Page 2 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


How leftwing is Master_Pedant?
Not at all 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Somewhat 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Fairly 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Significantly 13%  13%  [ 3 ]
Very 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Extremely 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Absurdly 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Insidiously 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
Don't know 8%  8%  [ 2 ]
Don't care 46%  46%  [ 11 ]
sufficiently 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
reasonably 13%  13%  [ 3 ]
Total votes : 24

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age:27
Posts: 12,327
Location: Montréal

20 Nov 2012, 6:47 pm

He can't even turn to the right!


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age:27
Posts: 14,274
Location: Omnipresent

20 Nov 2012, 8:03 pm

marshall wrote:
I don't see the point in letting your desire to be a special snowflake influence your ideology. Ideology should be about what you think is right, not how well it correlates or doesn't correlate with the ideologies of other people with a similar demographic background. The problem with radical ideologies is they are often difficult or impossible to square with reality.

I hope you realize that the back and forth was playful banter.

That being said, the matter gets kind of messy. I agree that radical ideologies are hard to impossible to square with reality. It's also true that many official doctrines are themselves pretty absurd as well, so take American exceptionalism. Very common ideology, but not really square-able with reality.

I was really just making the case that I was more ideologically interesting, NOT that I was more correct. I *could* end up at a position more correct than M_P, but that's going to depend on a lot of things.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age:27
Posts: 14,274
Location: Omnipresent

20 Nov 2012, 8:08 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
the problem is Canada. America is bigger and better.


Actually, Canada is bigger. Unless, by "America", you mean all of North and South America, of which Canada is a subset.


Canada is physically bigger. It has about five percent more landmass than does the USA ( or about 25 percent more than the CONTIGUOUS USA- our country sans Alaska).

But Canada only recently topped 10 percent of the USA's population size, and it is still barely equal in population size to our one state of California.

In contrast- Japan ( slightly smaller in land area to california) is almost half the population size of the USA.

So ecnomists describe Japan as "large country", and Canada as a "small country" even though Canada is almost 20 times Japan's land area.

Well, almost right. You have to recognize that much of northern Canada seceded due to mutinous polar bears. While many map-makers have refused to extend the polar bears any political legitimacy, the fact that the mounties have not taken back the land yet still weighs in the minds of many when assessing the size of Canada.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age:27
Posts: 12,327
Location: Montréal

20 Nov 2012, 8:39 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
the problem is Canada. America is bigger and better.


Actually, Canada is bigger. Unless, by "America", you mean all of North and South America, of which Canada is a subset.


Canada is physically bigger. It has about five percent more landmass than does the USA ( or about 25 percent more than the CONTIGUOUS USA- our country sans Alaska).

But Canada only recently topped 10 percent of the USA's population size, and it is still barely equal in population size to our one state of California.

In contrast- Japan ( slightly smaller in land area to california) is almost half the population size of the USA.

So ecnomists describe Japan as "large country", and Canada as a "small country" even though Canada is almost 20 times Japan's land area.

Well, almost right. You have to recognize that much of northern Canada seceded due to mutinous polar bears. While many map-makers have refused to extend the polar bears any political legitimacy, the fact that the mounties have not taken back the land yet still weighs in the minds of many when assessing the size of Canada.


You think we would let those douchebears secede? I have news for you. Global Warming is a Canadian plot to destroy the Arctic climate and thus take back our land from those damn ice floe jockeys


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Age:35
Posts: 9,921
Location: Western Washington

20 Nov 2012, 9:33 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
the problem is Canada. America is bigger and better.


Actually, Canada is bigger. Unless, by "America", you mean all of North and South America, of which Canada is a subset.


Canada is physically bigger. It has about five percent more landmass than does the USA ( or about 25 percent more than the CONTIGUOUS USA- our country sans Alaska).

But Canada only recently topped 10 percent of the USA's population size, and it is still barely equal in population size to our one state of California.

In contrast- Japan ( slightly smaller in land area to california) is almost half the population size of the USA.

So ecnomists describe Japan as "large country", and Canada as a "small country" even though Canada is almost 20 times Japan's land area.

Well, almost right. You have to recognize that much of northern Canada seceded due to mutinous polar bears. While many map-makers have refused to extend the polar bears any political legitimacy, the fact that the mounties have not taken back the land yet still weighs in the minds of many when assessing the size of Canada.


Polar bears? You must mean those Godless Killing Machines who lure small children with cute teddybear poses and sugary carbonated drinks? Last I heard they were constructing an secret underwater nuclear weapons facility. They claim it is for the peaceful purpose of combating global warming in order to preserve their Arctic habitat. Suuuuure...



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Posts: 8,242
Location: Seattle Area

21 Nov 2012, 5:40 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
No.

Employment in a large firm increased by scepticism of private owners having the best interests of workers at heart.


No one ever went into business with the best interests of their potential employers as priority one, that usually is becoming profitable. Now the best companies realize that taking care of their employees is actually good business, but unfortunately it's not a lesson that many of them learn. One of these days, when the statute of limitations is up, I'll have to tell you some stories about what happened to various employers of mine who tried to rip me off over the years, the damage I did to their profits far exceeded what simply paying me what they owed would have. Actually, it's kind of remarkable that I'm as pro business as I am given my employment history, but my experience with bad bosses and bad companies has been tempered by having had two entrepreneurial parents, and getting to see the benefits of small businesses run well up close and personal.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Age:35
Posts: 9,921
Location: Western Washington

21 Nov 2012, 12:36 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
No.

Employment in a large firm increased by scepticism of private owners having the best interests of workers at heart.


No one ever went into business with the best interests of their potential employers as priority one, that usually is becoming profitable. Now the best companies realize that taking care of their employees is actually good business, but unfortunately it's not a lesson that many of them learn. One of these days, when the statute of limitations is up, I'll have to tell you some stories about what happened to various employers of mine who tried to rip me off over the years, the damage I did to their profits far exceeded what simply paying me what they owed would have. Actually, it's kind of remarkable that I'm as pro business as I am given my employment history, but my experience with bad bosses and bad companies has been tempered by having had two entrepreneurial parents, and getting to see the benefits of small businesses run well up close and personal.


Often it's not so much the employer ripping the employee off as much as the employee realizing they are being paid to rip off the customer and take the flak with a smile when they become understandably irate.

Small businesses face natural social repercussions of bad behavior because owners and managers are often face-to-face with employees and customers. Big business owners and managers are able to hide behind impersonal bureaucracies, increasing the temptation to act poorly because distance shelters them from guilt. And we should face the fact that we wouldn't have efficient capitalism if all businesses were small. Things like natural monopolies and the economy of scale make big businesses an unfortunate necessity.



Thatmew
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2008
Age:24
Posts: 2,146

23 Nov 2012, 12:37 am

As it stands, US politics are so skewed and narrow that neither democrats or republicans begin to approach what could be considered leftism.


_________________
Yes? What is it? Ok. Now that is good.