 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of
>> “Communism”
>
> What do *you* think the difference is? They sound pretty similar,
> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by
> "the people".
>
Yes but the devil is in the difference. :)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Wikipedia does not seem to support your view of what a
> socialist economics is, but that is just one source.
There are lots of definitions, since enforcing economics is part of
government, so the two get confused a lot. I usually look at multiple
definitions for words like that. Try googling "define:socialism"
> The US does not have or had a socialist party that plays any significant
> role.
It depends on what you mean by "socialist party". It's true we wind up with
only two parties primarily represented, but the policies of those two
parties change over time.
> So I don't think an American can comment on what socialism is or
> should be, at least not when Europeans are present ;)
I'm not. On the other hand, I don't think you can pick one definition and
say it's the "right" definition, either.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> And there isn't any "pure" communism, either. Even in the depths of the
> "communist" part of China's history, you still had to pay for food and pay
> to use the subway. You'd think something like the subway, where carrying an
> additional rider is practically free given you've already invested in the
> capital of building the thing, would be free under communism. Show me a
> communism that doesn't have a currency before you tell me it's "pure
> communism". :-)
Curiously, there are many capitalist countries (ok, those countries
probably don't call themselves "capitalist" because of the negative
connotations, but as said, that doesn't change the fact) where there
*are* lots of public services which don't cost anything (well, not in
cash at least; of course they are funded by taxes). And I'm not talking
just about public libraries and such, but in some cities eg. public
transporation is free. (This actually makes a lot of sense especially
nowadays because free public transportation induces reduction of car
driving, which reduces pollution.)
Of course there's also an opposing view to that, which also has its
merits. It's a well-known fact that the economy of a country prospers
when there's a lot of money traffic. The more people consume, the more
they get and spend money, the better the economy. High taxes and free or
low-cost services, however, stagnate the economy because money doesn't move.
If a large quantity of money goes directly from employers to the government
in the form of taxes, never going through the hands of employees, that doesn't
help economy much.
Of course it makes sense that there is no silver bullet to economy either.
No extreme form of economy can work, and one has to always find a good
balance.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
a long time.
You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
comparison I have ever heard in my life.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You are equating capitalism with racism?
No, I think that last bit is equating capitalism with unrewarded labor of
poor people who don't get to participate in the capitalism they're driving.
Child labor, "sweatshop" labor, etc. Of course, in a lot of cases,
"sweatshop" labor is better than the current alternatives in that place.
It's just a question of whether there would be better alternatives if the
sweatshop type factories weren't there at all.
It just happens that Africa has (and always had) a lot of slavery-type stuff
going on, regardless of economic system being used. It's not racist per se,
but just a fact that most of the economies where this abusive-type labor is
prevalent are of a different "race" than the economies that benefit (whether
it be in china, africa, or whatever).
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
>> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
>> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
>
> I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> a long time.
>
> You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments
I heard in a long time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > You are equating capitalism with racism?
> No, I think that last bit is equating capitalism with unrewarded labor of
> poor people who don't get to participate in the capitalism they're driving.
> Child labor, "sweatshop" labor, etc. Of course, in a lot of cases,
> "sweatshop" labor is better than the current alternatives in that place.
> It's just a question of whether there would be better alternatives if the
> sweatshop type factories weren't there at all.
> It just happens that Africa has (and always had) a lot of slavery-type stuff
> going on, regardless of economic system being used. It's not racist per se,
> but just a fact that most of the economies where this abusive-type labor is
> prevalent are of a different "race" than the economies that benefit (whether
> it be in china, africa, or whatever).
I was referring to "If they want lunch counters completely free of persons
with dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
> > gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> >> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> >> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> >> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> >> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> >> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> >> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
> >> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> > a long time.
> >
> > You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> > comparison I have ever heard in my life.
> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments
> I heard in a long time.
And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
I have heard in a long time.
You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
situation.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> > What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> > in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> > dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> > pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> > marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> > the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
> > chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
>
> I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> a long time.
>
> You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
>
No, I'm saying there is a faulty naiveté to think that "blind capitalism" gets
us all happy free comfortable, or as many as can possibly ever be happy and
comfortable. Capitalism, the market mechanism, tends to produce what the
consumers want. The consumers are corrupted by sin. Sometimes they either
openly want bad things or they out of ignorance don't realize that something is
bad until it's nearly too late (CFC's, CO2).
Without the nagging, the marketplace has in history done things like give us
black-free lunch counters. The Jew-free business block. Or Hummers. My solution
is more and more nagging of what choices people are making. Reminding them of
the externalities, holding them accountable to standards whether they like it or
not.
And nonviolent use of the soapbox in the public square to inform persons of the
negative externalities of their actions is what the capitalists call socialism.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I was referring to "If they want lunch counters completely free of persons
> with dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it."
Oh, OK. You realize it wasn't *that* long ago in the USA that such things
were mandated, and somewhat later disallowed, yes? Near enough in time that
there's some people around who really would want to have such a thing
available? I read it as just one example of things regulated by the
government that wouldn't be regulated under a completely free market, and
that might very well show up in that situation.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > I was referring to "If they want lunch counters completely free of persons
> > with dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it."
> Oh, OK. You realize it wasn't *that* long ago in the USA that such things
> were mandated, and somewhat later disallowed, yes? Near enough in time that
> there's some people around who really would want to have such a thing
> available? I read it as just one example of things regulated by the
> government that wouldn't be regulated under a completely free market, and
> that might very well show up in that situation.
I realize that, and I'm not defending it. I don't think capitalism implies
such discrimination, and it was not because of capitalism per se that there
was (and is) discrimination in the US (or in other countries).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> No, I'm saying there is a faulty naivet? to think that "blind capitalism" gets
> us all happy free comfortable, or as many as can possibly ever be happy and
> comfortable.
Maybe, but from what I see, it seems to be the economic system which works
best overall. It has its drawbacks, of course (such as big gaps between rich
and poor), but overall it's more beneficial than most other economic systems.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I realize that, and I'm not defending it.
Right.
> I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination,
No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's
legal, it'll happen. I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of
>> “Communism”
>
> What do *you* think the difference is? They sound pretty similar,
> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by
> "the people".
>
Seeing that in the USA, the "government" is "of, by, and buy" the
people, they must be the same thing, right? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a
synonym of
>>> “Communism”
>> What do *you* think the difference is? They sound pretty similar,
>> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by
>> "the people".
>>
>
> Seeing that in the USA, the "government" is "of, by, and buy" the
> people, they must be the same thing, right? ;-)
That was kind of my point. Hence the question. Once again, please do not
interpret my asking a question as my implying an answer. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination,
> No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's
> legal, it'll happen. I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.
I don't understand how an economic model causes racial discrimination.
If capitalism can cause racial discrimination, why wouldn't, for example,
communism do the same?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination,
>
>> No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's
>> legal, it'll happen. I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.
>
> I don't understand how an economic model causes racial discrimination.
You're confusing "causes" with "permits". There's already racial
discrimination. By removing all controls on how you may conduct business,
some people will preferentially patronize businesses that discriminate
against those they don't like.
It's sort of like how freedom of speech doesn't cause anti-government radio
stations. It just permits them in ways that a country with heavy censorship
does not.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-12-2009 20:39, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
>>> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
>>>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
>>>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
>>>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
>>>> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
>>>> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
>>>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
>>> I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
>>> a long time.
>>>
>>> You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
>>> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
>
>> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments
>> I heard in a long time.
>
> And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
> I have heard in a long time.
>
> You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
> situation.
>
It is rather obvious I would say. First your remark directly followed
gregjohn's chocolate from Africa remark. Going from Africa to racism is
completely ridiculous, so that is what prompted my remark in the first
place.
Second, you later indicated that your remark was not aimed at the
chocolate but at one of the other remarks from gregjohn some time before
that. That is still a straw man, because you take one remark out of
context and attack that. Third and most importantly, gregjohn said
simply that unbridled capitalism may lead to all sorts of wanted and
unwanted side effects like environmental damage, green products, and
racism (using examples that not only may happen but, at least partly,
have happened). Going from 'capitalism may lead to among other things
racism' to 'capitalism equals racism' and attacking that is a straw man
argument.
In short: you took one of the examples, pulled it out of context,
distorted it and tried to ridicule the result. Classic example of straw
man I would say.
I am sure you meant something different and more intelligent, but this
is what appeared in this news group, sorry.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > > I don't think capitalism implies such discrimination,
>
> > No, but unfettered capitalism allows it. If enough people want it, and it's
> > legal, it'll happen. I don't think that means capitalism causes racism.
>
> I don't understand how an economic model causes racial discrimination.
>
> If capitalism can cause racial discrimination, why wouldn't, for example,
> communism do the same?
>
My solution as I stated before is the marketplace *PLUS* lots of nagging.
I've praised Capitalism a few times now by saying it's the best system for
giving people what they want. Sometimes they want bad things, like to be able
to smoke in restaurants where children are present. As for the American South,
some discrimination was foisted upon those without hate by the state; more often
those with hate used the marketplace to press for discrimination. Civil rights
activists like Millard Fuller wrote of the boycott of black business as a tool
of the racists; the activists became involved haranguing people about where to
shop.
Chocolate. Blind capitalism gave us widespread use of slave labor. Through the
marketplace, you kept saying, give me cheaper, give me cheaper, until
eventually no corner was left to cut but the farmworker's wages. The answer is
not necessarily the State here but nagging. Activists harangued the importers to
stop using slave labor; then harangued people of good will to buy from the
importers who showed more good will than the others in rectifying the situation.
The socialism/ capitalism dilemma is shown here in the famous opening credit for
the Odd Couple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Odd_Couple_(TV_series)
Felix is not calling the cops, he is not sending Oscar to a prison camp. He is
however harassing, nagging Oscar about having thrown a cigarette butt on the
ground. The look of disgust from Oscar is probably the same you'd get if you
nagged someone about smoking in a restaurant where children are present, about
the MPG of the car they purchased, the age of the "actors" in the DVD they
purchased, what kind of wages were paid the bean-pickers with the chocolate
they purchased. It is the look of Southerners seeing nonviolent activists
driving over the border to tell them how to live with blacks.
Q: When Texas passed a "beef blasphemy" law, under which Oprah Winfrey was sued
for making criticisms of an agricultural process, was law that a liberal or
conservative one, was it capitalistic or socialistic? How about when New York
state flirted with a law that would have forbidden farmers from telling
consumers whether they used growth hormones on the cows?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 20:39, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
> >>> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> >>>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
> >>>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
> >>>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
> >>>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
> >>>> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
> >>>> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
> >>>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
> >>> I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
> >>> a long time.
> >>>
> >>> You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
> >>> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
> >
> >> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments
> >> I heard in a long time.
> >
> > And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
> > I have heard in a long time.
> >
> > You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
> > situation.
> >
> It is rather obvious I would say. First your remark directly followed
> gregjohn's chocolate from Africa remark. Going from Africa to racism is
> completely ridiculous, so that is what prompted my remark in the first
> place.
Who said anything about Africa. I was referring to "if they want lunch
counters completely free of persons with dark skin, then the marketplace
will provide it."
Or do you always assume that people respond only to the very last sentence
they are quoting?
> Second, you later indicated that your remark was not aimed at the
> chocolate but at one of the other remarks from gregjohn some time before
> that. That is still a straw man, because you take one remark out of
> context and attack that.
Out of context? I quoted the full context (which seemingly caused you to
be confused about what I was referring to).
It seems to be a no-win situation: If I had quoted only the part I was
referring to, you would have accused me of quoting out of context. But when
I quoted the entire context, you assumed I was responding only to the very
last sentence, *and* additional you still accuse me of quoting out of
context.
> Third and most importantly, gregjohn said
> simply that unbridled capitalism may lead to all sorts of wanted and
> unwanted side effects like environmental damage, green products, and
> racism (using examples that not only may happen but, at least partly,
> have happened).
At least the racism part I view as completely ludicrous. Capitalism does
ot lead to racism any more than any other possible form of economy. People
will or will not be racists regardless of what the economic model of the
country might happen to be. It's not like capitalism would somehow induce
racism (while other economic models don't).
> Going from 'capitalism may lead to among other things
> racism' to 'capitalism equals racism' and attacking that is a straw man
> argument.
> In short: you took one of the examples, pulled it out of context,
> distorted it and tried to ridicule the result. Classic example of straw
> man I would say.
What is it called when someone accuses someone else of using a straw
man argument, and to prove that, he himself uses a straw man? Perhaps
meta-straw-man?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> My solution as I stated before is the marketplace *PLUS* lots of nagging.
I think it's also a matter of education. People think slavery is bad and
blacks are "equal" because they've been taught that. They haven't been
taught that (for example) gays are normal people too. It requires state
schools run by tolerant people (which is why you see battles over evolution
in schools here) and it takes a generation or more to really take effect.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Who said anything about Africa. I was referring to "if they want lunch
> counters completely free of persons with dark skin, then the marketplace
> will provide it."
Well, it followed the remark about slavery in Africa, which is far more
racist than merely disallowing dark-skinned people to patronize your store.
I thought you were talking about the Africa sentence too. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-12-2009 16:35, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> On 30-12-2009 20:39, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>> On 30-12-2009 18:22, Warp wrote:
>>>>> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>>>>>> What the free market IS very good at is giving consumers exactly what they want
>>>>>> in the marketplace. If they want lunch counters completely free of persons with
>>>>>> dark skin, then the marketplace will provide it. If they want gas guzzlers that
>>>>>> pose fatality risks to neighbors in collisions, and raise sea levels, the
>>>>>> marketplace will provide them. If they want sustainably grown organic coffee,
>>>>>> the marketplace will prove them. If they want the absolutely cheapest
>>>>>> chocolate, the market will provide it using (literal) slave labor from Africa.
>>>>> I'm sorry, but that was one of the most ridiculous things I have read in
>>>>> a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are equating capitalism with racism? That must be the most far-fetched
>>>>> comparison I have ever heard in my life.
>>>> That deserves a price as one of the most far fetched straw man arguments
>>>> I heard in a long time.
>>> And that deserves a price as one of the most far-fetched straw man cards
>>> I have heard in a long time.
>>>
>>> You would have to explain why you pulled the straw man card in this
>>> situation.
>>>
>
>> It is rather obvious I would say. First your remark directly followed
>> gregjohn's chocolate from Africa remark. Going from Africa to racism is
>> completely ridiculous, so that is what prompted my remark in the first
>> place.
>
> Who said anything about Africa.
gregjohn did.
> I was referring to "if they want lunch
> counters completely free of persons with dark skin, then the marketplace
> will provide it."
Sigh, read on before replying next time.
> Or do you always assume that people respond only to the very last sentence
> they are quoting?
Either the last sentence or the whole quote. The convention is that if
you only want to react to a part your response comes immediately after
that part. And after that you give the rest of the context.
Or you do what used to be the convention before e-mail: repeat part of
the thing you want to refer to, to make clear what you intend.
The way you responded made it impossible to know which sentence you were
replying to.
>> Second, you later indicated that your remark was not aimed at the
>> chocolate but at one of the other remarks from gregjohn some time before
>> that. That is still a straw man, because you take one remark out of
>> context and attack that.
>
> Out of context? I quoted the full context (which seemingly caused you to
> be confused about what I was referring to).
You quoted the whole context and responded to only a part, if that makes
it more clear to you.
> It seems to be a no-win situation: If I had quoted only the part I was
> referring to, you would have accused me of quoting out of context. But when
> I quoted the entire context, you assumed I was responding only to the very
> last sentence, *and* additional you still accuse me of quoting out of
> context.
>
>> Third and most importantly, gregjohn said
>> simply that unbridled capitalism may lead to all sorts of wanted and
>> unwanted side effects like environmental damage, green products, and
>> racism (using examples that not only may happen but, at least partly,
>> have happened).
>
> At least the racism part I view as completely ludicrous.
Ok fair enough. Seems like you find things that happen ludicrous. Not my
problem.
> Capitalism does
> not lead to racism any more than any other possible form of economy. People
> will or will not be racists regardless of what the economic model of the
> country might happen to be. It's not like capitalism would somehow induce
> racism (while other economic models don't).
totally irrelevant, because gregjohn did not make that claim.
>> Going from 'capitalism may lead to among other things
>> racism' to 'capitalism equals racism' and attacking that is a straw man
>> argument.
>> In short: you took one of the examples, pulled it out of context,
>> distorted it and tried to ridicule the result. Classic example of straw
>> man I would say.
>
> What is it called when someone accuses someone else of using a straw
> man argument, and to prove that, he himself uses a straw man? Perhaps
> meta-straw-man?
Sorry, I explained why I *perceived* what you wrote as a straw man
argument, because you asked for it. As such it is just that: an
explanation, it is not an argument. The only sensible answer would have
been: 'Oh, I did not realise people interpreted what I wrote wrong in
this way. Next time I take more care.' Alternatively, you can just
reiterate that the rest of the world is absolutely stupid for not
understanding you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> > At least the racism part I view as completely ludicrous.
> Ok fair enough. Seems like you find things that happen ludicrous. Not my
> problem.
That would be a "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, or in more mundane
terms, "correlation implies causation" fallacy.
The United States is a capitalist country. There is racism in the United
States. Hence capitalism causes racism.
Sorry, you fail.
Could you please point out a country where capitalism *demonstrably* has
caused racism (because, in your own words, these things "happen"), rather
than just both phenomena appearing in the same country without there
necessarily being a direct correlation between the two?
(And please don't tell me that you understood what I wrote as meaning
"racism doesn't happen, that's ludicrous.")
> > Capitalism does
> > not lead to racism any more than any other possible form of economy. People
> > will or will not be racists regardless of what the economic model of the
> > country might happen to be. It's not like capitalism would somehow induce
> > racism (while other economic models don't).
> totally irrelevant, because gregjohn did not make that claim.
Of course he did. He talked about how capitalism and free commerce could
lead to things like racist behavior. That was the whole point.
If he didn't make that claim, then what did he claim, in your opinion?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The United States is a capitalist country. There is racism in the United
> States. Hence capitalism causes racism.
Nobody said capitalism causes racism except you.
> If he didn't make that claim, then what did he claim, in your opinion?
That totally unrestricted capitalism allows people to exercise their
existing racism as long as that racism is profitable in that marketplace.
Just like unrestricted capitalism allows people to pollute as long as that
pollution is profitable in that marketplace. By singling out the one remark
about racism, you seem to have indicated that you missed the point, which
was that with less and less government restriction, one moves away from
socialism, communism, and fascism, and towards capitalism and anarchy, and
that movement is not always what we'd call socially beneficial even if it
maximizes the profits/financial health in a particular market.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> It still sounds to me like "rich people shouldn't get privileges just
>>> because they have more money, that's unfair". The word jealousy comes to
>>> mind.
>>>
>
>> It probably does to you.
>
> Me having that opinion would be really obnoxious if I were a rich snob,
> but I'm certainly not. I barely make a living.
>
> But I honestly don't feel any kind of jealousy towards rich people. If they
> want to put their kids to expensive private schools, then why not? Does it
> hurt me in any way if they do that? No. Then why should it bother me? It
> doesn't make sense.
>
> What *would* be unfair is to pass some ridiculous law which would forbid
> them from doing that and instead force those kids to get a lesser education,
> just because the majority is jealous of them being rich. *That* would be
> obnoxious, IMO.
>
As long as they pay their property taxes thus paying back for their own
education, theoretically, it is usually accepted as a fair compromise.
It is when generations of private school induces the idea that they
should not have to contribute to the public school system that it gets
worrisome. People without children are quick to join the bandwagon
oblivious to the fact that they are not paying for someone else's kid's
education, they are paying back for their own.
Of course the other source of money being lost is through parent
association fund raising, but that is inherently unfair anyway. Even
with public schools there is going to be rich schools and poor schools.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-12-2009 17:49, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> At least the racism part I view as completely ludicrous.
>
>> Ok fair enough. Seems like you find things that happen ludicrous. Not my
>> problem.
>
> That would be a "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, or in more mundane
> terms, "correlation implies causation" fallacy.
>
> The United States is a capitalist country. There is racism in the United
> States. Hence capitalism causes racism.
>
> Sorry, you fail.
No, sorry. I never said that capitalism causes racism. I think I won't
mention that you again distorted a remark from someone else and tried to
ridicule that. No point really.
> Could you please point out a country where capitalism *demonstrably* has
> caused racism (because, in your own words, these things "happen"), rather
> than just both phenomena appearing in the same country without there
> necessarily being a direct correlation between the two?
>
> (And please don't tell me that you understood what I wrote as meaning
> "racism doesn't happen, that's ludicrous.")
I didn't understand that, so I won't tell that.
>>> Capitalism does
>>> not lead to racism any more than any other possible form of economy. People
>>> will or will not be racists regardless of what the economic model of the
>>> country might happen to be. It's not like capitalism would somehow induce
>>> racism (while other economic models don't).
>
>> totally irrelevant, because gregjohn did not make that claim.
>
> Of course he did. He talked about how capitalism and free commerce could
> lead to things like racist behavior. That was the whole point.
>
> If he didn't make that claim, then what did he claim, in your opinion?
>
IMHO just that: if there is already racism, capitalism might lead to
companies that capitalize on that.
I think in a later mail he said that he knew of instances where that
actually happened. In his post that started this 'discussion' he did
only said that in his opinion it would be a logical consequence.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> oblivious to the fact that they are not paying for someone else's kid's
> education, they are paying back for their own.
That, and that having an educated population is good for them even if
they're uneducated themselves. Sort of like how having enough people
vaccinated protects those who aren't as well.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-12-2009 18:09, Darren New wrote:
Darren, I think there is something wrong with the roles we play here. I
though we were supposed to violently disagree on everything to entertain
the lurkers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 31-12-2009 18:09, Darren New wrote:
>
> Darren, I think there is something wrong with the roles we play here. I
> though we were supposed to violently disagree on everything to entertain
> the lurkers.
I think it's OK if we're both ganging up on Warp. ;-) ;-)
(No, really, I'm just kidding. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> gregjohn wrote:
>> Not everything immoral needs to be illegal, and the difficulty in making
>> something illegal is no indication of its morality. That is where I
>> think
>> you're headed on the wrong track with this.
>>
>> Of course, "posh" parents putting their kids into private schools is
>> indeed a
>> direct cause of public schools deteriorating. It's not a matter of
>> jealousy but
>> of direct consequences, negative externalities if you will.
>>
>> In my county, there's two school districts side by side. The kids from
>> one high
>> school earn all kinds of accolades, the other one has a 46% dropout rate.
>> Whenever I meet a decent, involved family who happens to move into the
>> bad
>> district, sho 'nuff they send their kids to the private school.
>>
> Sadly, in the US, schools are part of the culture war going on. There
> are people on boards, like the one in Texas, that **admit** to having
> gotten elected so they can destroy the public system. The only
> "standards" are set by the same state boards, who are often unqualified,
> and make choices about what and how things are taught that have
> *nothing* to do with what works. This is in contract to private schools,
> which take on of two tacks - The ones that care at all have the teachers
> work out what needs to be taught, and hire from a pool that is *noted*
> for doing well. The ones that are ideology driven use the old school
> "Rote" learning system, which sidesteps the need to understand the
> ideas, by satisfying the only thing that can be easily tested, "Whether
> or not the can give the right answers, whether they understand why they
> are right or not, even even, sometimes *if* they are right or not (in
> the case of those things that fall into the 'stuff we want them to take
> as truth' category)."
>
> There is a strong rise in the US of institutions like Liberty
> University, and "home schooling", the former of which will let you turn
> in dissertations on biology, which contain nothing but whining about
> god, gods creation, and the vast global conspiracy of Darwinists. The
> later.. You can buy specialized "pro-creationist" texts for, which
> teach, "How to answer the questions the way other schools and the
> government want you to, without corrupting yourself with belief in those
> things." Its the #1 best selling "home schooler" kit in the country,
> last I heard. Which should tell you, right off, who is doing 90% of the
> home schooling in the US. Their reason for it? Most of them buy the kits
> because they are a) not close enough to, b) can't afford, or c) don't
> trust the *type* of private school closest to them (FSM forbid a
> Protestant land in a Catholic school, and actually have to learn
> something, for example), to teach the *truth (tm)*.
>
> Their torpedoing the public schools via *intentional* sabotage, neglect,
> and defunding, even as most of the new "private" schools have been fundi
> in nature recently, and most of the people sinking the public schools
> don't even **have** kids in the program, since they are busy teaching
> them, at home, how Jesus invented toothpaste.
>
> To the original question... I think we need stricter guidelines as to
> what sort of BS happens, and not based on more "multiple choice" tests
> to assess what is being taught, no matter what country is involved. The
> moment you make something private, it creates a gap between what is
> "intended" and what is actually happening, from the perspective of
> anyone believing it should be "universal". But, whether or not they need
> to be banned is **hugely** dependent one which country you are talking
> about, or even, as in the US, which *state* its in. In some places, the
> only difference between the public and private schools are that the
> public ones could *theoretically* be sued for the things being taught in
> them, if you ever got a federal judge to look at it, since the local
> ones don't think there is a single thing wrong, and support what is
> being taught in them. Its that bad, in some places.
>
Wow.
I'd forgotten about this side of the question. Good points you make!
And an interesting case demonstrating regional differences approaching
this question.
Here in New York, where a huge public school system coexists with an
extensive network of private schools, it is much, much more about class,
ability, and race, and hardly at all about ideology affecting curriculum.
The private schools, especially on the HS level, are able to
be exclusive both in the sphere of money, and in the sphere of academic
ability. What is not so clear to me is to what extent racial exclusion
is masked by these criteria. Common cynicism would lead me to expect
that it is to a great extent but I just do not know. But I am quite
sure that ideology is off the table. The other point I want to stress
again is that it is not only money. Students for elite private schools
must compete in standardized aptitude tests, just as they do to get into
elite public schools.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-12-2009 19:12, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 31-12-2009 18:09, Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Darren, I think there is something wrong with the roles we play here.
>> I though we were supposed to violently disagree on everything to
>> entertain the lurkers.
>
> I think it's OK if we're both ganging up on Warp. ;-) ;-)
>
> (No, really, I'm just kidding. :-)
Good, me neither.
(trying in vain to break out of this liars paradox)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Charter wrote:
> The private schools, especially on the HS level, are able to
> be exclusive both in the sphere of money, and in the sphere of academic
> ability. What is not so clear to me is to what extent racial exclusion
> is masked by these criteria. Common cynicism would lead me to expect
> that it is to a great extent but I just do not know. But I am quite
> sure that ideology is off the table. The other point I want to stress
> again is that it is not only money. Students for elite private schools
> must compete in standardized aptitude tests, just as they do to get into
> elite public schools.
Yeah. That is definitely *helping* the wackos to undermine it too. Just
read something on a school planning to help the "underprivileged" with
more remedial course, in high school, by... canceling **labs** and
letting go the teachers for those classes. Yep, that'il fix it. Now
everyone at the school can impress management by being able to count
change, instead of only some of them, when they all get those high tech
jobs working in the "burger lab" at McDonald's. Nothing like "improving"
education by sacrificing the top students, while elevating the worst,
for what ever reason they are the worst, to the same level of mediocrity
and failure. But, heh.. No problem. Its my understanding that more and
more colleges are responding to this by teaching "remedial" classes too.
Who needs 4 years of college for people that actually *arrive* knowing
what they need to start, and pay professors to teach complex subjects,
if you can give former high school teachers, who can't get decent pay,
to teach remedial work the first 2 years of college, then charge the
students for 5-6 more, from the few actual professors you still have
working there? Isn't 8 years about right, if you want to become a
computer programmer (which currently takes 3-4, to get a BA in it)? And,
if it takes 8 more, for the same stupid reason, to get a doctorate..
Heck, they can just pay for it on credit cards and loans, from the
people that brought us the housing collapse, right?
Sigh.. We need to fix things *before* private schools, never mind high
schools and/or colleges get involved, and that means fixing it starting
at pre-school. When I was going, someone brought their kid in with a
diaper bag, a bottle, and a passifier, and got told, "Bring him back
when he is *ready*." Some place, some where, there is some bozo
pre-school with 2 nannies, whose job is to change diapers, because a
bunch of clueless idiots got a few judges to say, "You need to provide
them with a way to have their kids in school, even if the parents are
idiots.", and they are using those plastic "self stick" sticker, for
"art", instead of crayons, because the stickers are *cheaper*, and they
can't afford to have both nannies and crayons.
Sometimes I despair at the US' ability to survive another 50 years,
never mind 100, or 200, given that we *actually* seem to think that the
opinion of some slouch that spend 80% of their time on a couch watching
Oprah or Nascar (or both), is more important than *funding* schools,
fixing what doesn't work in them for real, instead of just testing the
bad ones, and chopping funding, and **keeping the morons fingers out of
the soup**, while doing so. The same people that *want* us to drag
people out of a line at the airport, and strip search them, to make sure
they are not *insane* or *stupid* enough to be trying to blow up a
plane, think that its irrelevant if someone is insane and/or stupid,
when telling the school, "I don't want Ezekial to have to learn that
Evilution stuff!", or imagine that the way to gauge how good a school
is, should be base not on how many of the kids move on to something
better later, but a) how many Football stars it produces, and b) how
many of the kids got them a proper education on farm animals, or
roofing, or sewage treatment, so they chose the *family* profession,
over something high falootin and useless, like physics. And, for now at
least, with the exceptions of "big cities", which are too "librul", most
of the country seems to be trying to cater to making things dumber and
dumberer.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Capitalism endorses competition. People will strive for bettering their
> own lives (to get rich, famous or otherwise in a better position in life).
> While this sounds (and somewhat is) a sign of greed, in the grand scale of
> things it's actually greed that benefits the society as a whole: By bettering
> his own life, this person is pushing forward progress, indirectly bettering
> everyone's life in average.
>
It only does so as long as competition is *possible*. The problem is,
any place a bottleneck exists, you get 1-2 people, or corporations,
which swallow up everything in the bottleneck, and then they get
everything, and everyone else scrambles for the scraps. This is only
made *worse* when you add into it the, fairly recent, rise to prominence
of libertarianism, which takes the existing belief in innovation via
competition, mixes it with social anarchism, and predicates that a)
there is nothing wrong with companies either swallowing the bottlenecks,
or even making ones up that shouldn't exist, because the guy with $5 and
an idea can *somehow* magically overcome the company with $5 billion,
and 50 lawyers, all dedicated on making sure that a) they can own the
idea, even when they didn't come up with it, b) the idea seems to
somehow "undermine" the economy, or c) the guy with his $5 will never
see anything *close* to a market for it.
Its like arguing that the sheep farmer can make himself rich from a new
fabric, when everything from his sheep farm to the markets its sold in,
are *owned* by the people in the castle a mile away.
You have to have a mixture of both. A recognition that "some level" of
equality is a necessity, or you run aground of your own success, by
reducing everyone to a state where they can't afford your own product.
Walmart is a good example. You want quality, for a good price, and which
doesn't break in five minute from buying it, you **don't** buy Walmart.
But, 90% of their employees make minimum wage, and no tips. Any of them
with families get **help** from management to fill out government
subsidy forms. The only they they can afford is what Walmart sells, and
the result is one of two things - 1) The quality has to *drop* to make
up the difference, or 2) their own employees, if the quality where
raised, wouldn't be able to afford their own products.
This result came from trying to satisfy 99% of the country, and finding
that 19% of them already couldn't *afford* anything better. Now, 50% of
them can't. The people buying what would have been considered the
"poorest" quality 50 years ago (as in things like a toaster they used
for 20 years before replacing it), are now 20% of the population, not
90%. This isn't progress.
Or, lets put it another way, since this is an example from the "other"
side of the fence, where fairness becomes "unfair" to the company.
Cars.. For most of my fathers early adult life, and teens, it was $1 per
*pound*, for a car. Now, its $50 per pound. Why? Because the workers
robbed the company, instead of the company robbing them. Same problem.
You need some perception of "equality", which includes the rest of the
people in your country. If you don't, and you are a worker, you scramble
to get every dime you can, until half the country can't afford what you
just manufactured. If your are a company, same thing. You can't create a
state in which you either have to lower quality to the point where
people consider everything you sell to be crap, but have no choice but
to buy it, and support "innovation", or "progress". All you do is hang
yourself with your own rope, until your money supply gets cut off by no
one being able to afford the crap any more than they can the decent stuff.
You don't need socialism for things to work. You do need either
companies to recognize that they *have* a social obligation, not just
one to their own gains and profits, or someone who *recognizes* the
social obligation, and is willing to say, "Stop screwing everyone." What
we have now is companies that don't, for the most part give a crap,
lobbying politicians, how own stock in the companies, often get hired by
them, if/when they retire, and who also **don't see** their own social
obligations. If everyone scrounges for the list dime, you end up with a
world of people with stepped on fingers, two people with bags full of
dimes, and **nothing to buy with it**.
That has been the whole mess with this health care debacle. The
insurance companies use their **own**, self owned, company to determine
what it "costs" to perform a medical procedure, and that is where the
term "premium" comes from. They underrate the cost, drive up the
premiums, then get people in congress to argue that, if it costs $100 to
do something, they say it costs $80, and your therefor have to pay, due
to their lie, $20, that isn't *fair* to them, and you should be paying
$25. The governments response - One side says, "OK, there is no way in
hell we are, at this point, going to get them to stop lying, or using
their own internal company to rate the costs, so lets provide some
direct competition, which *doesn't* lie about it.", and the other side
screams, "Making us charge the customer what it actually costs like that
is wrong, and the reason isn't because we just don't want to pay it, its
because government run programs are **socialism**." Sigh...
> Someone might want to get rich and famous by making a beneficial invention
> or developing something useful in order to sell it for millions. If he
> succeeds, he gets filthy rich (which was his goal), but as a side effect
> the overall quality of the society got increased because now there's a new
> invention which makes everyone's life easier.
>
They can't. As I already said. They have three options. Go to another
country, find enough money to do it themselves (or inherit it), or
**sell it** to some company that gives them 1% of what its actually
worth, who then makes themselves rich by taking in $100,000,000 for
every $1,000,000 the guy that invented it does. Yeah, he gets "rich",
sort of, but not without everyone that is already rich making 100 times
are much, for doing nothing, other than happening to already have the
factory needed to manufacture it. Oh, and selling it at a store that
pays its people so little they can never *ever* hope to try to do the same.
> What people want is unreasonable. Basically they want to eat the cake and
> keep it too: They want all the benefits of innovation and progress which
> comes from competitive capitalism, but without the competitive capitalism,
> so that everyone owns the same amount. This just doesn't work.
>
That isn't reasonable. You have to have some compromise, or it just
doesn't work. Ann Rand and their ilk are all idiots, and the current
economic mess is squarely at the feet of the nitwits that fell for it.
Its the flip side of socialism. If everyone has the same, there is no
reason to innovate. If 5% of the population has 99% of the resources,
its not **possible** to innovate. You did nothing but replace the
"state" with "corporations". The average person is still being screwed,
only worse, because corporations are under no obligation, theoretical or
otherwise, to bother with the "well being" of anyone other than their
own stock holders, and, only as much as "necessary" to their customers.
Problem is, "necessary", in the later case is based solely on, "Enough
people will buy it.", not on quality, content, or intrinsic value.
> It's not a coincidence that the best technological innovations are created
> in capitalist countries which endorse free commerce and private ownership and
> entrepreneurship.
>
Its also not a coincidence that such markets produce 500 times as much
total crap, by comparison, either. There is a difference between
"innovation" and "marketing". The later is more important to capitalism
than the former, by a *huge* margin. Sometimes.. it even manages to kill
the former, when a better option is available.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
>> It sounds that (in the US) “socialism” is becoming a synonym of
>> “Communism”
>
> What do *you* think the difference is? They sound pretty similar,
> except one has stuff owned by "the government" and one has it owned by
> "the people".
>
Problem is, the "the government owns it", model isn't far off what you
get with unfettered capitalism either. We had that once in the US,
before anti-trust laws. Companies owned you house, your clothes, sold
you your food, provided you with *less* than necessary to pay it all
back, and even had their own mini-military, to "protect" the companies
assets from people prone to show up demanding higher pay, or a way out
of their contracts, or a decrease in their debt to the company. We
thought this was an horribly bad idea at one point. Now... I am not so
sure some companies are not backsliding into it. Pretty sure a few
companies, for example, that sell consumer goods are also offering
"credit cards", along with the vague discounts they give to their
employees, while actually "lowering" their pay. One grocery store, as an
example of the pay lowering, Krogers, I think it was, had many of their
divisions re-structured so that they went from having 2-3 different pay
scales, and special pay for meat cutters and others, to *one* single
wage for all non-managers. Minimum wage. Overnight, they lost
*everything*. Now all they have to do is offer home loans and credit,
and its right back to the same BS all over again.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Should private schools be banned?
Date: 1 Jan 2010 21:53:04
Message: <4b3eb510@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 31-12-2009 18:09, Darren New wrote:
>
> Darren, I think there is something wrong with the roles we play here. I
> though we were supposed to violently disagree on everything to entertain
> the lurkers.
I think you're doing fine. This thread is quite entertaining so far.
--
a lurker.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Ok, it might not be "fair" that all children are not given the same
> opportunities, but do you really want to lower the overall education level
> of your entire country just in the name of "fairness"?
As somebody who actually lives in the UK, I don't think banning private
schools would do anything positive.
Hypothetically, everybody should have an equal chance in life. Obviously
this is impossible, but we can still strive to get as close to it as
possible.
However... closing private schools isn't going to make this happen.
If you're going to ban "private schools", first you have to define what
one is. If that sounds silly, consider that people run phone-in
competations which are really just gambling, but manage to circumvent
gambling laws because they add a question to the competation, therefore
placing it under a different branch of law.
If you try to ban private schools, there will be similarly absurd
loopholes that people will exploit. And even if they can't, rich kids
will still end up getting the best books and learning materials, the
finest tutors for after-school extra tuition, and so on and so forth.
They'll still have a vast advantage over everybody else.
Yes, it would be nice if the world was perfect. But this isn't the right
way to achieve that. Banning private schools would just make a lot of
work for law-makers and law-enforcers without actually achieving anything.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> As somebody who actually lives in the UK, I don't think banning private
> schools would do anything positive.
>
As somebody who actually lives in the UK, I think that church schools
should be banned too.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> As somebody who actually lives in the UK, I think that church schools
> should be banned too.
They still have those?! Man...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Ok, it might not be "fair" that all children are not given the same
> > opportunities, but do you really want to lower the overall education level
> > of your entire country just in the name of "fairness"?
> As somebody who actually lives in the UK, I don't think banning private
> schools would do anything positive.
> Hypothetically, everybody should have an equal chance in life. Obviously
> this is impossible, but we can still strive to get as close to it as
> possible.
I really do think that forcing "equal opportunity for everybody" by
removing privileges from the rich is *not* the proper solution.
That's a bit like saying that everybody should have the same quality of
vision, and to do that, we make everybody blind so that now truly everybody
will be equal in terms of vision. That's just silly.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> As somebody who actually lives in the UK, I think that church schools
>> should be banned too.
>
> They still have those?! Man...
>
Just name a religion, C o E, catholic, Jewish, Muslim…
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Stephen wrote:
> >
> >> As somebody who actually lives in the UK, I think that church schools
> >> should be banned too.
> >
> > They still have those?! Man...
> Just name a religion, C o E, catholic, Jewish, Muslim???
The right for people to indocrinate their children into their own religion
is today as holy as it has always been. (The only difference is that now
there are more religions in the same places.) So don't expect those schools
to be banned anytime soon. Maybe in the next millenia.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> As somebody who actually lives in the UK, I think that church schools
>>>> should be banned too.
>>> They still have those?! Man...
>
>> Just name a religion, C o E, catholic, Jewish, Muslim???
>
> The right for people to indocrinate their children into their own religion
> is today as holy as it has always been. (The only difference is that now
> there are more religions in the same places.) So don't expect those schools
> to be banned anytime soon. Maybe in the next millenia.
>
One can only hope.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>
>>> Ok, it might not be "fair" that all children are not given the same
>>> opportunities, but do you really want to lower the overall education level
>>> of your entire country just in the name of "fairness"?
>
>> As somebody who actually lives in the UK, I don't think banning private
>> schools would do anything positive.
>
>> Hypothetically, everybody should have an equal chance in life. Obviously
>> this is impossible, but we can still strive to get as close to it as
>> possible.
>
> I really do think that forcing "equal opportunity for everybody" by
> removing privileges from the rich is *not* the proper solution.
I think that was not the point of that article, but I seem to have lost
the link somewhere in the long discussion.
>
> That's a bit like saying that everybody should have the same quality of
> vision, and to do that, we make everybody blind so that now truly everybody
> will be equal in terms of vision. That's just silly.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hypothetically, everybody should have an equal chance in life. Obviously
>> this is impossible, but we can still strive to get as close to it as
>> possible.
>
> I really do think that forcing "equal opportunity for everybody" by
> removing privileges from the rich is *not* the proper solution.
>
> That's a bit like saying that everybody should have the same quality of
> vision, and to do that, we make everybody blind so that now truly everybody
> will be equal in terms of vision. That's just silly.
Yes, yes it is. What we *should* of course be doing is making sure
everybody has really awesome vision.
Oh, and really awesome schools. And shutting private schools doesn't
advance this goal. (At least, not measurably.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That's a bit like saying that everybody should have the same quality of
> vision, and to do that, we make everybody blind so that now truly everybody
> will be equal in terms of vision. That's just silly.
Wasn't it Harlan Ellison who did a short story about that? And it's turning
into a film now, I think? I couldn't find the name of it, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> That's a bit like saying that everybody should have the same quality of
>> vision, and to do that, we make everybody blind so that now truly
>> everybody
>> will be equal in terms of vision. That's just silly.
>
> Wasn't it Harlan Ellison who did a short story about that? And it's
> turning into a film now, I think? I couldn't find the name of it, tho.
>
Is that the story where dancers were weighed down by chains and weights
and the protagonist rebelled and danced for all he was worth?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> That's a bit like saying that everybody should have the same
>>> quality of
>>> vision, and to do that, we make everybody blind so that now truly
>>> everybody
>>> will be equal in terms of vision. That's just silly.
>>
>> Wasn't it Harlan Ellison who did a short story about that? And it's
>> turning into a film now, I think? I couldn't find the name of it, tho.
>>
>
> Is that the story where dancers were weighed down by chains and weights
> and the protagonist rebelled and danced for all he was worth?
That's the one I was thinking of, yes.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:07:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> As somebody who actually lives in the UK, I think that church schools
>>> should be banned too.
>>
>> They still have those?! Man...
>>
>>
> Just name a religion, C o E, catholic, Jewish, Muslim…
Jedi? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Is that the story where dancers were weighed down by chains and
>> weights and the protagonist rebelled and danced for all he was worth?
>
> That's the one I was thinking of, yes.
>
Harrison Bergeron, Vonnegut.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
