Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Things not looking too good for Iranian president
Topic Started: Jan 18 2007, 05:31 AM (3,703 Views)
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
How did we get into a rant against corporations? 

1. Corporations shouldn't be favored by the government more than any other person.
2. Corporations should be the exact legal constructs that they are because they encourage investment by allowing people to shield assets outside the company from lawsuits, bankruptcy, etc...  Commerce would grind to a halt if you started repealing the way the corporation is set up.
3. Corporations are not inherently psyciopaths and you've not even attempted to prove that they are.  You've merely spewed out some rather caustic propaganda. 
4. Corporations generally abide within the law just like everyone else; they are made up of people after all and run by people.
5. Corporations are not destructive, but rather productive.  Most of the things we buy and use are made by corporations in one way or another.  They reduce costs, streamline efficiency, and make us all richer.  To the extent they look after profits is no more than anyone else.  People are self interested, but that's a good thing.  In people's pursuit of money they produce wonderful things that society needs to be wealthy and prosperous.


Okay, here's a LINK of just how honorable and much a friend of society corporations are. Jesus, with friends like these who needs a street thug to jack your car.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DirkNL
Member Avatar
Horrific poster
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Falcon
Feb 4 2007, 08:37 PM
Quote:
 
That's because most people were still silver spoon fed from capitalism, and stopped giving any value to collective wealth and human kind has been composed of egoists ever since.  


Humanity has always been composed of egoists; if your system doesn't work in the face of fundamental human nature then it is worthless.


If humanity is so fucking egoist as you say it is, then why did humankind form communities? If our species is by nature that egoist, we would just live solitary, isolated from the ones that care about others. Maybe that tells something about you, but definetely not about me.
Falcon
Feb 4 2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:
 

From WP:
Wikipedia
Communism article
Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization, based upon common ownership of the means of production.

Next time you go on with your head-smashing-on-keyboard, say something factual instead of just typing some random unsourced bullshit. Communism is considered bad as it is a hazard to the kkkapitalist system.

Communism is a hazard to human liberty in every incarnation that it has ever taken in the real world and indeed as it exists in theory.

So, you say it isn't. There has never been a truly communist state at all.
Falcon
Feb 4 2007, 08:37 PM

1. Classless: Impossible, you will always have classes.  If those classes are not based on wealth they'll be based on power or ability.  The "elites" of the communist society are the generals, politicians, scientists, engineers, etc...  The worker who "owns" the means of production is still going to be a cog in the machine of the general or the scientist that tells him what to build, how to build it, and how much of it to build. 
2. Stateless: Do you even know what this meant in Marx's convoluted theory?  His idea of the state was merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.  That might be what a communist state ends up looking like (what irony), but that isn't what a free state using capitalism looks like.  The whole point of America was to remove from the government the power to favor one class over another.
3. Common Ownership - The true test of ownership is whether you can sell, destory, exclude the use of others, rent, or otherwise dispose of the [property] in question.  If we own something in common then I can't do any of those things, thus when everyone owns something no one does.  Then the question is who controls this ownerless item.  The answer is whoever has the power.  That power won't rest with the "worker" but the communist overlord who issues orders at the point of a gun. 
Common ownership is also a farce because it denies the reality that some people produce more value than others.  If a factory of 100 produces 1000 widgets a day, 20 of which are produced by me, then common ownership means 99 people just stole the value of 10 widgets from me.  I will promptly produce less to avoid being robbed and society will be poorer.

So, you'd just do what made the CCCP a Smurf!-up - producing less and being an egoist asshole.
Falcon
Feb 4 2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:
 

That's also why there isn't a single book that says communism is a good thing.


You've not done much reading, have you? Or did you just mean school books? Who knows what you mean, for someone who just got done whining about sourcing (when there was nothing to source) you don't do much of it.

School books, dumbfuck.
Falcon
Feb 4 2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:
 

And about the 'there's no right to resources' bullshit you look to have made when you were smashing your head against your keyboard makes no sense at all. Food isn't property. You make food because the people need it, right? Then why the Smurf! is there actually a price on food? Giving food a price is the same as giving air a price - something you need to pay for whilst you can't survive without it.

-Dirk


Food isn't property? You need to go demand a refund on your education right now because it wasn't effective at all. People make food for the same reason they make everything else, there is a demand for it on the market. Things are given prices because they require effort to produce and supply; the price mostly reflects this cost, along with a cost based on how scarce and demanded the product is. Food has to be grown, which takes land, labor, equipment, time, all of which have a cost. Through the process of specialization of labor most of us choose to devote our time to our nitch production (whatever that is) and then purchase our food from someone else who specialized only in food production.


By the way, air isn't "free," nothing is free. You have to burn calories to inhale which requires that you work to get food, either by producing it yourself or by buying it from someone you hired to produce it for you, thus attaching a tiny little cost to each lung full. Enjoy!


And you enjoy the fact that you need to pay in order to live, fucking money fetihist.

-Dirk
Posted Image
Posted ImageHail the wallflipping monochrome computer thingyPosted Image
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/...nt.view/cpid/42

Corporations gave 13.7 billion to charities last year.

That's 13.7 billion more than they would have to give.

That isn't even including people like Gates who made his money via a corporation and then donated it, that's just counting what corporations as entites give.


DirkNL

Quote:
 

If humanity is so fucking egoist as you say it is, then why did humankind form communities? If our species is by nature that egoist, we would just live solitary, isolated from the ones that care about others. Maybe that tells something about you, but definetely not about me.


Your retort is illogical. Your original statement accused capitalism of causing people to devalue collective wealth which thus led them to becoming "egotists ever since." Obviously, being egotist doesn't preclude forming communities, nor does it lead people to seek out solitary lives. People can be "selfish" by nature and still seek community for mutual benefits like economic specialization, security, and companionship.

Quote:
 

So, you say it isn't. There has never been a truly communist state at all.


There hasn't been a truly communist state because communism doesn't work. Only communists are silly enough to look at repeated failure as a reason why their theories are still viable.

Quote:
 
So, you'd just do what made the CCCP a Smurf!-up - producing less and being an egoist asshole.


So you're going to work hard for someone else? You going to work overtime for a CEO and not demand some overtime pay? You going to donate all the money you don't need for basic survival to charity or the government? Don't make me laugh, you're just as egotist as anyone else so quit pretending. Also, you didn't address most of my point.

Quote:
 

And you enjoy the fact that you need to pay in order to live, fucking money fetihist.

-Dirk


I do enjoy living in the real world instead of some childish ideological fantasy. BTW, you still didn't address the bulk of my points, shall I assume silence is acceptance?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Falcon
Feb 5 2007, 10:11 PM
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/...nt.view/cpid/42

Corporations gave 13.7 billion to charities last year.

That's 13.7 billion more than they would have to give.

That isn't even including people like Gates who made his money via a corporation and then donated it, that's just counting what corporations as entites give.


That's nice. I'm glad these "kind" corporations gave a percentage of their profits to charaties. I'm sure the tax kickbacks didn't play even a small role in their donations either. Still, giving to charaties don't prove that corporations are necessarily a good neighbor.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Killer Bee
Feb 5 2007, 10:27 PM
Falcon
Feb 5 2007, 10:11 PM
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/...nt.view/cpid/42

Corporations gave 13.7 billion to charities last year.

That's 13.7 billion more than they would have to give.

That isn't even including people like Gates who made his money via a corporation and then donated it, that's just counting what corporations as entites give.


That's nice. I'm glad these "kind" corporations gave a percentage of their profits to charaties. I'm sure the tax kickbacks didn't play even a small role in their donations either. Still, giving to charaties don't prove that corporations are necessarily a good neighbor.

I'm sure that all the private individuals who give to charities are likewise unaffectived by the tax kickbacks they get. What criteria are you trying to use to make your judgment about whether they're "good neighbors" anyway? On what basis do you generalize across the board on corporations based on the actions of a few? If you were doing that against a skin color you'd be labeled racist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Katastrof
Member Avatar
One Of The Four Horseman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Falcon
 
Apparently that's exactly what they want, so long as they get a cut. The majority votes to steal and oppress the minority when it can get away with it.


It's the other way around buddy, the minority fools the majority by using the media to put propaganda into there heads. The minority has always supressed the majority, back to the priest leaders of the Mesopotmia, to the medievel kings, to the French aristocracy and now to this plutocracy that you like to call "American Democracy". The people you vote to represent you don't even half the time listen to what the majority wants but rather favours the "intrest groups" that puts extra money in their fat pockets....Representitive Democracy is just a synonym for Oligarchy.

Falcon
 
How did we get into a rant against corporations?


Because its the bastard child of Capitilism...

Falcon
 
. 1.Corporations shouldn't be favored by the government more than any other person.


Unfourtunatly they are because they have the same legal rights of a person and cannot be punished like a regular human being. They can't be imprisoned. Also the have lobbying groups in your congress that helps them be favoured.

Falcon
 
2.Corporations should be the exact legal constructs that they are because they encourage investment by allowing people to shield assets outside the company from lawsuits, bankruptcy, etc... Commerce would grind to a halt if you started repealing the way the corporation is set up.


O rly? You are so short sighted! You sound like the gold lenders of the 17th century! You can't predict the future, unfore-see-able events can still occur. Nothing is set in stone.

Falcon
 
3.Corporations are not inherently psyciopaths and you've not even attempted to prove that they are. You've merely spewed out some rather caustic propaganda.


-A corporation is a kind of person with no moral barometer, solely concerned with generating the maximum profit possible for its owners.

Defenition for Psychopaths:Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Psychopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.

If corporations are legally a person than why can't they be compared to other legal indiviudials?

Psychopath Traits from Dr.Robert Hare


  • Callous unconcern for the feelings of others



-Corporations are required by law to elevate their own interests above those of others, making them prone to prey upon and exploit others without regard for legal rules or moral limits. This can be shown thorugh the various layoffs, union bustings that a corporation does to increase profit. The ironic thing of this is that they are laying off some of their shareholders, so they can't really be looking after the well being of shareholders...



  • # Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships



-Corporations's efforts to minimize cost and maximize profit they came up with externalities. Externalities are cost or benefit from an economic transaction that parties "external" to the transaction receive This usaully involves a third party that does all the work for the coporation while the corp. reaps the benifit. Such externalities include the use of national militaries to secure oil rights for energy corporations, and governments that provide roads and bridges to drive automobiles on.



  • Reckless disregard for the safety of others

  • Deceitfulness: Repeated lying and conning of others for profit



-In 1997 Monsanto Corp. was found altering reports on their growth bovine hormone in cows called Polisac. This drug increases utter production of milk but also creates bacteria infection of the utters. This bacteria is found in the milk and Health Canada, banned rBGH, citing its potential to cause "sterility, infertility, birth defects, cancer and immunological derangements. This drug is banned in every first world country exsept the United States.



  • Incapacity to experience guilt

  • Failure to conform to the social norms with respect to lawful behaviors



Do I really have to give any examples? Corporations pay a fine and then go on with life. There are some corporations that have been fined repeativly but go on with buisness. Exxon Mobile created the biggest oil spill in history and now they are trying to hide global warming. Law is second to them.

Falcon
 
4. Corporations generally abide within the law just like everyone else; they are made up of people after all and run by people.


The people within the corporation are fired for any scandels but the corporation can just hire new indviduals to fill those spaces. You can't imprison a corporation...

Falcon
 
5.Corporations are not destructive, but rather productive. Most of the things we buy and use are made by corporations in one way or another. They reduce costs, streamline efficiency, and make us all richer. To the extent they look after profits is no more than anyone else. People are self interested, but that's a good thing. In people's pursuit of money they produce wonderful things that society needs to be wealthy and prosperous.


Another shortsided bout? Here's a list of the things corporations have done to society that has pillaged the 80% of the world's population while supporting the other 20%. Majority=society not the minority.

  • layoffs
  • union busting
  • factory fires
  • sweatshops.

  • toxic waste
  • pollution

  • clear cutting
  • carbon dioxide emissions
  • nuclear waste
Posted Image

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero"(Seize the day put no trust in tomorrow)
~ Horace
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Falcon
Feb 5 2007, 10:37 PM
Killer Bee
Feb 5 2007, 10:27 PM
Falcon
Feb 5 2007, 10:11 PM
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/...nt.view/cpid/42

Corporations gave 13.7 billion to charities last year.

That's 13.7 billion more than they would have to give.

That isn't even including people like Gates who made his money via a corporation and then donated it, that's just counting what corporations as entites give.


That's nice. I'm glad these "kind" corporations gave a percentage of their profits to charaties. I'm sure the tax kickbacks didn't play even a small role in their donations either. Still, giving to charaties don't prove that corporations are necessarily a good neighbor.

I'm sure that all the private individuals who give to charities are likewise unaffectived by the tax kickbacks they get. What criteria are you trying to use to make your judgment about whether they're "good neighbors" anyway? On what basis do you generalize across the board on corporations based on the actions of a few? If you were doing that against a skin color you'd be labeled racist.

On what basis are you saying that corporations are a "good" part of society. Is it monetary gains only? Where's your reasoning, outside of your brainwashed wikipedia riddled responses? And in no way shape or form have I ever been a racist, you phucking dolt.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Killer Bee
Feb 5 2007, 10:52 PM
Falcon
Feb 5 2007, 10:37 PM
Killer Bee
Feb 5 2007, 10:27 PM
Falcon
Feb 5 2007, 10:11 PM
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/...nt.view/cpid/42

Corporations gave 13.7 billion to charities last year.

That's 13.7 billion more than they would have to give.

That isn't even including people like Gates who made his money via a corporation and then donated it, that's just counting what corporations as entites give.


That's nice. I'm glad these "kind" corporations gave a percentage of their profits to charaties. I'm sure the tax kickbacks didn't play even a small role in their donations either. Still, giving to charaties don't prove that corporations are necessarily a good neighbor.

I'm sure that all the private individuals who give to charities are likewise unaffectived by the tax kickbacks they get. What criteria are you trying to use to make your judgment about whether they're "good neighbors" anyway? On what basis do you generalize across the board on corporations based on the actions of a few? If you were doing that against a skin color you'd be labeled racist.

On what basis are you saying that corporations are a "good" part of society. Is it monetary gains only? Where's your reasoning, outside of your brainwashed wikipedia riddled responses? And in no way shape or form have I ever been a racist, you phucking dolt.

The kind of stereotyping you are engaging in against corporations would be considered racism if you did the same thing to a skin color.


Corporations are good because they are a superior legal construct for the sheltering of investments that thus encourages production, research, and economic efficiency. They encourage production by allowing many small investors to pool their capital to take advantage of economics of scale. They encourage research for the same reason. They are economically efficient because investors can invest as little or as much as they want without fearing that their uninvested assets can be taken in lawsuits or bankruptcy. Without that assurance people would be less willing to invest and without those investments it would be more difficult and more expensive to engage in mass production.

Now that I've answered my own question posed back to me by yourself, would you mind answering my original question, namely on what basis do you decide what a 'good neighbor' is?

Katastrof
Quote:
 

Falcon
 
Apparently that's exactly what they want, so long as they get a cut. The majority votes to steal and oppress the minority when it can get away with it.


It's the other way around buddy, the minority fools the majority by using the media to put propaganda into there heads. The minority has always supressed the majority, back to the priest leaders of the Mesopotmia, to the medievel kings, to the French aristocracy and now to this plutocracy that you like to call "American Democracy". The people you vote to represent you don't even half the time listen to what the majority wants but rather favours the "intrest groups" that puts extra money in their fat pockets....Representitive Democracy is just a synonym for Oligarchy.


Your assertion doesn't square with reality. What does government spend most of its money on? Is it special interests? Is it select industry? No, its the people, specifically poor people, elderly people, the people who make up a majority of the voting public. Welfare, medicare, medicade, social security; those are the big ticket items of government spending that the majority of voters have decided to plunder the wealthy minority to pay for.


Quote:
 

Falcon
 
. 1.Corporations shouldn't be favored by the government more than any other person.


Unfourtunatly they are because they have the same legal rights of a person and cannot be punished like a regular human being. They can't be imprisoned. Also the have lobbying groups in your congress that helps them be favoured.


The individuals who run them can be imprisoned and they can be fined into oblivian so your assertion that they cannot be effectively punished doesn't hold water. If the government didn't have the power to favor one group over another then there would be no lobbists. Blame the right party; a too powerful government.

Quote:
 

Falcon
 
2.Corporations should be the exact legal constructs that they are because they encourage investment by allowing people to shield assets outside the company from lawsuits, bankruptcy, etc... Commerce would grind to a halt if you started repealing the way the corporation is set up.


O rly? You are so short sighted! You sound like the gold lenders of the 17th century! You can't predict the future, unfore-see-able events can still occur. Nothing is set in stone.


There was once a time when there were no corporations. During this era there arose expensive undertakings of great risk such that no one person wanted to shoulder that risk alone. Corporations were eventually formed to share that risk and to protect the investors from losing all that they owned. Nothing has changed since then; there are still things which are too risky for one person to do alone and things too risky to invest all your wealth into. Logically, people won't invest at all if they have to risk everything, but they will if they can choose how much to risk. You have done nothing to refute this point.

Quote:
 

Falcon
 
3.Corporations are not inherently psyciopaths and you've not even attempted to prove that they are. You've merely spewed out some rather caustic propaganda.


-A corporation is a kind of person with no moral barometer, solely concerned with generating the maximum profit possible for its owners.

Defenition for Psychopaths:Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Psychopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others.

If corporations are legally a person than why can't they be compared to other legal indiviudials?

Psychopath Traits from Dr.Robert Hare



  • Callous unconcern for the feelings of others




-Corporations are required by law to elevate their own interests above those of others, making them prone to prey upon and exploit others without regard for legal rules or moral limits. This can be shown thorugh the various layoffs, union bustings that a corporation does to increase profit. The ironic thing of this is that they are laying off some of their shareholders, so they can't really be looking after the well being of shareholders...


Please, no more lists, they're a nightmare to wade through when replying.

Corporations are required to elevate their own interests above others because anything else would be unfair to the shareholders. Shareholders have invested for profits, not for charity. If you want to engage in charity with your own money that is your own business, but if you're a corporation then engaging in charity with the money of your shareholders is unethical. No one will invest if their money is liable to be squandered in a way not designed to maximize profits.

Quote:
 




  • # Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships




-Corporations's efforts to minimize cost and maximize profit they came up with externalities. Externalities are cost or benefit from an economic transaction that parties "external" to the transaction receive This usaully involves a third party that does all the work for the coporation while the corp. reaps the benifit. Such externalities include the use of national militaries to secure oil rights for energy corporations, and governments that provide roads and bridges to drive automobiles on.


The government provides economic infrastructure for everone, including you. You're using externalities just like the corporations whilst you greedily reap the benefits, thusly indicted by your own words.

Here's reality; corporations pay taxes just like everyone else and are entitled to use the common goods, like roads, that society builds to facilitate commerce. The government doesn't go abroad to secure resources by force, if only it did. What usually happens is that a corporation invests in a foreign nation. It builds up oil wells, or mines, or some other infrastructure and then some despotic foreign government tries to steal the corporation's property via nationalization. If we're lucky the US military steps in and prevents this kind of looting, but all too often the corporation loses and we all become a little poorer.


Quote:
 




  • Reckless disregard for the safety of others


  • Deceitfulness: Repeated lying and conning of others for profit




-In 1997 Monsanto Corp. was found altering reports on their growth bovine hormone in cows called Polisac. This drug increases utter production of milk but also creates bacteria infection of the utters. This bacteria is found in the milk and Health Canada, banned rBGH, citing its potential to cause "sterility, infertility, birth defects, cancer and immunological derangements. This drug is banned in every first world country exsept the United States.


In September 1982, someone tampered with Tylenol capsules by filling some with cyanide and placing them back on the shelf to be sold. Seven people died from this in the Chicago area. After the first person was admitted into the hospital and the cause of death was determined, the Johnson and Johnson company immediately began to alert people through the media. When more people were being admitted into the hospital, James Burke, chief executive officer of Johnson and Johnson at that time, and the Federal Drug Administration made the decision to pull the product off the market. This voluntary recall cost the company approximately $100 million dollars(O'Dwyer's PR Services Report,1/2000). O'Dwyer, Jack. O'Dwyer's PR Services Report, Jan 2000.
<http://www.odwyerpr.com/insider.htm>[Accessed 30 April 2000].


Shall we keep swapping ancedotal incidents that have precisely zero meaning? Corporations are run by people. How they behave depends on the ethics of the people running them at the time. You don't decide that all car mechanics are evil greedy lying jerks because one of them rips you off sometime, do you?

Quote:
 




  • Incapacity to experience guilt


  • Failure to conform to the social norms with respect to lawful behaviors




Do I really have to give any examples? Corporations pay a fine and then go on with life. There are some corporations that have been fined repeativly but go on with buisness. Exxon Mobile created the biggest oil spill in history and now they are trying to hide global warming. Law is second to them.


Anyone who gets a fine pays it and goes on with life; what does that have to do with anything? Some people have been sanctioned by the law repeatedly, that doesn't generalize to everyone. Exxon Mobile didn't create an oil spill on purpose, unless you theorize that they just like losing money, reputation, and equipment. Global warming is a myth; I'm glad that there are some corporations out there fighting for the truth. I certainly don't have the resources to effect such an effort. Corporations adhere to the law as rigorously as anyone else, more so in fact, since they typically retain an army of lawyers to review their every action.

Quote:
 

Falcon
 
4. Corporations generally abide within the law just like everyone else; they are made up of people after all and run by people.


The people within the corporation are fired for any scandels but the corporation can just hire new indviduals to fill those spaces. You can't imprison a corporation...


You don't need to, you only need to imprison the people who run the corporation and thus are the people who broke the law. The corporation is just a legal construct used to facilitate investment and economics of scale.

Quote:
 

Falcon
 
5.Corporations are not destructive, but rather productive. Most of the things we buy and use are made by corporations in one way or another. They reduce costs, streamline efficiency, and make us all richer. To the extent they look after profits is no more than anyone else. People are self interested, but that's a good thing. In people's pursuit of money they produce wonderful things that society needs to be wealthy and prosperous.


Another shortsided bout? Here's a list of the things corporations have done to society that has pillaged the 80% of the world's population while supporting the other 20%. Majority=society not the minority.


  • layoffs

  • union busting

  • factory fires

  • sweatshops.



  • toxic waste

  • pollution



  • clear cutting

  • carbon dioxide emissions

  • nuclear waste



1. Layoffs - Every business that has ever existed has almost without exception laid people off. Layoffs are the natural result of changing supply and demand within the market, or else some other change outside the control of the corporations. Corporations would be happy if their product was in such demand that they could expand their workforce rather than shrink it.
2. Unions need to be busted, they're monopolistic practices that artifically inflate wages and thus prices with the end result of making us all poorer
3. Sweatshops are good, they provide work to people who need it at a rate typically higher than other domestic jobs (I'm assuming you mean sweatshops in third world nations). They provide us goods at the cheapest rates possible; cheap goods mean we spend less money, thus we have more money to spend on other things, thus making us richer.
4. Toxic Waste \ Pollution - Byproduct of the industrial age that wasn't created by corporations nor would it disappear if corporations were abolished. One of the nastiest nations in the world is the former Soviet Union.
5. Clear cutting - Either we do it or nature does with a forest fire.
6. Carbon dioxide \ nuclear waste - Again, a byproduct of the industrial age. You (and every other consumer of course) are the source of carbon dioxide, not the corporation that merely provides the services you demand.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
Now that I've answered my own question posed back to me by yourself, would you mind answering my original question, namely on what basis do you decide what a 'good neighbor' is?


A "good neighbor" is someone who watches out for their neighbors. Someone who doesn't rape the sorrounding land of it's natural resources(I don't have a link, but I've seen first hand the damage that logging companies do to natural sorroundings). Secondly, a "good neighbor" watches out for the little guy. Unlike Wal-Mart that moves into a town and first attacks the ma and pa businesses that have been there for years. Thirdly, a "good nieghbor" gives something back to the community, outside of jobs which aren't guarenteed to any body who lives there. Another example in favor of this is the General Motors plant right up the road from me recently completley renovated the high school in the village it sets in. In general, a "good neighbor" is someone who has more than their own personal agenda driving their motive. Not just someone that a community invests large amounts of dollars in to keep them in there. Or a "good neighbor" does indeed invest money into the community instead of investing into "charities" which only covers the bleeding heart's interpertation of a worthwhile cause.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 

A "good neighbor" is someone who watches out for their neighbors.  Someone who doesn't rape the sorrounding land of it's natural resources(I don't have a link, but I've seen first hand the damage that logging companies do to natural sorroundings).


Have you by chance noticed what forest fires do to the natural surroundings?

Quote:
 

  Secondly, a "good neighbor" watches out for the little guy.  Unlike Wal-Mart that moves into a town and first attacks the ma and pa businesses that have been there for years.


Wal-Mart cannot drive out ma and pa businesses, only you, the consumer, can give your business to wal-mart and drive out ma and pa.

Quote:
 

  Thirdly, a "good nieghbor" gives something back to the community, outside of jobs which aren't guarenteed to any body who lives there.


Something more than cheap prices on quality goods? BTW, I hope you give back to your community in some form (or is giving back only something corporations need to do?)

Quote:
 

  Another example in favor of this is the General Motors plant right up the road from me recently completley renovated the high school in the village it sets in.  In general, a "good neighbor" is someone who has more than their own personal agenda driving their motive.


Even when their personal agenda is good for the community and the nation? The free market is predicated on the realization that when someone sets out to look out for their own interest they are a positive force. You go to work because you need money, but incidental to your selfish goal of money earning you provide a valuable service to society. Your greed is helping those around you.

Quote:
 

  Not just someone that a community invests large amounts of dollars in to keep them in there. Or a "good neighbor" does indeed invest money into the community instead of investing into "charities" which only covers the bleeding heart's interpertation of a worthwhile cause. [/color]


The community shouldn't be investing in a company (a lot of communities give tax breaks, industrial parks, etc, to get companies in).

We really need to get over this idiotic notion that people "owe" each other something merely because they're successful or have some amount of money.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Katastrof
Member Avatar
One Of The Four Horseman
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Falcon
 
Your assertion doesn't square with reality. What does government spend most of its money on? Is it special interests? Is it select industry? No, its the people, specifically poor people, elderly people, the people who make up a majority of the voting public. Welfare, medicare, medicade, social security; those are the big ticket items of government spending that the majority of voters have decided to plunder the wealthy minority to pay for.


Doesn't squere with reality? You are the one my friend looking at life with your eyes wide shut. I never once said that the government spent all there money on intrest groups. Semaintics. You not even a good debater, just a good heckler. I said that since a corporation is a person (look it up, they gained rights through a loop-hole in the 14th amendment. This was made to give blacks rights, when it was amended between 1890-1910, 307 cases were presented to the Supreme Court only 19 were made by African Americans while 288 were made by corporations)
What you don't understand is that if corporations are persons even though there is more money in spending for the general public, per person the corporation gets more than any other person.

By the way the weathly have been plundering the poor for years, its karma.

Falcon
 
The individuals who run them can be imprisoned and they can be fined into oblivian so your assertion that they cannot be effectively punished doesn't hold water. If the government didn't have the power to favor one group over another then there would be no lobbists. Blame the right party; a too powerful government.


Yes it does because out of all the companies that were fined how many were fined into oblivian? You my friend are making general assumtions; if one case does not fit the pattern you find the pattern null. But that's not the case, one rare occasion is not the average.

Falcon
 
There was once a time when there were no corporations. During this era there arose expensive undertakings of great risk such that no one person wanted to shoulder that risk alone. Corporations were eventually formed to share that risk and to protect the investors from losing all that they owned. Nothing has changed since then; there are still things which are too risky for one person to do alone and things too risky to invest all your wealth into. Logically, people won't invest at all if they have to risk everything, but they will if they can choose how much to risk. You have done nothing to refute this point.


Which era? Which persons did not want to take risks? Didn't they anyways? I mean even if you don't want to you still do. This is a general assumstion and occurding to your logical its null and void. PLAY BY YOUR OWN RULES. I can smell BS too. To assume things makes an ass out of me and u.

And something has changed, corporations have become people, therefore creating many loopholes for them to side step the law.

Nothing to refute your point on logic? How about I not refute the point but question your vaildity of this "logic". I need proof to go along with that point. Did you never attend english class?

Quote:
 
Please, no more lists, they're a nightmare to wade through when replying.

Corporations are required to elevate their own interests above others because anything else would be unfair to the shareholders. Shareholders have invested for profits, not for charity. If you want to engage in charity with your own money that is your own business, but if you're a corporation then engaging in charity with the money of your shareholders is unethical. No one will invest if their money is liable to be squandered in a way not designed to maximize profits.


Well you seem to ignore any other claim not even accepting minute detials that are wrong from your arguement, or claiming rebutalls are too "general" so I decided to give you hard points and proof. Obviously this isn't a logic problem but an arrogance problem...

I never said charity stop putting words in my mouth. However you did say charity a couple posts back. The problem with your logic is the corporation is a paradox in itself:

Maximum profit for shareholders but will cut shareholders for maximum profits.
Do you see the paradox? You can't refute this point because they do cut shareholders (*cough*workers*cough*) By the way thanks for supporting my arguement of corporations only wanting money, now I know you are as cold hearted as them.

Falcon
 
The government provides economic infrastructure for everone, including you. You're using externalities just like the corporations whilst you greedily reap the benefits, thusly indicted by your own words.

Here's reality; corporations pay taxes just like everyone else and are entitled to use the common goods, like roads, that society builds to facilitate commerce. The government doesn't go abroad to secure resources by force, if only it did. What usually happens is that a corporation invests in a foreign nation. It builds up oil wells, or mines, or some other infrastructure and then some despotic foreign government tries to steal the corporation's property via nationalization. If we're lucky the US military steps in and prevents this kind of looting, but all too often the corporation loses and we all become a little poorer.


Yes I know I'm not a retard. I don't greedly reap the benifits because if I did I would be in a mansion now. I use them to fasilitate my needs and only for my needs. It's not for profit more for breaking even. That's not being greedy.

And can anyone say Iraq War? (You are going to say why Katastrof the prise of oil skyrocketed during the war. Well, I'm going to say, it didn't sky rocket for OPEC. They got it for free seeing as they didn't need to negociate with Saddam anymore. Hell they sent workers to claim the oil. We become poorer, but the oil companies ethier break even or profit from this.)

Falcon
 
Shall we keep swapping ancedotal incidents that have precisely zero meaning? Corporations are run by people. How they behave depends on the ethics of the people running them at the time. You don't decide that all car mechanics are evil greedy lying jerks because one of them rips you off sometime, do you?


What the hell do you want me to do?! You don't want genereal statements. You don't want links. You don't want examples, nor do you want the point proof system. What do you want me to smash your head on the keyboard or something?

Corporations ethics are not on the people who run them. No, if there ethics are bad a sqandel occurs and the shareholders boot'em out. Profits are number 1. If that means killing the planet that the shareholders live on so be it. So says the Corprate Paradox, so let it be done.

No I don't, but if all of them do that's not sterotypical now is it? There are no few bad apples in the coporations, there are only a few good apples.

Falcon
 
Anyone who gets a fine pays it and goes on with life; what does that have to do with anything? Some people have been sanctioned by the law repeatedly, that doesn't generalize to everyone. Exxon Mobile didn't create an oil spill on purpose, unless you theorize that they just like losing money, reputation, and equipment. Global warming is a myth; I'm glad that there are some corporations out there fighting for the truth. I certainly don't have the resources to effect such an effort. Corporations adhere to the law as rigorously as anyone else, more so in fact, since they typically retain an army of lawyers to review their every action.


In the above quotes you said they fine corporations to oblivion if they commit a crime. WTF? You backpedling or what?

:o Global Warming a myth! I have lost ALL RESPECT I ever had for you. You idoit the proof is all around us. OPEN YOUR EYES. Why do you see global warming a myth!? Explain. You have given no proof and not even a point on that. Why the hell would people make global warming up. Did you read the doomsday situation on the main site? There is so much proof for this that the debate is over. You can't refute/debate/deny it any longer. Global warming is happening. Do something now or regret it later. Fighting for the truth?! Again corporations only do things for profits. Charity is a fasuade to get more shareholders to invest. Charity is not giving 5% of your profits. It's giving almost half of it. If a poor women gave one dollar and that was 40% of her income and a corporation gave 1,000,000 dollars but it was only 2% of their income who is more righteous?

Falcon
 
You don't need to, you only need to imprison the people who run the corporation and thus are the people who broke the law. The corporation is just a legal construct used to facilitate investment and economics of scale.


No that is finding a scapegoat instead of solving the problem of the corpoaration.

Falcon
 

1. Layoffs - Every business that has ever existed has almost without exception laid people off. Layoffs are the natural result of changing supply and demand within the market, or else some other change outside the control of the corporations. Corporations would be happy if their product was in such demand that they could expand their workforce rather than shrink it.
2. Unions need to be busted, they're monopolistic practices that artifically inflate wages and thus prices with the end result of making us all poorer
3. Sweatshops are good, they provide work to people who need it at a rate typically higher than other domestic jobs (I'm assuming you mean sweatshops in third world nations). They provide us goods at the cheapest rates possible; cheap goods mean we spend less money, thus we have more money to spend on other things, thus making us richer.
4. Toxic Waste \ Pollution - Byproduct of the industrial age that wasn't created by corporations nor would it disappear if corporations were abolished. One of the nastiest nations in the world is the former Soviet Union.
5. Clear cutting - Either we do it or nature does with a forest fire.
6. Carbon dioxide \ nuclear waste - Again, a byproduct of the industrial age. You (and every other consumer of course) are the source of carbon dioxide, not the corporation that merely provides the services you demand.


1. No layoffs have only exsisted inside the corporation era. They were created with the corporation. Name me a medievel, no a 17th century buissness that laid off a mass of people. None. Again corpoarations only look out for profits not even there shareoholders who are their workers. (Workers own shares remember...)
2.Some yes, most no. If not for unions people would not be able to survive from the little they made from greedy bosses and CEOs...
3.Damn you're ignorant.(sorry just stating the truth, its not an insult) I wouldn't care less if I had to spend more money. Giving people not even adaquate money to survive is not giving them justice. It's taking advantage of person. If they were paid what they rightfully deserved they would be given more than just 2% of the profits of a shoe when the company gets over 40%.
4.The industrial age was the birth of the corporation, they fueled it. READ, please READ! Also I need a world ranking of top polluter. I just somehow think you pulled that answer from your prejudice of Communism. (I don't support it, and I don't support Capatilism either...)
5.At least forrest fires are natural. You know a forrest fire HELPS the forest, right? It gets rid of old deadwood so new young trees have a better abilitry to grow. It doesn't get rid of all trees either. I don't know where you got that idea from... Also if we get rid of all trees there will be not enough oxygen left and we would die. Observe:

carbon dioxide + water ->(through light/photsynthesis)-> oxygen + glucose

Without trees oxygen levels go down and carbon dioxide goes up. Try it at home kids! Put a plant in a test tube with a snail, a snail in another testube and a control. See which snail dies faster!

6. Cellar resperation does create carbon dioxide your right, but its part of a natural cycle that has worked for eons. Why fix what's not broken? You take out trees you break the cycle and destroy the biosphere. Which kills us. I never once asked the coporation to do this. If I did wouldn't I be agreeing with you?
Posted Image

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero"(Seize the day put no trust in tomorrow)
~ Horace
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 

Doesn't squere with reality? You are the one my friend looking at life with your eyes wide shut. I never once said that the government spent all there money on intrest groups. Semaintics.


You said that the minority is suppressing the majority and you gave the example of special interest getting money put in its pockets. I pointed out that the majority gets far more money put into its pockets than all the special interest groups put together. Ironically you accuse me of semantic nitpicking when your reply is just that, predicated on the hair splitting assertion that you didn't say that government spent all its money on special interests. Unfortunately for your rebuttal I didn't accuse you of stating that the government spends all its money on special interests. I simply responded to your incorrect assertion that the minority is suppressing the majority and refuted the example that you chose to use; special interest groups. Don't get mad at me because you had a bad argument and a faulty example.

Quote:
 

You not even a good debater, just a good heckler.


A good debater spends the first two or three lines of his post sputtering about semantics and critiquing the other person's technique I suppose?

Quote:
 

I said that since a corporation is a person (look it up, they gained rights through a loop-hole in the 14th amendment. This was made to give blacks rights, when it was amended between 1890-1910, 307 cases were presented to the Supreme Court only 19 were made by African Americans while 288 were made by corporations)


Try reading these two cases.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937)
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma (1955)


The day is gone when this Court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought. Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, 348 U.S. 483, 488 (1955).

Quote:
 

What you don't understand is that if corporations are persons even though there is more money in spending for the general public, per person the corporation gets more than any other person.

By the way the weathly have been plundering the poor for years, its karma.


What's your point and why should I care about karma or your unfounded, unproven claim that the wealthy have "plundered" the poor. It seems that the poor have plundered the rich to the tune of 5 trillion dollars since the Great Society (as of 1997), with no improvement in the poverty rates. http://www.cato.org/dailys/1-24-97.html

Quote:
 

Yes it does because out of all the companies that were fined how many were fined into oblivian? You my friend are making general assumtions; if one case does not fit the pattern you find the pattern null. But that's not the case, one rare occasion is not the average.


How many deserved to be fined into oblivian? You haven't offered a shred of evidence to establish a general pattern. You haven't offered a shred of evidence to show that corporations are generally in violation of the law. You're the one trying to claim that corporations are continually violating the law, but you can't or won't offer any evidence, just ancedotal examples from which no inference can be made. Sorry, but the burden is on you to make a case.

Quote:
 

Which era? Which persons did not want to take risks? Didn't they anyways? I mean even if you don't want to you still do. This is a general assumstion and occurding to your logical its null and void. PLAY BY YOUR OWN RULES. I can smell BS too. To assume things makes an ass out of me and u.


It depends on which nation you want to talk about. Rome had corporations. European nations during the middle ages had corporations. Persons wanting to go to the far east to get spices, for example, didn't want to take risks by themselves so they joined together in early corporations. Good grief, do I have to educate you on every tiny historical detail that comes our way?

Quote:
 

And something has changed, corporations have become people, therefore creating many loopholes for them to side step the law.


Corporations used to be formed by a charter from a king so the idea that they have extra protections now is false. Your assertion that corporations currently enjoy 14th amendment protections is also false as shown above.

Quote:
 
Nothing to refute your point on logic? How about I not refute the point but question your vaildity of this "logic". I need proof to go along with that point. Did you never attend english class?


I reason that people won't engage in risky behavior when they could lose all that they have, but that they would be willing to invest a small amount. You haven't given any reasoning as to why people would make an equal level of investment even if they were naked to liability and bankruptcy claiming monies that they did not invest in the activity once protected by the corporate shield. You haven't given any "proof" either (which is rediculous, this is human investment behavior) and you're the one making the assertion that corporations are unnecessary for people to be willing to invest.

Quote:
 

Well you seem to ignore any other claim not even accepting minute detials that are wrong from your arguement, or claiming rebutalls are too "general" so I decided to give you hard points and proof. Obviously this isn't a logic problem but an arrogance problem...


The problem is that the list function on this forum is hard to read through. I can't wait to see your minute details, hard points, and proof.

Quote:
 

I never said charity stop putting words in my mouth. However you did say charity a couple posts back. The problem with your logic is the corporation is a paradox in itself:


If you're looking out for someone else's interests besides your own profits then how is that not charity?

Quote:
 

Maximum profit for shareholders but will cut shareholders for maximum profits.
Do you see the paradox? You can't refute this point because they do cut shareholders (*cough*workers*cough*) By the way thanks for supporting my arguement of corporations only wanting money, now I know you are as cold hearted as them.


No, I don't see the paradox, not the least because there is no paradox. The corporation acts for the collective shareholders, not for the individual shareholders who may be employed with the company in an obsolete job.
How is it cold hearted to fullfill your moral obligation as a steward over someone's investment? Would you like it if someone took money that you invested and squandered it? That money is someone else's hard earned property; they need those investments to succeed to support their families. Who are you to decide that one person's family (the stockholder's) is less important than someone else's (the laid off employee's)? Sounds pretty, ahem, cold hearted of you.

Quote:
 
Yes I know I'm not a retard. I don't greedly reap the benifits because if I did I would be in a mansion now. I use them to fasilitate my needs and only for my needs. It's not for profit more for breaking even. That's not being greedy.


Sure it is, someone else may be going behind because you greedily decided to break even. For shame. It's also pretty greedy of you to only work enough to break even. You should be working as hard as possible to turn as big a profit as possible because in order to make a big profit you'll have to maximize the value that you are producing for society.

Quote:
 
And can anyone say Iraq War? (You are going to say why Katastrof the prise of oil skyrocketed during the war. Well, I'm going to say, it didn't sky rocket for OPEC. They got it for free seeing as they didn't need to negociate with Saddam anymore. Hell they sent workers to claim the oil. We become poorer, but the oil companies ethier break even or profit from this.)


OPEC is an cartel of many different oil producing nations which means it has precisely zero to do with your rant against corporations. The oil companies make profits based on supply and demand just like everyone else.

Quote:
 
What the hell do you want me to do?! You don't want genereal statements. You don't want links. You don't want examples, nor do you want the point proof system. What do you want me to smash your head on the keyboard or something?


When you make a general statement in order to draw an inference you need proof to show that the general statement is founded in fact. When you give examples you need to show that those examples can be generalized to the broad picture or else no meaningful inference can be drawn. I can't help it that you don't understand how to properly construct an argument.

Quote:
 
Corporations ethics are not on the people who run them. No, if there ethics are bad a sqandel occurs and the shareholders boot'em out. Profits are number 1. If that means killing the planet that the shareholders live on so be it. So says the Corprate Paradox, so let it be done.


Corporations have to follow the law like everyone else. What is unethical is lawbreaking. Maximizing profits within the law is the moral obligation of corporations because they are entrusted with other people's money for that purpose. Their duty is to the shareholders, to all of the shareholders. As an aside, you just can't help but tossing in little propagandistic barbs like "killing the planet" into every other sentence can you?

Quote:
 
No I don't, but if all of them do that's not sterotypical now is it? There are no few bad apples in the coporations, there are only a few good apples.


A perfect example of a statement begging for proof.

Quote:
 
In the above quotes you said they fine corporations to oblivion if they commit a crime. WTF? You backpedling or what?


Your inability to understand continues to astound. The government may fine a corporation into oblivian if it commits a crime worthy of such a penality. That doesn't mean that corporations routinely commit such crimes, in fact there is no evidence that they do.

Quote:
 
Global Warming a myth! I have lost ALL RESPECT I ever had for you. You idoit the proof is all around us. OPEN YOUR EYES. Why do you see global warming a myth!? Explain. You have given no proof and not even a point on that. Why the hell would people make global warming up. Did you read the doomsday situation on the main site? There is so much proof for this that the debate is over. You can't refute/debate/deny it any longer. Global warming is happening. Do something now or regret it later.


This is an entire other thread, but I can give you a few tips. As to why people make it up? To use as a vehicle for an agenda that seeks to redistribute wealth from the first to third world, mainly, and to get unlimited funding for their "research." Anyone who objectively examines the data can see its riddled full of so many holes as to be highly doubtful. Don't buy into the big corporate media scare-fest.

Wikipedia comes through

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...dex.html#000631

http://www.heartland.org/archives/studies/gwscience.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm

Quote:
 
Fighting for the truth?! Again corporations only do things for profits. Charity is a fasuade to get more shareholders to invest. Charity is not giving 5% of your profits. It's giving almost half of it. If a poor women gave one dollar and that was 40% of her income and a corporation gave 1,000,000 dollars but it was only 2% of their income who is more righteous?


Fortunately the truth and profits coincide; you on the other hand don't have the truth as your primary interest, unless of course you are now a mind reader and can attribute motive to all charitable investment. I don't know who you think we are to sit in judgment over who's contribution is more rightous either. The corporation is doing more good, but you don't care about results, right? Just the subjective intent of the giver, which you can conveniently divine with your mind reading ability.

Quote:
 

No that is finding a scapegoat instead of solving the problem of the corpoaration.


There isn't any problem so far identified in having a legal construct designed to streamline investment and production.

Quote:
 

1. No layoffs have only exsisted inside the corporation era. They were created with the corporation. Name me a medievel, no a 17th century buissness that laid off a mass of people. None. Again corpoarations only look out for profits not even there shareoholders who are their workers. (Workers own shares remember...)


Back in those days everyone was mainly self employed; if they couldn't work they starved to death. See the famines that decimated agrarian Europe repeatedly. People who worked for others, like blacksmiths, did indeed lose employment if there was no demand for their services. Do you want to go back to an agrarian system where everyone is self employed?

Quote:
 
2.Some yes, most no. If not for unions people would not be able to survive from the little they made from greedy bosses and CEOs...


"In 2006, 12.0 percent of employed wage and salary workers were union
members, down from 12.5 percent a year earlier, the U.S. Department of
Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today." http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

Looks like 88% of employed wage and salary workers are surviving just fine without unions.

Quote:
 

3.Damn you're ignorant.(sorry just stating the truth, its not an insult) I wouldn't care less if I had to spend more money. Giving people not even adaquate money to survive is not giving them justice. It's taking advantage of person. If they were paid what they rightfully deserved they would be given more than just 2% of the profits of a shoe when the company gets over 40%.


Rude brat aren't you? Who calls someone ignorent and then says it isn't an insult? If you want to insult someone do it without apology. Anyway, how is it just to give someone more money than their services are worth? Do you go into the grocery store and pay the cashier double for your groceries? What's just is that everyone engage in free uncoerced commerce in the market selling their goods or labor for what someone else will buy them for.

Quote:
 
4.The industrial age was the birth of the corporation, they fueled it. READ, please READ! Also I need a world ranking of top polluter. I just somehow think you pulled that answer from your prejudice of Communism. (I don't support it, and I don't support Capatilism either...)


The industrial age exists without the corporation. Corporations are better at industry than communist state ownership of course, both in terms of production and in terms of protecting the environment.

"In a 1997 essay for Time magazine, [Gorbachev] traces his environmental concerns to his work as a young man on a Soviet collective farm where he saw problems created by soil erosion and water and air pollution. Later, as a Communist party official working for a natural resources commission, he saw how poor construction and operation of irrigation and hydroelectric plants ruined fertile land and damaged rivers and seas."

http://www.uga.edu/news/newsbureau/release...gorby_talk.html

Quote:
 

5.At least forrest fires are natural. You know a forrest fire HELPS the forest, right? It gets rid of old deadwood so new young trees have a better abilitry to grow. It doesn't get rid of all trees either. I don't know where you got that idea from... Also if we get rid of all trees there will be not enough oxygen left and we would die. Observe:carbon dioxide + water ->(through light/photsynthesis)-> oxygen + glucose

Without trees oxygen levels go down and carbon dioxide goes up. Try it at home kids! Put a plant in a test tube with a snail, a snail in another testube and a control. See which snail dies faster!


"Phytoplankton are mostly single-celled photosynthetic organisms that feed fish and marine mammals. They are responsible for nearly 50 percent of the earth's annual carbon-dioxide consumption and more than 45 percent of the oxygen production." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/...40728085622.htm

Sure, if you want you can burn the left over under brush after the good trees have been harvested. Its better than letting all that production burn up. Besides, if we can't cut down as many trees as we need then lumber prices will go up, as will housing, furniture, and all other wood product prices. The people most hurt by those price increases will be poor people who cannot afford the higher prices. Resources could even become scarce. What do you care about more, people, especially the poor, or letting trees burn up?

Quote:
 

6. Cellar resperation does create carbon dioxide your right, but its part of a natural cycle that has worked for eons. Why fix what's not broken? You take out trees you break the cycle and destroy the biosphere. Which kills us. I never once asked the coporation to do this. If I did wouldn't I be agreeing with you?


My point was that you are the person driving the car and buying the products that are produced via carbon dioxide release (energy consumption). You the consumer are responsible for the corporations and what they do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
严加华
Member Avatar
Magister Ludicrous
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Falcon
Feb 6 2007, 10:59 AM
Quote:
 

A "good neighbor" is someone who watches out for their neighbors.  Someone who doesn't rape the sorrounding land of it's natural resources(I don't have a link, but I've seen first hand the damage that logging companies do to natural sorroundings).


Have you by chance noticed what forest fires do to the natural surroundings?

Fertilise them, you mean? For the seeds which are released by the cleansing flame to grow well in?
LC Sez: Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Killer Bee
Member Avatar

Admin
Quote:
 
Have you by chance noticed what forest fires do to the natural surroundings?


Yes, and it's a whole lot better than what a logging company does. With a forest fire you don't have large gashes left in the ground from the logging trucks and bulldozers sinking into the ground. And forest fires burn away the underbrush to let other plants and young trees grow.


Quote:
 
Something more than cheap prices on quality goods?  BTW, I hope you give back to your community in some form (or is giving back only something corporations need to do?)




Actually, I do. But, there's more to give than cheap prices on quality goods.



Quote:
 
Even when their personal agenda is good for the community and the nation?  The free market is predicated on the realization that when someone sets out to look out for their own interest they are a positive force.  You go to work because you need money, but incidental to your selfish goal of money earning you provide a valuable service to society.  Your greed is helping those around you.



It's funny how you confuse "greed" with "survival".


Quote:
 
The community shouldn't be investing in a company (a lot of communities give tax breaks, industrial parks, etc, to get companies in).


Shouldn't be and are doing are two different scenarios. Giving large tax breaks is in a way investing money into a corporation.


Quote:
 
We really need to get over this idiotic notion that people "owe" each other something merely because they're successful or have some amount of money.


We need to also get over this idioc notion that the extremely wealthy shouldn't give back to their community just because they are successful. And I never said anybody rich or successful "owes" anyone anything. So, don't put words into my mouth. I was just saying that because they have more resources than most, would it hurt to give something back?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DirkNL
Member Avatar
Horrific poster
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Falcon
Feb 5 2007, 11:11 PM
Quote:
 

If humanity is so fucking egoist as you say it is, then why did humankind form communities? If our species is by nature that egoist, we would just live solitary, isolated from the ones that care about others. Maybe that tells something about you, but definetely not about me.


Your retort is illogical. Your original statement accused capitalism of causing people to devalue collective wealth which thus led them to becoming "egotists ever since." Obviously, being egotist doesn't preclude forming communities, nor does it lead people to seek out solitary lives. People can be "selfish" by nature and still seek community for mutual benefits like economic specialization, security, and companionship.

Basically, you're now saying that people have always been cappies.
I disagree - ever heard of primitive communism?
Falcon
Feb 5 2007, 11:11 PM

Quote:
 

So, you say it isn't. There has never been a truly communist state at all.


There hasn't been a truly communist state because communism doesn't work. Only communists are silly enough to look at repeated failure as a reason why their theories are still viable.

Quote:
 
So, you'd just do what made the CCCP a Smurf!-up - producing less and being an egoist asshole.


So you're going to work hard for someone else? You going to work overtime for a CEO and not demand some overtime pay? You going to donate all the money you don't need for basic survival to charity or the government? Don't make me laugh, you're just as egotist as anyone else so quit pretending. Also, you didn't address most of my point.

Did you even have a fucking point? I'm not going to kill myself, of course not. But that doesn't mean I ain't going to give something back to society and help the poor.
Falcon
Feb 5 2007, 11:11 PM

Quote:
 

And you enjoy the fact that you need to pay in order to live, fucking money fetihist.

-Dirk


I do enjoy living in the real world instead of some childish ideological fantasy. BTW, you still didn't address the bulk of my points, shall I assume silence is acceptance?

Oh, so you actually like having to work yourself nearly to death in order to be able to live (unless of course, you lied about the social class you're in and you are the upper class snob I assumed you are). And BTW, you don't even have a fucking point. Let's sum up all you've said on this forum which had a so-called point:
"Christianity is the best if you ain't christian damn you and if you're a communist go to fucking hell." There ya go.

-Dirk
Posted Image
Posted ImageHail the wallflipping monochrome computer thingyPosted Image
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Made by Sionthede of the IFSZ.