On 8/7/2013 12:11 AM, scott wrote:
> This is why I really don't agree with people's reasoning about buying or
> producing locally. That's what we used to do and it's not very
> efficient, the people who would have been doing manual labour in
> factories or fields from the age of 10 are now generating far more
> wealth by being a shop assistant in Tesco or maintaining a machine in a
> food factory. This in turn allows them to have a warm, heated house with
> a hot meal every day, new clothes (and Sky TV, an iPhone and a holiday
> abroad each year etc). Their equivalents from 1900 could only dream of
> such luxuries.


Except, of course, for all the people struggling to heat their homes, 
put food on the table, buy new clothes, and all the other stuff you 
mention. But then, I haven't met a libertarian that seems to have ever 
met such a person, understood what they go through, or, for that matter, 
when/if they do, ever believe they are growing in number, and that all 
those companies, selling all those "luxuriates" while paying the workers 
crap wages, are helping make it happen.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2013 10:13 AM, andrel wrote:
> On 7-8-2013 2:29, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Its only not that bad **yet** because a) they do get government help, b)
>> they are working anything from 2, to in some insane cases, 5 jobs, at
>> anything from 50-90 hours a week, and c) everyone shops at walmart,
>> k-mart, and.. all the other "big corp" companies, whose workers are all
>> the same, "minimum wage, but we can only give you 15 hours this week",
>> jobs, which result in people having 2, 3, 4, or more of them.
>
> One of the things I like in the western economy is that CEO's need to
> earn a huge salary because they 1) work a lot, sometimes even during
> their dinners and 2) because they don't have the job security as normal
> people. And probably 3) because they need a lot of time to keep up with
> developments in the real world.
>
>
lol Wow.. Really? They need 20x as much money, or more, than it takes to 
buy, pay the taxes on, and fill their houses with the same crap everyone 
else does, because they "work harder"? Yeah.. Those single parents, who 
have to make up for the fact that they still have nearly the same net 
costs are a two parent home, with both working, and thus work 70-80 
hours a week, and hasn't had a vacation in 10 years, while he CEO is 
sitting on a beach some place, are working so much less hard than the CEO..

Seriously, as just on example, one of the damned "bosses" I have is 
supposed to be there 10 hours a day, 4 days out of the week, but is 
often there for 12-13 hours instead **and** he is a closer, so doesn't 
have to deal with customers much, or any of the other things the day 
managers have to deal with. The reason for him being there 12-13 hours a 
day, instead of 8, which one of the "non-managers" when they close 
manages to get things done it, while dealing with the same customer 
issues, the same in store issues, the same stocking issues, inventory 
management, and so on, is because, unlike every other bloody manager I 
have worked with (who almost always left when the store closed) is 
simply because he won't get off his ass and do his bloody work, until 
after all the help has left, and then, I spent more damn time doing crap 
the rest of them did themselves, for him, than he did.

More work, and harder.. Pull the other one, it has bells on.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/7/2013 1:55 AM, scott wrote:
>> 5% walmart - minimum wage
>> 5% k-mart - minimum wage
>> 5% sterilite (a cheap plastics company) - slightly over minimum, but
>> they require 10 hour days, staggered, so as not to pay overtime (5 days
>> one week, then 3 the next, so they don't actually pay you more than if
>> it was 10 '8 hour' days.
>> 10% small businesses - almost all minimum wage, and less than 30 hours a
>> week.
>> 70% restaurants - require to pay minimum wage **only** if wages (at
>> $3.50 an hour) + tips is "lower" than the minimum would be, and then..
>> nearly all of them "pool" the tips, and divide them among all of the
>> staff, including management.
>> 10% general "other" jobs - some of which "may" pay more than minimum.
>> 5% The assholes that own all of it.
>
> Seems a very bad place to live if 85% of the jobs are (almost) minimum
> wage - I'd move to a different city where the distribution better
> reflects your typical national distribution.
>
Ah.. right.. Try - a different state. Only... Hmm. No, California, they 
pay about $3 more, but, the cost of living is often so much higher than 
the $3 will not make up the difference. You don't seem to be getting it. 
This problem is now ***in every city, and state***. Sure, there may be 
some total backwater places, which don't have the problem, but.. when, 
somehow, all those people that can barely pay rent, manage to scrape 
together the money to move to Midnowhere, Tennessee, the local market 
will have to expand, the companies that move in will be the same, and 
the cost of living will jump, and its the same crap all over. Though, 
mind you, somewhat ironically, the ***highest*** poverty levels, the 
highest unemployment, and the biggest supporters of getting rid of 
unions, minimum wage laws, worker protection laws, environmental laws, 
etc. is the **home** of companies like Walmart.

Its truly bizzare, but.. well, not too unexpected. The same states often 
make sales, and/or deliver, to your door, of porn, sex toys, and other 
things, illegal, promote abstinence education, and other similar 
nonsense, but have the **highest** national levels of teen pregnancies, 
incest, porn sales/ownership, and racism.

Its almost like that whole region of the country thinks its living in an 
alternate universe, where voting against the stuff they do, and 
supporting the politicians they do, etc., makes absolutely perfect 
sense, while *actually* living in this one, in which these things range 
between not working at all, to batshit insane.

Post a reply to this message

> Except, of course, for all the people struggling to heat their homes,
> put food on the table, buy new clothes, and all the other stuff you
> mention.

Indeed it's sad that we haven't reduced the number of people in that 
situation to 0%, but it's *a lot* better than the situation 100 years ago.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:13:35 +0200, andrel wrote:

> One of the things I like in the western economy is that CEO's need to
> earn a huge salary because they 1) work a lot, sometimes even during
> their dinners 

False dichotomy.  IT professionals work a lot, sometimes even during 
their dinners (or for 30-40 hours straight) and don't get paid like a CEO 
does.

> and 2) because they don't have the job security as normal
> people. 

False dichotomy.  Nobody has job security.  Getting laid off taught me 
that.  Especially in the US, where "right to work" translates to "right 
for your employer to let you go for any reason or even no reason" with 
very few exceptions.

> And probably 3) because they need a lot of time to keep up with
> developments in the real world.

False dichotomy.  See previous comment regarding IT professionals.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> "Patrick Elliott"  wrote in message news:520332b1@news.povray.org...

Just a general reply. Every anti-anti-authoritarian (make sure you read that 
one right) argument you give comes down to "It'll work if it's done right." 
The anti-authoritarian (Libertarian) view can be expressed semi-succinctly 
as "It's not being done right, or conscientiously. The government, military, 
and megacorps are three heads of the same beast. Feeding any of its thee 
mouth strengthens the entire animal. The beast cannot be controlled and has 
to die. I'm taking back what power I still have--while I still can."

Also, read about Mercantilism on Wikipedia. We aren't talking about the same 
thing.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel"  wrote in message news:520### [at] gmailcom...
> So this is another way charity is harmful. (Shay, see how I also try to 
> neglect your point, by focussing on the metaphor?)

Ha.

Yet, I still give to charity, though I try to be very careful about it.
Bill Gates is going to eliminate Polio, and I can't help but think that will 
make the world a better place.

-Shay

Post a reply to this message

Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> Bill Gates is going to eliminate Polio, and I can't help but think that will 
> make the world a better place.

It would be nice if polio were completely eradicated like smallpox was,
but with the current politically correct western civilization that's
something that might not actually happen.

The eradication of smallpox in the 70's was rather "brutal" in the
sense that we just went to places and vaccinated people without asking.
Sometimes even by using borderline force. And it worked. It's basically
the first worldwide disease that caused millions of deaths that was
completely eradicated from the face of the Earth, and good riddance.

Polio is a different story, though. And not because it couldn't be
eradicated in the same way. No, it's different because the modern western
zeitgeist has changed a lot since the 70's. The western civilization has
built a self-loathing dogma that tells us that we just can't go there
and vaccinate people without asking. That's like colonialism and white
supremacy and stuff. We have to respect the local cultures and beliefs.

Which in practice means that some deluded people out there won't take
the vaccines because their belief system says that it's against the will
of their gods or BS like that. And as said, the modern western zeitgeist
is to submit to their beliefs and not force them.

Thus thousands and thousands of innocent people out there are going to
either die or be crippled for life every year because we are too
concerned with political correctness and avoiding the picture of
colonialism and western supremacy.

Basically, we are making up for centuries of colonialism by letting people
die and suffer horribly. Yay us.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?

On 8-8-2013 17:27, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:13:35 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> One of the things I like in the western economy is that CEO's need to
>> earn a huge salary because they 1) work a lot, sometimes even during
>> their dinners
>
> False dichotomy.  IT professionals work a lot, sometimes even during
> their dinners (or for 30-40 hours straight) and don't get paid like a CEO
> does.
>
>> and 2) because they don't have the job security as normal
>> people.
>
> False dichotomy.  Nobody has job security.  Getting laid off taught me
> that.  Especially in the US, where "right to work" translates to "right
> for your employer to let you go for any reason or even no reason" with
> very few exceptions.
>
>> And probably 3) because they need a lot of time to keep up with
>> developments in the real world.
>
> False dichotomy.  See previous comment regarding IT professionals.
>
> Jim
>


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/08/2013 8:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> Basically, we are making up for centuries of colonialism by letting people
> die and suffer horribly. Yay us.

That is a fair point, IMO.
But AFAIK, you Finns don't have the collective guilt that we, (the 
Brits, Dutch, French etc.) have with our colonialism. I've worked in 
some of our former colonies and am aware of a few of the many bad things 
that were done in the name of civilising the natives. It is a touchy 
subject.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:05:56 +0200, andrel wrote:

> Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?

It seems not - sorry, it's been a rough couple of days for me. :/

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 15:38:50 -0400, Warp wrote:

> And as said, the modern western zeitgeist is to submit to their beliefs
> and not force them.

Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we know 
better than you" and to force them to do something they don't want.

Yes, we do need to vaccinate people against these deadly diseases, but I 
don't think it's a case of "political correctness" gone wrong to 
recognize that nobody has the right to *force* someone to take an 
injection because *we say* it's good for them.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8-8-2013 18:56, Shay wrote:
> "andrel"  wrote in message news:520### [at] gmailcom...
>> So this is another way charity is harmful. (Shay, see how I also try
>> to neglect your point, by focussing on the metaphor?)
>
> Ha.
>
> Yet, I still give to charity, though I try to be very careful about it.

Please do, and indeed think about what you are doing and the implications.
In our federation we sort of tend to just 'supply' knowledge and 
knowledgeable people. Even if we have the money to buy things that 
someone in a developing country needs that is often not a good idea in 
the long run.
I am advocating very much that the people in developing countries start 
developing their own biomedical-equipment as soon as possible. My main 
points are that almost all current equipment is designed to be 
irrepairable, uses consumables, and need a lot of other equipment to 
run. Like an electronic database with patient records. (attached a 
picture I took 2 years ago in Tanzania of the database system there. The 
lady you see on the back was the director of EWH.org )
That simply means that most of what we use now cannot be used in a 
developing country context, not now, not in 10 years time. The equipment 
donation business is about to collapse.

> Bill Gates is going to eliminate Polio, and I can't help but think that
> will make the world a better place.

Bill and Melissa are doing great work, but they don't cover all the 
problems.
BTW for many things the right people are still the most important 
aspect. You, with your skills, could do a lot of positive things in e.g. 
subsahara africa, much more than the average CEO of a small NGO.


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'medrec.jpg' (157 KB)

Preview of image 'medrec.jpg'

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we know 
> better than you" and to force them to do something they don't want.

We can approach the dilemma from a philosophical point of view, or we
can approach it from a pragmatic point of view.

Forcing them will save thousands and thousand of lives. Not only theirs,
but that of other people (because the more people have immunity, the
more protected those few are who do not.)

You can talk all you like about what their freedoms and rights are, but
we are also talking about saving people's lives. And as said, it's not
only *their* lives we are talking about. We cannot stop them from
committing suicide because of delusion, but we can stop them from
spreading the disease to others, many of whom do not hold the same
deluded beliefs and who would very much like to be spared from the
disease.

> Yes, we do need to vaccinate people against these deadly diseases, but I 
> don't think it's a case of "political correctness" gone wrong to 
> recognize that nobody has the right to *force* someone to take an 
> injection because *we say* it's good for them.

The thing is, we *know* it's good for them. With actual physical hard
evidence. And it's not like it's some kind of ideology or culture we
are trying to "spread" to them. It's a disease we are trying to cure
so that everybody will be a bit safer.

If you say "we shouldn't be forcing western values onto them", then I can
agree. If you say "we shouldn't be saving their and other people's lives
by force" then I have to disagree on principle.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:52041512@news.povray.org...

> Forcing them will save thousands and thousand of lives.

Totalitarianism has cost millions and millions of lives. We can't have the 
benefits of totalitarianism without the costs.

Post a reply to this message

On 9-8-2013 0:00, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we know
>> better than you" and to force them to do something they don't want.
>
> We can approach the dilemma from a philosophical point of view, or we
> can approach it from a pragmatic point of view.
>
> Forcing them will save thousands and thousand of lives. Not only theirs,
> but that of other people (because the more people have immunity, the
> more protected those few are who do not.)
>
> You can talk all you like about what their freedoms and rights are, but
> we are also talking about saving people's lives. And as said, it's not
> only *their* lives we are talking about. We cannot stop them from
> committing suicide because of delusion, but we can stop them from
> spreading the disease to others, many of whom do not hold the same
> deluded beliefs and who would very much like to be spared from the
> disease.

In the Netherlands we have a small outbreak of measles. There are 
vaccines but in some areas enough parents refuse to get their children 
vaccinated because of 1) conservative religious reasons (we should not 
interfere in God's plans) 2) some sort of feeling that modern technology 
is always harmful (e.g. followers of Anthroposofic principles are often 
mentioned).

If we are unable to get everybody vaccinated here, is there any reason 
why it should work in Afghanistan, other than 'we know better, so you 
have to do what we say'?

There are also other sorts of distrust against vaccinations. For 
instance do you remember the attacks in India on polio workers?



-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:00:51 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we
>> know better than you" and to force them to do something they don't
>> want.
> 
> We can approach the dilemma from a philosophical point of view, or we
> can approach it from a pragmatic point of view.

There's nothing philosophical about it, Warp.  If you're forcing people 
to take an injection, you're in the wrong, just as much as someone who's 
forcefully injecting people for experimental purposes.

If you were on the receiving end of something you were told was a 
lifesaving injection from someone who you perceived as acting in an 
imperialist way, would you take it?  Or would you be suspicious and fight 
back?  I know what I'd do.

> Forcing them will save thousands and thousand of lives. Not only theirs,
> but that of other people (because the more people have immunity, the
> more protected those few are who do not.)

Yes, I understand herd immunity, and it is an important thing.  But 
people are not cattle, and you can't just march into a country and start 
pumping drugs into people's bloodstream because you think it's a good 
idea (or even because it /is/ a good idea).

>> Yes, we do need to vaccinate people against these deadly diseases, but
>> I don't think it's a case of "political correctness" gone wrong to
>> recognize that nobody has the right to *force* someone to take an
>> injection because *we say* it's good for them.
> 
> The thing is, we *know* it's good for them. With actual physical hard
> evidence. And it's not like it's some kind of ideology or culture we are
> trying to "spread" to them. It's a disease we are trying to cure so that
> everybody will be a bit safer.

They *don't* know it.  They need to be educated and make a free choice.

> If you say "we shouldn't be forcing western values onto them", then I
> can agree. If you say "we shouldn't be saving their and other people's
> lives by force" then I have to disagree on principle.

I wish you and your medical army well.  Don't be surprised if the 
"natives" start shooting back because you're treating them like children 
or cattle.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> And as said, the modern western zeitgeist is to submit to their beliefs
>> and not force them.
>
> Or to recognize that it's actually not very nice to tell people "we know
> better than you" and to force them to do something they don't want.
>
> Yes, we do need to vaccinate people against these deadly diseases, but I
> don't think it's a case of "political correctness" gone wrong to
> recognize that nobody has the right to *force* someone to take an
> injection because *we say* it's good for them.

On the other hand, nobody has the right to kill others by refusing a 
proven medical vaccination. But because you're only going to affect some 
statistic in a table of deaths in 10 years time, nobody cares.

The problem with this issue is that the person deciding whether to take 
the injection or not doesn't have to bear the full cost of their 
decision. For example by deciding not to have the injection that results 
in more people needing medical care or dying, plus the cost of 
continuing vaccinations for the rest of the world.

In order to make it fairer, the cost of treating and vaccinating the 
rest of the world should be divided up between the number of people who 
refuse the injection, and they are made to pay that. If they can't 
afford that, they are given the injection forcefully :-)

Post a reply to this message

Le 09/08/2013 11:31, scott a écrit :
> If they can't afford that, they are given the injection forcefully :-)

But that's oppression of the poors by the richs!

(assuming you divide the amount, the formula used will be subject to
endless discussion : per head, per income, per wealth, per age... )

-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

>> If they can't afford that, they are given the injection forcefully :-)
>
> But that's oppression of the poors by the richs!
>
> (assuming you divide the amount, the formula used will be subject to
> endless discussion : per head, per income, per wealth, per age... )

Age would be the major factor (as younger people generally have more 
years left to spread disease). Income and wealth are secondary factors 
(wealthier people tend to live longer), but the impact would be small 
compared to age, so for the sake of saving money on the admin and 
logistics, just do it by age. Or given that we can't expect children to 
make an informed decision (and they're the ones who can cause most 
damage by not having the injection) just force it on children and make 
everyone else pay the same (again, to make logistics easier).

Just in case you're wondering, this is not meant to be serious, just 
looking it at purely from a logic / economics point of view :-)

Post a reply to this message

Le 09/08/2013 13:41, scott a écrit :

> Just in case you're wondering, this is not meant to be serious, just
> looking it at purely from a logic / economics point of view :-)

Me too ;-)

-- 
Just because nobody complains does not mean all parachutes are perfect.

Post a reply to this message

"scott"  wrote in message news:5204d562$1@news.povray.org...

> Just in case you're wondering, this is not meant to be serious, just 
> looking it at purely from a logic / economics point of view :-)

Logically, what will "we" do with the power establishment necessary to make 
this happen once our humanitarian mission is complete?

Post a reply to this message

>> Just in case you're wondering, this is not meant to be serious, just
>> looking it at purely from a logic / economics point of view :-)
>
> Logically, what will "we" do with the power establishment necessary to
> make this happen once our humanitarian mission is complete?

Oh there's plenty more to solve that would be possible now with such 
powers... AIDS would be a good start, that kills about 2 million people 
a year, given that a life is considered to be worth about $8m 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life) that means we should allow 
spending up to $16tn to eradicate it, then after a year we'd be in 
profit. $16tn is $2200 per person on the planet, should be plenty enough 
to test every person, however the question is what to do with the people 
who test positive.

You can't just kill them, because apparently there are estimated to be 
up to 35 million people, and that would far outweigh any benefit to 
eradicating AIDS in the short term. You could closely monitor them to 
ensure they don't spread the disease by any means, but that would 
certainly push the cost way above $2200. Best option would be ship them 
to a big island somewhere, preferably one already with an infrastrure 
(existing residents who don't have AIDS can swap lives with the incoming 
infected ones), they would live completely normal lives, jobs, have 
access to medical care, provide value to society and the economy etc, 
the only restriction being never allowed to leave the island and anyone 
who visits is also never allowed to leave, or maybe return visits could 
be allowed under very strict conditions. Job done.

Hmmm, what next?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> There's nothing philosophical about it, Warp.  If you're forcing people 
> to take an injection, you're in the wrong, just as much as someone who's 
> forcefully injecting people for experimental purposes.

Saving millions of people's lives is the same as "forcefully injecting
people for experimental purposes"? I think you are deliberately twisting
the issue.

It's not an experiment. We know that we can eradicate polio. We know that
we would be saving people's lives. There's no question about it.

Let me put it this way: If there were a country out there that regularly
engages in ritual sacrifice of humans, would you want to intervene?

If your answer is no, then we have to disagree (and I'm tempted to use
some not-very-nice words to describe your attitude.)

If your answer is yes, then what exactly is the practical difference to
the polio vaccine situation? In both cases we would be saving the lives
of innocent people. Would it happen by force? Yes. Would it matter? No.

> > The thing is, we *know* it's good for them. With actual physical hard
> > evidence. And it's not like it's some kind of ideology or culture we are
> > trying to "spread" to them. It's a disease we are trying to cure so that
> > everybody will be a bit safer.

> They *don't* know it.  They need to be educated and make a free choice.

Would you stop human sacrifice when you see it, or would just "educate"
them and hope that perhaps one day they will change their rituals?

Every time you are not stopping human sacrifice when you would have the
means to do so, you are allowing an innocent person to die.

No, I just cannot agree with the bullshit sentiment that we should just
obey their wish to commit suicide and take tons of people with them, many
of them who would not want to die or get crippled for life. If they don't
agree, then it's too bad for them. They don't have a say when we are
talking about human life. Life takes priority over cultural bullshit.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 12:59:20 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> There's nothing philosophical about it, Warp.  If you're forcing people
>> to take an injection, you're in the wrong, just as much as someone
>> who's forcefully injecting people for experimental purposes.
> 
> Saving millions of people's lives is the same as "forcefully injecting
> people for experimental purposes"? I think you are deliberately twisting
> the issue.

Look at it from the standpoint of the people you're trying to force to 
take the injection.  They don't know that it's not an experiment, or that 
you know what you're talking about.

> It's not an experiment. We know that we can eradicate polio. We know
> that we would be saving people's lives. There's no question about it.

So you claim.  Again, from the perspective of the people you'd forcefully 
inject, how do they know you're telling them the truth?  History is 
littered with examples of people who did things to other people "for 
their own good", except it wasn't actually for an altruistic reason.

You're saying "trust me", but not providing a basis for that trust.

> Let me put it this way: If there were a country out there that regularly
> engages in ritual sacrifice of humans, would you want to intervene?

Yes.  That is different than telling someone "I know what's good for you 
and you will submit to it because I say so".  To pretend that those are 
even remotely similar situations is patently ridiculous.

> If your answer is yes, then what exactly is the practical difference to
> the polio vaccine situation? In both cases we would be saving the lives
> of innocent people. Would it happen by force? Yes. Would it matter? No.

Again, look at it from the perspective of being the one being forced to 
take the injection.  If you'd take that, then what else would you submit 
to because your government says it's good for you?  Or someone else's 
government?

> No, I just cannot agree with the bullshit sentiment that we should just
> obey their wish to commit suicide and take tons of people with them,
> many of them who would not want to die or get crippled for life. If they
> don't agree, then it's too bad for them. They don't have a say when we
> are talking about human life. Life takes priority over cultural
> bullshit.

And I cannot agree with the bullshit idea that because you say something 
is good for someone who doesn't know better, they should just submit and 
take it because you know better than they do.  Whether you /do/ actually 
know better than they do or not is irrelevant.

I also reject the bullshit analogy you use to justify this - equating 
something that is clearly immoral and just plain wrong (human sacrifice) 
with imposing a totalitarian regime on someone because you know better 
than they do is not the same thing.

Since we're going for bullshit analogies, how about I just godwin the 
thread right now and say "I'm sure Hitler would agree with you.  After 
all, what he did to the Jews was for their own good."

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Look at it from the standpoint of the people you're trying to force to 
> take the injection.  They don't know that it's not an experiment, or that 
> you know what you're talking about.

So what? Neither does an unconscious person. Would you refuse to save the
life of an unconscious person because they are unable to understand what
you are doing to them?

> > Let me put it this way: If there were a country out there that regularly
> > engages in ritual sacrifice of humans, would you want to intervene?

> Yes.  That is different than telling someone "I know what's good for you 
> and you will submit to it because I say so".  To pretend that those are 
> even remotely similar situations is patently ridiculous.

Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a totalitarian
regime.

> I also reject the bullshit analogy you use to justify this - equating 
> something that is clearly immoral and just plain wrong (human sacrifice) 
> with imposing a totalitarian regime on someone because you know better 
> than they do is not the same thing.

Please, by all means explain to me how giving a vaccine to someone, saving
their life, is imposing a totalitarian regime onto them. I would be
interested to hear.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 14:00:07 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Look at it from the standpoint of the people you're trying to force to
>> take the injection.  They don't know that it's not an experiment, or
>> that you know what you're talking about.
> 
> So what? Neither does an unconscious person. Would you refuse to save
> the life of an unconscious person because they are unable to understand
> what you are doing to them?

Different situation entirely, and you know it.

>> > Let me put it this way: If there were a country out there that
>> > regularly engages in ritual sacrifice of humans, would you want to
>> > intervene?
> 
>> Yes.  That is different than telling someone "I know what's good for
>> you and you will submit to it because I say so".  To pretend that those
>> are even remotely similar situations is patently ridiculous.
> 
> Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a
> totalitarian regime.

It is if you go out, grab them, stick them with a needle and pump 
something in them that they only have your word on being good for them.

>> I also reject the bullshit analogy you use to justify this - equating
>> something that is clearly immoral and just plain wrong (human
>> sacrifice) with imposing a totalitarian regime on someone because you
>> know better than they do is not the same thing.
> 
> Please, by all means explain to me how giving a vaccine to someone,
> saving their life, is imposing a totalitarian regime onto them. I would
> be interested to hear.

Have you ever tried to put yourself in someone else's shoes?  You should 
try it sometime.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a
> > totalitarian regime.

> It is if you go out, grab them, stick them with a needle and pump 
> something in them that they only have your word on being good for them.

You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.

Or rather, you know what it means, but you are using it in the completely
wrong way just to attack some idea. Same thing as, for example, people
calling the occupy wallstreet protesters "anarchists" (even though the
movement couldn't possibly be more the opposite of anarchy.)

By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
Which makes absolutely no sense.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:

> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
> Which makes absolutely no sense.

Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
Well done.

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:520557ba@news.povray.org...
>
> You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.

Any regime with the power to forcibly inject people is a totalitarian 
regime. And whether or not  those injections are a good idea is a relatively 
minor point. The important point is that you can't put the genie back in the 
bottle--nor count on its staying a friendly genie, scott.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 16:57:30 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a
>> > totalitarian regime.
> 
>> It is if you go out, grab them, stick them with a needle and pump
>> something in them that they only have your word on being good for them.
> 
> You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.
> 
> Or rather, you know what it means, but you are using it in the
> completely wrong way just to attack some idea. Same thing as, for
> example, people calling the occupy wallstreet protesters "anarchists"
> (even though the movement couldn't possibly be more the opposite of
> anarchy.)
> 
> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
> Which makes absolutely no sense.

A totalitarian regime is a regime where the leadership says "you will 
submit to us".  That's not /my/ definition, that's the definition from 
the Oxford English Dictionary.

So I'll be trusting that definition rather than any bullshit definition 
you decide to use.

If you tell someone "we're doing this for your own good", you are talking 
down to them and are treating them like a child.  Adults don't do that to 
each other.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 23:52:31 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:
> 
>> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
>> Which makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
> Well done.

Indeed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 16:57:30 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a
>> > totalitarian regime.
> 
>> It is if you go out, grab them, stick them with a needle and pump
>> something in them that they only have your word on being good for them.
> 
> You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.
> 
> Or rather, you know what it means, but you are using it in the
> completely wrong way just to attack some idea. Same thing as, for
> example, people calling the occupy wallstreet protesters "anarchists"
> (even though the movement couldn't possibly be more the opposite of
> anarchy.)
> 
> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
> Which makes absolutely no sense.

Your logic here is "the ends justify the means".  That's a pretty 
dangerous ideology, and has been used to justify a /lot/ of pretty bad 
behaviour over the years.

So I'll ask the question:  Do you believe that "the ends justify the  
means" is always a good argument?  Under what circumstances would you say 
that it's a bad argument (assuming the "ends" are always intended to be 
good - since you're talking about intent, whether the ends in hindsight 
are good or not is irrelevant; you can't predict the ends will always be 
good, so we have to go with the "predicted outcome", not the "actual 
outcome")?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:

> > By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
> > Which makes absolutely no sense.

> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
> Well done.

Yes, because comparing saving people's lives to a totalitarian regime
is in no way a straw man argument.

Do *you* understand what a totalitarian regime is? Do you understand
why going somewhere, saving people's lives (even if by force), and
leaving, is *not* a "totalitarian regime"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
> news:520557ba@news.povray.org...
> >
> > You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.

> Any regime with the power to forcibly inject people is a totalitarian 
> regime.

No, it isn't. A totalitarian regime is a form of government. Going
somewhere, doing something to people, and leaving, has absolutely
nothing to do with imposing a "totalitarian regime" on them. This even
if it were something negative, like stealing their property. And here
we are talking about saving people's lives.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> A totalitarian regime is a regime

And that's the point. It's a regime, a form of government.

Going somewhere, doing something, and then leaving, is not a form of
government and has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism. Not
even if that something were a negative thing.

> If you tell someone "we're doing this for your own good", you are talking 
> down to them and are treating them like a child.  Adults don't do that to 
> each other.

Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the world,
saving millions of lives, was a good thing?

Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar of
political correctness?

If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide smallpox
vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing the
worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a hypocrite.

If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Your logic here is "the ends justify the means".

The millions of saved lives justified the means. Yes.

> So I'll ask the question:  Do you believe that "the ends justify the  
> means" is always a good argument?

Always? Of course not.

When it has been scientifically and empirically proven with absolute
certainty that the program will save millions of lives, then it is
perfectly justified.

Sacrificing millions of innocent lives just to not offend some people
is sickening.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10-8-2013 1:28, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:
>
>>> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
>>> Which makes absolutely no sense.
>
>> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
>> Well done.
>
> Yes,

Indeed so stop with that.

And everything below is totally irrelevant to my remark.
Learn how to debate and stick to the subject.


> because comparing saving people's lives to a totalitarian regime
> is in no way a straw man argument.
>
> Do *you* understand what a totalitarian regime is? Do you understand
> why going somewhere, saving people's lives (even if by force), and
> leaving, is *not* a "totalitarian regime"?
>


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:28:26 -0400, Warp wrote:

> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian
>> > regime".
>> > Which makes absolutely no sense.
> 
>> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
>> Well done.
> 
> Yes, because comparing saving people's lives to a totalitarian regime is
> in no way a straw man argument.
> 
> Do *you* understand what a totalitarian regime is? Do you understand why
> going somewhere, saving people's lives (even if by force), and leaving,
> is *not* a "totalitarian regime"?

You don't seem to understand what totalitarianism is.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:52057bb3@news.povray.org...
> Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
>> news:520557ba@news.povray.org...
>> >
>> > You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.
>
>> Any regime with the power to forcibly inject people is a totalitarian
>> regime.
>
> No, it isn't. A totalitarian regime is a form of government. Going
> somewhere, doing something to people, and leaving, has absolutely
> nothing to do with imposing a "totalitarian regime" on them. This even
> if it were something negative, like stealing their property. And here
> we are talking about saving people's lives.
>

You'll need power to do that, near-absolute (total) power. Genie ... Bottle 
... Forced Vaccinations ... Eugenics ... Greater Good

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:16:56 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:52057bb3@news.povray.org...
>> Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>>> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
>>> news:520557ba@news.povray.org...
>>> >
>>> > You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.
>>
>>> Any regime with the power to forcibly inject people is a totalitarian
>>> regime.
>>
>> No, it isn't. A totalitarian regime is a form of government. Going
>> somewhere, doing something to people, and leaving, has absolutely
>> nothing to do with imposing a "totalitarian regime" on them. This even
>> if it were something negative, like stealing their property. And here
>> we are talking about saving people's lives.
>>
>>
> You'll need power to do that, near-absolute (total) power. Genie ...
> Bottle ... Forced Vaccinations ... Eugenics ... Greater Good

Bingo.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:37:48 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> A totalitarian regime is a regime
> 
> And that's the point. It's a regime, a form of government.
> 
> Going somewhere, doing something, and then leaving, is not a form of
> government and has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism. Not
> even if that something were a negative thing.
> 
>> If you tell someone "we're doing this for your own good", you are
>> talking down to them and are treating them like a child.  Adults don't
>> do that to each other.
> 
> Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the
> world, saving millions of lives, was a good thing?
> 
> Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar of
> political correctness?
> 
> If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
> smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing
> the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a
> hypocrite.
> 
> If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
> program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think.

Sorry, but if you're going to engage in this sort of personal attack 
rather than debating on the merits, then you're not worth my time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:37:48 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> A totalitarian regime is a regime
> 
> And that's the point. It's a regime, a form of government.
> 
> Going somewhere, doing something, and then leaving, is not a form of
> government and has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism. Not
> even if that something were a negative thing.

While you may find totalitarianism defined as a form of government, 
totalitarianism is an extreme form of authoritarianism, which elevates 
the power of authority over individual freedoms.

Totalitarianism is the extremist point that you're advocating (whether 
there is a government involved or not) in that your authority trumps the 
individual freedoms of those you would subject to your rules and enforce 
your "moral superiority" on.

Now, if you want to debate this in a rational manner that doesn't involve 
telling the people who disagree with you that they're horrible people or 
monsters, I'm happy to do that.

If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks 
against those you disagree with, then we're done here.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2013 8:37 AM, Shay wrote:
>> "Patrick Elliott"  wrote in message news:520332b1@news.povray.org...
>
> Just a general reply. Every anti-anti-authoritarian (make sure you read
> that one right) argument you give comes down to "It'll work if it's done
> right." The anti-authoritarian (Libertarian) view can be expressed
> semi-succinctly as "It's not being done right, or conscientiously. The
> government, military, and megacorps are three heads of the same beast.
> Feeding any of its thee mouth strengthens the entire animal. The beast
> cannot be controlled and has to die. I'm taking back what power I still
> have--while I still can."
>
> Also, read about Mercantilism on Wikipedia. We aren't talking about the
> same thing.

And, I think you are being naive, like most people that suscribe to 
their "vision", that you can kill the beast, instead of just breeding a 
new one. At the core, you will always get the same result, if you don't 
have someone making sure that megacorps don't form, or that the smaller 
ones band together, to control the government too, etc. The beast can 
get smaller, or bigger, but you don't kill it by someone deregulating 
everything, shutting down the government, getting rid of a military, and 
replacing it with 500 groups of thugs, instead of one, etc. You can, 
sometimes, keep it chained, but only if "people" are making the 
decisions, not amorphus entities (like legal entities, political 
parties, chains of command that can hide what they are doing from the 
public, etc.) Libertarians are not going to "fix" any of this, they are 
themselves a "political party", and, worse, some of their ideas about 
how reality works, tend to be naive as hell. (A big one is how they deny 
that inequities are inevitable, and that, short of some sort of a pure, 
and equality delusional, socialist redistribution, any such inequity 
**will** just breed a new beast, with new heads, like someone that 
thinks they have killed the hydra, but hasn't noticed that the heads are 
growing back.)

They don't see that, "taking back the power", they way they seem to want 
to do it, is strengthening some heads, even if it weakens others, and 
that, if anything, its making the things "less" controllable. I 
completely understand what they think they are doing, what they want to 
do, etc. I even, in principle, agree with much of it, but, they don't 
have the slightest damn clue how to get there, and what ideas they do 
have, often, have been tried before, even if, like a communist, arguing 
that no one has ever really "tried it", they can't see why it never has 
actually, ever, been truly tried. The reason being - the world can't 
work they way they want it to, there are too many things that get in the 
way, in the process, which will hurt real people, to do so, and then, 
there is no certainty, at all, that the result isn't going to, almost 
immediately, degenerate into the same thing, all over again. And, its 
the "how many people will get hurt" things that is the biggest problem, 
for anyone with the slightest scrap of compassion, and the key reason 
why their views are so often describes as, "I have mine, fuck you."

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2013 12:20 AM, scott wrote:
>> Except, of course, for all the people struggling to heat their homes,
>> put food on the table, buy new clothes, and all the other stuff you
>> mention.
>
> Indeed it's sad that we haven't reduced the number of people in that
> situation to 0%, but it's *a lot* better than the situation 100 years ago.
>
Even if true, this doesn't change the fact that, recently, things have 
been getting "worse" not better, and the percentage of people who can't 
afford to heat/cool their homes is "growing" not shrinking, pretty much, 
in fact, since Reagan, trickle down economics, and the rasulting 
escalation of a pay gap, along with, BTW, his, and numerous other 
Republican presidents/congresses, "deregulation" of certain industries, 
including laws like fair pay, and the like.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2013 1:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:05:56 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?
>
> It seems not - sorry, it's been a rough couple of days for me. :/
>
> Jim
>
Yeah, missed it too, but, in my case, because this is *actually* one of 
the bullshit arguments I hear from a lot of people (interestingly, quite 
a few of which are libertarians).

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 8/8/2013 1:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:05:56 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?
>>
>> It seems not - sorry, it's been a rough couple of days for me. :/
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Yeah, missed it too, but, in my case, because this is *actually* one of
> the bullshit arguments I hear from a lot of people (interestingly, quite
> a few of which are libertarians).

That's the sign of a good poe, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 10/08/2013 01:40, Warp nous fit lire :
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Your logic here is "the ends justify the means".
> 
> The millions of saved lives justified the means. Yes.
> 
>> So I'll ask the question:  Do you believe that "the ends justify the  
>> means" is always a good argument?
> 
> Always? Of course not.
> 
> When it has been scientifically and empirically proven with absolute
> certainty that the program will save millions of lives, then it is
> perfectly justified.

But what if... 30 or 40 years later it is discovered that the program
had a delayed side-effect which was not expected.

Look at penicillin: wonderful products in the forty's, yet its usage has
now contributed to the fact that some dangerous bacteria becomes
resistant to it (and the competing bacteria which kept the other as
exception were also reduced, changing the balance)

> 
> Sacrificing millions of innocent lives just to not offend some people
> is sickening.
>

Post a reply to this message

On 10-8-2013 1:40, Warp wrote:

> When it has been scientifically and empirically proven with absolute
> certainty

There is no such thing at all, at all. If you were a scientist you would 
know that.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:5205a3f5$1@news.povray.org...
>
> And, I think you are being naive, like most people that suscribe to their 
> "vision", that you can kill the beast, instead of just breeding a new one. 
> At the core, you will always get the same result, if you don't have 
> someone making sure that megacorps don't form, or that the smaller ones 
> band together, to control the government too, etc. The beast can get 
> smaller, or bigger, but you don't kill it by someone deregulating 
> everything, shutting down the government, getting rid of a military, and 
> replacing it with 500 groups of thugs, instead of one, etc.

And I thing you are being naïve, like most people who subscribe to the 
centralized-power "vision" that you can control a larger share of the 
government than you do the economy. And worse, you *!*want*!* price-fixing, 
selective taxation, and a massive military. Doesn't work. Hasn't worked. 
Won't work.

Post a reply to this message