Why Bush and Cheney are lying idiots.

[rtwngAvngr]

Interesting...
So you think the poor half of the world (It's more than that but anyway) is poor because of unstable governments?
Ok than do you think it will ever be possible for the other half of the world (the poor countries) to rise up and become even half as rich as other nations, or are they doomed?

Outsourcing of jobs to them will allow it, over time. And yes, westerners will feel the pinch, but we must move forward as well. Is it moral to keep them out of the economy. Using communism to do everything by force will destroy the intricate web of value balanced transactions that keep the economy as a whole, stable. This is truth. Thus spake RWA. And you can quote me on it.

 

[Said1]

Outsourcing of jobs to them will allow it, over time. And yes, westerners will feel the pinch, but we must move forward as well. Is it moral to keep them out of the economy. Using communism to do everything by force will destroy the intricate web of value balanced transactions that keep the economy as a whole, stable. This is truth. Thus spake RWA. And you can quote me on it.

Yeah, sure, cool. Now clean out your pm box.

 

[j07950]

Outsourcing of jobs to them will allow it, over time. And yes, westerners will feel the pinch, but we must move forward as well. Is it moral to keep them out of the economy. Using communism to do everything by force will destroy the intricate web of value balanced transactions that keep the economy as a whole, stable. This is truth. Thus spake RWA. And you can quote me on it.

But is it actually possible. I don't think they'll ever be able to catch up because they are exactly what we need them to be, a source of low labour...With technologie and all, meaning we need less workers, how can they developpe into successful rich nations when they do all the dirty work, for cheap, that we westerners don't want or need to do anymore?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

j___, if you get on board with bush and http://www.newamericancentury.org/ it'll be that much quicker that you can set the minimum wages in those countries. You would probably want to keep them lower than the western ones so corporations would still incented to building facilities there. It really is a win win. Right is right for a reason and left is what we left behind, it's too gross a methodology.

 

[j07950]

j___, if you get on board with bush and http://www.newamericancentury.org/ it'll e that much quicker that you can set the minimum wages in those countries. You would probably want to keep them lower than the western ones so corporations would still incented to building facilities there. It really is a win win. Right is right for a reason and left is what we left behind, it's too gross a methodology.

So you're saying (and answering my question hopefully) that they will never catch up than...because they do our work cheaper than we could at home, and this is unlikely going to change?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So you're saying (and answering my question hopefully) that they will never catch up than...because they do our work cheaper than we could at home, and this is unlikely going to change?

There will still be some stratification in the world, but equality at the expense of destroying actual forward progress leads to death. they will be building out their cities, while we're doing tech jobs. We're many years ahead in infrastructure.

We WILL probably feel some bumps in lifestyle. We will be competing with them for jobs. But some of that can be mitigated if you can set minimum wages in those countries. it can be done slowly. But you can't even discuss minimum wages when basic corporate law is not in place due to warlordism or communism which denies corporations a right to exist; heads of corporations are incented to monitor the transactions and fine tune them, harness them, and yes they keep something for their efforts. Is that evil?

 

[j07950]

There will still be some stratification in the world, but equality at the expense of destroying actual forward progress leads to death. they will be building out their cities, while we're doing tech jobs. We're many years ahead in infrastructure.

We WILL probably feel some bumps in lifestyle. We will be competing with them for jobs. But some of that can be mitigated if you can set minimum wages in those countries. it can be done slowly. But you can't even discuss minimum wages when basic corporate law is not in place due to warlordism or communism which denies corporations a right to exist; heads of corporations are incented to monitor the transactions and fine tune them, harness them, and yes they keep something for their efforts. Is that evil?

Well I'm not all up for big corporations, I think they have too much power. Otherwise I don't know how to feel about all this. I guess I'd like them to have the same opportunity as us but then I'd be worried about job competition I guess. Such a cruel world. You want things to be right but you know they can't be, it's them or it's us, right?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well I'm not all up for big corporations, I think they have too much power. Otherwise I don't know how to feel about all this. I guess I'd like them to have the same opportunity as us but then I'd be worried about job competition I guess. Such a cruel world. You want things to be right but you know they can't be, it's them or it's us, right?

Well that's actually the position of the left. they want to lock them out of the economy. They say it's noble. Exploitation they say. Really it's opportunity. Are you moral? Are you good? Or is that just right wing fundamentalist hate speech?

 

[j07950]

Well that's actually the position of the left. they want to lock them out of the economy. They say it's noble. Exploitation they say. Really it's opportunity. Are you moral? Are you good? Or is that just right wing fundamentalist hate speech?

Well corporation isn't moral I believe...It's kind of the opposite, well from where I stand. I see what you say by opportunity but it's not always standing by the rules...By the way Chirac is right wing...
I'm not a right wing hater, I like some of their ideas, wish they would merge with the left wing as well...

 

[j07950]

Got to get some sleep...catch you later...

 

[Annie]

Well corporation isn't moral I believe...It's kind of the opposite, well from where I stand. I see what you say by opportunity but it's not always standing by the rules...By the way Chirac is right wing...
I'm not a right wing hater, I like some of their ideas, wish they would merge with the left wing as well...

Actually a corporation cannot be moral or immoral, it's a legal entity. It has no soul, it's not living. Now the people who are employed to work for or oversee that corporation...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well corporation isn't moral I believe...It's kind of the opposite, well from where I stand.

how so?


Corporations are just a legal structure to organize the activities of humans to serve the market needs of other human beings. The possiblity and need for profit keeps people motivated to keep the transactions efficient.

 

[j07950]

Actually a corporation cannot be moral or immoral, it's a legal entity. It has no soul, it's not living. Now the people who are employed to work for or oversee that corporation...

Didn't phrase it correctly, sorry...Yeah like you're saying "the people employed to work for or oversee that corporation"...
Got to sleep now...see ya later

 

[Annie]

Didn't phrase it correctly, sorry...Yeah like you're saying "the people employed to work for or oversee that corporation"...
Got to sleep now...see ya later

Sleep well, we can pick up this mantle tomorrow!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

yeah, but you can still only use one at a time! :teeth:

Ok. MM. That was good! It has a pastiche of deepness about it.

 

[oxbow3]

I've got to say I'm a big fan of oxbow3, he's said a lot of intelligent things, things I guess I've tried to say before (but I'm foreign, it doesn't go down as well). I haven't seen people able to hold down their own in here against what he's posted, and I've read all 9 pages... I agree completely with what he's said. As fo sitarror all I've got to say is that ur post is exactly what we tend to get on this message board, whenever someone is against us they use the whole ur at college thing, ur a kid, u'r blinded by your teachers...it's all crap. You just have nothing to say about any of the posts oxbow3 has posted as they are all very well written and thought of. Actually find something he's said you want to argue and stop that whole "I'm wise and you're still at college blinded by your teachers" crap...

oxbow3: Keep up the good work!!!

Thank you for the kind words, J.

To the others who have called me a socialist, a retard, a frenchie, etc. I advise you to look up ad hominem, under logical fallacies.

The saying goes: kill the messenger if you don't like the message. Perhaps you have attacked me because its easier than countering my arguments?

A truly valuable debate occurs when both sides are changed as a result. The point is not to prove how right you are.

Don't be afraid of changing your mind. It is your prerogative as a fallible human being. I know coming here has changed my POV on many things.

 

[no1tovote4]

Well corporation isn't moral I believe...It's kind of the opposite, well from where I stand. I see what you say by opportunity but it's not always standing by the rules...By the way Chirac is right wing...
I'm not a right wing hater, I like some of their ideas, wish they would merge with the left wing as well...

A corporation is a group of people assembled to one cause. It can be as moral or immoral as any other group of people. But cannot be considered one or the other just because it is a corporation.

 

[no1tovote4]

Thank you for the kind words, J.

To the others who have called me a socialist, a retard, a frenchie, etc. I advise you to look up ad hominem, under logical fallacies.

The saying goes: kill the messenger if you don't like the message. Perhaps you have attacked me because its easier than countering my arguments?

A truly valuable debate occurs when both sides are changed as a result. The point is not to prove how right you are.

Don't be afraid of changing your mind. It is your prerogative as a fallible human being. I know coming here has changed my POV on many things.

Okay, look into whining as a logical phallacy. If you feel that one part of what somebody says is Ad Hominem you can "reject" all the other salient points of the argument and say they attacked you. That is whining and is just as much a logical phallacy as Ad Hominem itself.

I have read through much of the thread and there are points made that you have not responded to but have passed by to point out an Ad Hominem. Ignore the Ad Hominem attacks and give us your points. Always remember this is just a message board and if you have come for discussion you can always discuss rather than take part in the antics and Ad Hominem of others rather than using whining as part of your argument.

 

[Annie]

Okay, look into whining as a logical phallacy. If you feel that one part of what somebody says is Ad Hominem you can "reject" all the other salient points of the argument and say they attacked you. That is whining and is just as much a logical phallacy as Ad Hominem itself.

I have read through much of the thread and there are points made that you have not responded to but have passed by to point out an Ad Hominem. Ignore the Ad Hominem attacks and give us your points. Always remember this is just a message board and if you have come for discussion you can always discuss rather than take part in the antics and Ad Hominem of others rather than using whining as part of your argument.

I'm trying to understand this, not sure I want to post, but want to understand:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is 1) a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself; 2) an argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs.

 

[no1tovote4]

I'm trying to understand this, not sure I want to post, but want to understand:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is 1) a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself; 2) an argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs.

He was asserting that most people on this thread have attacked him personally rather than respond to his posts or taken part in definition 1.

However this itself was a logical phallacy as I read through this and many people responded to the post with salient argument. Instead of answering most of the argument he often would pass up the points made to complain about a different Ad Hominem attack that was made.

I was pointing out that whining about somebody's Ad Hominem attack while ignoring salient points made was also a logical phallacy, actually Ad Hominem to answer Ad Hominem while ignoring other salient points made. I renamed it Whining because it is a clearer definition of what he was doing.