Liberalism
|
QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: 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) 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) 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. 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. And what the hell have you been reading? Since when was the last time that any corporation got sued for false advertisement? Also, your entitlement claim on the congress couldn't be more wrong, and here's why. Furthermore, are you the one here in favor of no government regulation in the economic sphere? So how did the Wall Street's irresponsibility became the government's fault? When the government did exactly what you wanted. People should learn to defend for themselves? Now you're just making more excuses for your own mother to abandon you in the first place. Also, social business financed through microcredit is not non-government organization(NGO) funded by charities and trust funds, stupid. And finally, you're lying about both the reality that is selfless social business being more sustainable and profitable, even more so that selfish capitalism. Who are ironically pretending that they actually care about others: In three decades microfinance has evolved—from small nongovernmental organizations lending $50 to women to buy sewing machines or fruit to sell at market to, in some cases, formal banks that cover costs and grow through profits, like any business. Drawn by the prospect of hefty profits from even the smallest of loans, a raft of banks and financial institutions now dominate the field, with some charging interest rates of 100 percent or more. The fight over preserving the field's saintly aura centers on the question of how much interest and profit is acceptable, and what constitutes exploitation. The noisy interest rate debate has even attracted Congressional scrutiny, with the House Financial Services Committee holding hearings in 2010 focused in part on whether some microcredit institutions are scamming the poor. Rates vary widely across the globe, but the ones that draw the most concern tend to occur in countries like Nigeria and Mexico, where the demand for small loans from a large population cannot be met by existing lenders. Unwitting individuals, who can make loans of $20 or more through Web sites like Kiva or Microplace, may also end up participating in practices some consider exploitative. These Web sites admit that they cannot guarantee every interest rate they quote. Indeed, the real rate can prove to be markedly higher. The microfinance industry is pushing for greater transparency among its members, but says that most microlenders are honest, with experts putting the number of dubious institutions anywhere from less than 1 percent to more than 10 percent. Given that competition has a pattern of lowering interest rates worldwide, the industry prefers that approach to government intervention. Part of the problem, however, is that all kinds of institutions making loans plaster them with the "microfinance" label because of its do-good reputation.(citation) We get it you hate all success because your not successful. You feel jealous. That's your right. But your so far our of touch with reality its quite funny. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sued+for+false+advertising Do some research before preaching nonsense. Youtube and forum posts are not legit sources of accurate info, anyone can post anything to youtube and anyone can post anything on the internet. Asperger Syndrome lololololol I am pretty sure that Allhailodin was trolling. He does, in fact, have Aspergers Syndrome., you patronizing jackass. I see. Well, I have this to say to you; Asperger Syndrome is not a real disease, it is a silly little mental quirk. If you cannot make eye contact with another person who you should FUCKING have some respect for, then you could use a bit of readjustment. Do not refer to me as a jackass. I am far beyond the likes of your mentally inferior ilk. |
|
|
Migrating to profile: Suisighd.
|
|
1846 cr points
Send Message:
  25 / M / Davis, California
 Offline |
Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: 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) 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) 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. 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. And what the hell have you been reading? Since when was the last time that any corporation got sued for false advertisement? Also, your entitlement claim on the congress couldn't be more wrong, and here's why. Furthermore, are you the one here in favor of no government regulation in the economic sphere? So how did the Wall Street's irresponsibility became the government's fault? When the government did exactly what you wanted. People should learn to defend for themselves? Now you're just making more excuses for your own mother to abandon you in the first place. Also, social business financed through microcredit is not non-government organization(NGO) funded by charities and trust funds, stupid. And finally, you're lying about both the reality that is selfless social business being more sustainable and profitable, even more so that selfish capitalism. Who are ironically pretending that they actually care about others: In three decades microfinance has evolved—from small nongovernmental organizations lending $50 to women to buy sewing machines or fruit to sell at market to, in some cases, formal banks that cover costs and grow through profits, like any business. Drawn by the prospect of hefty profits from even the smallest of loans, a raft of banks and financial institutions now dominate the field, with some charging interest rates of 100 percent or more. The fight over preserving the field's saintly aura centers on the question of how much interest and profit is acceptable, and what constitutes exploitation. The noisy interest rate debate has even attracted Congressional scrutiny, with the House Financial Services Committee holding hearings in 2010 focused in part on whether some microcredit institutions are scamming the poor. Rates vary widely across the globe, but the ones that draw the most concern tend to occur in countries like Nigeria and Mexico, where the demand for small loans from a large population cannot be met by existing lenders. Unwitting individuals, who can make loans of $20 or more through Web sites like Kiva or Microplace, may also end up participating in practices some consider exploitative. These Web sites admit that they cannot guarantee every interest rate they quote. Indeed, the real rate can prove to be markedly higher. The microfinance industry is pushing for greater transparency among its members, but says that most microlenders are honest, with experts putting the number of dubious institutions anywhere from less than 1 percent to more than 10 percent. Given that competition has a pattern of lowering interest rates worldwide, the industry prefers that approach to government intervention. Part of the problem, however, is that all kinds of institutions making loans plaster them with the "microfinance" label because of its do-good reputation.(citation) We get it you hate all success because your not successful. You feel jealous. That's your right. But your so far our of touch with reality its quite funny. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sued+for+false+advertising Do some research before preaching nonsense. Youtube and forum posts are not legit sources of accurate info, anyone can post anything to youtube and anyone can post anything on the internet. Asperger Syndrome lololololol I am pretty sure that Allhailodin was trolling. He does, in fact, have Aspergers Syndrome., you patronizing jackass. I see. Well, I have this to say to you; Asperger Syndrome is not a real disease, it is a silly little mental quirk. If you cannot make eye contact with another person who you should FUCKING have some respect for, then you could use a bit of readjustment. Do not refer to me as a jackass, you fucking cunt. I am far beyond the likes of your mentally inferior ilk. lol You called me a " fucking cunt" yet you think that I am mentally inferior to you?. Such rubbish. I, on the other hand, called you a "jackass" because your behavior warrants such an appropriate insult. I'm not going to debate with you whether or not "Aspergers Syndrome" is a "real disease". But I am going to say that just because someone has a"metal quirk" as you called it, doesn't meant that they deserve such mistreatment. Especially from the likes of you. That is all. |
|
Owning tools since 3/2008
|
|
|
QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: 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) 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) 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. 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. And what the hell have you been reading? Since when was the last time that any corporation got sued for false advertisement? Also, your entitlement claim on the congress couldn't be more wrong, and here's why. Furthermore, are you the one here in favor of no government regulation in the economic sphere? So how did the Wall Street's irresponsibility became the government's fault? When the government did exactly what you wanted. People should learn to defend for themselves? Now you're just making more excuses for your own mother to abandon you in the first place. Also, social business financed through microcredit is not non-government organization(NGO) funded by charities and trust funds, stupid. And finally, you're lying about both the reality that is selfless social business being more sustainable and profitable, even more so that selfish capitalism. Who are ironically pretending that they actually care about others: In three decades microfinance has evolved—from small nongovernmental organizations lending $50 to women to buy sewing machines or fruit to sell at market to, in some cases, formal banks that cover costs and grow through profits, like any business. Drawn by the prospect of hefty profits from even the smallest of loans, a raft of banks and financial institutions now dominate the field, with some charging interest rates of 100 percent or more. The fight over preserving the field's saintly aura centers on the question of how much interest and profit is acceptable, and what constitutes exploitation. The noisy interest rate debate has even attracted Congressional scrutiny, with the House Financial Services Committee holding hearings in 2010 focused in part on whether some microcredit institutions are scamming the poor. Rates vary widely across the globe, but the ones that draw the most concern tend to occur in countries like Nigeria and Mexico, where the demand for small loans from a large population cannot be met by existing lenders. Unwitting individuals, who can make loans of $20 or more through Web sites like Kiva or Microplace, may also end up participating in practices some consider exploitative. These Web sites admit that they cannot guarantee every interest rate they quote. Indeed, the real rate can prove to be markedly higher. The microfinance industry is pushing for greater transparency among its members, but says that most microlenders are honest, with experts putting the number of dubious institutions anywhere from less than 1 percent to more than 10 percent. Given that competition has a pattern of lowering interest rates worldwide, the industry prefers that approach to government intervention. Part of the problem, however, is that all kinds of institutions making loans plaster them with the "microfinance" label because of its do-good reputation.(citation) We get it you hate all success because your not successful. You feel jealous. That's your right. But your so far our of touch with reality its quite funny. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sued+for+false+advertising Do some research before preaching nonsense. Youtube and forum posts are not legit sources of accurate info, anyone can post anything to youtube and anyone can post anything on the internet. Asperger Syndrome lololololol I am pretty sure that Allhailodin was trolling. He does, in fact, have Aspergers Syndrome., you patronizing jackass. I see. Well, I have this to say to you; Asperger Syndrome is not a real disease, it is a silly little mental quirk. If you cannot make eye contact with another person who you should FUCKING have some respect for, then you could use a bit of readjustment. Do not refer to me as a jackass, you fucking cunt. I am far beyond the likes of your mentally inferior ilk. lol You called me a " fucking cunt" yet you think that I am mentally inferior to you?. Such rubbish. I, on the other hand, called you a "jackass" because your behavior warrants such an appropriate insult. I'm not going to debate with you whether or not "Aspergers Syndrome" is a "real disorder". But I am going to say that just because someone has a"metal quirk" as you called it, doesn't meant that they deserve such mistreatment. Especially from the likes of you. That is all. As you turn your proverbial nose up at me, just understand that there isn't anything more disgusting than a person who feels he can truly argue from the side of morals. I am sure of your offenses being no less than the common person. To put it in another way; we are born in sin and die in sin. You can think you've defended someone and served a wrongdoer some poetic justice all you like, but nothing you say matters to anyone beyond that of a mere whisper. Your stuffy and sycophantic attitude is wrought with decay. |
|
|
Migrating to profile: Suisighd.
|
|
|
1846 cr points
Send Message:
25 / M / Davis, California
Offline |
Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: 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) 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) 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. 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. And what the hell have you been reading? Since when was the last time that any corporation got sued for false advertisement? Also, your entitlement claim on the congress couldn't be more wrong, and here's why. Furthermore, are you the one here in favor of no government regulation in the economic sphere? So how did the Wall Street's irresponsibility became the government's fault? When the government did exactly what you wanted. People should learn to defend for themselves? Now you're just making more excuses for your own mother to abandon you in the first place. Also, social business financed through microcredit is not non-government organization(NGO) funded by charities and trust funds, stupid. And finally, you're lying about both the reality that is selfless social business being more sustainable and profitable, even more so that selfish capitalism. Who are ironically pretending that they actually care about others: In three decades microfinance has evolved—from small nongovernmental organizations lending $50 to women to buy sewing machines or fruit to sell at market to, in some cases, formal banks that cover costs and grow through profits, like any business. Drawn by the prospect of hefty profits from even the smallest of loans, a raft of banks and financial institutions now dominate the field, with some charging interest rates of 100 percent or more. The fight over preserving the field's saintly aura centers on the question of how much interest and profit is acceptable, and what constitutes exploitation. The noisy interest rate debate has even attracted Congressional scrutiny, with the House Financial Services Committee holding hearings in 2010 focused in part on whether some microcredit institutions are scamming the poor. Rates vary widely across the globe, but the ones that draw the most concern tend to occur in countries like Nigeria and Mexico, where the demand for small loans from a large population cannot be met by existing lenders. Unwitting individuals, who can make loans of $20 or more through Web sites like Kiva or Microplace, may also end up participating in practices some consider exploitative. These Web sites admit that they cannot guarantee every interest rate they quote. Indeed, the real rate can prove to be markedly higher. The microfinance industry is pushing for greater transparency among its members, but says that most microlenders are honest, with experts putting the number of dubious institutions anywhere from less than 1 percent to more than 10 percent. Given that competition has a pattern of lowering interest rates worldwide, the industry prefers that approach to government intervention. Part of the problem, however, is that all kinds of institutions making loans plaster them with the "microfinance" label because of its do-good reputation.(citation) We get it you hate all success because your not successful. You feel jealous. That's your right. But your so far our of touch with reality its quite funny. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sued+for+false+advertising Do some research before preaching nonsense. Youtube and forum posts are not legit sources of accurate info, anyone can post anything to youtube and anyone can post anything on the internet. Asperger Syndrome lololololol I am pretty sure that Allhailodin was trolling. He does, in fact, have Aspergers Syndrome., you patronizing jackass. I see. Well, I have this to say to you; Asperger Syndrome is not a real disease, it is a silly little mental quirk. If you cannot make eye contact with another person who you should FUCKING have some respect for, then you could use a bit of readjustment. Do not refer to me as a jackass, you fucking cunt. I am far beyond the likes of your mentally inferior ilk. lol You called me a " fucking cunt" yet you think that I am mentally inferior to you?. Such rubbish. I, on the other hand, called you a "jackass" because your behavior warrants such an appropriate insult. I'm not going to debate with you whether or not "Aspergers Syndrome" is a "real disorder". But I am going to say that just because someone has a"metal quirk" as you called it, doesn't meant that they deserve such mistreatment. Especially from the likes of you. That is all. As you turn your proverbial nose up at me, just understand that there isn't anything more disgusting than a person who feels he can truly argue from the side of morals. I am sure of your offenses being no less than the common person. To put it in another way; we are born in sin and die in sin. You can think you've defended someone and served a wrongdoer some poetic justice all you like, but nothing you say matters to anyone beyond that of a mere whisper. Your stuffy and sycophantic attitude is wrought with decay. I don't recall ever defending Allhailodin because I have a sanctimonious attitude. Or that I'm being sycophantic. You attacked my friend. I've defended for him. That is all. It has little do do with upholding whatever moral code that you assume that I have. As the old adage states "Never assume because you'll make an ass out of you and me." Banal statement, yes. Yet appropriate for your case. |
|
Owning tools since 3/2008
|
|
|
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: 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) 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) 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. 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. And what the hell have you been reading? Since when was the last time that any corporation got sued for false advertisement? Also, your entitlement claim on the congress couldn't be more wrong, and here's why. Furthermore, are you the one here in favor of no government regulation in the economic sphere? So how did the Wall Street's irresponsibility became the government's fault? When the government did exactly what you wanted. People should learn to defend for themselves? Now you're just making more excuses for your own mother to abandon you in the first place. Also, social business financed through microcredit is not non-government organization(NGO) funded by charities and trust funds, stupid. And finally, you're lying about both the reality that is selfless social business being more sustainable and profitable, even more so that selfish capitalism. Who are ironically pretending that they actually care about others: In three decades microfinance has evolved—from small nongovernmental organizations lending $50 to women to buy sewing machines or fruit to sell at market to, in some cases, formal banks that cover costs and grow through profits, like any business. Drawn by the prospect of hefty profits from even the smallest of loans, a raft of banks and financial institutions now dominate the field, with some charging interest rates of 100 percent or more. The fight over preserving the field's saintly aura centers on the question of how much interest and profit is acceptable, and what constitutes exploitation. The noisy interest rate debate has even attracted Congressional scrutiny, with the House Financial Services Committee holding hearings in 2010 focused in part on whether some microcredit institutions are scamming the poor. Rates vary widely across the globe, but the ones that draw the most concern tend to occur in countries like Nigeria and Mexico, where the demand for small loans from a large population cannot be met by existing lenders. Unwitting individuals, who can make loans of $20 or more through Web sites like Kiva or Microplace, may also end up participating in practices some consider exploitative. These Web sites admit that they cannot guarantee every interest rate they quote. Indeed, the real rate can prove to be markedly higher. The microfinance industry is pushing for greater transparency among its members, but says that most microlenders are honest, with experts putting the number of dubious institutions anywhere from less than 1 percent to more than 10 percent. Given that competition has a pattern of lowering interest rates worldwide, the industry prefers that approach to government intervention. Part of the problem, however, is that all kinds of institutions making loans plaster them with the "microfinance" label because of its do-good reputation.(citation) We get it you hate all success because your not successful. You feel jealous. That's your right. But your so far our of touch with reality its quite funny. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sued+for+false+advertising Do some research before preaching nonsense. Youtube and forum posts are not legit sources of accurate info, anyone can post anything to youtube and anyone can post anything on the internet. Asperger Syndrome lololololol I am pretty sure that Allhailodin was trolling. He does, in fact, have Aspergers Syndrome., you patronizing jackass. I see. Well, I have this to say to you; Asperger Syndrome is not a real disease, it is a silly little mental quirk. If you cannot make eye contact with another person who you should FUCKING have some respect for, then you could use a bit of readjustment. Do not refer to me as a jackass, you fucking cunt. I am far beyond the likes of your mentally inferior ilk. lol You called me a " fucking cunt" yet you think that I am mentally inferior to you?. Such rubbish. I, on the other hand, called you a "jackass" because your behavior warrants such an appropriate insult. I'm not going to debate with you whether or not "Aspergers Syndrome" is a "real disorder". But I am going to say that just because someone has a"metal quirk" as you called it, doesn't meant that they deserve such mistreatment. Especially from the likes of you. That is all. As you turn your proverbial nose up at me, just understand that there isn't anything more disgusting than a person who feels he can truly argue from the side of morals. I am sure of your offenses being no less than the common person. To put it in another way; we are born in sin and die in sin. You can think you've defended someone and served a wrongdoer some poetic justice all you like, but nothing you say matters to anyone beyond that of a mere whisper. Your stuffy and sycophantic attitude is wrought with decay. I don't recall ever defending Allhailodin because I have a sanctimonious attitude. Or that I'm being sycophantic. You attacked my friend. I've defended for him. That is all. It has little do do with upholding whatever moral code that you assume that I have. As the old adage states "Never assume because you'll make an ass out of you and me." Banal statement, yes. Yet appropriate for your case/ You attacked, I defended. Like an ant hill that is harassed, it fights back. You assumed I am without any plausible intellect, so you refer to me a jackass. The insults you inflict carry deep into the minds of every person no matter what they say to appear as though they've shrugged it off. Your integrity is in question here, sir. Do you feel as though it amounts to anything which can be defended, or are you going to allow a mere jackass (such as myself) to point out your more unsavory traits? Do tell me more as to how I can improve my conduct, oh great master of unfathomable philosophy. |
|
|
Migrating to profile: Suisighd.
|
|
56977 cr points
Send Message:
46 / M / Center of the Uni...
Offline |
Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: 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) 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) 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. 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. And what the hell have you been reading? Since when was the last time that any corporation got sued for false advertisement? Also, your entitlement claim on the congress couldn't be more wrong, and here's why. Furthermore, are you the one here in favor of no government regulation in the economic sphere? So how did the Wall Street's irresponsibility became the government's fault? When the government did exactly what you wanted. People should learn to defend for themselves? Now you're just making more excuses for your own mother to abandon you in the first place. Also, social business financed through microcredit is not non-government organization(NGO) funded by charities and trust funds, stupid. And finally, you're lying about both the reality that is selfless social business being more sustainable and profitable, even more so that selfish capitalism. Who are ironically pretending that they actually care about others: In three decades microfinance has evolved—from small nongovernmental organizations lending $50 to women to buy sewing machines or fruit to sell at market to, in some cases, formal banks that cover costs and grow through profits, like any business. Drawn by the prospect of hefty profits from even the smallest of loans, a raft of banks and financial institutions now dominate the field, with some charging interest rates of 100 percent or more. The fight over preserving the field's saintly aura centers on the question of how much interest and profit is acceptable, and what constitutes exploitation. The noisy interest rate debate has even attracted Congressional scrutiny, with the House Financial Services Committee holding hearings in 2010 focused in part on whether some microcredit institutions are scamming the poor. Rates vary widely across the globe, but the ones that draw the most concern tend to occur in countries like Nigeria and Mexico, where the demand for small loans from a large population cannot be met by existing lenders. Unwitting individuals, who can make loans of $20 or more through Web sites like Kiva or Microplace, may also end up participating in practices some consider exploitative. These Web sites admit that they cannot guarantee every interest rate they quote. Indeed, the real rate can prove to be markedly higher. The microfinance industry is pushing for greater transparency among its members, but says that most microlenders are honest, with experts putting the number of dubious institutions anywhere from less than 1 percent to more than 10 percent. Given that competition has a pattern of lowering interest rates worldwide, the industry prefers that approach to government intervention. Part of the problem, however, is that all kinds of institutions making loans plaster them with the "microfinance" label because of its do-good reputation.(citation) We get it you hate all success because your not successful. You feel jealous. That's your right. But your so far our of touch with reality its quite funny. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sued+for+false+advertising Do some research before preaching nonsense. Youtube and forum posts are not legit sources of accurate info, anyone can post anything to youtube and anyone can post anything on the internet. Asperger Syndrome lololololol I am pretty sure that Allhailodin was trolling. He does, in fact, have Aspergers Syndrome., you patronizing jackass. I see. Well, I have this to say to you; Asperger Syndrome is not a real disease, it is a silly little mental quirk. If you cannot make eye contact with another person who you should FUCKING have some respect for, then you could use a bit of readjustment. Do not refer to me as a jackass, you fucking cunt. I am far beyond the likes of your mentally inferior ilk. lol You called me a " fucking cunt" yet you think that I am mentally inferior to you?. Such rubbish. I, on the other hand, called you a "jackass" because your behavior warrants such an appropriate insult. I'm not going to debate with you whether or not "Aspergers Syndrome" is a "real disorder". But I am going to say that just because someone has a"metal quirk" as you called it, doesn't meant that they deserve such mistreatment. Especially from the likes of you. That is all. As you turn your proverbial nose up at me, just understand that there isn't anything more disgusting than a person who feels he can truly argue from the side of morals. I am sure of your offenses being no less than the common person. To put it in another way; we are born in sin and die in sin. You can think you've defended someone and served a wrongdoer some poetic justice all you like, but nothing you say matters to anyone beyond that of a mere whisper. Your stuffy and sycophantic attitude is wrought with decay. I don't recall ever defending Allhailodin because I have a sanctimonious attitude. Or that I'm being sycophantic. You attacked my friend. I've defended for him. That is all. It has little do do with upholding whatever moral code that you assume that I have. As the old adage states "Never assume because you'll make an ass out of you and me." Banal statement, yes. Yet appropriate for your case/ You attacked, I defended. Like an ant hill that is harassed, it fights back. You assumed I am without any plausible intellect, so you refer to me a jackass. The insults you inflict carry deep into the minds of every person no matter what they say to appear as though they've shrugged it off. Your integrity is in question here, sir. Do you feel as though it amounts to anything which can be defended, or are you going to allow a mere jackass (such as myself) to point out your more unsavory traits? Do tell me more as to how I can improve my conduct, oh great master of unfathomable philosophy. Does ignorant dick sound better? Jackass? Asperberger's is real enough for leading mental health agency to treat it in my country. You lash out at Quasimodo claim to be a victim from his words. Which just makes you a hyprocrite if you think your own shit doesn't stink. |
|
If the officers are leading from the front. Watch for an attack from the rear...
|
|
|
papagolfwhiskey wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: 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) 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) 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. 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. And what the hell have you been reading? Since when was the last time that any corporation got sued for false advertisement? Also, your entitlement claim on the congress couldn't be more wrong, and here's why. Furthermore, are you the one here in favor of no government regulation in the economic sphere? So how did the Wall Street's irresponsibility became the government's fault? When the government did exactly what you wanted. People should learn to defend for themselves? Now you're just making more excuses for your own mother to abandon you in the first place. Also, social business financed through microcredit is not non-government organization(NGO) funded by charities and trust funds, stupid. And finally, you're lying about both the reality that is selfless social business being more sustainable and profitable, even more so that selfish capitalism. Who are ironically pretending that they actually care about others: In three decades microfinance has evolved—from small nongovernmental organizations lending $50 to women to buy sewing machines or fruit to sell at market to, in some cases, formal banks that cover costs and grow through profits, like any business. Drawn by the prospect of hefty profits from even the smallest of loans, a raft of banks and financial institutions now dominate the field, with some charging interest rates of 100 percent or more. The fight over preserving the field's saintly aura centers on the question of how much interest and profit is acceptable, and what constitutes exploitation. The noisy interest rate debate has even attracted Congressional scrutiny, with the House Financial Services Committee holding hearings in 2010 focused in part on whether some microcredit institutions are scamming the poor. Rates vary widely across the globe, but the ones that draw the most concern tend to occur in countries like Nigeria and Mexico, where the demand for small loans from a large population cannot be met by existing lenders. Unwitting individuals, who can make loans of $20 or more through Web sites like Kiva or Microplace, may also end up participating in practices some consider exploitative. These Web sites admit that they cannot guarantee every interest rate they quote. Indeed, the real rate can prove to be markedly higher. The microfinance industry is pushing for greater transparency among its members, but says that most microlenders are honest, with experts putting the number of dubious institutions anywhere from less than 1 percent to more than 10 percent. Given that competition has a pattern of lowering interest rates worldwide, the industry prefers that approach to government intervention. Part of the problem, however, is that all kinds of institutions making loans plaster them with the "microfinance" label because of its do-good reputation.(citation) We get it you hate all success because your not successful. You feel jealous. That's your right. But your so far our of touch with reality its quite funny. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sued+for+false+advertising Do some research before preaching nonsense. Youtube and forum posts are not legit sources of accurate info, anyone can post anything to youtube and anyone can post anything on the internet. Asperger Syndrome lololololol I am pretty sure that Allhailodin was trolling. He does, in fact, have Aspergers Syndrome., you patronizing jackass. I see. Well, I have this to say to you; Asperger Syndrome is not a real disease, it is a silly little mental quirk. If you cannot make eye contact with another person who you should FUCKING have some respect for, then you could use a bit of readjustment. Do not refer to me as a jackass, you fucking cunt. I am far beyond the likes of your mentally inferior ilk. lol You called me a " fucking cunt" yet you think that I am mentally inferior to you?. Such rubbish. I, on the other hand, called you a "jackass" because your behavior warrants such an appropriate insult. I'm not going to debate with you whether or not "Aspergers Syndrome" is a "real disorder". But I am going to say that just because someone has a"metal quirk" as you called it, doesn't meant that they deserve such mistreatment. Especially from the likes of you. That is all. As you turn your proverbial nose up at me, just understand that there isn't anything more disgusting than a person who feels he can truly argue from the side of morals. I am sure of your offenses being no less than the common person. To put it in another way; we are born in sin and die in sin. You can think you've defended someone and served a wrongdoer some poetic justice all you like, but nothing you say matters to anyone beyond that of a mere whisper. Your stuffy and sycophantic attitude is wrought with decay. I don't recall ever defending Allhailodin because I have a sanctimonious attitude. Or that I'm being sycophantic. You attacked my friend. I've defended for him. That is all. It has little do do with upholding whatever moral code that you assume that I have. As the old adage states "Never assume because you'll make an ass out of you and me." Banal statement, yes. Yet appropriate for your case/ You attacked, I defended. Like an ant hill that is harassed, it fights back. You assumed I am without any plausible intellect, so you refer to me a jackass. The insults you inflict carry deep into the minds of every person no matter what they say to appear as though they've shrugged it off. Your integrity is in question here, sir. Do you feel as though it amounts to anything which can be defended, or are you going to allow a mere jackass (such as myself) to point out your more unsavory traits? Do tell me more as to how I can improve my conduct, oh great master of unfathomable philosophy. Does ignorant dick sound better? Jackass? Asperberger's is real enough for leading mental health agency to treat it in my country. You lash out at Quasimodo claim to be a victim from his words. Which just makes you a hyprocrite if you think your own shit doesn't stink. Point taken. However, I am just as filthy as the next man. It is not so that I hold myself in such high regard as to feel above the plane of mere mortals. I am all the same blood and guts, piss and shit, shame and guilt that comprises the ordinary man. If I do seem to play the victim, then take this into consideration; a shot fired is an attack against all people in its vicinity. |
|
|
Migrating to profile: Suisighd.
|
|
|
Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide papagolfwhiskey wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: 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) 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) 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. 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. And what the hell have you been reading? Since when was the last time that any corporation got sued for false advertisement? Also, your entitlement claim on the congress couldn't be more wrong, and here's why. Furthermore, are you the one here in favor of no government regulation in the economic sphere? So how did the Wall Street's irresponsibility became the government's fault? When the government did exactly what you wanted. People should learn to defend for themselves? Now you're just making more excuses for your own mother to abandon you in the first place. Also, social business financed through microcredit is not non-government organization(NGO) funded by charities and trust funds, stupid. And finally, you're lying about both the reality that is selfless social business being more sustainable and profitable, even more so that selfish capitalism. Who are ironically pretending that they actually care about others: In three decades microfinance has evolved—from small nongovernmental organizations lending $50 to women to buy sewing machines or fruit to sell at market to, in some cases, formal banks that cover costs and grow through profits, like any business. Drawn by the prospect of hefty profits from even the smallest of loans, a raft of banks and financial institutions now dominate the field, with some charging interest rates of 100 percent or more. The fight over preserving the field's saintly aura centers on the question of how much interest and profit is acceptable, and what constitutes exploitation. The noisy interest rate debate has even attracted Congressional scrutiny, with the House Financial Services Committee holding hearings in 2010 focused in part on whether some microcredit institutions are scamming the poor. Rates vary widely across the globe, but the ones that draw the most concern tend to occur in countries like Nigeria and Mexico, where the demand for small loans from a large population cannot be met by existing lenders. Unwitting individuals, who can make loans of $20 or more through Web sites like Kiva or Microplace, may also end up participating in practices some consider exploitative. These Web sites admit that they cannot guarantee every interest rate they quote. Indeed, the real rate can prove to be markedly higher. The microfinance industry is pushing for greater transparency among its members, but says that most microlenders are honest, with experts putting the number of dubious institutions anywhere from less than 1 percent to more than 10 percent. Given that competition has a pattern of lowering interest rates worldwide, the industry prefers that approach to government intervention. Part of the problem, however, is that all kinds of institutions making loans plaster them with the "microfinance" label because of its do-good reputation.(citation) We get it you hate all success because your not successful. You feel jealous. That's your right. But your so far our of touch with reality its quite funny. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sued+for+false+advertising Do some research before preaching nonsense. Youtube and forum posts are not legit sources of accurate info, anyone can post anything to youtube and anyone can post anything on the internet. Asperger Syndrome lololololol I am pretty sure that Allhailodin was trolling. He does, in fact, have Aspergers Syndrome., you patronizing jackass. I see. Well, I have this to say to you; Asperger Syndrome is not a real disease, it is a silly little mental quirk. If you cannot make eye contact with another person who you should FUCKING have some respect for, then you could use a bit of readjustment. Do not refer to me as a jackass, you fucking cunt. I am far beyond the likes of your mentally inferior ilk. lol You called me a " fucking cunt" yet you think that I am mentally inferior to you?. Such rubbish. I, on the other hand, called you a "jackass" because your behavior warrants such an appropriate insult. I'm not going to debate with you whether or not "Aspergers Syndrome" is a "real disorder". But I am going to say that just because someone has a"metal quirk" as you called it, doesn't meant that they deserve such mistreatment. Especially from the likes of you. That is all. As you turn your proverbial nose up at me, just understand that there isn't anything more disgusting than a person who feels he can truly argue from the side of morals. I am sure of your offenses being no less than the common person. To put it in another way; we are born in sin and die in sin. You can think you've defended someone and served a wrongdoer some poetic justice all you like, but nothing you say matters to anyone beyond that of a mere whisper. Your stuffy and sycophantic attitude is wrought with decay. I don't recall ever defending Allhailodin because I have a sanctimonious attitude. Or that I'm being sycophantic. You attacked my friend. I've defended for him. That is all. It has little do do with upholding whatever moral code that you assume that I have. As the old adage states "Never assume because you'll make an ass out of you and me." Banal statement, yes. Yet appropriate for your case/ You attacked, I defended. Like an ant hill that is harassed, it fights back. You assumed I am without any plausible intellect, so you refer to me a jackass. The insults you inflict carry deep into the minds of every person no matter what they say to appear as though they've shrugged it off. Your integrity is in question here, sir. Do you feel as though it amounts to anything which can be defended, or are you going to allow a mere jackass (such as myself) to point out your more unsavory traits? Do tell me more as to how I can improve my conduct, oh great master of unfathomable philosophy. Does ignorant dick sound better? Jackass? Asperberger's is real enough for leading mental health agency to treat it in my country. You lash out at Quasimodo claim to be a victim from his words. Which just makes you a hyprocrite if you think your own shit doesn't stink. Point taken. However, I am just as filthy as the next man. It is not so that I hold myself in such high regard as to feel above the plane of mere mortals. I am all the same blood and guts, piss and shit, shame and guilt that comprises the ordinary man. If I do seem to play the victim, then take this into consideration; a shot fired is an attack against all people in its vicinity. I know of my own criticism aiming towards Allhailodin can be quite harsh indeed, but at the very least mine were calculated and distinguished at establishing an objective political disposition of what liberalism really is and what it stands for. In other words I'll let my opponent know quite clearly just what am I criticizing for, within the context of the forum topic. |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
|
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide papagolfwhiskey wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: QuasimodoSunday wrote: Mr_Entropy wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote: Allhailodin wrote: 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) 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) 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. 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. And what the hell have you been reading? Since when was the last time that any corporation got sued for false advertisement? Also, your entitlement claim on the congress couldn't be more wrong, and here's why. Furthermore, are you the one here in favor of no government regulation in the economic sphere? So how did the Wall Street's irresponsibility became the government's fault? When the government did exactly what you wanted. People should learn to defend for themselves? Now you're just making more excuses for your own mother to abandon you in the first place. Also, social business financed through microcredit is not non-government organization(NGO) funded by charities and trust funds, stupid. And finally, you're lying about both the reality that is selfless social business being more sustainable and profitable, even more so that selfish capitalism. Who are ironically pretending that they actually care about others: In three decades microfinance has evolved—from small nongovernmental organizations lending $50 to women to buy sewing machines or fruit to sell at market to, in some cases, formal banks that cover costs and grow through profits, like any business. Drawn by the prospect of hefty profits from even the smallest of loans, a raft of banks and financial institutions now dominate the field, with some charging interest rates of 100 percent or more. The fight over preserving the field's saintly aura centers on the question of how much interest and profit is acceptable, and what constitutes exploitation. The noisy interest rate debate has even attracted Congressional scrutiny, with the House Financial Services Committee holding hearings in 2010 focused in part on whether some microcredit institutions are scamming the poor. Rates vary widely across the globe, but the ones that draw the most concern tend to occur in countries like Nigeria and Mexico, where the demand for small loans from a large population cannot be met by existing lenders. Unwitting individuals, who can make loans of $20 or more through Web sites like Kiva or Microplace, may also end up participating in practices some consider exploitative. These Web sites admit that they cannot guarantee every interest rate they quote. Indeed, the real rate can prove to be markedly higher. The microfinance industry is pushing for greater transparency among its members, but says that most microlenders are honest, with experts putting the number of dubious institutions anywhere from less than 1 percent to more than 10 percent. Given that competition has a pattern of lowering interest rates worldwide, the industry prefers that approach to government intervention. Part of the problem, however, is that all kinds of institutions making loans plaster them with the "microfinance" label because of its do-good reputation.(citation) We get it you hate all success because your not successful. You feel jealous. That's your right. But your so far our of touch with reality its quite funny. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sued+for+false+advertising Do some research before preaching nonsense. Youtube and forum posts are not legit sources of accurate info, anyone can post anything to youtube and anyone can post anything on the internet. Asperger Syndrome lololololol I am pretty sure that Allhailodin was trolling. He does, in fact, have Aspergers Syndrome., you patronizing jackass. I see. Well, I have this to say to you; Asperger Syndrome is not a real disease, it is a silly little mental quirk. If you cannot make eye contact with another person who you should FUCKING have some respect for, then you could use a bit of readjustment. Do not refer to me as a jackass, you fucking cunt. I am far beyond the likes of your mentally inferior ilk. lol You called me a " fucking cunt" yet you think that I am mentally inferior to you?. Such rubbish. I, on the other hand, called you a "jackass" because your behavior warrants such an appropriate insult. I'm not going to debate with you whether or not "Aspergers Syndrome" is a "real disorder". But I am going to say that just because someone has a"metal quirk" as you called it, doesn't meant that they deserve such mistreatment. Especially from the likes of you. That is all. As you turn your proverbial nose up at me, just understand that there isn't anything more disgusting than a person who feels he can truly argue from the side of morals. I am sure of your offenses being no less than the common person. To put it in another way; we are born in sin and die in sin. You can think you've defended someone and served a wrongdoer some poetic justice all you like, but nothing you say matters to anyone beyond that of a mere whisper. Your stuffy and sycophantic attitude is wrought with decay. I don't recall ever defending Allhailodin because I have a sanctimonious attitude. Or that I'm being sycophantic. You attacked my friend. I've defended for him. That is all. It has little do do with upholding whatever moral code that you assume that I have. As the old adage states "Never assume because you'll make an ass out of you and me." Banal statement, yes. Yet appropriate for your case/ You attacked, I defended. Like an ant hill that is harassed, it fights back. You assumed I am without any plausible intellect, so you refer to me a jackass. The insults you inflict carry deep into the minds of every person no matter what they say to appear as though they've shrugged it off. Your integrity is in question here, sir. Do you feel as though it amounts to anything which can be defended, or are you going to allow a mere jackass (such as myself) to point out your more unsavory traits? Do tell me more as to how I can improve my conduct, oh great master of unfathomable philosophy. Does ignorant dick sound better? Jackass? Asperberger's is real enough for leading mental health agency to treat it in my country. You lash out at Quasimodo claim to be a victim from his words. Which just makes you a hyprocrite if you think your own shit doesn't stink. Point taken. However, I am just as filthy as the next man. It is not so that I hold myself in such high regard as to feel above the plane of mere mortals. I am all the same blood and guts, piss and shit, shame and guilt that comprises the ordinary man. If I do seem to play the victim, then take this into consideration; a shot fired is an attack against all people in its vicinity. I know of my own criticism aiming towards Allhailodin can be quite harsh indeed, but at the very least mine were calculated and distinguished at establishing an objective political disposition of what liberalism really is and what it stands for. In other words I'll let my opponent know quite clearly just what am I criticizing for, within the context of the forum topic. My approach was merely a random shot fired as though from a madman in a clock tower. There is no precision with any of that, since it is all so chaotic. There is little point for me to discuss any of this subject further given how my knowledge of it is so limited, and my own capacity to better comprehend it is severely limited by a lack of interest. |
|
|
Migrating to profile: Suisighd.
|
|
|
56977 cr points
Send Message:
46 / M / Center of the Uni...
Offline |
amersfoort wrote: What's your concept of liberalism or liberalists? What is Liberalism? Is Liberalism good or bad? These questions rose up on me, since I see the term Liberals being used as something bad, it's almost used like it's a curse word. In my History classes (I studied History) everytime I read about Liberalism, it was about freedom (hence the wroth libera, wich is freedom in Latin), and other things I completely agreed with. So... when did being a liberal become a bad, no almost evil thing? Anyway, as I said. Liberal is one word out of a defined spectrum many that when normally used in a social science context has a specific meaning regarding the desire for change and the perception of freedom. It can however get attached with all sorts of cultural baggage when used in normal discourse. Where I come from Liberal is mostly interpreted as 'member of the Liberal Party' (which has been the government of this country much more often than it has not). Likewise the terms 'Small L liberal' and 'Small c conservative' are often used to make it clear that one is referring to the spectrum I described above and not political party affiliation. Most Canadians are small c, conservative in this regard, They don't like rapid or radical change, They don't believe in fixing what isn't broke and don't feel the country should just change overnight to satisfy the new kids in town. They're also very small l liberal when it comes to rights and freedoms. 30 years ago a Canadian head of government said "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation". Most Canadians (I'm led to believe) agree with that. there has been a steady erosion of the 'blue laws' in our country regarding sex, drugs, entertainment and lifestyle. Hardcore Supporters of the current government like to call Liberals, Lieberals and point to the corruption scandals that pretty much brought down the last Liberal government. but the idea that Liberal is a dirty word is a foreign concept to most Canadians. As I said before Amersfort, I think this perception of Liberalism as a bad thing is an American invention and only seems to prevail due to the loudness of some American voices. Footnote purple Blue Laws: is a Canadian English term (and possibly similarly used outside of Canada) regarding laws intended to regulate morality (as opposed to laws that regulate commonly accepted crimes). For example Sunday Shopping was illegal in Ontario until about 1990. It was law that all businesses had to stay closed on Sunday. The Mandated time for bars to close and to have 'last call' has become later and later over my lifetime. The various film ratings and censoring agencies asociatted with various provincial governments have gotten more and more relaxed as to how and why they rate or censor movies as they do, with the laggards in this regard tending to receive mockery from the rest of Canada for their narrow minded prudishness. Various sexual deviations from the norm have gone from being crimes to being, in some cases openly celebrated. Recently the Ontario supreme court struck down laws that made Prostitution (already legal) hard to legally profit from. This last one interestingly enough pits liberals against liberals. As some feminist groups see this as opening a door to the exploitation of women while sex workers and their allies say it allows them to come out of the shadows and operate under the full protection of the law like any other business person. My point being there's been a steady erosion of laws curtailing freedoms in this country |
|
If the officers are leading from the front. Watch for an attack from the rear...
|
|
10521 cr points
Send Message:
23 / M / In your room stea...
Offline |
longfenglim wrote: First, the recent election is not an indicator of how well Obama is doing- it is an indicator of what the public feels at the moment- and the public is fickle, so, if the economy doesn't get better, with Republicans in semi-control, they are more seceptible to Blame, lose seat, and the Status Quo ante Elecciones is restored. Also, Obama one-term, are you sure that is not just wistful thinking on your part- you are no seer, stop playing one. You are blind to everything else but what you want to see. The two are connected. If a pres does poor then Americans will be angry at said pres's poor performance. Lots(most actually) of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction under Obama's leadership. Here's a poll for you. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/opinion/polls/main3992628.shtml And an article, first one returned by google. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track And if the economy doesn't turn around, Obama will be a one term president. Americans blame Obama for the economy. Poll. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001588-503544.html Article. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/09/28/wsjnbc-poll-more-americans-blame-obama-for-economy/ Lots of Americans, most actually are very unhappy with Obama and his policies. Most americans want Obama-care repealed, most americans do not want Cap and Trade, and so on. Americans are very unhappy with the democrats. That's what this election was all about, they were unhappy with the dem's. Third, the Consitution can be amended- that is why senators are directly elected instead of being elected by the state legislator. If two-third of both the house or senate/two thirds of states want this, and it gets approved through the methods instated by our founders, it will be done. We can have, hypothetically, a Parliament based upon proportional representation. I am not saying it will happen, or even it can happen with the American people as it is, I am just saying it is possible and preferable to our current system. I did say it couldn't be amended, I believe I said its a "Re Writable stone", but I also said it cannot be voided. While it is possible technically, it would never happen, not in 100 years. Americans are too used to this system that has been used for over 200 years, and would almost never be willing to adopt one seen as backwards by most Americans. |
|
I see what you did there
|
|
|
Allhailodin wrote: longfenglim wrote: First, the recent election is not an indicator of how well Obama is doing- it is an indicator of what the public feels at the moment- and the public is fickle, so, if the economy doesn't get better, with Republicans in semi-control, they are more seceptible to Blame, lose seat, and the Status Quo ante Elecciones is restored. Also, Obama one-term, are you sure that is not just wistful thinking on your part- you are no seer, stop playing one. You are blind to everything else but what you want to see. The two are connected. If a pres does poor then Americans will be angry at said pres's poor performance. Lots(most actually) of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction under Obama's leadership. Here's a poll for you. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/opinion/polls/main3992628.shtml And an article, first one returned by google. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track And if the economy doesn't turn around, Obama will be a one term president. Americans blame Obama for the economy. Poll. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001588-503544.html Article. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/09/28/wsjnbc-poll-more-americans-blame-obama-for-economy/ Lots of Americans, most actually are very unhappy with Obama and his policies. Most americans want Obama-care repealed, most americans do not want Cap and Trade, and so on. Americans are very unhappy with the democrats. That's what this election was all about, they were unhappy with the dem's. Third, the Consitution can be amended- that is why senators are directly elected instead of being elected by the state legislator. If two-third of both the house or senate/two thirds of states want this, and it gets approved through the methods instated by our founders, it will be done. We can have, hypothetically, a Parliament based upon proportional representation. I am not saying it will happen, or even it can happen with the American people as it is, I am just saying it is possible and preferable to our current system. I did say it couldn't be amended, I believe I said its a "Re Writable stone", but I also said it cannot be voided. While it is possible technically, it would never happen, not in 100 years. Americans are too used to this system that has been used for over 200 years, and would almost never be willing to adopt one seen as backwards by most Americans. Your old news are so exciting![/sarcasm] When they're completely outdated compared to the latest news on American auto industry: But while sales have remained at historically low levels, they have nonetheless begun to rebound. And radically lower cost-structures and a renewed focus on product design have allowed GM, Ford and Chrysler to make a sharp turn back to profitability. "We may be at much lower sales volume than historically but health is much stronger," said Jeff Schuster, a JD Power analyst. "It's evident with earnings numbers, GM's in particular." GM posted a profit of 4.8 billion dollars through the first nine months of the year and is expected to end the year in the black for the first time since 1994 after having accumulated more than 86 billion dollars in losses from 2005 through 2008. Ford's share price is at its highest point in nine years after posting its sixth straight quarterly profit last month and Chrysler is expected to launch an IPO late next year. The market reaction to GM's initial public stock offering was resounding. Amid strong investor demand, the Detroit, Michigan-based firm priced its shares at $33 a piece before the stock market opened, in a sale that could net as much as $23.1 billion across all stock classes. Although the final value of the sale may not be known for weeks, strong-demand clauses could send it beyond the current IPO record of 22.1 billion dollars set by the Agricultural Bank of China in July. The IPO will allow the US government to slash its stake in GM from 61 percent to as little as 33 per cent, recouping $11.7 billion for US taxpayers. "It seems as if investors are viewing the auto stocks as a one-way bet right now because they think that the industry is at the bottom of the cycle and there is a lot of promise," said Jeremy Anwyl, head of automotive site Edmunds.com. "Car companies have high fixed costs and profits could skyrocket as sales increase, given that they are already profitable."(citation published: Sunday, November 21, 2010) |
|
|
Strong enough for men, made for women. Anything less will be uncivilized.
|
|
2028 cr points
Send Message:
22 / M / Guess
Offline |
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Allhailodin wrote: longfenglim wrote: First, the recent election is not an indicator of how well Obama is doing- it is an indicator of what the public feels at the moment- and the public is fickle, so, if the economy doesn't get better, with Republicans in semi-control, they are more seceptible to Blame, lose seat, and the Status Quo ante Elecciones is restored. Also, Obama one-term, are you sure that is not just wistful thinking on your part- you are no seer, stop playing one. You are blind to everything else but what you want to see. The two are connected. If a pres does poor then Americans will be angry at said pres's poor performance. Lots(most actually) of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction under Obama's leadership. Here's a poll for you. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/03/opinion/polls/main3992628.shtml And an article, first one returned by google. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_or_wrong_track And if the economy doesn't turn around, Obama will be a one term president. Americans blame Obama for the economy. Poll. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001588-503544.html Article. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/09/28/wsjnbc-poll-more-americans-blame-obama-for-economy/ Lots of Americans, most actually are very unhappy with Obama and his policies. Most americans want Obama-care repealed, most americans do not want Cap and Trade, and so on. Americans are very unhappy with the democrats. That's what this election was all about, they were unhappy with the dem's. Third, the Consitution can be amended- that is why senators are directly elected instead of being elected by the state legislator. If two-third of both the house or senate/two thirds of states want this, and it gets approved through the methods instated by our founders, it will be done. We can have, hypothetically, a Parliament based upon proportional representation. I am not saying it will happen, or even it can happen with the American people as it is, I am just saying it is possible and preferable to our current system. I did say it couldn't be amended, I believe I said its a "Re Writable stone", but I also said it cannot be voided. While it is possible technically, it would never happen, not in 100 years. Americans are too used to this system that has been used for over 200 years, and would almost never be willing to adopt one seen as backwards by most Americans. Polls change- did you know that. I remember a time when Bush was a very popular president, before everything went downhill, and I remember when everyone was all for Obama and his change, before that went downhill- Polls tell us only about the moment. Over a hundred years ago, we would've found polls telling us that seventy-five percent of American believe in the Peril of the Yellows, strange, pig-tailed, short, yellow men trying to slowly displace citizen by taking their jobs and bredding. Do Americans believe that today? I am just saying that, no, Americans are fickle, so celebrate you victory while it last, I, on the other hand, don't give a farthing for it. Maybe it can happen, maybe not- if enough Americans are convinced that this is good, it will happen, if not, then it won't, and, probably, it won't, as many Americans, being Amero-centric, while they do have a foggy idea of how such a parliament work, they don't really care as it isn't the basis of their democracy- a worthy view, live and let live sort of thing. |
|
|
|
1142 cr points
Send Message:
26 / F / PLACES
Offline |
amersfoort wrote: What's your concept of liberalism or liberalists? What is Liberalism? Is Liberalism good or bad? These questions rose up on me, since I see the term Liberals being used as something bad, it's almost used like it's a curse word. In my History classes (I studied History) everytime I read about Liberalism, it was about freedom (hence the wroth libera, wich is freedom in Latin), and other things I completely agreed with. So... when did being a liberal become a bad, no almost evil thing? A lot of people are incredibly stupid. Liberalism ISN'T a bad thing. Don't let anyone tell you that. As stated to you, you've been hearing too many Americans speak on the subject, and there are a lot of Americans that have no clue what the fuck liberalism is. |
|
"I dreamt that I was loved, I woke and found it true, and I thank God on my k...
|
|
1718 cr points
Send Message:
62 / M / Croatia
Offline |
angrierchick wrote: amersfoort wrote: What's your concept of liberalism or liberalists? What is Liberalism? Is Liberalism good or bad? These questions rose up on me, since I see the term Liberals being used as something bad, it's almost used like it's a curse word. In my History classes (I studied History) everytime I read about Liberalism, it was about freedom (hence the wroth libera, wich is freedom in Latin), and other things I completely agreed with. So... when did being a liberal become a bad, no almost evil thing? A lot of people are incredibly stupid. Liberalism ISN'T a bad thing. Don't let anyone tell you that. As stated to you, you've been hearing too many Americans speak on the subject, and there are a lot of Americans that have no clue what the fuck liberalism is. True. This summarizes most of the posts made here. if there was like button here i would press it  |
|
unintelligent mode - ON
|
|
You must be logged in to post.
Popular Shows |
Platforms and Devices |
Premium MembershipsLanguage
|
Support |
Crunchyroll |
Follow us on Google+ 
