Zimbabwe Coup
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Nov 2017, 6:06 pm
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Its just not the same though, you are not entitled to force someone else to employ you nor are they paying you for loyalty. People go to work for money, employers pay people because they want work done it has nothing to do with loyalty both are motivated by self interest and naturally when a better option comes up both sides will take that whether that being the employer sending jobs overseas or the employee working for another company. Someone stealing your property cannot be compared to this.
But the result is still the same.
That can be said about a lot of things, if you stole food from someone and they starved to death you would be at fault, there are people who are starving and you not choosing to give them money means they will die the results will be the same yet you are not at fault.
But business people who leave their employees destitute are at fault.
Because business thinks their only responsibility is to make money - by hiring as few workers as possible, at as low a wage as possible - it only shows that those businesses are irresponsible. Were they responsible, they'd understand that with more money in the hands of workers, there is more demand, thus more money to be made. But instead, business leaders are motivated by short term greed.
Their only job is to make money though its not their job to employee people. Whether you think its immoral for them fine, but its not comparable as to stealing.
If what you say is true, then capitalism is just a con game, and all the rest of us are being played for suckers. After all, it's capitalists who have promised us that if they get rich, then everyone will have prosperity, too. It means it's all a lie. If employers aren't going to hire people, who the f*ck are going to buy their products and services? So, yes, businesses do have a responsibility to hire people at a wage that allows for dispensable income, if only for their own long term survival.
If what business does isn't theft, then at least it's unconscionable greed.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
22 Nov 2017, 7:30 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Its just not the same though, you are not entitled to force someone else to employ you nor are they paying you for loyalty. People go to work for money, employers pay people because they want work done it has nothing to do with loyalty both are motivated by self interest and naturally when a better option comes up both sides will take that whether that being the employer sending jobs overseas or the employee working for another company. Someone stealing your property cannot be compared to this.
But the result is still the same.
That can be said about a lot of things, if you stole food from someone and they starved to death you would be at fault, there are people who are starving and you not choosing to give them money means they will die the results will be the same yet you are not at fault.
But business people who leave their employees destitute are at fault.
Because business thinks their only responsibility is to make money - by hiring as few workers as possible, at as low a wage as possible - it only shows that those businesses are irresponsible. Were they responsible, they'd understand that with more money in the hands of workers, there is more demand, thus more money to be made. But instead, business leaders are motivated by short term greed.
Their only job is to make money though its not their job to employee people. Whether you think its immoral for them fine, but its not comparable as to stealing.
If what you say is true, then capitalism is just a con game, and all the rest of us are being played for suckers. After all, it's capitalists who have promised us that if they get rich, then everyone will have prosperity, too. It means it's all a lie. If employers aren't going to hire people, who the f*ck are going to buy their products and services? So, yes, businesses do have a responsibility to hire people at a wage that allows for dispensable income, if only for their own long term survival.
If what business does isn't theft, then at least it's unconscionable greed.
At no point in history have we ever been more prosperous that is because of capitalism, workers would have a much better deal in there were fewer people its not the fault of the rich that the poor continue to have children they cannot afford.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Nov 2017, 8:26 pm
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Its just not the same though, you are not entitled to force someone else to employ you nor are they paying you for loyalty. People go to work for money, employers pay people because they want work done it has nothing to do with loyalty both are motivated by self interest and naturally when a better option comes up both sides will take that whether that being the employer sending jobs overseas or the employee working for another company. Someone stealing your property cannot be compared to this.
But the result is still the same.
That can be said about a lot of things, if you stole food from someone and they starved to death you would be at fault, there are people who are starving and you not choosing to give them money means they will die the results will be the same yet you are not at fault.
But business people who leave their employees destitute are at fault.
Because business thinks their only responsibility is to make money - by hiring as few workers as possible, at as low a wage as possible - it only shows that those businesses are irresponsible. Were they responsible, they'd understand that with more money in the hands of workers, there is more demand, thus more money to be made. But instead, business leaders are motivated by short term greed.
Their only job is to make money though its not their job to employee people. Whether you think its immoral for them fine, but its not comparable as to stealing.
If what you say is true, then capitalism is just a con game, and all the rest of us are being played for suckers. After all, it's capitalists who have promised us that if they get rich, then everyone will have prosperity, too. It means it's all a lie. If employers aren't going to hire people, who the f*ck are going to buy their products and services? So, yes, businesses do have a responsibility to hire people at a wage that allows for dispensable income, if only for their own long term survival.
If what business does isn't theft, then at least it's unconscionable greed.
At no point in history have we ever been more prosperous that is because of capitalism, workers would have a much better deal in there were fewer people its not the fault of the rich that the poor continue to have children they cannot afford.
Just because people in the industrialized west have more than they've ever had doesn't mean that there isn't a widening chasm between the rich and poor.
People have children, regardless of their financial status. To tell someone that they shouldn't is dehumanizing.
And yes, I do blame the rich for being too tightfisted with money in their possession, when they could uplift everyone else to live comfortably.
Y'know, those landed aristocrats you're so down on would say much the same thing about your complaints. Neither is true in either case.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
22 Nov 2017, 8:29 pm
The aristocrats stole their wealth how can you not understand the difference? Having children is always selfish but its even more selfish when people cannot afford them choose to have them. The welfare state which pays the worst people in society to have the most children and younger ages is dysgenics.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Nov 2017, 8:51 pm
Daniel89 wrote:
The aristocrats stole their wealth how can you not understand the difference? Having children is always selfish but its even more selfish when people cannot afford them choose to have them. The welfare state which pays the worst people in society to have the most children and younger ages is dysgenics.
No, having children is not selfish, it's simple biology. Like all living things, our primary purpose in life is to make more of our species.
And who says the worst people in society are on welfare? To say as such dehumanizes other human beings. You have to ask yourself, what does believing such a thing say about you?
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
23 Nov 2017, 2:36 am
cyberdad wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Having children is always selfish
Umm no it's crucial to the survival of our specifies, or to put it another way if our ancestors believed this then you, me and Kraichgauer would not be here debating this...
I hardly think my wife and I were being selfish when we had our daughter. And we're so poor, we don't have a pot to p*ss in!
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Tollorin
Veteran
Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada
23 Nov 2017, 11:08 am
Daniel89 wrote:
TUAndrew wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
I think Africans taking their land back is a just action. Mugabe was corrupt and just gave it to his supporters hence why it failed.
Gaining independence and promoting racist ethnic nationalism are two different things; unfortunately Zimbabwe committed the latter.
Taking back stolen land is not ethnic nationalism, here in the UK 1000 years ago our land was stolen and these families still mostly own that land to the point that we have the second most unequal distribution of land in the world only better that Brazil.
During the industrial revolution many lands have been bought off, driving families in cities to work in factories, if I remember right; I guess that many lands now owned by the ancient aristocracy may have been bought back then, and they don't own them only from the Normand invasion. Though I guess that the land takeover wasn't necessary made with honest means.
_________________
Down with speculators!! !
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
23 Nov 2017, 12:47 pm
Daniel89 wrote:
Do children consent to being born? No. Can parents guarantee that their child will have a good quality of life? No. Parents gamble will their child's life and they are not the one who pays the price.
Well, do you blame cats for having kittens selfish? Or dogs for having puppies? Do you consider your parents to have been selfish?
I for one am grateful that my parents had me, as otherwise the only alternative would be nonexistence.
Anti-natalism is a bleak, depressive philosophy.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
23 Nov 2017, 3:53 pm
Daniel89 wrote:
Do children consent to being born? No. Can parents guarantee that their child will have a good quality of life? No. Parents gamble will their child's life and they are not the one who pays the price.
There is a dilemma in over intellectualizing the merits of having children. At a basic level we are biological entities and we have a drive to procreate and spread our genes.
The ethics of this makes our own survival appear selfish if that's how you choose to see it.
23 Nov 2017, 5:54 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Do children consent to being born? No. Can parents guarantee that their child will have a good quality of life? No. Parents gamble will their child's life and they are not the one who pays the price.
Well, do you blame cats for having kittens selfish? Or dogs for having puppies? Do you consider your parents to have been selfish?
I for one am grateful that my parents had me, as otherwise the only alternative would be nonexistence.
Anti-natalism is a bleak, depressive philosophy.
Animals are not smart enough to make a decision. My parents were very selfish to have me, all parents have children for selfish reasons its an entirely non consensual relationship. There is no suffering with nonexistence, we live in a bleak depressive world where children are raped, born with horrible disabilities etc.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
23 Nov 2017, 11:07 pm
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Do children consent to being born? No. Can parents guarantee that their child will have a good quality of life? No. Parents gamble will their child's life and they are not the one who pays the price.
Well, do you blame cats for having kittens selfish? Or dogs for having puppies? Do you consider your parents to have been selfish?
I for one am grateful that my parents had me, as otherwise the only alternative would be nonexistence.
Anti-natalism is a bleak, depressive philosophy.
Animals are not smart enough to make a decision. My parents were very selfish to have me, all parents have children for selfish reasons its an entirely non consensual relationship. There is no suffering with nonexistence, we live in a bleak depressive world where children are raped, born with horrible disabilities etc.
I'll remind you, not too long ago, you had been defending unconscionable, unrestrained capitalism by saying that people in the west live better than they had ever done before.
I have a twelve year old daughter. Is her life perfect? Probably not, as she's on the autistic spectrum in an NT world. But I can tell you she's happy, and she makes me and her mother happy. So if you want to hold to your anti-natalist ideals, go ahead. but just realize that not all of us agree with you.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
24 Nov 2017, 8:43 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Do children consent to being born? No. Can parents guarantee that their child will have a good quality of life? No. Parents gamble will their child's life and they are not the one who pays the price.
Well, do you blame cats for having kittens selfish? Or dogs for having puppies? Do you consider your parents to have been selfish?
I for one am grateful that my parents had me, as otherwise the only alternative would be nonexistence.
Anti-natalism is a bleak, depressive philosophy.
Animals are not smart enough to make a decision. My parents were very selfish to have me, all parents have children for selfish reasons its an entirely non consensual relationship. There is no suffering with nonexistence, we live in a bleak depressive world where children are raped, born with horrible disabilities etc.
I'll remind you, not too long ago, you had been defending unconscionable, unrestrained capitalism by saying that people in the west live better than they had ever done before.
I have a twelve year old daughter. Is her life perfect? Probably not, as she's on the autistic spectrum in an NT world. But I can tell you she's happy, and she makes me and her mother happy. So if you want to hold to your anti-natalist ideals, go ahead. but just realize that not all of us agree with you.
I wasn't defending unrestrained capitalism I was defending capitalism and yes life if better because of it but its not good for everyone, nor is it in any system. You have a twelve year old daughter and I truly hope she does have a good life, but that is not 100% guaranteed so many things could go wrong with her life. Whether you agree with me or not doesn't change the fact that there are people who lives are mostly suffering and they wouldn't have that suffering if their parents didn't create another person without consent.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,794
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
24 Nov 2017, 6:05 pm
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Daniel89 wrote:
Do children consent to being born? No. Can parents guarantee that their child will have a good quality of life? No. Parents gamble will their child's life and they are not the one who pays the price.
Well, do you blame cats for having kittens selfish? Or dogs for having puppies? Do you consider your parents to have been selfish?
I for one am grateful that my parents had me, as otherwise the only alternative would be nonexistence.
Anti-natalism is a bleak, depressive philosophy.
Animals are not smart enough to make a decision. My parents were very selfish to have me, all parents have children for selfish reasons its an entirely non consensual relationship. There is no suffering with nonexistence, we live in a bleak depressive world where children are raped, born with horrible disabilities etc.
I'll remind you, not too long ago, you had been defending unconscionable, unrestrained capitalism by saying that people in the west live better than they had ever done before.
I have a twelve year old daughter. Is her life perfect? Probably not, as she's on the autistic spectrum in an NT world. But I can tell you she's happy, and she makes me and her mother happy. So if you want to hold to your anti-natalist ideals, go ahead. but just realize that not all of us agree with you.
I wasn't defending unrestrained capitalism I was defending capitalism and yes life if better because of it but its not good for everyone, nor is it in any system. You have a twelve year old daughter and I truly hope she does have a good life, but that is not 100% guaranteed so many things could go wrong with her life. Whether you agree with me or not doesn't change the fact that there are people who lives are mostly suffering and they wouldn't have that suffering if their parents didn't create another person without consent.
I don't have a problem with capitalism - - as long as it's regulated and restrained, and with enough socialism involved to make sure those in need aren't left behind to die. Were it not for that socialistic element in government, my daughter's life would be a lot worse. What the world needs is a well balanced capitalist/socialist system, where everyone has the chance to get ahead, but where no one is left behind.
This life isn't perfect, but the high points make it worthwhile. I'll take that over nonexistence.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
