Terwonick
L6: Sharp Member
- Aug 25, 2010
- 278
- 190
@Terwonick, legally, at 15 you're allowed to work with proper paperwork. But socially, at 15, you shouldn't care this much about politics.
I know, but let's call it a hobby.
@Terwonick, legally, at 15 you're allowed to work with proper paperwork. But socially, at 15, you shouldn't care this much about politics.
@Terwonick, legally, at 15 you're allowed to work with proper paperwork. But socially, at 15, you shouldn't care this much about politics.
And "crazy religious stuff" is pretty vague, I'd assume that you mean somebody who worships frogs or something, cause that's perfectly legal in the USA.
Okay fine, I'm a bad american for not caring about politics as much as I guess I should. It's just dull, and boring, and I hate listening to old men and women fight over things like money.
"Today we're testing the myth that a capitalist system based on continual growth can be supported indefinitely to infinite growth by a sub-infinite amount of rescources!"
*Thirty years later, when global warming has increased to the point that wall street is underwater and the london stock exchange is under ten feet of snow*
"MYTH BUSTED"
Agent Orange was a government initiated product, even though a private company "found" it.
You know child labor is still a problem, right? It still happens, we just delude ourselves into thinking it doesn't. Besides, what do YOU constitute as child labor? I work at my fathers company in the summer, I'm 15, does that make it child labor?
I don't really see a difference, please point one out.
Well, seeing as that's a much more open border policy than any the others have come up with you shouldn't really be complaining.
"slandering your native country" isn't a crime in the USA so it wouldn't apply in this situation.
And "crazy religious stuff" is pretty vague, I'd assume that you mean somebody who worships frogs or something, cause that's perfectly legal in the USA.
There's a lot of bitter people in this world, I deal with it, why not others?
I don't get what you mean by liberty, because the way you use it is confusing.
I must say the same thing to you.
Some things should work well in theory, but don't in practice, as with communism. But nothing is the RIGHT way to do it.
Some things should work well in theory, but don't in practice, as with communism.
I never understand why people say this about Communism. We've never had a Communist society, we've had societies run by parties or people claiming to be Communists, but that's about it.
I meant it more in the fact that, in Theory, Communism should work, but human nature refuses to allow it to. But really, that's a whole other debate.
[SIZE=-1]
Why is it that we must choose an economic system that undermines the most decent aspects of our nature and strengthens the most inhuman? Because, we’re told, that’s just the way people are. What evidence is there of that? Look around, we’re told, at how people behave. Everywhere we look, we see greed and the pursuit of self-interest. So, the proof that these greedy, self-interested aspects of our nature are dominant is that, when forced into a system that rewards greed and self-interested behavior, people often act that way. Doesn’t that seem just a bit circular?[/SIZE]
Capitalism has given those of us in the First World lots of stuff (most of it of marginal or questionable value) in exchange for our souls, our hope for progressive politics, and the possibility of a decent future for children.
Are we greedy and self-interested? Of course. At least I am, sometimes. But we also just as obviously are capable of compassion and selflessness.
Government initated it. Your dudes didn't stop making it, even when everyone else did. Capitalism in a nutshell: "This stuff is killing children. But somebody's giving us MONEY for it."
By child labour i was referring to seven-year-olds in mines and so on. Not fifteen-year-olds in offices, but you know that.
And of course it's still a problem. (Why? Well, lets give a big round of applause to our old friend, capitalism!) That does not mean that its position as one in the past was invalid. I'm simply trying to disabuse you of the notion that there was this golden 130 years where everybody was rich and happy and swam in pools of money until those nasty socialists came along.
[SERIOUS]
I'll admit, i'm no biologist. I do kinda feel that abortion is one of those big, srsbsns issues that you really shouldn't use phrases like srsbsns about. So no, i can't, and i shouldnt give you a definite line. Hell, i dunno if there is one.
But A) Try not to use such emotive language as "killing babies".
B) The difference is the woman's right. For a significant time, a foetus is a part of a woman's body. And nobody has the right to control that.
Were i in the position to choose one, i genuinely don't know what choice i would make. I'm honestly thankful that the final decision will never rest with me. But there is no situation where you will persuade me that taking the choice away from women (and placing it in the hands of, here we go again, white, middle-aged christian males, taking their advice from a book written by a deity several thousand years ago) is the right thing to do. You're arguing on semantics rather than meeting my main point.
Okay, so i'm doing that too, but for comic effect.
[/SERIOUS]
Ah, i'm sorry, you should have clarified that this was the USA's laws we're talking about. I'm not keen on the idea that you should have your freedom of movement restricted thanks to breaking a law that didn't apply to you at the time- (what about drinking, if i drink (legally) in the UK at age eighteen, can i not move to the US because the minimum age there is twenty-one?)- but this clarification kinda improves it.
kinda didn't want to give a specific example here, since i'm trying to avoid offending people, but i've got one now: Burqhas. In France.
In France, Burqhas (probably spelled wrong) are illegal. (or they were going to be; presume they are for the sake of the analogy) If someone religious chose to wear the burqha anyway and was arrested, would that allow them in. ANd to choose a more obvious example, what about legal systems the USA fundamentally disagrees with, such as Sharia law etc.
If it's the USA's laws you're talking about, this isn't a problem as such. I just wanted to articulate my problem with the idea better.
Translation: Haters Gotta Hate.
The situation has shaken down pretty well for you, and those "Bitter people" or "others" you shrug off have the tiniest amount of outside awareness required to see that if life in the rest of the world still sucks, we should do something about it.
I'm going to repeat that, because it's the core of my argument, and pretty much my entire political belief system. If you have a better life than someone else, it is a simple human duty to help their life improve.
There is no attitude i find more annoying than "i've got mine, fuck you." Apart from simply failing to notice everyone else. You'll forgive me for wondering which of those categories you fall into.
As in, the USA keeps telling the world it's great, and then acts surprised when people go and live there instead of their poor inferior countries.
I support capitalism.
I'm not really seeing these contradictions, the article says that Capitalism rewards greedy self centered behavior, and as a result a lot of (not all) people behave like greedy self centered fucks.
Meanwhile I'd also like you to also do a little more research on your own about Socialism, Communism, and any other alternate economic system that we could possibly adopt before Capitalism trashes our planet even further.
Right after saying that one of the reasons we adhere to it (capitalism) is a better future for our children, that's the contradiction.