Maybe you can show me some documentation of what you're talking about. But to my knowledge, it was Pinochet that suspended the constitution and banned all political parties, not Allende. I confirmed this just now by searching google. Can you please show me otherwise?
Considering this, I would stand by my comment that Allende's government was more democratic.
The fact of the matter is that Allende was training Cuban guerillas in Chile at the time of the overthrow and that he and his government were Marxist.
Again, this isn't to defend some of the things that Pinochet did do but let's not white wash things in support of our opinions.
So what? What does his political motivations have to do with anything? Who's whitewashing? What is there to whitewash? If you can show me anything horrible that Allende did, then we'll talk. But establishing a Socialist democratic state is not, in and of itself, a horrible thing. It's merely a political and economic system. And your comments about the government being Marxist... You're going to have to prove that to me in order for me to believe it. Allende was a Marxist in philosophy, but the government was a democracy.
That was a great answer, I have to say. Now I'm not so sure we think all that differently. Well... Almost.
Well, not really. To be honest, that's what the whole model of western society is built upon. The notion of capitalism, at least in a pure sense, involves profiting by dominating and control environments.
You're absolutely right. And I believe, if the economic system we have didn't exist, there would be almost no room for things like pornography (or environment pollution, or stealing, war or etc. etc.) merely because the incentive wouldn't exist. My one wish is to end that system (Capitalism) in its current incarnation. But that's another topic altogether...
I promised myself that when I got out of school, that I would NEVER take a job in the defense industry. But still, talking to people there made me wonder. What happens if there is a hippocratic oath for programmers? What happens to the thousands of programmers who create missiles to kill people?
I'm not sure what you're asking, but I think you're saying "what will they do for work?" That's another economic issue, and I think it is best answered by once again... changing the economic system. I (and people of my thinking) believe that our military budget is really high for a specific reason. Our meaning the U.S., assuming that's where you live. Our defense budget is $385 billion a year currently. That's more than the budgets of all the rest of the world combined. Are we so much in danger? Do we really need to spend that much money on defense? Where does it all go? My answer is, that money is spent in the budget because it continues economic prosperity (in the way of jobs for the military personnel, production and jobs for the defense contractors) and keeps the rest of the population at bay. If that money were spent on other things (education and educational institutions, reformation of the prison system, treatment programs instead of being arrested for drugs, job training and education instead of welfare, etc. etc.), the majority of our populous would become too educated and too empowered, and would turn the tide of the ruling class and the "military industrial complex". I know, I've completely over-simplified this, but you get the point. There is no need to spend $385 billion a year on the defense budget. If those military jobs didn't exist (including your programmer ex-co-workers), then it would release a whole legion of people into the open workforce, and a lot more money (the unused portion of the $385 billion would end up having to go elsewhere, such as the programs I hinted on). These military people could work in these other jobs instead. We already have a crisis on our hands with regards to a nurse shortage all across the country, and especially in California. We have a coming crisis with a lack of K-12 teachers. Many of the teachers we have are already overburdened. There are plenty, plenty of options for employing people. The options just don't tend to make as much money for the ruling class. This is an issue that can be studied for years (I'm still working on it), so I can't go into so much detail right now. But you get the idea. The programmers could be employed doing something else, and especially in a different economic system, where priorities are redirected.
But getting back on topic, I don't really feel sorry for them. I can't. Because out of the times that I've visited this studio, and met any porn star, they're usually quite outgoing and happy. I guess that's the image I always see with them, and not any of the humiliation videos or mock-rape, or anything like that.
Well, that's fantastic insight. Unfortunately, I only have impersonal evidence to base my thinking on. I hear programs on the radio, read things here and there, read and think about philosophy, but I have no hands-on conversations to go by. I wish I did.
I think that I'm a little bit too obsessed with helping myself, and making sure I make the right choices. One of these days (the next time I go in there and see a pornstar there), I'd really like to ask him/her the question, "Why?"
I have the same obsession. And I completely respect that quality in you. But, I also have an obsession to "save the world". I know... It's gonna end up driving me crazy;-) But on the other hand, Ghandi seemed to hold himself together. And he's my biggest role model lately. If you do get a chance to talk with one or a few of these people, I would love to hear about it. You don't have to name names, that would be too personal. But all the same. Maybe you could post a story about it on K5? Cause I know it's not something that would go on/.
It's kind of ironic trying to justify morality in an economic system that is blind to it.
I agree. I think by now you understand what I think about that system. But, since I'm living inside that system right now, the best I can do is make economic choices that oppose the moral choices I disagree with. It's the best thing we can do as a society, too (boycotts are based on this notion, and some people lately are advocating buying shares of stock in companies, then getting voting power, then changing their policies from the inside... there are other subversive methods to work inside the economic system to change it).
For instance, most of my friends that I've known throughout high school and college experimented with drugs. It was never anything really secretive. Most of my friends usually offered me some as a polite gesture. I was never really offended or anything like that. And I never did take them up on their offer.
Too bad;-)
I've found that I prefer all those "bad options" and "bad paths" to be there along the good ones in life. Because at least that way, I don't have to keep wondering what I would have done if the option was there.
How very Zen Buddhist of you:-)
The strangest thing about having any sort of affiliation with them is that my outlook on women went exactly the opposite way I thought it would go. I thought I would start seeing women entirely as objects and nothing else.
Well, I'm actually not surprised that this happened. That's because you met the actual woman, whereas the casual porn viewer merely sees impersonal images on a screen. It's good that you met them, I think.
But there comes a point where you see so much of it that there's no stimulus to it anymore. Porn has never particularly appealed to me. But seeing so much of it pretty much killed off all the things that it's supposed to trigger.
Well, it's always had stimulus to me, but I kept exploring new things, because I was desensitized to the old things. I think maybe that's what drives the market for the crazier and crazer shit (no pun intended) that we're seeing nowadays. Finally one day I realized that I wasn't living up to my own ethical philosophies, and had to cut all of it out. I'm glad I did. I have a lot more free time now:-) For people like myself, you can never see enough, you keep searching for more and more and new girls, and different weird stuff. Finally, you realize it's like a drug. There is no amount you can possibly take that will fill the hole in you. All it does is create a larger hole.
I don't stand speechless and stare at any voluptuous woman that enters the room. I don't envision just sex anymore, it doesn't really do. There has to be someone behind the fantasy, or else it doesn't work. They're just another "picture on the monitor", even if I'm standing right before them, if I don't know anything about them.
I wish it worked that way for everyone who gets an overdose of it. You start learning that sex isn't the goal of everything. That there are better things to talk about, and better things to pursue.
Congratulations. You're more enlightened than 90% or more of all men. My hat's off to you.
You also learn that the last thing a beautiful woman wishes to be called is beautiful:). Try complimenting her personality instead. *laughs*
Bet your ass! My girlfriend right now is a knockout (at least I think so). One of the things I've learned from her is, guys are essentially really dumb:-) The best they can generally come up with when approaching her (and from what I get, it never stops for her) is "you're really pretty". Gee. I've never heard that before. Let's go have sex! Incidentally, I'm the guy with the black skull hat, not the feather guy:-)
I've never really seen pornography as that evil, though. It's not so much the act of having sex that I see as bad, but the way that people use what they see.
I somewhat agree. I absolutely agree that the act of sex is not bad. It's a very good thing. But what pornography does is to change our attitudes towards sex (subconsciously). So I don't like it. I also don't like it because of the women involved, but I'll never prove that...
Ok, this is getting really long now, I'll end it. Take care...
it's really annoying when I'm flamed for something I tried to write in humor
I understand that the comment was meant to be funny. But at the same time, you're giving the impression that you do work for porn sites. Is that true or not? If it's not true, then it obviously changes the context of my comment. And that context was supposed to be, basically, that by writing this software, you are indirectly supporting the practice and business of pornography. The rest of my comment expands on the idea of why I think pornography is not ok.
And if someone gets depressed and wants to commit suicide, you will gladly hand them the gun, because it was their choice to begin with?
Did I miss something here? I'm coding the medium for presenting pictures. This code is portable for the purpose of viewing other kinds of media. Are you saying that if Slash (the perl system that houses slashdot) were used on a site in which white power zealots distribute information about would-be targets, that it's somehow Rob Malda's fault? Fascinating hypothesis.
The two examples are completely different. Not only that, but even if the examples were similar, they would still be different (I'll get to that). In the first example, you are coding a site that has no other purpose than to be used for porn. You say so yourself. In the other, the code is written for a general purpose weblog, that can be used for anything you like. This is like the analogy of using a gun to kill a person, or using a car to run over a person. One is made specifically for killing, the other can be used for killing if the user chooses it. Now, onto the way that they may be similar but still different. If you were writing a general-purpose thumbnail gallery that can be used for, say, a photo album, but the porn site uses your software, you are morally in the clear. If, on the other hand, the porn site hires you to write this software specifically for them, but it could also potentially be used for a photo album, you are not morally in the clear. To me, this is simple ethical philosophy in practice.
But, of course, this is all under the pre-supposition that pornography (and supporting it directly or indirectly) is morally right or wrong.
If my wife, mother, or daughter wanted to do a video like this, what am I supposed to do? Talk them out of it? Fine. But what if they still want to do it? What do I do then? Beat them? Lock them up and never let them leave the house? Ultimately, it IS their choice, and if they want to do it, there's nothing I can do about it. As mad as I get, and no matter how my opinions differ from theirs, it's still their choice.
You're absolutely right, but again, I think you're missing my real message here. I'm not suggesting that you try to control anyone's life. Much to the contrary, I strongly believe in self-determination. You can try to intervene and talk some reason into someone, but you cannot control them, it is ultimately their choice. But if nobody were to buy videos that your daughter makes, then there would be no market for it, and hence, she would not make the videos anymore. That is the crux of my argument. If we, as people, do not support things that we see as being unethical, they will not be as prevalent. Simple economics, really. But you might come back with the response "come on, be realistic, even if I don't support it, plenty of other people will". But that is not an ethical viewpoint. It is not valid to compromise one's ethics for the simple reason that others don't seem to care.
My job isn't go to out and respect people who don't even respect themselves. And I don't feel sorry for women who get $300 for a blowjob video.
You may not respect them or feel sorry for them (which is a shame). But that in no way means that you should watch them do it. I don't believe you can provide me any moral justification for supporting the system that allows someone to put themselves in positions that demeans and degrades them further.
I have about half a dozen female friends who have been raped.
Same here. So then, you might understand why we can't support pornography any longer. The objectification of women changes men's psychology towards them. They are no longer seen with respect, but as objects for the taking. A man may not feel any moral qualms about taking sex from a woman. You can call this shoddy reasoning if you like, I don't care. The evidence is all around me and plain to see. I see it and hear it every day in men's attitudes and thoughts about women.
I feel less and less sorry for someone who is willing to do a mock-up of it for money. I don't feel sorry for them, not one bit at all.
Ok, it's obvious now that you have no feelings about these girls (which saddens me). But my other point, which I neglected to make in my other comment, is the overall damage it does to society, and especially women. I don't believe this can be overlooked so easily.
So do you plan to make smoking illegal, just because it kills people? Yeah, it might be a good idea. It might be the "safe" thing to do. But it's one more choice that you take out of the hands of the common person.
Again, you're missing my intent. I don't believe that you can fix social problems with legislation. This goes for the so-called "War on Drugs", prohibition, pornography, etc. I personally believe pornography should be legal, everywhere, and controlled (as in Holland). People do it anyway, so we should ensure that it's more safe for the women involved. I don't believe I ever made the suggestion that any of this should be made illegal, did I? I'm saying exactly what you're saying, that the choices are in the hands of the individuals. You are an individual. It is your choice whether or not you wish to support this practice. I don't believe that an intellectually honest and moral person can do so. But I know I can't convince you of that.
This isn't abortion here. This isn't killing animals for fur. There's no "unspoken" third party to think about here. It's one person choosing whether or not it's worth the money to do a film. Whether or not they're emotionally unstable, or greedy enough to want to do the film is honestly not my problem.
My analogy about fur was meant to show that even though you do not personally commit the act, by supporting said act, you are still ethically guilty of that act. It had nothing to do with the fur trade itself. So, my main argument again: It is not necessarily your "problem" what people decide to do with their lives. You can't control their choices. But you can control yours. And if you choose to aid in the proliferation of these lifestyle choices, you are ethically guilty.
You're entirely wrong. I have no moral obligation to people I don't know. My only prerogative is making sure that anything I do doesn't result in anyone being killed.
That's too bad you think that way. I hope it doesn't backfire on you, when someday you need someone's help, and nobody is there to give it, because they think the way you do. As a non-sequitur, I personally think that this mindset is a product of Western "Civilization". I don't think you will find this way of thinking in tribal cultures. And again, I'm deeply sorry about it.
"Humankind has not woven the web of life.
We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.
All things are bound together.
All things connect."
-- Chief Seattle
Who are you to tell people what consenting people should and should not do? When your dictatorship comes to power, be sure to let me know.
I think it should be obvious now that I'm not trying to dictate people's lives, merely change people's viewpoints (like yours). I just wanted to be doubly-sure that point was understood. I know I won't succeed so easily, but if I even plant a seed in someone's mind who reads this, and that seed grows into something great, I would be immensely gratified.
P.S. Sorry about the flame-ness of my first comment. Sometimes I get so emotional about certain things I don't restrain myself. But I'm getting better. All part of my self-improvement quest:-)
And if someone gets depressed and wants to commit suicide, you will gladly hand them the gun, because it was their choice to begin with? And you are ethically opposed to killing animals just for their fur, but since they've already been killed, you see no problem in buying that fur coat for your wife?
So, the thing is, you don't mind taking advantage, getting your rocks off, on women, because they've "chosen" that profession? You wouldn't mind it if your mother, or wife, or daughter (take your pick) was getting fucked in the ass by a guy with a huge dick, while I jerked off to it? What if I had sex with her directly, for money, instead of seeing her on videotape? Does it change the issue when it's a person whom you're not related to? Suddently, they're not human anymore, they're merely an object who you have no moral obligations to?
Stop being a hypocrite, there is no justification for your beliefs. Stop adding to the misery of the human race. Start taking responsibility for your actions and yourself. Start being intellectually honest to yourself. Start treating people you don't know with respect. When you use another person for your own ends (for example, sexual pleasure that is not mutual), you are not respecting them. By watching pornography, you are condoning the practice of disrespecting the women involved.
Perhaps you wouldn't rape a woman because you think it is wrong. Would you stand by and watch another man rape a woman, and stand next to them jerking off? But... It's not you doing the act, you're merely watching. And, how far does your lack of morals regarding pornography go? Is it ok to watch a woman being beaten up? What if she is down on her luck and has no money, and gets the opportunity to do a mock rape film, in which she does get physically beaten up? What if it's her "choice"? Will you support that? What if she gets shit on by 5 guys, and it's so emotionally traumatizing for her, she breaks down crying in the film (yes, I have seen things like this). Is it still ok, even though this was her "choice" in the first place? What if the sex industry drives thousands of women into therapy, something which they never psychologically recover from for the rest of their lives? Is it still ok?
You must be right. There's no way anyone could be that crazy. Why, that would be like speaking out against the teletubbies because you think one of them is gay. But maybe it's not so far-fetched, considering the power of the covert gay agenda. Or that anyone could possibly think that the reason we were allowed to be attacked on September 11th was that God was punishing America because of the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays... And nobody could possibly suggest that having a school mascot of a bluedevil encourages satanism. But don't forget literature. They could never consider burning literature that they think is subversively satanic.
Ok, I think that's enough. Look, you need to be a little less naive. The evidence you're presenting is purely anecdotal. You assume the world everywhere is just like you've seen it where you grew up. It isn't. There are nutjobs all over the place, and yes, they can think and say some pretty idiotic things, not at all any more far-fetched than the idea of BSD being satanic because of its mascot. Fundies are notorious for coming up with insane theories about things. You just need to realize that, and realize that it is not the fault of your faith, it's just those particular people.
And what have I seen? Nothing changed. Guess the proletariat was too stoned to stand up "man."
You haven't waited long enough, "dude". But you're right, "man", anyone who contemplates things like socialism or anarchy must be completely "wacked out" on drugs, "bro". No rational person would think that way. Not, for example, my 69 year old father who has never done a single drug in his life. Not Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky, who could, frankly, talk circles around you. And not me, of course. I'm "baked" right now, "man". Whoooaaaa....
Doesn't matter, though. Time will tell. And I'll be there, laughing.
Here, here! And for those who want to know, the anti-globalization movement has an official name, the "Global Justice" movement. A much more fitting and accurate portrayal.
Most of the resources you point to are hatchet jobs much like the pie-in-the-face that proudly adorns one of them.
Pardon me? How many of these resources did you read? In contrast to what you're saying, I found that the majority of responses I read in the provided links pointed out specific problems with Lomborg's diagnoses. Did you really read any of the pages? Or articles written by prominent environmental scientists (which Lomborg is not, he is a statistician)? Or am I just arguing against a straw man attack here (which is what I'm starting to think)?
I really wish I had more time to reply to this comment... I'll do my best.
I think many people with overly liberal tendencies tend to jump on issues like this. In my experience, most Americans are pretty fed up with the justice system as it is.
I don't know what most Americans think. But I like to think I get a feel for it by getting feedback like I get from people like yourself. It's my belief that a good deal of person have zero sympathy for anyone behind bars. I'm not sure what causes that mentality. "Overly liberal tendencies"? Why does every issue have to be liberal/conservative? Can't we address issues at face-value only? I would like that very much.
They are fed up not because of mass corruption, or because many innocents are wrong imprisioned, but rather that too many people who are guilty are just not getting punished at all.
I can't speak on the truth or falsity of that. But I do know that many people are wrongly imprisoned, and many methods used to arrest/incarcerate people are unjust. One needs to look no further than the nearby community college to take a class in criminal justice to find this information out. This facet of the system is what frustrates me and many other people. I can't speak for everyone, of course. You're right. Many guilty people are never punished. But that's because they're never caught! Not because the trial fails.
Prison is punishment and it just seems like we, as Americans, are not actually punishing anyone with prison. It's one thing to get up in arms about a system that is doing too much, but who's really going to take up the call to make prisons harsher.
I would disagree with this statement in its entirety. I don't believe the only purpose of prison is punishment. If that were true, it would have no social benefit. Think about that before responding. What is the social benefit of creating a system of punishment and punishment only? I would also say that the prisoners are being punished. Are you saying your removal of freedom is not punishment? Have you seen any documentaries or read any books about the lives of inmates? You suggest what they do is some kind of cake walk?!? I'm incredulous at that idea!
It's not exactly a cause that's likely to make many friends. The idea of male prisoners being raped by other prisons is in so many ways an appealing idea _only_ because there is a sense of justice. The thought that many violent criminals out there are being humilated in the most de-masculating of manners gives one a certain sense of justice.
A person with a shred of compassion (and I mean that.. merely just a shred is all it takes) would say that there is nothing at all appealing about that idea. And please, do what I asked of you before. Look into the subject before making comments about it that aren't true. The people that are being raped are not the violent criminals. The violent criminals are the ones doing the raping!!! The non-violent criminals (the drug offenders, the petty criminals and thiefs, etc.) are the victims here. PLEASE READ ABOUT IT! If you don't want to do extensive investigation, just go here or here. Or maybe read this article. This is just what I came up with on a quick and dirty search. Know the reality before making your judgements.
Of course, that is not reality. Any educated person can realize that. Rape is a horrific crime and noone deserves to be raped.
So which stance are you taking? Do you not care, or do you care? I can't tell.
I don't necessarily regret my comment though, because it is drawn from the same desire to avoid the real problem as your call to help the inmates. Our justice system just doesn't work. It needs to be fixed.
I agree with that sentiment (the justice system needs to be fixed), but I think you and I have different ideas of how to do that. But don't make the mistake of thinking that I'm avoiding or skirting any issues here! There is something that can be done about prison rape. Go read about it. As you said (in a matter of words), let's work on the things we can fix now, and focus on the harder stuff too. But we definitely need to fix the things we can fix, and asap!!
I really won't shed many tears though over prisoners being raped. Instead, I'll say them for the much larger problems that we as a society face. Most inmates are just lifeless bodies, consumed by a life of drug abuse and poverty.
So you're flip-flopping again, which is why I don't understand some of your comments. Didn't you say that "Any educated person can realize that. Rape is a horrific crime and noone deserves to be raped"? Are you educated? Can you realize it or not? Why did you even say it then? Yes, put the majority of your energy into solving the larger problems (as you see them). But work on the smaller ones that we can actually fix too. It will go a long way towards solving the larger ones. As for "Most inmates are just lifeless bodies, consumed by a life of drug abuse and poverty", let me just say... What the hell are you smoking? Where do you come up with that? Can you show me backing evidence for that massively sweeping, broad generalization? Are you suggesting that most inmates have no capacity of self-awareness that they are incarcerated? That they are a shell of skin, bones and organs, and have no emotions nor capacity for conscious thought, like a gerbil? You need to think about that a little more. And consider this. 60% of federal inmates are incarcerated on drug-related charges. These aren't nearly all drug "abusers". These are casual users and sellers. Before you make more sweeping generalizations about these people, please... Educate yourself some more.
It disturbs me more that these individuals live such empty lives than it does that they may be physically assulted.
I can't even comment on this. Read my previous comment.
It's like the whole abortion issue, everyone is either pro-choice or pro-life, but noone is pro-helping the people who may be thinking of getting abortions overcome the problems that would lead them to that point in life.
Why are we talking about abortion now? What do you know about abortion besides rhetoric? Do you know that many times women get abortions that don't have any "problems" that would lead them to getting one? Would you say, a woman who is in college, getting a degree to pursue a career, and who accidentally gets pregnant, and decides that there is no way she can raise a child at this stage in her life, and still pursue her goals, has a "problem that needs to be fixed"? What is her problem, exactly? Consider it an exercise in creativity to come up with other scenarios with non-problem-related circumstances surrounding the decision to have an abortion. Or just go and read women's stories of how, when and why they chose to do so. But don't comment on this again. We don't need to discuss abortion now. We're discussing prison rape.
So, if you really want to discuss things seriously, let's address the real issues and not dance around liberal nonsense.
You can't honestly expect to provoke positive dialogue from me after saying that my issues are "liberal nonsense", can you? Come on now, really... And believe me. I am discussing things with the utmost seriousness. Instead of throwing around trivial phrases like "liberal nonsense", how about pointing out to me which parts of what I'm discussing is nonsense? Just what have I said that is not to be taken seriously?
I have _very_ little sympathy for any person who is justly* imprisoned for commiting a serious** crime and then is abused by his fellow inmates.
This is a serious problem in and of itself. If I can't reach to your humanitarian side (for which I could point out many arguments, but it seems pointless), consider this... If you and everyone else decide to continue to turn a blind eye to prison rape, you are 1) Wasting taxpayer money, 2) Increasing the crime recidivism rate, 3) Increasing the number of people in the country with STDs, thereby increasing epidemics, 4) Increasing the risk of violent crime once the (in many cases previously non-violent) prisoners get out. Number 1 is related to numbers 2 3 and 4 (and others, which I won't go into). Don't believe me? Do some research and find out for sure. Don't treat it as a philisophical issue, treat it as an intellectual, economic and social one. Maybe that's the better approach for you.
I grow very tired of people complaining about the few exceptions when justice goes bad. By that reasoning, we should let everyone out of jail unless there is absolute 100% proof of guilt.
I never addressed this issue you speak of.
Violent offenders tend to get grouped together so it is safe to assume that it is more likely that someone convicted of a lesser crime is less likely to be the victim of inmate violence.
This is incorrect. One of the things that the group SPR is trying to fix. Non-violent offenders are thrown in with violent ones (rapists). This is one of the biggest problems. Do some reading on the issue.
I could say more, but instead will refer you to one of
Catbeller's comments above, which I agree with 100%. Think about what he says. PLEASE, I beg you. Consider it! Also read my other comments in this thread if you so desire.
I never mentioned prison rape. YOU are the one who filled in the blanks there, you filthy little boy.
To which I refer you to...
No matter though. I'm sure his bunkmates in Leavenworth will show him the meaning of passive resistance.
Please, now. We all know what you're referring to here. Don't feign ignorance. There is no other conclusion that can be drawn here, and there was clearly no other intent. I apologize for blowing up like that. I've been edgy about the issue of sexual assualt in the U.S. lately (the past couple of days actually), considering my girlfriend was just assaulted in a parking lot last night, but luckily the guy ran off when someone nearby honked their horn. Since then I've been a bit disturbed that anyone would wish rape, of all things, on another human being. Especially repeated sexual assault over a period of time, as is generally the case for young prison inmates (18 year old boys have it the worst. Please, go read the web site I referred to.) But my reactions, and subsequent apology for, don't excuse your sentiment. Think about the validity of what I'm saying. And then think about this... You have 2 drinks after leaving the pub one night. Not quite enough to constitute a DUI. But you accidentally hit someone on the way home and put them in the hospital with serious damage. The judge decides to throw the book at you. You go to prison for 2 weeks (a minor sentence for the crime). While you're there, you are raped 25 times. Your life has suddenly changed forever. Still think everyone in prison gets what they deserve? Think I'm over-exaggerating? Go and read up on the subject. This organization was started by a man who protested the Vietnam War (I think, can't remember for sure). He was thrown in jail for PROTESTING. While he was in there, he was raped 60 times over 2 days. And contracted AIDS. Does the punishment fit the crime? Think about that.
Let me guess: this is about the 15th time today you've been completely offended by something you've read on the net?
Nope. The first. And the first in weeks. Thanks for asking:-) As I said, I rarely, if ever, spout off like I did. This issue is one that I find incredibly disturbing, however. I think Catbeller said it pretty much how I would, if I were to spend the time on it, in this comment, which was a reply to mine. Go and read it. And please, do as he says, think about it.
No matter though. I'm sure his bunkmates in Leavenworth will show him the meaning of passive resistance.
You should learn more about prison rape before spewing such vile sentiments. You completely insensitive, disguting excuse for a human. And believe me, I don't generally say such nasty things. But you earned it.
Well, I'm taking too much time out of my day already on my commenting, so I'll be brief;-)
Reducing exec salaries, OTOH, is a fine idea
This is what I was implying in my original comment. I don't mean to suggest that a gang of robin hood types will raid their bank accounts and give it back to the workers (just to use a silly analogy).
but because of pressure from shareholders who are convinced that the company would do better if so damn money wasn't pissed down a hole. Or because of emplyee pressure; if enough people really believe the salaries are to high, and are willing to either change jobs to a company that has a more reasonable diferential, or start their own companies, then the diferential will come down. Not tomorrow. Hell, probably not ever, because no way enough people will be willing to change jobs, strike or start their own company. That's to hard.
My point exactly. That's why I don't think it will ever happen by the volition of the workers.
less printers will be bought at $175 than at $150, most likely. So there would probably not be any "extra" money. Even then, what makes you think it would be redistributed any differently
This is hard to quantify. What if workers were paid more money. Then they would have more spending cash. Then couldn't more printers likely be bought at $175 than at $150, because the entire economy is doing better? If the entire class of printers were $175 instead of $150, would anyone know any difference? And I agree with your point about the distribution of extra profits. I merely made that suggestion as a way of saying "this is how you could make more money to pay the workers without 'stealing' from anyone". The problem of distributing the wealth is a social and policy-oriented one.
Of course, as WallMart shows over and over again, any noble thoughts of getting best quality or supporting the local merchant go right out the window when price is low enough.
Absolutely. More fire to my argument that the way things are going right now, if they continue on their current path (i.e., the Wal-Marting and McDonaldizing of the world), it will eventually have to collapse. It's just not sustainable.
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by option 4. the "way Capitalism runs" is the way it runs. The effects do vary over time.
I (hope I) answered this in my last statement (above). The "way it runs" right now is the way I'm referring to. The effects do vary over time, yes. The effects that I'm speaking of is that they are getting worse (and worse, and worse...). How do we break out of things continuing to get worse?
Every time I look at how much of my check is taken out in taxes, and think about how much better off I'd be with even a 10% tax reduction, let alone what could be done if we really reformed the local, state and federal govt funtions.
I'll agree with that.
I've been up and I've been down, but even when I was up to my eyeballs in debt and making $6.00 an hour I managed to work my way back
You're an intellectual. You're well educated. (I'm assuming these things - you seem to be both). The average person working a temp job putting printers in boxes at HP is neither of these things. They can only rely on one thing. The only thing that they have to offer anyone. Their labor. They must sell their labor to survive. Yes, I have survived on $6.00 an hour too. I've been up to my eyeballs in debt too (I still have $15k in studen loans, actually). But you know what? I'm never going to have a problem. I come from an extremely educated background. I'm really smart, have a good personality and lots of contacts, easy to get along with, conversational, etc. etc. ad infinitum. I imagine you're similar (as are a good amount of the tech crowd). We can't compare our life struggles to those of the average American working class citizen. Something needs to be done to ensure they aren't taken advantage of, because most likely they won't find a way out of it. They just don't know how. It's not too hard to find backing evidence for what I'm saying, but I just don't have time (I'm not writing a thesis here). I'll leave that as an exercise to you or someone else that reads this comment, if they like. But consider this, for a simple example. 25% of homeless people in America are actually employed. They just don't make enough money to be able to get ahead. There are a number of other factors involved in getting ahead. Payday loans, rent-to-own furniture, slum lords, gouging interest rates, the impossibility of getting a loan with no credit or low income, and on and on... Yes, you and I are smart enough to be able to find a way to beat the system, and work through it. Most people aren't. They're going to get the payday loans, the rent-to-own, etc. etc. Fact of life, way it goes.
What incentive do I have to continue to improve my lot, if a huge portion of my additional income will be taken from me?
I never suggested raising taxes, if that's what you're implying. What are you implying, exactly? Are you in the upper-upper income bracket? Then you're doing fine. You don't need any incentive to "improve your lot". Your lot is just fine, and you will live an immensely more comfortable life in comparison with your average fellow citizen. If this is not what you're referring to, then I guess I don't follow you... Why would I be taking money from you?
Pardon me if this has already been discussed at length, but I don't recall seeing it on/. before. The whole notion of "community" as people are arguing in the comments seems to be different than what I think of when I hear or say the word "community". Perhaps we need to come up with a different name for "online communities". Perhaps "online socializing"? It seems much more appropriate to me. Now, I realize that the word community can have many meanings (e.g., the "Scientific community"). But that doesn't seem to be the point people are arguing. The comparisons I'm seeing made are of online communities being as good as meatspace communities. The notion is not one of "the online community" (like you would say the "Los Angeles latino community"). I just want to make that distinction clear, and point out that I understand the differences...
Having said all that. There really is alotmoreto "community" than socializing, in meatspace, that is. And the benefits to getting involved in community in meatspace can be incredible. Disclaimer: I say this at a point in my life that I have no personal contact and knowledge of, but merely one of observation and conversation. It is my goal to get involved in an organization or program in the near future working with "community building". My dad has been doing this most of his life, and has some incredible stories to tell me regarding work he has been involved in, or seen happen by others doing similar work (and what he is doing right now).
The reality is that some folks are currently less well off than others. I only see two alternatives that don't screw simply steal from someone else to sove the problem
Option 1 - What's your idea of "stealing"? Would "stealing" be reducing the salaries from the CEOs, presidents, veeps and managers and redistributing those salaries to the workers? If so, then would "stealing" be reducing salaries from the workers and redistributing those salaries to the upper level employees (such as CEOs)? Because that's what's happened. The average CEO in America used to make ~40 times the salary of the entry-level employee in their companies, and they now make more than 400 times that salary. The salaries of upper-level management has also increased dramatically. I say take that money and redistribute it fairly.
Option 2 - Raise the price of the products we sell in this country. Someone asked, "would I be willing to pay $500 for a printer I would pay $125 for now". Nope. But why does it have to be $500? Can't it be $175 and still increase employee salaries?
Option 3 - Reduce the amount of net profit by increasing employee salaries. This *might* then reduce the amount of money stockholders would get from sales of stock and dividends from those increases (I say "might", because it's not entirely clear what will happen when you raise employee wages - possibly productivity will increase, product reliability will increase, and therefore profits will increase. But who's to say!)
Now I see you smirking. "There's no way these ideas will work! Some other company will run this company into the ground through not changing their economic policies and just sticking with the old way!" You're absolutely right. That is, unless everyone changes their ways. But that would never happen, right? Right. This leads me to Option 4.
Option 4 - Major economic reform in the way Capitalism runs. Unfortunately, this is only accomplished by making laws (or repealing laws, or re-writing laws and documents). I also don't think this is ever going to happen. It is therefore my hypothesis that Capitalism (at least in its current incarnation) will eventually buckle under its own weight. More and more people will live hard lives that they can't seem to climb out of, more and more poverty and social unrest will be prevalent, and the system will eventually fall. I see it as inevitable. Just waiting for it to happen...
Um, now the Afghans have billions of dollars in aid flowing towards them that they would never have had under the Taliban
They had this before. 7.5 million Afghans were surviving on aid before our attacks.
a chance for a real representative government to shape their own destiny
We'll see about that. Keep informed. The general concensus right now is major uneasiness. It seems that the people we've propped up to run the new government are deteriorating into what they were doing before the Taliban came into power. Factionalism, warlordism, human rights violations. Surprise, surprise.
the United States, which is already suffering from budget deficits, underfunded primary education, and a upcoming budgetary disaster in 30 years in the form of Social Security and Medicare
They will be telling someone else's grandkids about this. He was implying that they would never have kids, so they will therefore never have grandkids. So they'll be left having to tell the story to someone else's grandkids.
Re:Monsanto akin to evil corporations from the mov
on
Monsanto and PCBs
·
· Score: 1
I'll give you one more. This comes from the "Top 10 Censored Stories of 2000":
1.
World Bank and Multinational Companies Seek to Privatize Water
Awards to: Jim Shultz, In These Times and This; Maude Barlow, International Forum on Globalization; Vandana Shiva, Canadian Dimension; Daniel Zoll and Pratap Chatterjee, San Francisco Bay Guardian
The authors of this year's first-place award all started with the same premise: that global water consumption is doubling every 20 years and that by 2025 the demand for fresh water is expected to rise to 56% more than the amount currently available.
This frightens environmentalists. But for officials at international lending institutions and multinational companies, it's a business opportunity. "Water is the last infrastructure frontier for private investors," declared one banking official. Monsanto corporation certainly agrees; it plans to earn revenues of $420 million and a net income of $63 million by 2008 from its water business in India and Mexico.
The Bechtel corporation is also on the case, but has botched its scramble for blue gold. While attempting to privatize the local water system of Cochamba, Bolivia, not only did they provoke mass strikes that injured hundreds and shut down the city of 600,000 for a week, but they sought to pin the blame for the uprising on narcotics traffickers. But this bad PR hasn't stopped Bechtel -- the company appears to be positioning itself to privatize San Francisco's water system.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering this, I would stand by my comment that Allende's government was more democratic.
Ok, this is getting really long now, I'll end it. Take care...
But, of course, this is all under the pre-supposition that pornography (and supporting it directly or indirectly) is morally right or wrong.
You're absolutely right, but again, I think you're missing my real message here. I'm not suggesting that you try to control anyone's life. Much to the contrary, I strongly believe in self-determination. You can try to intervene and talk some reason into someone, but you cannot control them, it is ultimately their choice. But if nobody were to buy videos that your daughter makes, then there would be no market for it, and hence, she would not make the videos anymore. That is the crux of my argument. If we, as people, do not support things that we see as being unethical, they will not be as prevalent. Simple economics, really. But you might come back with the response "come on, be realistic, even if I don't support it, plenty of other people will". But that is not an ethical viewpoint. It is not valid to compromise one's ethics for the simple reason that others don't seem to care. You may not respect them or feel sorry for them (which is a shame). But that in no way means that you should watch them do it. I don't believe you can provide me any moral justification for supporting the system that allows someone to put themselves in positions that demeans and degrades them further. Same here. So then, you might understand why we can't support pornography any longer. The objectification of women changes men's psychology towards them. They are no longer seen with respect, but as objects for the taking. A man may not feel any moral qualms about taking sex from a woman. You can call this shoddy reasoning if you like, I don't care. The evidence is all around me and plain to see. I see it and hear it every day in men's attitudes and thoughts about women. Ok, it's obvious now that you have no feelings about these girls (which saddens me). But my other point, which I neglected to make in my other comment, is the overall damage it does to society, and especially women. I don't believe this can be overlooked so easily. Again, you're missing my intent. I don't believe that you can fix social problems with legislation. This goes for the so-called "War on Drugs", prohibition, pornography, etc. I personally believe pornography should be legal, everywhere, and controlled (as in Holland). People do it anyway, so we should ensure that it's more safe for the women involved. I don't believe I ever made the suggestion that any of this should be made illegal, did I? I'm saying exactly what you're saying, that the choices are in the hands of the individuals. You are an individual. It is your choice whether or not you wish to support this practice. I don't believe that an intellectually honest and moral person can do so. But I know I can't convince you of that. My analogy about fur was meant to show that even though you do not personally commit the act, by supporting said act, you are still ethically guilty of that act. It had nothing to do with the fur trade itself. So, my main argument again: It is not necessarily your "problem" what people decide to do with their lives. You can't control their choices. But you can control yours. And if you choose to aid in the proliferation of these lifestyle choices, you are ethically guilty. That's too bad you think that way. I hope it doesn't backfire on you, when someday you need someone's help, and nobody is there to give it, because they think the way you do. As a non-sequitur, I personally think that this mindset is a product of Western "Civilization". I don't think you will find this way of thinking in tribal cultures. And again, I'm deeply sorry about it."Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect."
-- Chief Seattle
I think it should be obvious now that I'm not trying to dictate people's lives, merely change people's viewpoints (like yours). I just wanted to be doubly-sure that point was understood. I know I won't succeed so easily, but if I even plant a seed in someone's mind who reads this, and that seed grows into something great, I would be immensely gratified.P.S. Sorry about the flame-ness of my first comment. Sometimes I get so emotional about certain things I don't restrain myself. But I'm getting better. All part of my self-improvement quest :-)
So, the thing is, you don't mind taking advantage, getting your rocks off, on women, because they've "chosen" that profession? You wouldn't mind it if your mother, or wife, or daughter (take your pick) was getting fucked in the ass by a guy with a huge dick, while I jerked off to it? What if I had sex with her directly, for money, instead of seeing her on videotape? Does it change the issue when it's a person whom you're not related to? Suddently, they're not human anymore, they're merely an object who you have no moral obligations to?
Stop being a hypocrite, there is no justification for your beliefs. Stop adding to the misery of the human race. Start taking responsibility for your actions and yourself. Start being intellectually honest to yourself. Start treating people you don't know with respect. When you use another person for your own ends (for example, sexual pleasure that is not mutual), you are not respecting them. By watching pornography, you are condoning the practice of disrespecting the women involved.
Perhaps you wouldn't rape a woman because you think it is wrong. Would you stand by and watch another man rape a woman, and stand next to them jerking off? But... It's not you doing the act, you're merely watching. And, how far does your lack of morals regarding pornography go? Is it ok to watch a woman being beaten up? What if she is down on her luck and has no money, and gets the opportunity to do a mock rape film, in which she does get physically beaten up? What if it's her "choice"? Will you support that? What if she gets shit on by 5 guys, and it's so emotionally traumatizing for her, she breaks down crying in the film (yes, I have seen things like this). Is it still ok, even though this was her "choice" in the first place? What if the sex industry drives thousands of women into therapy, something which they never psychologically recover from for the rest of their lives? Is it still ok?
Time to re-evaluate things, pal.
Ok, I think that's enough. Look, you need to be a little less naive. The evidence you're presenting is purely anecdotal. You assume the world everywhere is just like you've seen it where you grew up. It isn't. There are nutjobs all over the place, and yes, they can think and say some pretty idiotic things, not at all any more far-fetched than the idea of BSD being satanic because of its mascot. Fundies are notorious for coming up with insane theories about things. You just need to realize that, and realize that it is not the fault of your faith, it's just those particular people.
is how the fortune.com article was written 11 days in the future. Now _that's_ technology.
Doesn't matter, though. Time will tell. And I'll be there, laughing.
Here, here! And for those who want to know, the anti-globalization movement has an official name, the "Global Justice" movement. A much more fitting and accurate portrayal.
No need for anecdotal evidence.
I could say more, but instead will refer you to one of Catbeller's comments above, which I agree with 100%. Think about what he says. PLEASE, I beg you. Consider it! Also read my other comments in this thread if you so desire.
Having said all that. There really is a lot more to "community" than socializing, in meatspace, that is. And the benefits to getting involved in community in meatspace can be incredible. Disclaimer: I say this at a point in my life that I have no personal contact and knowledge of, but merely one of observation and conversation. It is my goal to get involved in an organization or program in the near future working with "community building". My dad has been doing this most of his life, and has some incredible stories to tell me regarding work he has been involved in, or seen happen by others doing similar work (and what he is doing right now).
Option 1 - What's your idea of "stealing"? Would "stealing" be reducing the salaries from the CEOs, presidents, veeps and managers and redistributing those salaries to the workers? If so, then would "stealing" be reducing salaries from the workers and redistributing those salaries to the upper level employees (such as CEOs)? Because that's what's happened. The average CEO in America used to make ~40 times the salary of the entry-level employee in their companies, and they now make more than 400 times that salary. The salaries of upper-level management has also increased dramatically. I say take that money and redistribute it fairly.
Option 2 - Raise the price of the products we sell in this country. Someone asked, "would I be willing to pay $500 for a printer I would pay $125 for now". Nope. But why does it have to be $500? Can't it be $175 and still increase employee salaries?
Option 3 - Reduce the amount of net profit by increasing employee salaries. This *might* then reduce the amount of money stockholders would get from sales of stock and dividends from those increases (I say "might", because it's not entirely clear what will happen when you raise employee wages - possibly productivity will increase, product reliability will increase, and therefore profits will increase. But who's to say!)
Now I see you smirking. "There's no way these ideas will work! Some other company will run this company into the ground through not changing their economic policies and just sticking with the old way!" You're absolutely right. That is, unless everyone changes their ways. But that would never happen, right? Right. This leads me to Option 4.
Option 4 - Major economic reform in the way Capitalism runs. Unfortunately, this is only accomplished by making laws (or repealing laws, or re-writing laws and documents). I also don't think this is ever going to happen. It is therefore my hypothesis that Capitalism (at least in its current incarnation) will eventually buckle under its own weight. More and more people will live hard lives that they can't seem to climb out of, more and more poverty and social unrest will be prevalent, and the system will eventually fall. I see it as inevitable. Just waiting for it to happen...
hehe
They will be telling someone else's grandkids about this. He was implying that they would never have kids, so they will therefore never have grandkids. So they'll be left having to tell the story to someone else's grandkids.
Al Giordano is a former Boston Phoenix reporter. He's an American.