[NotDefault]

Originally posted by wEvil
This is correct - a Corporation is not capable of being nice, even if it wanted to as the director has an obligation to squeeze as much money out of everything for the shareholders.

That is it's sole purpose.

And after you actually understand this (i mean UNDERSTAND it) you can start to see why western society is coming apart at the seams.

Bah.  Don't give me a talk about how society is doomed.  Guess what, it isn't!  Society has been changing ever since it existed; if it didn't evolve, it would hardly be society as we know it.  It may seem like the doom of society now, but there have always been those who've thought like that, and alongside them, those who have adapted to a changing world and succeeded.

Don't suggest that uncaring people in positions of power are somehow a new thing.  There were plenty of tyrants before capitalism, and they generally did much worse than just pay low wages.  The various changes to society over time have only lessened the ability of hostile powers to torment others.

[NotDefault]

Originally posted by CP5670
On the topic of drugs, I could probably start a claim where I contend that this is a form of social discrimination because people of a certain age are allowed to buy them while others are not. (although they get them anyway ) Either make them available to everyone or ban them altogether.

I'll assume you're talking about recreational drugs, not medical drugs.

Firstly, most drugs are banned altogether.  The few that aren't banned (alcohol, tobacco, etc.) have heavy restrictions on their use, or are on their way to being banned.

Secondly, your "argument" could also apply to driving.  Either make it available to everyone, not matter how young, or ban it altogther!  It's ridiculous because by driving too early you could severly injure or kill yourself or others.  The same holds true with drugs.

[Kabal]

There is a difference. Driving restrictions are put up because a child is not smart enough nor mature enough to drive. They cannot make clear, important judgements. Drug Restrictions are put up becasue using drugs before a certain age will increase the chance of getting addicted and dying faster by 200%.

[CP5670]

That's true, but the adult cannot be said to have the ability to make decisions that are any more intelligent either. And yes, the ten-year old can drive just as well if he has been trained properly; heck, they have gotten monkeys to drive better than the average human.

[Kabal]

its not the question if they can drive its just that they are not mature enough (and yes, this also shows in adults) ex. Say a ten yo is in a car with his friends. he is on an interstate going 75 mph. His friend says "Hey man check out the corvette", the 10 yo looks over and within that second he loses control and hits a tree.

[Blue Lion]

Adults do that too

[Kabal]

not all

[Ace]

Originally posted by Styxx


Yeah, let'em all kill themselves, while I make huge mountains of cash from selling them, and the government is happier than ever with all the extra tax money.

Amen brotha!

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Kabal
not all

 And not all kids would do that, what's your point

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by killadonuts

I'm not trying to say that socialism is all that bad. In fact, in certain situations (like an economic depression) it works well.
I'm just saying that the people who started this country took careful steps in creating a small national government.
In the course of 226 years, this country has slowly but surely contradicted all that was fought for during the revolution.
For most countries socialism works well, but it's not what was intended for the United States.
Any government intervention in business is wrong.

First of: the US has never had anything like socialism, so they cannot know it is bad for them. The only taste the US had with socialism is the Cold War and the McCarty witchhunt.

And the government has the duty to intervene in business when needed. The environment is one such case, wages are another, safety a third, and many many more...

[Kellan]

My reasoning for implementing universal rules for drugs (ie. being 18 or 21 or whatever for everything) is:

1. It's a restriction of one's freedom of choice about whether or not to use drugs to institute a blanket ban. Even if suicide is bad for people, or alcoholism, we let people do it as long as they harm nobody else.

2. It would lead to cleaner, safer supply of drugs. Without the impurities and poor conditions in which drugs are currently taken there would be far fewer deaths.

3. It would be easier to treat addicts, because they could be prescribed clean drugs and slowly weaned off them. Also, there's more incentive to seek help because there are no legal difficulties, and society would view addicts more sympathetically eventually.

4. The criminal thrill of drugs is removed. Kids won't find it so cool if their parents can do it as well.

5. Drug addicts are victims as much as criminals. They're trapped in a cycle of addiction and they need support to get out - like a smoker needs support if they want to quit.

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Kellan


What about when business is wrong? Paying workers starvation level wages is wrong. Pumping industrial waste into waterways is wrong. Profiting from illness is wrong.

Businesses do all of these things. Without government intervention, they'd do what they liked and destroy the planet and the people.

There is a way to regulate bisiness without government intervention. It's called the the costumer. If the costumer is informed about how the bisiness runs and they don't like it they just don't buy from them. If you don't understand what I'm saying don't call me stupid or something because I KNOW econamics (though I may not know how to spell it).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by hotsnoj


There is a way to regulate bisiness without government intervention. It's called the the costumer. If the costumer is informed about how the bisiness runs and they don't like it they just don't buy from them. If you don't understand what I'm saying don't call me stupid or something because I KNOW econamics (though I may not know how to spell it).

History has shown that the consumer doesn't care at all how workers are treated.
This 'caring' is a new and very recent phenomenon.
History has also shown that business without government intervention (of any kind: both positive and negative) is impossible, on the contrary: it's government that creates a good climate for businesses to operate

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by hotsnoj


There is a way to regulate bisiness without government intervention. It's called the the costumer. If the costumer is informed about how the bisiness runs and they don't like it they just don't buy from them. If you don't understand what I'm saying don't call me stupid or something because I KNOW econamics (though I may not know how to spell it).

Of course that all relies on the fact that the consumer must make consistently intelligent purchasing decisions which doesn't always happen. What about Monopolists: Microsoft for example. The average person has no alternative but to buy their crap (unless they want w***z, but if they know how to get that they'll have heard of alternatives).


Then there's the fact that the Majority of people in the West couldn't care less about say, Nike making their shoes in sweatshops but the people in those sweatshops do, only they don't have a voice.


And then there's paid for government influence. Take a look at the draft for the CBDTPA if anyone doesn't believe that it's happening.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by Zeronet


Women arent smarter than men. Anyway at the moment of conception its human, everything it decided and programmed at that point, the build, height, eye colour, hair colour, boy or girl. At that point its human life.

Life Must be respected and protected from the moment of conception

- roman catholic Catecism.  As I said before, it's like trying to argue with the standard output of a Perl Script.

If you're going to go on about "the potential for human life" then every cell in your body has it (except red blood cells).

[wEvil]

Banning suicide...now that would be so futile to the point of the rediculous I can actually imagine some idiot judge supporting it somewhere.

I mean...how the hell do you punish a person for killing themselves? they'd already be dead!

[Kellan]

Originally posted by wEvil
I mean...how the hell do you punish a person for killing themselves? they'd already be dead!

Those who attempted suicide and failed used to be punished and imprisoned. In addition, dead suicides are not allowed (or were not allowed) to be buried on Church grounds because only God can "giveth and taketh away". Therefore, (you guessed it!) they went straight to hell.

Unless they had done it for some good, Christian reason, that is.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by Top Gun


 - roman catholic Catecism.  As I said before, it's like trying to argue with the standard output of a Perl Script.

If you're going to go on about "the potential for human life" then every cell in your body has it (except red blood cells).

Im truely offended by those comments and the second paragraph of your post is just silly. Your taking my words out of context(if the baby inside the womb is left alone and is healthy it will almost certainly grow up into an intelligent being. By aborting it, you are preventing it from being born, i would rather be born blind  than not born at all.)

[Kellan]

Once again, if you are offended then don't read it!

Saying that "you would rather" in the context of a fetus is silly. Even you can agree that a baby in the womb doesn't 'think' in any way that we understand. It doesn't have a preference as an individual.

Of course, the Catholic Church wants it both ways. No abortion, but also no contraception, increasing the chances of unwanted babies being made. Don't say abstinence either - be realistic. Besides, babies can be unwanted within marriages as well.

And nobody on your side of the debate has answered my exceptional circumstances yet. [God voice] Get on with it! [/God voice]

[wEvil]

Asking people to abstain from sex and love is rediculous.  Your mind and body need it as much as you need air and food.

Casual abortion?  Inexcusable.  
Unwanted Children?  Beneath Contempt.

Unfortunaly, however, I would want to give my children every chance at a good life and if (for whatever reason) i were to have one in the next year this would certainly not be the case.

I would have to insist on aborting such a child because almost certainly it would have a terrible life without myself having a decent job to support it.  

You argue this is not the case?  
Well it is.

Because if you're anything like me, you'd NEED to have a decent job.  If you were working at say....a pub or a restaurant washing dishes day in day out to earn your keep it would have serious impacts on your emotional state which would be reflected and impressed upon your impressionable youngsters.

If i had the choice between not being born at all and being an unwanted child?  No contest at all for me - i'd rather wait until I had a chance at a fulfilling life.

Obviously this isn't exactly what you're getting at but I feel its a case that needs to be explored if you're on the subject.