Do or Die
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2016, 10:54 AM
RE: Do or Die
(07-10-2016 02:16 PM)Stevil Wrote:  OK. It seems I'm the only one bothered to call up EvolutionKills when he made these ridiculous statements. Only me. He gets heaps of likes, I get none. Everyone is criticising me for things I haven't said, and for positions they assume I have, which I don't.

Oh, you've made your position very clear. Simply because I criticize it doesn't mean I share the views of your other critics.


(07-10-2016 02:16 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It is interesting because I have never said or implied at all "that if we leave businesses alone they'll do the right thing for the benefit of all".

You've certainly insinuated it, and when Morondog called you out on it, you refused to address his entirely valid point. If you don't actually believe that insinuation, you probably shouldn't have laid it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
09-10-2016, 12:06 PM
RE: Do or Die
(09-10-2016 10:38 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 01:32 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Looking for data on phone isn't handy and I had other more important things to do so answer is late but I couldn't left such assertion unanswered.


You have some data to prove your feels? I guess not cause statistics clearly show that you're wrong:

- In the Human Freedom Index The United States is ranked in 20th of 152 place
- On economic freedom USA is ranked in 11th of 178 place
-When measuring freedom of press USA is ranked 41 from 160

Don't care about rest of the ramble, just pointing the most glaring error.

Good to have you back in the fray Thumbsup

Not for long sadly, but I will try to do my best in the meantime Smile

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
09-10-2016, 12:51 PM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2016 01:20 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Do or Die
(09-10-2016 10:54 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(07-10-2016 02:16 PM)Stevil Wrote:  It is interesting because I have never said or implied at all "that if we leave businesses alone they'll do the right thing for the benefit of all".

You've certainly insinuated it, and when Morondog called you out on it, you refused to address his entirely valid point. If you don't actually believe that insinuation, you probably shouldn't have laid it.
I haven't insinuated it at all. If you have read between the lines then you have imagined my position and you are arguing against a position that I don't hold.

If you are not sure what my position is, then either ask, or , re-read my posts in this thread. Probably it would be simpler to ask.

BTW, I don't know what point of Morondog's that you are referring to, I am inundated with so may points from so many people in this thread, and I don't have time to address everything.

EDIT: And if you do bother to read through my past posts, remember, I am an amoralist, I don't believe in moral rights or moral wrongs, I don't believe in moral obligation. I would never imply that businesses would do anything morally right or would fulfil any moral obligation. Some of my criticisims on EK has been when he has made statements that assume business ought to be doing the "right" thing, using that as evidence that they are "evil", where-as I kept pointing out the the purpose of business is to turn a profit and that I don't agree with his extra expectations on them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2016, 11:36 PM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2016 03:50 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Do or Die
In any problem in communications, there's enough blame to go around. If you don't believe in morality, and you don't believe that businesses ought to act morally, then why present an example which by the lights of your interlocutors hereis moral, if not to present a counterexmple?

That is the post you refused to discuss with MD. Perhaps had you added a bit more commentary, clarification would be unnecessary? And the refusal to clarify, as you were asked, leads me to question your motives more.

For the record, I've read your posts closely. Inferring positions based on points you've presented is natural in any conversation, and you've done so yourself here, even with me by imputing that I hold businesses to be evil, which I don't. Perhaps you should abide by the standards you demand of others?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
10-10-2016, 01:36 AM
RE: Do or Die
(09-10-2016 11:36 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  That is the post you refused to discuss with MD.
Sorry, I still don't know which post you are talking about.

(09-10-2016 11:36 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  And the refusal to clarify, as you were asked, leads me to question your motives more.
I haven't refused to clarify anything. Tell me which post or which question and I will answer it.

(09-10-2016 11:36 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  by imputing that I hold businesses to be evil, which I don't.
I never said that you hold businesses to be evil, it came from EK, Chas then presumed to tell me what evil meant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 01:54 AM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2016 03:25 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 01:36 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(09-10-2016 11:36 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  by imputing that I hold businesses to be evil, which I don't.
I never said that you hold businesses to be evil, it came from EK, Chas then presumed to tell me what evil meant.

Businesses can be evil, and are amoral at best, and cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. Driven by a desire for profits, they can and do perform acts that cause needless suffering and harm; which when done for the sake of profit, is something I'd categorize as immoral or evil. While you've done your best to deflect or ignore the subject, when not being flabbergasted that I would take umbrage with the consequences of their actions outside of their ability to make money.


Also, you forgot this. Drinking Beverage

(07-10-2016 02:03 AM)Stevil Wrote:  It also shows, that painting all businesses as evil, as being utter non-sense. Probably in direct opposition of some of the things that EvolutionKills (which Thumpalumpacus and morondog and others seem to be giving out frequent likes to). I can't fathom how so much hatred is shown by people on this forum towards businesses and, in general, success.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 02:39 AM
RE: Do or Die
Stevil. What point are you making exactly? Let's forget the shit before and go back to basics.

The whole conversation started IIRC because you object to the idea that one could tax the rich, even tax them heavily, to fund benefits for the poor.

You objected to this on the grounds that:
  • it will drive the rich away from the country resulting in a loss of jobs.
  • the poor need an incentive to work otherwise they'll just be lazy (in fact, those who remain poor *must*, ipso facto, be lazy, otherwise they'd choose to work hard and not be poor. QED.)
  • free education and healthcare is OK but anything further should not be a government initiative but rather privately run.
  • everyone can be rich if they want, they just have to work for it.
  • As far as I know you haven't attempted to address the idea that the government is for the benefit of all people in society.

Is this an accurate depiction of what you're saying, and if not, what did I get wrong?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
10-10-2016, 03:12 AM
RE: Do or Die
(09-10-2016 11:36 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  For the record, I've read your posts closely. Inferring positions based on points you've presented is natural in any conversation
You didn't need to infer with me because I have been crystal clear about my position.

At post 105# I stated that I was centre right,
tomilay had asserted that my position was "programs that support people down on their luck as handouts"
I clarified stating "I see giving money away as handouts. I see training and "work for income" schemes as getting people back on their feet.", so basically I was stating that I am not big on giving money away (especially without any requirement back from the recipient, but I am for training and support for CV and job search etc.
tomily had asserted that my position was "That people are poor because they are lazy."
I clarified that sometimes that is the case and sometimes that is not the case
Tomily asked what I thought of with regards to tax cuts and funding military.
I stated that I am not a fan of military and that with regarding to high tax on the wealthy that this incentivises them to hire accountants and avoid tax, as well as perhaps take business offshore.

morondog had made statements about whether free medical care or free education is terrible or not?
I stated that I am in support of free medical care and free education.

morondog asked what's wrong with taxes, stating that it's not wrong to tax people more when they earn more.
I clarified my opinion saying it depends how much you tax them, and stated (not from a moral perspective) but instead from a consequence perspective, you tax high then businesses and jobs go offshore.

Morondog asserted that people who are poor didn't choose to be that way.
I claimed that there are many people that don't apply themselves in school.

With regards to govt assistance, I was clarifying that it depends on what the assistance is. That if it is lifetime supply of money then where is the incentive to work?

morondog stated that equality was a "nobal goal"
I clarified my position that I am for equal opportunity rather than equality.

EK started on his businesses are evil and greedy tirade.
"Corporations answers first to share holders, and fuck everyone else. Letting that greed run rampant hurts everyone."
"Simply put, you cannot trust those whose sole goal is generating profit and capital, with safeguarding the rights and protections of your citizenry."
Of which Chas, tomilay, thumpalumpacus and others gave his post a like.

I clarified to EK, my expectations when it comes to businesses
"I think their main goal is to make profit and returns for the investors. That's it. That is what they ought to do."
"It's not greed. It is the purpose of a business to give return on investment. Why else would you do it? Business isn't a charity, it isn't a cash cow."

and in response to EK's statement about "you cannot trust those whose sole goal is generating profit" I agreed with him but asked why would you expect businesses to be trusted to do these other things.
"No, why would you. It isn't a business' purpose to safeguard rights and protections for citizenry, what on earth gave you that idea?"

In regards to Morondogs statement that you are born poor and stay poor, I claimed that if you have free education and free health then the poor have opportunity to get educated and get a good job.

EK comes up with a strange (overly aggressive) take on my position
" you seem so willing to bend yourself over and let them fuck you in the ass with a smile on your face, lest they head off and go fuck someone else in your stead."
Of which Chas and thumpalumpacus and others give his post a like.

I clarify to EK why I don't rely on businesses to protect interests of citizens
"Who is relying on businesses to protect interests of citizens? I don't know where this comes from? We also don't rely on businesses to build parks or to beautify our beaches, so what? I'm not understanding your point on this."

I show that I'm not against govt intervention
"A wise government will have anti-monopoly measures in place."

I clarify my position regarding EK's statement about businesses and ethics and morality.
"I really don't know why you are talking about morality and ethics. Business aren't churches. It isn't there place to be moral or promote morality."

I again clarify that I am not against regulations
"I'm not entirely against regulations, but of course I deem it as very serious when the govt interferes. So regulations ought to be kept in check."

EK had made the statement that wealthy businesses have the money to pay employees more, and he was asking why they don't.
I clarified my position on this
"They aren't a charity. If the business case doesn't stack up then they spend the money on other things. there is no obligation to hire more staff than you need. No obligation to pay a staff member more than they are worth."

tomilay stated "That most poor people cannot escape poverty without a helping hand should be rather obvious. "
I clarified my position
I'm just saying that the opportunity is there. Why people don't take up that opportunity is a different matter and isn't resolved by handing out a lifetime supply of cash.
Teach them to fish rather than give them fish.



Honestly Thumpalumpacus it goes on like this for pages and pages and pages. People make certain statements and I offer clarification regarding my position and thoughts. I've laid everything on the table.
And yet and post 291 you and morondog are claiming that my position is "if we leave businesses alone they'll do the right thing for the benefit of all".

I mean, where have I ever said or implied that?
Right from the start I have stated that businesses are there to make profits. I have stated that they aren't charities, that they are under no obligation to pay higher wages, or to build parks etc. I have explicitly stated that morality and ethics have no place in this, that businesses are there to make money, get return on investment. I have agreed that regulations are necessary. I have never said that we ought to leave them alone.
So how in the hell are people claiming that my position is
"if we leave businesses alone they'll do the right thing for the benefit of all".

Where is it that I am trying to deceive or refusing to clarify my own position?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2016, 03:32 AM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2016 04:51 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 03:12 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I have explicitly stated that morality and ethics have no place in this, that businesses are there to make money, get return on investment. I have agreed that regulations are necessary. I have never said that we ought to leave them alone.

Ethics does not exist in a nice, clean, and segregated bubble. You cannot simply remove ethics from the discussion by fiat. Actions have consequences, and when those consequences have an affect on moral actors, those actions have ethical implications. Businesses do not operate in a vacuum, so it is impossible for their actions to not have ethical consequences. Trying to repeatedly sever the two looks bad, it gives the impression that you want to distance them from culpability.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
10-10-2016, 03:42 AM
RE: Do or Die
(10-10-2016 02:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  Stevil. What point are you making exactly? Let's forget the shit before and go back to basics.
OK, cool, seems like a way forward.

(10-10-2016 02:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  The whole conversation started IIRC because you object to the idea that one could tax the rich, even tax them heavily, to fund benefits for the poor.
Not quite.
I have concerns regarding taxing the rich heavily due to the inevitable consequences.

(10-10-2016 02:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  You objected to this on the grounds that:
[*]it will drive the rich away from the country resulting in a loss of jobs.
Yes, this is a risk.
In NZ, if we didn't give tax incentives then we wouldn't have filmed the LOTR and the Hobbit movies here. We now have a billion dollar movie industry, one of the worlds best movie effects workshops, and a thriving tourism industry based on these films.

(10-10-2016 02:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  [*]the poor need an incentive to work otherwise they'll just be lazy (in fact, those who remain poor *must*, ipso facto, be lazy, otherwise they'd choose to work hard and not be poor. QED.)
This isn't quite my position.
Some people are poor because they didn't apply themselves at school. That could be because their parents didn't encourage them in their education, it could be because the kids are lazy or rebellious and hence didn't apply themselves. It could be for other reasons, e.g. perhaps they got pregnant young.

Throwing money at people, doesn't get them jobs.
Giving money away without any requirement that the recipient further their own position towards a job may result in a dependency, may result in complacency.
If we want many of these people to get jobs then they need help in getting their cvs together, help in getting marketable skills etc.
I was watching an NZ documentary recently, presented by Nigel Latta talking about whether people should get a tertiary education or not. A fact he brought up is that if a person doesn't get a qualification and they don't get a job within their first 6 months out of school then on average they stay on the unemployment benefit for 18 years. In NZ people do get money thrown at them for being unemployed. We do have some other schemes as well "work for income" + support to get jobs and qualifications etc. But even though these opportunities are there, these people are staying on the DOLE. It seems that a great deal of effort is needed to get these people into the workforce, for some reason they are not self motivated.

(10-10-2016 02:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  [*]free education and healthcare is OK but anything further should not be a government initiative but rather privately run.
No, I've never said or implied this.
My only claims have been against heavy taxes and against giving money away without any requirements back from the recipient.
What I mean by requirements back is that the recipient is taking active steps to either find a job or put themselves into a more marketable position.


(10-10-2016 02:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  [*]everyone can be rich if they want, they just have to work for it.
I've not said that either.
I've said that if you have free quality education then the opportunity is there for you to get qualifications and be hence qualified for a decent paid job regardless of whether you start out poor.

(10-10-2016 02:39 AM)morondog Wrote:  [*]As far as I know you haven't attempted to address the idea that the government is for the benefit of all people in society.

This discussion wasn't about government, it was about whether to support businesses (capitalism) or to support the poor (socialism).
My argument was to support businesses so that it creates jobs, and to support poor by creating equal opportunity + perhaps support towards getting CV and qualifications and finding jobs.

To say "government is for the benefit of all people in society" is a very vague statement. Government are to define the rules governing society, and to make society stable and thriving. We are all competing for limited resources, you can never make everyone happy. The argument is about how do you make your own society thrive in a global market place. If wages are too high then other countries get the work, if you tax businesses too high then other countries get the work. If you have high taxes and high wages then businesses struggle to meet costs and turn a profit, if you don't have thriving businesses then where are the jobs coming from?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: