Evil

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Sunday, October 29, 2006 14:39
VIEWED: 8182
PAGE 9 of 14

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RIGHTEOUS9

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:52 PM

Dreamtrove,

As to what democrats have done, or tried to do for the poor -

for starters, most democrats tried to kill the absolutely horrible bankruptcy bill that screws the middle class and the poor.

they've also been tryig to raise the minimum wage.

they were also succesful in preventing the Bush administartion from privatizing social security

as to what they've done for civil rights by comparisson -

they mostly stood against the new torture legislation Bush wanted passed, though they did not filibuster.-

They have not been running on the platform that gays should not be allowed to marry, and when pressed, yes sometimes weasel on that issue as much as possible, to their own detriment.

they did not disenfranchise poor voters on a massive scale.

....................

I'm fine with you saying they are all bad. The floor votes by the democrats could very well be posturing for all I know.

but at least make a distinction between the degrees of evil. As I saide, they still have to appeal to a more progressive base.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:00 PM

And so, when YOU used the word "evil" so many times, what did YOU mean at the time? You don't have to be predictive or unabiguous, just tell us what you meant in context. After all, you used the word a couple dozen times literally. (Rue, by comparison, used the word only eight) You flogged the topic incessantly. What did you mean when you posted The reason you and I argue is that I don't see Bush as the source of all woe and an evil mastermind with an evil plot for world domination? Okay, Bush isn't an evil mastermind. What is he NOT?

What about when you said But what's really the best is that you both can't even envision anyone disagreeing with you who's not part of some vast hidden conspiracy with unstated but obviously evil goals. Paranoia strikes deep, indeed. You must have had SOMETHING in your head at that moment. Would you cahnge or modify your previous posts at this point, based on this discussion?

You throw the word at people as an epithet, then you weasel out of it. C'mon Geezer, where is the courage of your convictions?

---------------------------------
I must have left that in my other pants pocket.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreamtrove:
Sometimes I wonder if you post just to argue :)

Quote:
Sure, there is a competition, a race to provide even better services to help more people.

Careful DT, you are replying to me, not vice versa, so it is you replying to Argue

.

And no, I still don't think the idea that corporations are leaping up and down like Donkey in Shrek saying "Pick me pick me, I want to help you, oh won't you let me help you, I really want to help you" is correct.

They're leaping up and down saying “Give me your money” and “No me, I want your money more! Give it to me Give it too meeee!”

Quote:
Then why does money exist? Money is a representation of payment for services rendered. If no services are rendered, then why does money exist?

Because several thousand years before the first corporation was founded people found that it was easier to trade using little tokens with an agreed universal value instead of haggling with real merchandise that was worth different things to different people.

Now you're getting it all arse about face, you say corporations just want to help us, I say they just want money and you seem to think that means I'm saying they don't render a service in order to get it. Of course they do, but take a look around, the most successful corporations aren't the one's that give the best service, they're the ones that make the most money. In fact the most successful corporations are the ones that make money without have to do anything or next to nothing to get it. Corporations want to make money, they don't want to provide a service, they want money, it just so happens providing a service or product or whatever is away of making money, if it wasn't corporations would do something else.

Quote:
It's not altruism, it's a functioning society, designed to reward people who help people by providing goods and services. This is what economics is. That's not an opinion, but an understanding, money was created for this purpose. If it were not so, nothing in economics would make sense.

Trade existed before capitalism, trade is not a capitalist invention. And frankly you show me an economist that says they truly understand economics and I'll show you a liar.

Quote:
I wouldn't accept a generalization this size, but sure, in general, most of the large corporations we have do not belong in a healthy capitalistic society.

No seriously, large corporations with the rights but none of the responsibilities of individuals have no place in Capitalism because they offer an unequal trading partner. In Capitalism you are supposed to be able to trade on an even footing, you can't do that with multi-nationals because of their monolithic size. They make the rules, and you either choose to follow their rules or the rules of some other monolithic corporate entity.

Quote:
Cisco's competitors basically work by copying cisco products and reproducing them.

Not exactly, there are standards in place to ensure that all network equipment is interoperable no matter what company it comes from. Belkin, 3Com, Linksys etc aren't copying Cisco, they're making equipment that does the same job for the same standards so that if the customer buys a Cisco Router they don't need to buy a Cisco network card as well, they can buy any network card they want.

To put it simply Cat5 cable is Cat5 cable no matter who produces it, it's the standard they're working from.

Quote:
For a long time it was like this with intel also, but lateyl intel competitors are coming up with unique ideas, and intel is losing field dominance, the market is moving to a healthier place.

Oh don't believe it. Really the core of the Intel business is PC CPUs, and that business hasn't changed one bit since the first Intel x86 chip save to give Intel even larger market share. There is currently four companies (AMD, IBM, Intel and NatSemi) that have rights to produce x86 based chips. And really that's all there is now in computer land, used to be Macs ran on IBM Powe

CAVALIER

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
When I think about social programs I think about the NHS, that despite it's problems is still the envy of the world...

It's a small point but whenever I see this claim I always think: If this is true, why has the world not copied the NHS? And if they have, why do they still envy it?

It always struck me as a self-disproving claim.

CAVALIER

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Cavalier - is that you HK? I didn't want to assume.

Having quickly searched the archieves: Apparently not.

I'd have picked a different name, if I had realised it was so similar to an existing one.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:45 PM

The Evil doers made me double post.

GEEZER

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And so, when YOU used the word "evil" so many times, what did YOU mean at the time? You don't have to be predictive or unabiguous, just tell us what you meant in context. After all, you used the word a couple dozen times literally. (Rue, by comparison, used the word only eight) You flogged the topic incessantly. What did you mean when you posted The reason you and I argue is that I don't see Bush as the source of all woe and an evil mastermind with an evil plot for world domination? Okay, Bush isn't an evil mastermind. What is he NOT?

What about when you said But what's really the best is that you both can't even envision anyone disagreeing with you who's not part of some vast hidden conspiracy with unstated but obviously evil goals. Paranoia strikes deep, indeed. You must have had SOMETHING in your head at that moment. Would you cahnge or modify your previous posts at this point, based on this discussion?

You throw the word at people as an epithet, then you weasel out of it. C'mon Geezer, where is the courage of your convictions?

Well, I tried to leave the political discussion in the other thread, but you just can't let it go. Why is that?

I have used the word "evil" in many discussions with you and Rue, to refer to the pretty obvious fact that "evil" is what you both consider Bush and the Bush Administration to be, based on your comments. Rue's thread "Stupid, Evil, and Corrupt" concerning what Rue considers the Administration's failures, comes to mind. http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=23730

You apparently come to this conclusion based on some of the points discussed above; the information you have, the beliefs you bring from childhood or have developed since then, your pre-conceptions and biases. This is not meant as criticism, since most everyone reaches their conclusion about what is evil in the same way.

You reach your conclusions, and I reach mine. Sometimes they differ. You apparently cannot accept that anyone can differ from your opinion (this is a criticism, BTW), especially relating to things about which you feel strongly (Bush's "Evil" for example. Or else why the persistent need to have everyone bow to your belief?). I don't particularly care if you think Bush is "evil". I just get tired of you trying to ram it down my throat.

So no more politics in this thread for me. If you want to discuss evil in general, fine. If you want do discuss "Bush is evil", start your own thread.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 5:49 PM

The NHS is ranked as about fourth best in the world, behind Germany and a few other European Nations I believe that have partial or fully socialised healthcare. If anyone from position five down isn't looking up to the NHS and aspiring to provide cheap health care to at least their standard then they're stupid.

Also everyone, EVERYONE, even those higher than the NHS on the league tables want NHS nurses and Doctors because they are amongst the best in the world. That includes the US health business.

It's not a self-disproving claim because you've applied false logic, by your logic there is no such thing as envy, because if we ever envied someone or something we'd copy it and then not envy it any more. But brother there's still envy in the world .

Oh and I am planning to get back to you on the ST:Fascism thread eventually .

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ELOISA

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:29 PM

"Evil" double-post!

ELOISA

Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I'll go all simple here.

If it's done out of love, with the intent to make better and do no harm, it's good.

If it's done out of hate or neglect, it's evil.

As bottom line as I can get Chrisisall

"What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil." (F. Nietzsche)

"Evil" is a word I try to steer way clear from, mainly in fact due to the Nietzschean reason - calling something "evil" is a stronger way of saying that "by my moral ethos this thing is wrong" and is therefore, in and of itself, a highly relativistic and therefore objectively meaningless word. Evil, good, etc. are emotive concepts, hence their frequent recourse in debates, but due to shifting meanings can't be relied upon out of context.

For the same reason I prefer not to use the word "terrorist". It's like calling someone a Nazi; by that, unless the person has self-referenced as a Nazi (or is a genuine German WW2 vet who was a prominent member of the party), you tend to mean they're a right-winger whose views you dislike. Most terrorists don't self-reference as terrorists, and terrorism comes in many shapes and sizes anyway, therefore "bomb-maker" or "mass murderer" are a little more specific. (Anyone notice how "Islamic terrorism" became "Islamic fascism" when the word "terrorist" had just become so over-used that its impact was being lessened?) Similarly, most "evil" people - and I agree that only people can be "evil" - don't describe themselves that way, and most people who would call other people "evil" would have their label challenged by those same people.

This is not meant as an argument for moral relativism, more like an observation that people argue about what's moral and what isn't and, therefore, using a categorisation word like "evil" is often ineffective.

(Apologies if that was a little abstruse. Philosophy grad.)

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE