:28:24 pm
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
Rubbish. You're completely inconsistant yourself. For all your complaints about poor countries you were the one who advocated letting the starving in Africa continue to starve rather than letting them use GM food to feed them.
Are you talking about the zambia thing here or actually suggesting Bio-tech corps are developing food which will eliminate world hunger? Please tell me you're not saying the later, it shows a deep ignorance about the way the world works.
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
As for Macedonia, I'm just going to come out and say it, call me a rascist if you want. I am extremely sceptical as to the innocence of any Muslim in and around Macedonia....
:lol: Racist and hypocrite.
Quote
Originally posted by ionia23
I'd hardly say your views are racist, Rictor. Realistic, sure, but not racist.
His views are racist, hes saying any muslim in macedonia is guilty of something. Agreeing with him makes you racist too.
Post by: Rictor on May 04, 2004, 04:43:53 pm
I may not agree with people's opinions, and may not understand how they could possibly reach such a conclusion, but I respect their right to have it. And here's a magic phrase: as long as their opinions don't **** with someone else's life.
now, lets proceed:
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
There are an infinite number of gradations between "rape the third world!" and "do your utmost to uplift the poor benighted souls of the third world".
In not understanding (or, really, ACCEPTING) this, you fail, Rictor.
No, there are two three options: help, nothing, hurt. There are however shades of grey for the first and last. Buying clothes at the GAP does not hurt the Third World as much as picking up a gun and killing union leaders. Similarly, what I am doing now, debating on an online forum, does not help as much as donatng a billion dollars to get revatilize Nigeria's economy.
I accept it and understand it, because it is human nature. Also, I support it, because I personally do not want to live in a world of extremes.
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
For most human beings, conclusions are based on a plurality of ideas and facts and beliefs. Ideas, facts and beliefs that apply to ONE situation are not always considered when making decisions on OTHER (possibly related) situations. All human decision making is purely, compltely, and utterly situational.
Situational to the exclusion of logic? Is it wrong to ask for some degree if rational though and consistancy? This is just to vague to respond to in general, there are two perfectly good examples (corporations and Third World) to work with, so...
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
I do call Kazan, Liberator and ionia's views extremist. However, their views are at least in touch with reality. Yours, however, are not. Consider: you espouse the idea that people should feel no loyalty to their nation because their birth as a citizen of that nation was random circumstance. While you are correct about your STATEMENT ("Birth into any given nation is a random circumstance."), your PREDICATE ("you should feel no loyalty to your nation.") does not logically follow. It is, truly, non sequitr. In the realm of logic, your implication is false. You set up false dilemmas ("Either you believe corporations are evil, or you're helping the corporations rape the world"), wherein two logically disconnected propositions are joined in an XOR relationship. This sort of logic may serve to further your arguments, since it is trivial to find a counterexample (I neither believe corporations are evil, nor am I helping them rape the world).
In my mind, merit has to be earned. My mom have birth to me, raised me, spent a huge amount of time and energy protecting me, feeding me and so on. She deserves greater protection by me than a stranger.
However, I do not feel that my countrymen have earned my respect or deserve my protection. Canadians or Serbs, in general, have done nothing to better my life. I would not fight for Serbia, despite it being my place of birth, if I were to disagree with what is being fought for.
Similarly, I doubt that the American people have done anything to earn your respect or support. Individuals, perhaps. And you may even like the history and the values of the people who founded the country. But why does a New Yorker who you have never met nor will ever meet deserve your protection, any more than a Turk who you have never met nor will ever meet?
I don't believe that the randomness of your birthplace and the support and protection for that place are disconnected ideas. Random people or random places do not deserve anythng from me, because they have not earned it.
Well, they deserve not to be harmed by me, but they do not deserve anything beyond that.
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
Even when your logic is flawless, it, unfortunately, ignores human factors. In an idealized world, human factors would be perfectly logical. In the real world, however, they are not. People are going to feel loyalty to their country. Its a basic extension of the herd instinct.
I'll say it again, progress. Herd mentality has killed more people in history than just about anything, and yet you still cling to it. I see plently of cons, but no pros.
It serves no purpose. I could live with it if it was just useless, but its not just that. Its also, as I said, the cause of great suffering.
I don't pretend that the world is going to change overnight becuase of my whims. But I see nothing wrong in trying to share my views on this subject, with the posibility of getting through to someone, to the people who I come into contact with.
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
Rictor, you must simply accept that what you see as 'logical' is not necessarily 'logical' to anyone else. I'm sure, like you, Liberator believes he's being perfectly logical when he espouses both fundamental Christian beliefs AND a willingness to invade a sovereign nation. I see this as a logical contradiction. Your "logic" is no more logical than anyone elses. The same, of course, can be said about your notion of "ethics".
Ethics is a different matter. Would you say that the majority of the people who populate this rock share the same basic ideas of ethics? If so, I am willing to take that and call it "Human Ethics, Do Not **** With"
As for logic, its quite obvious that people logic is different than my own. For the same of discussion, I would love it if people could do a simple breakdown like I did in my previous post, cause that makes it a hell of a lot easier than trying to read their mind and try to guess at what their logic entails. I'll try to do it more from now on, perhaps it makes life a little easier. That way, you can either call into question the logic or the assumptions, instead of stabbing in the dark.
Sure, I won't be able to rant as much, but I'm getting damn tired of writing these long ass posts anyways.
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
I think I'm going to avoid any such discussions with you in the future. You'll always claim the moral, ethical and logical high ground, and then defend it with bizarre arguments that are inconsistent, or make no logical sense (I make absolutely no claim as to the consistency or logical defensibility of my own arguments). In the end, its simply not worth it.
Your choice. I find that most discussions come down to something like this if they go on long enough, which is really the meat of the matter. Everyone needs to fire off the intial volley of "you suck, asshole" before things start to settle down and something resembling debate gets underway.
Post by: Rictor on May 04, 2004, 05:07:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Are you talking about the zambia thing here or actually suggesting Bio-tech corps are developing food which will eliminate world hunger? Please tell me you're not saying the later, it shows a deep ignorance about the way the world works.
:lol: Racist and hypocrite.
His views are racist, hes saying any muslim in macedonia is guilty of something. Agreeing with him makes you racist too.
Thats the legacy of the Cold War for ya, ethnic homogeny. If this happened in France, you would be right to call me a rascist. But I can not ignore the fact that there is KLA activity in Macedonia, nor can I ignore the fact that the KLA has the support of Islamic militant groups who are made up of - you guessed it, Muslims. Those two put together, in addition to the fact that Macedonia is not an ethnically diverse nation and that its not exactly a tourist hotspot, lead me to question the alleged innocence of these men.
And I don't see the hypocricy. At least when you were calling me a rascist, you had a pretty solid arguement. But hypocrite? I'm afraid I don't see how.
Post by: Ghostavo on May 04, 2004, 05:26:24 pm
Quote
Originally posted by RictorQuoteOriginally posted by mikhael
Even when your logic is flawless, it, unfortunately, ignores human factors. In an idealized world, human factors would be perfectly logical. In the real world, however, they are not. People are going to feel loyalty to their country. Its a basic extension of the herd instinct.
I'll say it again, progress. Herd mentality has killed more people in history than just about anything, and yet you still cling to it. I see plently of cons, but no pros.
It serves no purpose. I could live with it if it was just useless, but its not just that. Its also, as I said, the cause of great suffering.
I don't pretend that the world is going to change overnight becuase of my whims. But I see nothing wrong in trying to share my views on this subject, with the posibility of getting through to someone, to the people who I come into contact with.
He didn't say it was good nor did he say it was bad. By dismissing that you are proving his point. You can choose to ignore whatever you like, but at least don't discuss it with other people who are having an argument by simply dismissing it.
Quote
Originally posted by RictorQuoteOriginally posted by Gank
Are you talking about the zambia thing here or actually suggesting Bio-tech corps are developing food which will eliminate world hunger? Please tell me you're not saying the later, it shows a deep ignorance about the way the world works.
Racist and hypocrite.
His views are racist, hes saying any muslim in macedonia is guilty of something. Agreeing with him makes you racist too.
Thats the legacy of the Cold War for ya, ethnic homogeny. If this happened in France, you would be right to call me a rascist. But I can not ignore the fact that there is KLA activity in Macedonia, nor can I ignore the fact that the KLA has the support of Islamic militant groups who are made up of - you guessed it, Muslims. Those two put together, in addition to the fact that Macedonia is not an ethnically diverse nation and that its not exactly a tourist hotspot, lead me to question the alleged innocence of these men.
And I don't see the hypocricy. At least when you were calling me a rascist, you had a pretty solid arguement. But hypocrite? I'm afraid I don't see how.
I may be wrong, but by the same logic, wouldn't christians in muslim countries be considered as "guilty" as a muslim in a christian one? :doubt:
Post by: ionia23 on May 04, 2004, 05:27:27 pm
Pre-judging the behaviors of said group may be where the line is, but I don't think that's the case here.
This planet is a hell of a long way from being colorblind.
Post by: Gank on May 04, 2004, 05:36:17 pm
Racism, yes the KLA are active in Macedonia, so are islamic terrorists, but to say all muslims are guilty of something is racist. You claim theres no Albanian population in macedonia but a 1994 census puts the total amount of people of albanian ethnicity at one fifth of the population: http://faq.macedonia.org/information/ethnic.makeup.html
Your whole theory is based on the fact that these guys could not be innocent because they're muslim, despite the fact that Macedonia has large Turkish, Bosnian, Albanian and other muslim minoritys. Not too mention the fact that Macedonia was ruled by muslims for hundreds of years. You're also not trying to explain what actually happened, just bad mouthing dead man based on their nationality/religion. This makes you a racist.
Post by: Grey Wolf on May 04, 2004, 05:38:52 pm
Post by: Gank on May 04, 2004, 05:43:53 pm
Quote
Originally posted by ionia23
I don't think recognizing a particular "group" who's members are representative of a particular ethnic background, inferred or fact, makes one racist, though some people seem to think so. There's no hypocrisy there, just simple facts.
Pre-judging the behaviors of said group may be where the line is, but I don't think that's the case here.
This planet is a hell of a long way from being colorblind.
Wrong Ionia, theres no facts here just racism. KMacedonia has a large Muslim community, over a quarter of its population by the last census. Saying 7 pakistanis couldnt have been in the country for any other reason than terrorism is nothing short of racism. He's claiming these men are terrorists on the basis they are pakistani despite the fact that the macedonian government itself, which is currently fighting Islamic terrorists, has said they were not.
Post by: karajorma on May 04, 2004, 05:44:58 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Are you talking about the zambia thing here or actually suggesting Bio-tech corps are developing food which will eliminate world hunger? Please tell me you're not saying the later, it shows a deep ignorance about the way the world works.
Personally I wouldn't trust Monsanto further than I could throw India so I'm mainly on about Zambia thing but if you've seen the Penn and Teller Bull**** episode about hunger you'll see that it's not just that I was on about.
Quote
Originally posted by RictorQuoteAs for Macedonia, I'm just going to come out and say it, call me a rascist if you want. I am extremely sceptical as to the innocence of any Muslim in and around Macedonia. If it was Kosovo, it would be a somewhat different matter, but there has not traditionally been an Albanian population in Macedonia. And certainly not a Pakistani one. As for "in transit", they've got airplanes now a days. And no, there is no destination which would require a stopover in Skoplje, and certainly not for any extended period of time. [/B]
And this is what makes you a racist. You know nothing about the situation yet you've decided to talk about it as if you knew everything. You even had the nerve to condesend to me that I knew nothing about the situation in Macedonia when it's abundantly clear that you know nothing about this case at all.
Gank has done a great job of proving that your comments about Macedonia not having a muslim population were a load of crap so I'm not going to dwell on that. MY problem is not that you're wrong about this. My problem is that you accused others of being inconsistant while you are always logical. That's a load of crap Rictor and I'm hoping that this proves it to you. Lets take this whole Macedonia thing as an example.
1. The Macedonian government has said that these guys were not terrorists.
2. Amnesty International has said that these guys were not terrorists.
3. The US government has said that these guys were not terrorists.
4. The guys families have said that these guys were not terrorists.
That should be enough to convince anyone that this was not a case of the shooting of terrorists. When Amnesty agrees with governments it makes me sit up and take notice.
So what chain of logic are you using to claim that they are? You have no proof. You have no data. You only have a chain of factual errors and outright racism.
1. The KLA are terrorists
2. The KLA are muslims
3. All muslims in Macedonia must be KLA
4. Therefore the 7 must have been terrorists.
There's no logic there. There are huge gaps in the logic there. Your entire chain is based on the fallacy that there are no muslims in Macedonia.
Worse had you bothered to check the link I gave you you'd have noticed that most of your complaints were answered.
1. The 7 had travelled through turkey and Bulgeria and were on their way to Greece where they had family.
2. One of the supposed Muslim terrorists was infact a Sikh.
3. Allthough it was claimed by the police that the 7 had opened fire on them with automatic weapons not one policeman had recieved any injuries whatsoever.
4. KLA insignia were found on clothes supposedly worn by the men when they were shot. Despite the fact that 7 bodies are described as being riddled with bullets not a single bullet hole was present in any of the bags or clothes that the men supposedly had on them.
I even reminded you of that link on this thread. You didn't bother to go back and read it to check if it said anything contrary to what you believed. You simply carried on expressing your racist views about muslims (and considering one of the facts I've mentioned twice now presumably sikhs too)QuoteOriginally posted by Rictor
Notice that I use a ton of qualifiers (In my opinion, to me, for my money, I reason, as far as I can see) in my posts. Check the last one and count. I thought it was quite obvious that when I say "In my opinion", whatever follows is just that - my opinion, but apparently not quite obvious enough.
Just because it's your opinion doesn't make it any less wrong. Nor do it stop it from being a racist opinion.
Post by: SadisticSid on May 04, 2004, 06:25:44 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Actually, racist wouldn't be quite the right word, as the affair is not of race, but instead of religion.
This is fact. There is nothing racist about calling Muslims terrorists or whatever. Bigotry, but not racism. So stop misusing this ****ing word, which seems 99% misapplied these days.
Post by: Grey Wolf on May 04, 2004, 06:27:13 pm
Post by: karajorma on May 04, 2004, 06:38:17 pm
Quote
Originally posted by SadisticSid
This is fact. There is nothing racist about calling Muslims terrorists or whatever. Bigotry, but not racism. So stop misusing this ****ing word, which seems 99% misapplied these days.
As I said above considering that one of the 7 killed wasn't even a muslim an element of racism comes into it. Rictor is saying that one of them is a terrorist based not on his religion (since he isn't a muslim) but because of the country he was born in/colour of his skin and that is racism.
Post by: Gank on May 04, 2004, 06:47:41 pm
Quote
Originally posted by SadisticSid
This is fact. There is nothing racist about calling Muslims terrorists or whatever. Bigotry, but not racism. So stop misusing this ****ing word, which seems 99% misapplied these days.
It would be bigotry excepts hes arguing that pakistanis have no reason to be in Macedonia except terrorism, thats racist.
Post by: Gank on May 04, 2004, 07:05:54 pm
Quote
Originally posted by karajorma
Personally I wouldn't trust Monsanto further than I could throw India so I'm mainly on about Zambia thing but if you've seen the Penn and Teller Bull**** episode about hunger you'll see that it's not just that I was on about.
Dont watch Penn and Teller, didnt know they were experts on the subject. Just read up on what you were saying in that thread and I think you misunderstand the main reason people oppose GM foods, its not because its unsafe or unnatural, but because its being done by companys like Monsanto purely for profit, patented foods are not going to help eliminate world hunger.
Post by: mikhael on May 04, 2004, 07:07:47 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Dont watch Penn and Teller, didnt know they were experts on the subject.
Not experts, just a smug bastards that like to be right, so they do a lot of research examining the ideas (crazy or otherwise) that people have. Then they produce a nifty little cable show containing what they learn.
Post by: Bobboau on May 04, 2004, 07:33:38 pm
Post by: Kazan on May 04, 2004, 07:35:42 pm
Post by: vyper on May 04, 2004, 07:42:32 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
It would be bigotry excepts hes arguing that pakistanis have no reason to be in Macedonia except terrorism, thats racist.
No that's stupidity.:ha:
Post by: Rictor on May 04, 2004, 11:27:41 pm
I'm going to swallow my pride here and admit that I was probably wrong on this one. I get mighty pissed off when people don't want to admit they were in error, and topple the proverbial chessboard, so I'm not going to do that. Yup, in all likelyhood, I was wrong.
Now, to address some of the other stuff:
1. I'm not rascist toward Muslims. Thats like saying I'm anti-Semetic for being against the occupation of Gaza. The actions of a select few do not relfect (well, not for me anyway) badly on the entire group. Same goes for nations, religions etc etc. I'de also bring up the fact that I've got two Muslim friends who are some of the best I have, but thats like the people who say "sure, I've got black friends", it proves nothing.
2. I try to be colourblind where it is reasonable to be. It is not reasonable to be so in areas of conflict between two sides, divided mostly along ethnic lines (Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan etc). If there is a dead Palesitinian in Jenin, riddled with bullets, I am not going to consider equally the possibility that he was killed by Palestinians as Israelis. This has nothing to do with prejudice, it has everything to do with reality.
3. The say-so of the following organizations means nothing to me: The US government, the Macedonian government, Amnesty International, CNN et al. The first and last are known liars, Amnesty International has previously intentionally distorted evidence in pursuit of an agenda, and the Macedonian government is scared ****less, and have no independent or reliable voice to speak of..
4. The Albanian population is probably quite a bit higher in Macedonia now than it was in '94 when the census was conducted. This is due to the high influx of refugees during the Kosovo war in '99.
This does not change any of my views on the KLA, the US, Kosovo or anything in that area. But those discussions can wait for another day, and for some major breakthroughs in flame-proof technology.
Post by: karajorma on May 05, 2004, 04:35:53 am
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Dont watch Penn and Teller, didnt know they were experts on the subject.
The reason I mentioned Penn & Teller is cause they are one of the few mainstream programmes to feature an interview with Norman Borlaug (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jan/borlaug/borlaug.htm). This is the man who is the father of the The Green Revolution and is credited with saving over 1 billion people from death from starvation.
When this guy speaks about world hunger you know you're listening to an expert :) Norman is fiercely anti-organic and pro GM.
Quote
Originally posted by Gank
Just read up on what you were saying in that thread and I think you misunderstand the main reason people oppose GM foods, its not because its unsafe or unnatural, but because its being done by companys like Monsanto purely for profit, patented foods are not going to help eliminate world hunger.
The simple fact is that I'm not wrong about the reasoning behind the anti-GM movement. Sure there are some people who are against gene patenting and believe that Monsanto is purely out for profit.
Guess what. I'm one of them. :)
Lets say that the main reason that the anti-GM lobby is exactly that which you say. That they distrust Monsanto and that they hate patenting of genes. How would you fight that? I personally would think that lobbing against the introduction of gene patenting was something worth doing. That is the best way to stop this nonsense. If genes can't be patented it removes Monsanto's biggest weapon from their arsenal.
Now compare that with what the anti-GM movement actually do.
Refering to Frankenfoods.
Consistantly claim that GM is untested and unnatural
Refer to debunked scientific studies and then claim that GM is proven unsafe.
Tearing up the crops planted as part of scientific studies
Convince third world nations to reject GM-seeds given to them for free.
Does that really sound to you like the actions of people who are pro-GM but just anti-Monsanto? I've hardly peep out of the anti-GM movement in regards to lobbying against gene-patenting. If they were anti-GM for the reasons you claim it would be their biggest issue. In fact most of the people I've heard complain about gene-patenting are actually people with similar opions to myself.
The simple fact is that the anti-GM movement is led by and consists largely of people who believe that GM is unnatural and therefore wrong. These people won't be satisfied with any amount of studies into GM. They won't be happy using GM if it was regulated and companies like Monsanto were prevented from using it to exploit the third world. They hate GM and they want all research into it stopped and buried. And that is why (to quote Penn & Teller again) until they themselves are starving, they need to shut the f**k up.
What needs to be done is not an end to work on GM. What needs to be done is more research in universities and other organisations for whom profit is not the bottom line. Work done by these sort of people can put an end to world hunger (at least temporarily, we'll need to do something about population control sooner or later).
Post by: karajorma on May 05, 2004, 05:15:23 am
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
I'm going to swallow my pride here and admit that I was probably wrong on this one. I get mighty pissed off when people don't want to admit they were in error, and topple the proverbial chessboard, so I'm not going to do that. Yup, in all likelyhood, I was wrong.
At least your man enough to admit that. It's always a hard thing to do but I've always felt that if you're wrong it's better to admit it rather than continue to argue a point past the point of all rationality.
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
1. I'm not rascist toward Muslims. Thats like saying I'm anti-Semetic for being against the occupation of Gaza. The actions of a select few do not relfect (well, not for me anyway) badly on the entire group. Same goes for nations, religions etc etc.
So why were you claiming that any Muslim in Macedonia must be supporting the KLA? Would you claim that all the jews in Israel support the occupation of Gaza? Cause if so that is an anti-Semetic view.
Quote
Originally posted by Rictor
3. The say-so of the following organizations means nothing to me: The US government, the Macedonian government, Amnesty International, CNN et al. The first and last are known liars, Amnesty International has previously intentionally distorted evidence in pursuit of an agenda, and the Macedonian government is scared ****less, and have no independent or reliable voice to speak of..
If you distrust a news source that's fine with me. There is no such thing as an objective news source. So I always take anything I read with a pinch of salt.
However just because you distrust the official sources doesn't mean that you can simply reject them out of hand when you have no evidence whatsoever to refute them. Politicans may be liars but occasionally their agenda happens to coincide with the truth. There was no logical reason for this story to not be the truth.
Lets make this interesting. Lets say that the 7 men were terrorists. Lets say that we know with 100% certainty they were working for either the KLA or any other islamic terrorist group you want. Can you present a credible theory why the Macedonian government would say they weren't? Can you also make it one which the US and Amnesty would agree to go along with?
The best you've come up with so far is that the US said they weren't so Macedonia arrested their own security forces and (probably) their former interior minister because they were scared. Is that really the best you can do?