First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Liberalism
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10

Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

On the other hand you in turn just want to hand everything over to the corporations. and anyone with a big enough paycheck. They aren't your buddies either. But you don't seem to get that. you're so mired in your Right wing propaganda that you make me feel obliged to protect the left. and I'm not particular fond of that Granola hugging, Tree eating crowd.




~Threat~

Government > Corporations

The government can throw you in jail for life and can legally kill and torture you.

A corporation cannot do that legally.


Are we living in the same America where the Bill of Right explicitly forbid cruel and unusual punishment, and, while conservatives are all for the death penalty, those wacky liberals are the one calling for an end to it.

So, you're turning left, are you?

But, thankfully, politics isn't divided between liberals, or progressives, or whatever they are called these days, and conservatives with a great chasm in between, as much as most political commentator try to convince you to make up for their lack of actual political understanding, there are some who belong to the tribe of Moderates.

Let's stop here, as anything meaningful to be said of what a Liberal is, what their tenents are, and why they are sneered in America have been exausted, and how it is merely a debate over the superiority and the merits of either Conservativism and Liberalism. And, if wise people, like Seven-days Palin and VP Biden still are still arguing with one another over this topic, who then, are we, who don't make a living off it, to say which is superior and which inferior.
3183 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/12/10
I tink its good O_O no i dont tink its It is good ~
67903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/12/10

Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

On the other hand you in turn just want to hand everything over to the corporations. and anyone with a big enough paycheck. They aren't your buddies either. But you don't seem to get that. you're so mired in your Right wing propaganda that you make me feel obliged to protect the left. and I'm not particular fond of that Granola hugging, Tree eating crowd.




~Threat~

Government > Corporations

The government can throw you in jail for life and can legally kill and torture you.

A corporation cannot do that legally.


Not yet anyway. and laws only matter when there's a government to enforce them. So if you make government small enough and weak enough to be unable to police the corporations...

...What then?

Corporations are no more your friend than the government. Big Business is as evil and wrong as Big government. By focusing only on the latter you become a stooge and a lackey of the former.


10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/12/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

On the other hand you in turn just want to hand everything over to the corporations. and anyone with a big enough paycheck. They aren't your buddies either. But you don't seem to get that. you're so mired in your Right wing propaganda that you make me feel obliged to protect the left. and I'm not particular fond of that Granola hugging, Tree eating crowd.




~Threat~

Government > Corporations

The government can throw you in jail for life and can legally kill and torture you.

A corporation cannot do that legally.


Not yet anyway. and laws only matter when there's a government to enforce them. So if you make government small enough and weak enough to be unable to police the corporations...

...What then?

Corporations are no more your friend than the government. Big Business is as evil and wrong as Big government. By focusing only on the latter you become a stooge and a lackey of the former.




What crimes has a big business committed simply by existing, its basic logic, if a businesses is profitable, it will expand and grow, are you saying you have a problem with businesses profiting ?
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/12/10 , edited 11/12/10

longfenglim wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

On the other hand you in turn just want to hand everything over to the corporations. and anyone with a big enough paycheck. They aren't your buddies either. But you don't seem to get that. you're so mired in your Right wing propaganda that you make me feel obliged to protect the left. and I'm not particular fond of that Granola hugging, Tree eating crowd.




~Threat~

Government > Corporations

The government can throw you in jail for life and can legally kill and torture you.

A corporation cannot do that legally.


Are we living in the same America where the Bill of Right explicitly forbid cruel and unusual punishment, and, while conservatives are all for the death penalty, those wacky liberals are the one calling for an end to it.

So, you're turning left, are you?

But, thankfully, politics isn't divided between liberals, or progressives, or whatever they are called these days, and conservatives with a great chasm in between, as much as most political commentator try to convince you to make up for their lack of actual political understanding, there are some who belong to the tribe of Moderates.

Let's stop here, as anything meaningful to be said of what a Liberal is, what their tenents are, and why they are sneered in America have been exausted, and how it is merely a debate over the superiority and the merits of either Conservativism and Liberalism. And, if wise people, like Seven-days Palin and VP Biden still are still arguing with one another over this topic, who then, are we, who don't make a living off it, to say which is superior and which inferior.


Death penalty is neither cruel or unusual. Some people simply deserve to die for certain crimes. Some crimes are so unfathomably messed up that death is the only punishment fitting. Cutting someone's hands off for stealing or having them pulled apart by horses is cruel and unusual. But a quick and swift death is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Drexler <--- For example, she should have been sentenced to death for first degree murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Grossberg_and_Brian_Peterson <--- Them as well.
Posted 11/13/10 , edited 11/13/10

Allhailodin wrote:


Death penalty is neither cruel or unusual. Some people simply deserve to die for certain crimes. Some crimes are so unfathomably messed up that death is the only punishment fitting. Cutting someone's hands off for stealing or having them pulled apart by horses is cruel and unusual. But a quick and swift death is not.
Guess who's in favorite of torture just because he doesn't know what's legal: former US President Bush. And he ordered nations to go into war against someone who's equally moral bankrupted for favoring those he deemed not worthy of a fair trial the death penalty:

The trial for crimes committed by Saddam Hussein during his more than two decades in power took place in the Iraqi High Criminal Court. Under Saddam Hussein’s rule, the Ba’ath regime, the Iraqi government was responsible for the torture and deliberate killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, as well as massive war crimes against Iranians and Kuwaitis. One of the worst crimes within Iraq was the 1987-1988 Anfal campaign, a brutal operation to destroy hundreds of Kurdish communities in the north. Iraqi forces systematically killed as many as 100,000 Kurdish men, women, and children in a crime now generally acknowledged to have constituted genocide.

Another wave of severe repression followed a revolt by Shi’a marsh Arabs in the south in 1991, in the wake of the Gulf War. In that campaign, villages were shelled and burned and ancient marshes drained, resulting in thousands of deaths, forced displacements and the destruction of marsh Arab communities.

The Iraqi Court conducted separate trials for crimes committed in key incidents, beginning with the mass murders of some 148 Shiites form Dujail as retaliation for the failed assassination attempt on Hussein’s life on the 8th of July, 1982.(citation)

Now I ask, in your opinion as an anti-liberal, with all the historical, medical, sociological, and political proofs I've presented here, here, and here, are corporations guilty of their exploitation over humanity, with their manipulative marketing targeted at vulnerable and defenseless children? If your answer is yes, then you're a socialist who demands social justice for all. But if your answer is no, then I demand a reasonable explanation other than your per usual Tea Party respond of "making money", stupid.

BTW, can you guess who are also in favorite of the death penalty? Iran for the crime of adultery and homosexuality. I wonder if you'll start a witch-hunt for defenseless women who abandoned their babies, just because of your own hatred towards your own mother, who abandoned you since birth. Who knows, she could have thought that it was more "profitable" to just simply abandon you, and according to your own reasoning there's nothing wrong with individuals profiting from exploitation. That includes legally fictional entities such as the corporations. Whatever happened to their freedom of choice? Aren't you gonna defend that?

I promised that I'll make you eat your own irrationalities whether you like it or not, just so that I can protect the rest of the civil society from your brand of injustice.

Or would you like to see how some conservative would critique liberalism with relative consistency? Even though I can prove him being wrong:

Sometimes I like to play a little game with my liberal friends. Let us suppose, I say to them, that you have one hundred dollars with which you plan to purchase food for your family at a local grocery. Now let us suppose that I come along and rob you while you are on your way to the store, taking half of your one hundred dollars.

At this point I ask my friend: Is the robbery good or bad for you economically? “Bad,” they invariable answer, for “I now have less money for groceries.” Then I ask them: Is my robbing you good or bad for the grocer? “Bad,” they again answer, for “now he, too, has less money for his family.” Next question: Was it morally right or wrong for me to rob you? “Wrong, of course,” they answer, for “the money did not belong to you.”

Then, the coup de grace: What if I planned to give your money to someone else, I ask, someone whom I felt was more worthy or deserving of your money?

At this point, many liberals begin to suspect they have been led into a rhetorical cul de sac, and cognitive dissonance sets in as they realize that an honest answer necessitated by their answer to the previous questions will conflict with their stated political principles and past voting habits. Some will nevertheless admit, “Well, it isn’t really for you to decide who gets my money….”

An alternate hypothetical: Ask any liberal friend whether it would be morally sound or economically advantageous for an individual to rack up mountains of debt, until the gap between what is taken in and what goes out can never be rebalanced, with the fiscal burden passed onto their children and their children’s children, who likewise have little hope of living debt free.

An honest answer is that such behavior, like the hypothetical robbery, is both morally wrong and economically deleterious. Yet the same liberals who can see the fault in such behaviors for individuals support exactly those behaviors on the part of governments; confiscatory taxation and unsustainable deficits and debt are, after all, the inevitable consequences of liberal governance.(citation)
What Matt Patterson was wrong about are his Straw Man logical fallacy on government taxation for social welfare services as robbery, and worst of all his denial over the Republicans' immoral invasion on Iraq, lack of government regulations on Wall Street, and subsequently overproduction at the hands of the corporations.

Or I could go back and talk about how your own resentment and issue over your mom abandoned you, had made you into a hateful person who can no longer tell what's right from wrong. How you're incapable of deriving from your experience the strength and courage to protect the civil society suffering from improper family planning, when all you care about is for yourself to wallow in your own self-pity. How pathetic.
67903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/13/10 , edited 11/13/10

Allhailodin wrote:



What crimes has a big business committed simply by existing, its basic logic, if a businesses is profitable, it will expand and grow, are you saying you have a problem with businesses profiting ?


Back at you. what crimes does government commit by simply existing. Are you saying you have a problem with the police stopping criminals the ambulances saving lives. the army protecting your freedom?



10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/13/10 , edited 11/13/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

On the other hand you in turn just want to hand everything over to the corporations. and anyone with a big enough paycheck. They aren't your buddies either. But you don't seem to get that. you're so mired in your Right wing propaganda that you make me feel obliged to protect the left. and I'm not particular fond of that Granola hugging, Tree eating crowd.




~Threat~

Government > Corporations

The government can throw you in jail for life and can legally kill and torture you.

A corporation cannot do that legally.


Not yet anyway. and laws only matter when there's a government to enforce them. So if you make government small enough and weak enough to be unable to police the corporations...

...What then?

Corporations are no more your friend than the government. Big Business is as evil and wrong as Big government. By focusing only on the latter you become a stooge and a lackey of the former.




What crimes has a big business committed simply by existing, its basic logic, if a businesses is profitable, it will expand and grow, are you saying you have a problem with businesses profiting ?


Back at you. what crimes does government commit by simply existing. Are you saying you have a problem with the police stopping criminals the ambulances saving lives. the army protecting your freedom?



You didn't answer the question. So why don't you now answer it.

And to answer your avoidance of my question, no I have no problems with that, I have a problem with the government taking away our freedoms. Something big governments do on a regular basis.
67903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/13/10

Allhailodin wrote:



You didn't answer the question. So why don't you now answer it.

And to answer your avoidance of my question, no I have no problems with that, I have a problem with the government taking away our freedoms.


I'm surprised I have to. Either you are blind or you just don't want to see.

But here goes: It's power. It may be more subtle than the ability to pass a law. It may be less brutal than sending government agents into your home. but it's real. Big business has power and it uses that power for one thing, to get bigger (more profitable). Sometimes that power is reflect in a degree of control over the government and then laws do get passed and government agents do get sent to your home in the interests of big business.

Worse, unlike a democratic government or any government really that plays even remote lip service to the 'social contract' (if you don't know what that word means you need to study some political history it's not some liberal catch phrase) between a people and their government; Big Business doesn't even have to pretend to be your friend or in it for your health. A business "raison d'etre" is to make money for it's owners Full Stop. If it fucks up along the way, the owners aren't even responsible.

Large corporate interests erode our freedoms everyday. Freedom of speach is meaningless if our voices can't be heard. Freedom of the press is the freedom of a man who owns a printing press to say whatever HE wants to say. Or to modernise. Freedom of Speach is firmly in the hands of those who own media outlets. Freedom of choice is meaningless if there's only one company to buy a product from. Anti-trust laws were invented only after monopolies got out of hand. But I'm sure you think those laws are an example of 'overegulation by big government'.

If I accept that it's okay to charge huge medical bills to everyone and let them suffer because they 'ought to pay for the consequences of their choices'

Why is it not okay for resource extraction industries to pay the REAL cost of that extraction? Why is cleaning up their own mess, a consequence of their own actions. Evil Evironmentalist overregulation?

As I said before I think many of the things YOU say are unfair, which is why, as long as you insist that 'unfairness is a core liberal value' I will call you a liberal.




10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/13/10 , edited 11/13/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

I'm surprised I have to. Either you are blind or you just don't want to see.

But here goes: It's power. It may be more subtle than the ability to pass a law. It may be less brutal than sending government agents into your home. but it's real. Big business has power and it uses that power for one thing, to get bigger (more profitable). Sometimes that power is reflect in a degree of control over the government and then laws do get passed and government agents do get sent to your home in the interests of big business.

Worse, unlike a democratic government or any government really that plays even remote lip service to the 'social contract' (if you don't know what that word means you need to study some political history it's not some liberal catch phrase) between a people and their government; Big Business doesn't even have to pretend to be your friend or in it for your health. A business "raison d'etre" is to make money for it's owners Full Stop. If it fucks up along the way, the owners aren't even responsible.

Large corporate interests erode our freedoms everyday. Freedom of speach is meaningless if our voices can't be heard. Freedom of the press is the freedom of a man who owns a printing press to say whatever HE wants to say. Or to modernise. Freedom of Speach is firmly in the hands of those who own media outlets. Freedom of choice is meaningless if there's only one company to buy a product from. Anti-trust laws were invented only after monopolies got out of hand. But I'm sure you think those laws are an example of 'overegulation by big government'.

If I accept that it's okay to charge huge medical bills to everyone and let them suffer because they 'ought to pay for the consequences of their choices'

Why is it not okay for resource extraction industries to pay the REAL cost of that extraction? Why is cleaning up their own mess, a consequence of their own actions. Evil Evironmentalist overregulation?

As I said before I think many of the things YOU say are unfair, which is why, as long as you insist that 'unfairness is a core liberal value' I will call you a liberal.



And the government is different how exactly ? I fail to see any difference between what you just said and the government. The only difference is the government is the one with the actual power.

I can understand the liberal 'corporations abuse power' shit argument just fine, but what makes no sense, is that giving the government more power is going to fix it ? it won't it will have the exact opposite effect. So thus by giving the government more power all you succeed in doing is making corporations more powerful through extensive properties. Completely the opposite intended effect. But i guess you won't be able to wrap your brain cell around that concept until you see your entire "The government will solve it" philosophy utterly backfire in your face. But you still won't learn anything anyway.

Liberals never do, they didn't learn anything about poor tax ideas when their millionaires tax drove so many businesses and wealthy out of the the state of NJ that the state lost 70 billion dollars in revenue as their sources of income fled. The state had to make massive cuts to social services and education as a result of that disaster, hundreds of jobs were lost too. They learned absolutely nothing or they were just never able to connect the dots from that because after the next governor threw it out because it caused the massive budget shortfalls and a surge unemployment they wanted to reimplement it all over again.

Besides the biggest abuser of power is not corporations but the government, which just another reason not to give them power, they are undoubtedly going to abuse it, they already do on a daily basis.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/13/10

DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Death penalty is neither cruel or unusual. Some people simply deserve to die for certain crimes. Some crimes are so unfathomably messed up that death is the only punishment fitting. Cutting someone's hands off for stealing or having them pulled apart by horses is cruel and unusual. But a quick and swift death is not.
Guess who's in favorite of torture just because he doesn't know what's legal: former US President Bush. And he ordered nations to go into war against someone who's equally moral bankrupted for favoring those he deemed not worthy of a fair trial the death penalty:

The trial for crimes committed by Saddam Hussein during his more than two decades in power took place in the Iraqi High Criminal Court. Under Saddam Hussein’s rule, the Ba’ath regime, the Iraqi government was responsible for the torture and deliberate killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, as well as massive war crimes against Iranians and Kuwaitis. One of the worst crimes within Iraq was the 1987-1988 Anfal campaign, a brutal operation to destroy hundreds of Kurdish communities in the north. Iraqi forces systematically killed as many as 100,000 Kurdish men, women, and children in a crime now generally acknowledged to have constituted genocide.

Another wave of severe repression followed a revolt by Shi’a marsh Arabs in the south in 1991, in the wake of the Gulf War. In that campaign, villages were shelled and burned and ancient marshes drained, resulting in thousands of deaths, forced displacements and the destruction of marsh Arab communities.

The Iraqi Court conducted separate trials for crimes committed in key incidents, beginning with the mass murders of some 148 Shiites form Dujail as retaliation for the failed assassination attempt on Hussein’s life on the 8th of July, 1982.(citation)

Now I ask, in your opinion as an anti-liberal, with all the historical, medical, sociological, and political proofs I've presented here, here, and here, are corporations guilty of their exploitation over humanity, with their manipulative marketing targeted at vulnerable and defenseless children? If your answer is yes, then you're a socialist who demands social justice for all. But if your answer is no, then I demand a reasonable explanation other than your per usual Tea Party respond of "making money", stupid.

BTW, can you guess who are also in favorite of the death penalty? Iran for the crime of adultery and homosexuality. I wonder if you'll start a witch-hunt for defenseless women who abandoned their babies, just because of your own hatred towards your own mother, who abandoned you since birth. Who knows, she could have thought that it was more "profitable" to just simply abandon you, and according to your own reasoning there's nothing wrong with individuals profiting from exploitation. That includes legally fictional entities such as the corporations. Whatever happened to their freedom of choice? Aren't you gonna defend that?

I promised that I'll make you eat your own irrationalities whether you like it or not, just so that I can protect the rest of the civil society from your brand of injustice.

Or would you like to see how some conservative would critique liberalism with relative consistency? Even though I can prove him being wrong:

Sometimes I like to play a little game with my liberal friends. Let us suppose, I say to them, that you have one hundred dollars with which you plan to purchase food for your family at a local grocery. Now let us suppose that I come along and rob you while you are on your way to the store, taking half of your one hundred dollars.

At this point I ask my friend: Is the robbery good or bad for you economically? “Bad,” they invariable answer, for “I now have less money for groceries.” Then I ask them: Is my robbing you good or bad for the grocer? “Bad,” they again answer, for “now he, too, has less money for his family.” Next question: Was it morally right or wrong for me to rob you? “Wrong, of course,” they answer, for “the money did not belong to you.”

Then, the coup de grace: What if I planned to give your money to someone else, I ask, someone whom I felt was more worthy or deserving of your money?

At this point, many liberals begin to suspect they have been led into a rhetorical cul de sac, and cognitive dissonance sets in as they realize that an honest answer necessitated by their answer to the previous questions will conflict with their stated political principles and past voting habits. Some will nevertheless admit, “Well, it isn’t really for you to decide who gets my money….”

An alternate hypothetical: Ask any liberal friend whether it would be morally sound or economically advantageous for an individual to rack up mountains of debt, until the gap between what is taken in and what goes out can never be rebalanced, with the fiscal burden passed onto their children and their children’s children, who likewise have little hope of living debt free.

An honest answer is that such behavior, like the hypothetical robbery, is both morally wrong and economically deleterious. Yet the same liberals who can see the fault in such behaviors for individuals support exactly those behaviors on the part of governments; confiscatory taxation and unsustainable deficits and debt are, after all, the inevitable consequences of liberal governance.(citation)
What Matt Patterson was wrong about are his Straw Man logical fallacy on government taxation for social welfare services as robbery, and worst of all his denial over the Republicans' immoral invasion on Iraq, lack of government regulations on Wall Street, and subsequently overproduction at the hands of the corporations.

Or I could go back and talk about how your own resentment and issue over your mom abandoned you, had made you into a hateful person who can no longer tell what's right from wrong. How you're incapable of deriving from your experience the strength and courage to protect the civil society suffering from improper family planning, when all you care about is for yourself to wallow in your own self-pity. How pathetic.


As a free citizen you have the right to your opinion regardless of how incorrect and absurd it may be.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 11/13/10

Allhailodin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:

On the other hand you in turn just want to hand everything over to the corporations. and anyone with a big enough paycheck. They aren't your buddies either. But you don't seem to get that. you're so mired in your Right wing propaganda that you make me feel obliged to protect the left. and I'm not particular fond of that Granola hugging, Tree eating crowd.




~Threat~

Government > Corporations

The government can throw you in jail for life and can legally kill and torture you.

A corporation cannot do that legally.


Are we living in the same America where the Bill of Right explicitly forbid cruel and unusual punishment, and, while conservatives are all for the death penalty, those wacky liberals are the one calling for an end to it.

So, you're turning left, are you?

But, thankfully, politics isn't divided between liberals, or progressives, or whatever they are called these days, and conservatives with a great chasm in between, as much as most political commentator try to convince you to make up for their lack of actual political understanding, there are some who belong to the tribe of Moderates.

Let's stop here, as anything meaningful to be said of what a Liberal is, what their tenents are, and why they are sneered in America have been exausted, and how it is merely a debate over the superiority and the merits of either Conservativism and Liberalism. And, if wise people, like Seven-days Palin and VP Biden still are still arguing with one another over this topic, who then, are we, who don't make a living off it, to say which is superior and which inferior.


Death penalty is neither cruel or unusual. Some people simply deserve to die for certain crimes. Some crimes are so unfathomably messed up that death is the only punishment fitting. Cutting someone's hands off for stealing or having them pulled apart by horses is cruel and unusual. But a quick and swift death is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Drexler <--- For example, she should have been sentenced to death for first degree murder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Grossberg_and_Brian_Peterson <--- Them as well.


Then a quick and swift death is just easy escape for their crime- a more fitting punishment, by your logic, is a slow and miserable death- decaying over the years behind bars in some far off subterranean labyrinth, cut off from civilisation, contact, and all that- locked up in solitary confinement. So, a swift death then is too good for the crime, is it not?

Also, isn't that granting the government the power of the fate of criminals? Oh no! Authoritarianism. So, in the end, no matter which side you support, you are still going to be a bleeding heart Lefty.

But, cutting off one's hand is not unusual- it has been performed before, and quite often, for the great crime of stealing, nor is tearing people asunder by attaching their limbs to horses- it was execution for high-treason in France during the Ancien Regieme- it is only cruel. That is because of a little error of mine that you failed to catch- cruel or unusual punishment- obviously, by not nailing me to my error, you are not very American yourself- and in being not very American, you fit right in with your definition of liberals, ie 'Un-America Bunch'.

So, the real question here is thus: Are you really a conservative?
Posted 11/13/10

Allhailodin wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Death penalty is neither cruel or unusual. Some people simply deserve to die for certain crimes. Some crimes are so unfathomably messed up that death is the only punishment fitting. Cutting someone's hands off for stealing or having them pulled apart by horses is cruel and unusual. But a quick and swift death is not.
Guess who's in favorite of torture just because he doesn't know what's legal: former US President Bush. And he ordered nations to go into war against someone who's equally moral bankrupted for favoring those he deemed not worthy of a fair trial the death penalty:

The trial for crimes committed by Saddam Hussein during his more than two decades in power took place in the Iraqi High Criminal Court. Under Saddam Hussein’s rule, the Ba’ath regime, the Iraqi government was responsible for the torture and deliberate killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, as well as massive war crimes against Iranians and Kuwaitis. One of the worst crimes within Iraq was the 1987-1988 Anfal campaign, a brutal operation to destroy hundreds of Kurdish communities in the north. Iraqi forces systematically killed as many as 100,000 Kurdish men, women, and children in a crime now generally acknowledged to have constituted genocide.

Another wave of severe repression followed a revolt by Shi’a marsh Arabs in the south in 1991, in the wake of the Gulf War. In that campaign, villages were shelled and burned and ancient marshes drained, resulting in thousands of deaths, forced displacements and the destruction of marsh Arab communities.

The Iraqi Court conducted separate trials for crimes committed in key incidents, beginning with the mass murders of some 148 Shiites form Dujail as retaliation for the failed assassination attempt on Hussein’s life on the 8th of July, 1982.(citation)

Now I ask, in your opinion as an anti-liberal, with all the historical, medical, sociological, and political proofs I've presented here, here, and here, are corporations guilty of their exploitation over humanity, with their manipulative marketing targeted at vulnerable and defenseless children? If your answer is yes, then you're a socialist who demands social justice for all. But if your answer is no, then I demand a reasonable explanation other than your per usual Tea Party respond of "making money", stupid.

BTW, can you guess who are also in favorite of the death penalty? Iran for the crime of adultery and homosexuality. I wonder if you'll start a witch-hunt for defenseless women who abandoned their babies, just because of your own hatred towards your own mother, who abandoned you since birth. Who knows, she could have thought that it was more "profitable" to just simply abandon you, and according to your own reasoning there's nothing wrong with individuals profiting from exploitation. That includes legally fictional entities such as the corporations. Whatever happened to their freedom of choice? Aren't you gonna defend that?

I promised that I'll make you eat your own irrationalities whether you like it or not, just so that I can protect the rest of the civil society from your brand of injustice.

Or would you like to see how some conservative would critique liberalism with relative consistency? Even though I can prove him being wrong:

Sometimes I like to play a little game with my liberal friends. Let us suppose, I say to them, that you have one hundred dollars with which you plan to purchase food for your family at a local grocery. Now let us suppose that I come along and rob you while you are on your way to the store, taking half of your one hundred dollars.

At this point I ask my friend: Is the robbery good or bad for you economically? “Bad,” they invariable answer, for “I now have less money for groceries.” Then I ask them: Is my robbing you good or bad for the grocer? “Bad,” they again answer, for “now he, too, has less money for his family.” Next question: Was it morally right or wrong for me to rob you? “Wrong, of course,” they answer, for “the money did not belong to you.”

Then, the coup de grace: What if I planned to give your money to someone else, I ask, someone whom I felt was more worthy or deserving of your money?

At this point, many liberals begin to suspect they have been led into a rhetorical cul de sac, and cognitive dissonance sets in as they realize that an honest answer necessitated by their answer to the previous questions will conflict with their stated political principles and past voting habits. Some will nevertheless admit, “Well, it isn’t really for you to decide who gets my money….”

An alternate hypothetical: Ask any liberal friend whether it would be morally sound or economically advantageous for an individual to rack up mountains of debt, until the gap between what is taken in and what goes out can never be rebalanced, with the fiscal burden passed onto their children and their children’s children, who likewise have little hope of living debt free.

An honest answer is that such behavior, like the hypothetical robbery, is both morally wrong and economically deleterious. Yet the same liberals who can see the fault in such behaviors for individuals support exactly those behaviors on the part of governments; confiscatory taxation and unsustainable deficits and debt are, after all, the inevitable consequences of liberal governance.(citation)
What Matt Patterson was wrong about are his Straw Man logical fallacy on government taxation for social welfare services as robbery, and worst of all his denial over the Republicans' immoral invasion on Iraq, lack of government regulations on Wall Street, and subsequently overproduction at the hands of the corporations.

Or I could go back and talk about how your own resentment and issue over your mom abandoned you, had made you into a hateful person who can no longer tell what's right from wrong. How you're incapable of deriving from your experience the strength and courage to protect the civil society suffering from improper family planning, when all you care about is for yourself to wallow in your own self-pity. How pathetic.


As a free citizen you have the right to your opinion regardless of how incorrect and absurd it may be.
Wrong, according to Mill's utilitarianism morality of the harm principle, there are certain forms of speech that will always be limited due to their potential of harming the civil society altogether:

We seem to have reached a paradoxical position. I started by claiming that there can be no such thing as a pure form of free speech: now I seem to be arguing that we are, in fact, free to say anything we like. The paradox is resolved by thinking of free speech in the following terms. I am, indeed, free to say what I like, but the state and other individuals can sometimes make that freedom more or less costly to exercise. This leads to the conclusion that we can attempt to regulate speech, but we cannot prevent it if a person is undeterred by the threat of sanction. The issue, therefore, boils down to assessing how cumbersome we wish to make it for people to say certain things. The best way to resolve the problem is to ignore the question of whether or not it is legitimate to attach penalties to some forms of speech. I have already suggested that all societies do (correctly) place some limits on free speech. If the reader doubts this, it might be worth reconsidering what life would be like with no prohibitions on libelous statements, child pornography, advertising content, and releasing state secrets. The list could go on. The real problem we face is deciding where to place the limits, and the next sections of the essay look at some possible solutions to this puzzle.(citation)
So when the corporations manipulated vulnerable and defenseless children, and subsequently their families as a whole, with aggressive mass marketing media contents known as advertisements. Or when the politicians lied about their political statements in order to generate false public consent with disinformation. Or when some individuals deliberately threaten others with false slanders that's stemmed from unjustified stereotypes, prejudices, or hatred. They are harming others with immoral, irresponsible, and unjust causes. That's when the civil society and subsequently its government has both the negative and positive legal rights to limit the said individuals' freedom of speech via sanction, based on objective morality stemmed from reasoning:

A distinction between negative and positive rights is popular among some normative theorists, especially those with a bent toward libertarianism. The holder of a negative right is entitled to non-interference, while the holder of a positive right is entitled to provision of some good or service. A right against assault is a classic example of a negative right, while a right to welfare assistance is a prototypical positive right (Narveson 2001).

Since both negative and positive rights are passive rights, some rights are neither negative nor positive. Privileges and powers cannot be negative rights; and privileges, powers, and immunities cannot be positive rights. The (privilege-) right to enter a building, and the (power-) right to enter into a binding agreement, are neither negative nor positive.

It is sometimes said that negative rights are easier to satisfy than positive rights. Negative rights can be respected simply by each person refraining from interfering with each other, while it may be difficult or even impossible to fulfill everyone's positive rights if the sum of people's claims outstrips the resources available.

However, when it comes to the enforcement of rights, this difference disappears. Funding a legal system that enforces citizens' negative rights against assault may require more resources than funding a welfare system that realizes citizens' positive rights to assistance. As Holmes and Sunstein (1999, 43) put it, in the context of citizens' rights to state enforcement, all rights are positive. Moreover, the point is often made that the moral urgency of securing positive rights may be just as great as the moral urgency of securing negative rights (Shue 1996). Whatever is the justificatory basis for ascribing rights—autonomy, need, or something else—there might be just as strong a moral case for fulfilling a person's right to adequate nutrition as there is for protecting that person's right not to be assaulted.(citation)
Wait a sec! Did you just read that? In essence, it actually costs the government more resources, to prevent the individuals from harming themselves and each other immorally, irresponsibly, and unjustly. So when the Wall Street immorally created the financial crisis, the corporations irresponsibly wasting Earth's natural resources with overproduction, and the Republicans unjustly waged war on Iraq, they all contribute the federal debts more so than government welfare programs. Furthermore, when government welfare programs are properly managed with microcredit, they're actually social businesses that can create jobs and elevate individuals from poverty:

IN 2006, the Nobel committee made the surprising decision to award its peace prize not to a philanthropist or a human rights activist, but to Muhammad Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh. What did this financier from a small, impoverished country do to deserve the world’s most prestigious award? He invented microcredit, the practice of lending tiny amounts of money to the poor.

It was a revolutionary idea. Until then, bankers figured that such borrowers were worthy of neither credit nor trust. Along came Dr. Yunus, who demonstrated that lending to the needy could be a profitable business and transform their lives. Indeed, many of Grameen’s clients used these small sums to start small businesses and to escape the clutches of poverty.

But you probably know this already. Over the years, Dr. Yunus has been embraced by rock stars like Bono and Peter Gabriel, and last year was recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Obama. He has also been honored by major corporations eager to have their brands associated with the anti-poverty work of Grameen, which shared the Nobel with its charismatic founder.

What is Dr. Yunus doing with all the good will he has accrued? He has another initiative, one that is even more ambitious than microcredit. In “Building Social Business: The New Kind of Capitalism That Serves Humanity’s Most Pressing Needs” (PublicAffairs, $25.95), he calls for creation of an alternative economy of businesses devoted to helping the underprivileged.

The way he envisions it, these companies would be run as efficiently as the for-profit variety. Unlike charities, they would make enough money to be self-sustaining. However, they would invest leftover money in expanding their humanitarian efforts rather than paying dividends to shareholders.

People “will be delighted to create businesses for selfless purposes,” Dr. Yunus predicts. “The only thing we’ll have to do is to free them from the mind-set that puts profit-making at the heart of every business, an idea that we imposed on them through our flawed economic theory.”

He even foresees the day when social businesses will be public companies whose shares are traded on their own stock market. This, he believes, will help pave the way for the elimination of poverty in our lifetimes.(citation)
67903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 11/13/10

Allhailodin wrote:



And the government is different how exactly ? I fail to see any difference between what you just said and the government. The only difference is the government is the one with the actual power.

I can understand the liberal 'corporations abuse power' shit argument just fine, but what makes no sense, is that giving the government more power is going to fix it ? it won't it will have the exact opposite effect. So thus by giving the government more power all you succeed in doing is making corporations more powerful through extensive properties. Completely the opposite intended effect. But i guess you won't be able to wrap your brain cell around that concept until you see your entire "The government will solve it" philosophy utterly backfire in your face. But you still won't learn anything anyway.

Liberals never do, they didn't learn anything about poor tax ideas when their millionaires tax drove so many businesses and wealthy out of the the state of NJ that the state lost 70 billion dollars in revenue as their sources of income fled. The state had to make massive cuts to social services and education as a result of that disaster, hundreds of jobs were lost too. They learned absolutely nothing or they were just never able to connect the dots from that because after the next governor threw it out because it caused the massive budget shortfalls and a surge unemployment they wanted to reimplement it all over again.

Besides the biggest abuser of power is not corporations but the government, which just another reason not to give them power, they are undoubtedly going to abuse it, they already do on a daily basis.


Okay point of order here, before we go any further. Let's just clarify. I do not self-identify as a liberal. Not even the kind of liberal who doesn't have 'unfairness as a core value' (yes I'm going to keep harping on that bullshit of yours until you retract it or choke on it) Nor did I anywhere express or imply that I thought "the government will solve it" -- Feel free to re argue your point sans those assertions of yours. .. or not... and continue to meet your own definition of liberal.


10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 11/13/10

DomFortress wrote:

Wrong, according to Mill's utilitarianism morality of the harm principle, there are certain forms of speech that will always be limited due to their potential of harming the civil society altogether:

We seem to have reached a paradoxical position. I started by claiming that there can be no such thing as a pure form of free speech: now I seem to be arguing that we are, in fact, free to say anything we like. The paradox is resolved by thinking of free speech in the following terms. I am, indeed, free to say what I like, but the state and other individuals can sometimes make that freedom more or less costly to exercise. This leads to the conclusion that we can attempt to regulate speech, but we cannot prevent it if a person is undeterred by the threat of sanction. The issue, therefore, boils down to assessing how cumbersome we wish to make it for people to say certain things. The best way to resolve the problem is to ignore the question of whether or not it is legitimate to attach penalties to some forms of speech. I have already suggested that all societies do (correctly) place some limits on free speech. If the reader doubts this, it might be worth reconsidering what life would be like with no prohibitions on libelous statements, child pornography, advertising content, and releasing state secrets. The list could go on. The real problem we face is deciding where to place the limits, and the next sections of the essay look at some possible solutions to this puzzle.(citation)



So when the corporations manipulated vulnerable and defenseless children, and subsequently their families as a whole, with aggressive mass marketing media contents known as advertisements. Or when the politicians lied about their political statements in order to generate false public consent with disinformation. Or when some individuals deliberately threaten others with false slanders that's stemmed from unjustified stereotypes, prejudices, or hatred. They are harming others with immoral, irresponsible, and unjust causes. That's when the civil society and subsequently its government has both the negative and positive legal rights to limit the said individuals' freedom of speech via sanction, based on objective morality stemmed from reasoning:


A distinction between negative and positive rights is popular among some normative theorists, especially those with a bent toward libertarianism. The holder of a negative right is entitled to non-interference, while the holder of a positive right is entitled to provision of some good or service. A right against assault is a classic example of a negative right, while a right to welfare assistance is a prototypical positive right (Narveson 2001).


Multi-quoting a multi quote is a pain :(

Wrong, verbal of printed speech should never be limited, the only speech i will coincide is child porn that features real human children, but artist drawing of child porn like japan's lolicon shouldn't be since. Don't need to restrict advertisements because if a company is dumb enough to make a false one they get sued and lose tens of millions of dollars.



Since both negative and positive rights are passive rights, some rights are neither negative nor positive. Privileges and powers cannot be negative rights; and privileges, powers, and immunities cannot be positive rights. The (privilege-) right to enter a building, and the (power-) right to enter into a binding agreement, are neither negative nor positive.

It is sometimes said that negative rights are easier to satisfy than positive rights. Negative rights can be respected simply by each person refraining from interfering with each other, while it may be difficult or even impossible to fulfill everyone's positive rights if the sum of people's claims outstrips the resources available.

However, when it comes to the enforcement of rights, this difference disappears. Funding a legal system that enforces citizens' negative rights against assault may require more resources than funding a welfare system that realizes citizens' positive rights to assistance. As Holmes and Sunstein (1999, 43) put it, in the context of citizens' rights to state enforcement, all rights are positive. Moreover, the point is often made that the moral urgency of securing positive rights may be just as great as the moral urgency of securing negative rights (Shue 1996). Whatever is the justificatory basis for ascribing rights—autonomy, need, or something else—there might be just as strong a moral case for fulfilling a person's right to adequate nutrition as there is for protecting that person's right not to be assaulted.(citation)
''


Wait a sec! Did you just read that? In essence, it actually costs the government more resources, to prevent the individuals from harming themselves and each other immorally, irresponsibly, and unjustly. So when the Wall Street immorally created the financial crisis, the corporations irresponsibly wasting Earth's natural resources with overproduction, and the Republicans unjustly waged war on Iraq, they all contribute the federal debts more so than government welfare programs. Furthermore, when government welfare programs are properly managed with microcredit, they're actually social businesses that can create jobs and elevate individuals from poverty:


Actually if I remember right congress is basically responsible because it was congress who ingeniously created and passed legislation that forced Wall Street to give loans to anything with a pulse. To further this being one who understands the mentality of a banker, there's no fucking way that any banker in his right mind would give away loans to people who couldn't pay them back, its all kinds of inconceivable to think that they would, unless they had no choice.


IN 2006, the Nobel committee made the surprising decision to award its peace prize not to a philanthropist or a human rights activist, but to Muhammad Yunus, the founder of the Grameen Bank of Bangladesh. What did this financier from a small, impoverished country do to deserve the world’s most prestigious award? He invented microcredit, the practice of lending tiny amounts of money to the poor.


The right to no be assaulted or to eat properly is not the government's job to enforce(not talking about negating police or military(military police ?), still need those, but there are not always avaiable to protect you, you cannot wave your magic wand and summon a cop everytime you get into trouble), its the responsibiliy of teh individual to protect themselves to a certain extent, people need to learn to defend themselves or buy a handgun or rifle and people need to learn to exercise some fucking self restraint when eating.


It was a revolutionary idea. Until then, bankers figured that such borrowers were worthy of neither credit nor trust. Along came Dr. Yunus, who demonstrated that lending to the needy could be a profitable business and transform their lives. Indeed, many of Grameen’s clients used these small sums to start small businesses and to escape the clutches of poverty.

But you probably know this already. Over the years, Dr. Yunus has been embraced by rock stars like Bono and Peter Gabriel, and last year was recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Obama. He has also been honored by major corporations eager to have their brands associated with the anti-poverty work of Grameen, which shared the Nobel with its charismatic founder.

What is Dr. Yunus doing with all the good will he has accrued? He has another initiative, one that is even more ambitious than microcredit. In “Building Social Business: The New Kind of Capitalism That Serves Humanity’s Most Pressing Needs” (PublicAffairs, $25.95), he calls for creation of an alternative economy of businesses devoted to helping the underprivileged.

The way he envisions it, these companies would be run as efficiently as the for-profit variety. Unlike charities, they would make enough money to be self-sustaining. However, they would invest leftover money in expanding their humanitarian efforts rather than paying dividends to shareholders.

People “will be delighted to create businesses for selfless purposes,” Dr. Yunus predicts. “The only thing we’ll have to do is to free them from the mind-set that puts profit-making at the heart of every business, an idea that we imposed on them through our flawed economic theory.”

He even foresees the day when social businesses will be public companies whose shares are traded on their own stock market. This, he believes, will help pave the way for the elimination of poverty in our lifetimes.(citation)


That already sort of exists, its called philanthropy, maybe you've heard of it ?, No ? thought so, Well its the act of wealthy people being selfless and giving their own personal dollars to help humanity. How inconceivable you say ? Well despite your dim view of wealth people, lots of wealthy people do it, including teh billionairs like Bill Gates with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, I knew of a restaurant owner who would donate liek 50+k a year to some randomly selected charity or some cause and all that white noise.

But a business that makes no profit will not last very long, and people are not selfless naturally, you cannot take the profit section from a business and expect it to stick around, nor can you expect them to be created. Profit is the motivation that drives businesses, that an expansion which simple returns you back to profit. Trying to remove profit from business is like trying to remove pigment from someone skin. Can't be done.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.