It's a religion and in every religion there are massively intolerant nut jobs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning religion in general or Christianity specifically but considering there are some pretty strong anti gay feelings amoung certain groups of Christians, to say a Christian would never do something like this is pretty naive.
I think a big part of the problem you describe is modern media telling us things are way worse in the world than they are. Most people seem to think violent crime in the last 70 years has gone up in America when it has done almost nothing but gone down. Likewise, war in this world we live in? We live in one of the most peaceful periods in global history and yet modern media crams the few truly tragic events happening around the world down our throats like they are the norm.
You're ridiculous. You've just claimed resolution on a debate that didn't happen
This conversation has never been about neo-marxism but it has seem to have become whatever tangent you want to run to. You clearly can't defend Hillary as a Marxist because all you have done is attempted to change the subject or redefine certain conditions whenever I try to refocus the conversation on the initial issue of whether Hilary cant be properly called a "Marxist".
Given that her platform makes no effort to eliminate economic classes (which is absolutely key to Marxism) you know you don't have a leg to stand on so you keep running off on tangents.
Where do you get me calling Clinton and Sanders Marxist-Leninist or even just Marxist? You qoute me talking about how the term Marxism is used in modern parlance and then make up whatever you want. We're talking about another user who called Clinton Marxist. Part of my responce to your claims was that Marxism in the common parlance of our time typically refers to economic issues and not issues of race or gender issues as you described above....and then you're diving head first into the tangent that I didnt want to be dragged into and ignoring Marxisms relation to economics which was the point
Of course class was primarily defined by wealth and ones place in the capitalistic economic system so economic issues are key to his philosophies. The proletariat, the bourgeoisie; defined by their place in their current economic system. Of course he does branch off a bit be it's all based off this dominant theme.
You also fail to address the use of the term "Marxist" in modern parlance which is used overwhelmingly in an economic context.
As for your second part, I really have no desire to be drawn into a debate about Liberals being racist, classist or similiar nonsense when both of our parties clearly use ethnic identity and class to further their own gains but not nearly as much as some people like to claim.
Don't get me wrong Bernie is my favored candidate for the nomination but this "the system is rigged" stuff being blamed for Bernie's loss has got to go.
Sure, the Democratic nomination system could certainly be better but with Hillary ahead in the popular vote by over three million votes ( http://www.realclearpolitics.c... ) it's pretty clear she has the popular mandate. Not only did Bernie not get enough votes, he's so far behind that he was cleary not the prefered candidate for the voters. There shouldnt be any controversy here.
When one refers to another as a Marxist I'm pretty sure it's a given that they would elaborate more if it wasn't about the other's economic policy. Economics being Marx's chief concern and most certainly what he's popularly known for today.
In othet words, calling a candidate like Hilary (who in regards to the economy is a moderate) a Marxist without further elaboration like the above post did is obsurd. It's like calling someone a Nazi because they felt certain points of the Nazi's economic policy had merit.
In the context of how people generally identify ethnicity albinos often look "white". Of course they're pink though, all "white people" are technically a shade or two off from such.
There was a guy who used to show up at a lot of parties I went to years ago. Nobody ever had a clue that he was ethnically Mexican. I remember when he first spoke Spanish around me my reaction was "wow, you speak Spanish really well". We laughed about the aftermath.
Heaven forbid we generalize for convenience sake. Of course there are all sorts of cultures within the generic grouping that is "Asian". Should we not be able to generalize at all? Please tell me what is so "primitive" about grouping people by geographic and historic relations? Will this method be perfect? Of course not but no generalization ever is.
Why would some one who is content to have how and where their media purchases can be used dictated to them by the company they're buying from care about privacy?
In other words, there is probably a strong cross over between those who care about consumer rights and those who care about privacy. Why would anyone who cares about corporate encroachment dictating how they use their media go with Apple because they supposedly care about privacy? Meanwhile, the bulk of the public could care less about either issue.
Well people can self identify how they would like. Obviously using "white" instead of "European" for ethnic origin creates problems for the data but really at the end of the day there's a continent called Asia, if your ethnic background is from there then you're Asian.
You didnt actually read my post did you? I called you an idiot for claiming that liberals are trying to outlaw automation. Just because you want them to be (as you clearly want me to be even though i said nothing of the sort) doesnt it make it true
So instead of treating his staff as disposable cogs in the machine as many current minimum wage jobs currently do he treated them as humans by paying them a wage high enough to afford one of his cars. Of course this increased employee retention. Just because his actions benefited himself as well doesnt negate my point.
I normally ignore AC comments but this was just too stupidly funny to ignore.
By your above reasoning if Hitler called carrots the greatest vegetable of all time we should all hate them. Just because Hitler liked something doesnt make it evil.
I stopped reading after you made the claim that people making more money will be able to afford fewer products. Cost of labor is only a small part of most products cost to produce. The increase in end product cost shouldnt even cancel out a wage increase let alone make the net gain to the recipiant negative.
This of course changes when people start saving their money from wage increases instead of spending it so there is a ceiling to what can be done with minimum wage.
If you scroll down to the table where they list every increase in national minimum wage and its effect on job growth you can plainly see that minimum wage increases seem to have very little effect on overall employment in a historic context. Some increases lead to job losses, some to job gains.
So because school teachers who (while I agree are under paid) get 3 months off every year might end up making the same as "burger flippers", we shouldn't boost minimum wage?
So you'd like your food served to you by people living in poverty?
A major change up is coming in terms of how we see human labor. A change in labor costs in favor of labor in the short term is humane and only helps improve quite a few people's standard of living. In the long term, it is only speeding up the inevitable long term question of how we spend or society's wealth. Our wealthy can continue to pretend to live in a self righteous void and be slaughtered like French royalty during the French revolution wondering why the common folk can't just eat cake or it can decide that maybe their wealth is owed to the societies they live in and cede some of it back to everyone.
Would Bill Gates be anything if he was born in Somalia? Would any of the world's billionaires? Every hugely successful person owes a debt to the society they live in and we are getting closer and closer to the need for them to pay some back.
It's exactly double that by most measurements I've seen. So companies will have to raise prices? There will be more people able to afford them which will only help their bottom line. Henry Ford acted with a great bit of social responsibility by paying his employees enough to where they could afford one of his cars. The least a fast food place could do is pay its employees enough to afford one of its shitty meals.
Slashdot Mirror
And Scotland would be accepted no problem. What's to reject?
It's a religion and in every religion there are massively intolerant nut jobs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning religion in general or Christianity specifically but considering there are some pretty strong anti gay feelings amoung certain groups of Christians, to say a Christian would never do something like this is pretty naive.
I think a big part of the problem you describe is modern media telling us things are way worse in the world than they are. Most people seem to think violent crime in the last 70 years has gone up in America when it has done almost nothing but gone down. Likewise, war in this world we live in? We live in one of the most peaceful periods in global history and yet modern media crams the few truly tragic events happening around the world down our throats like they are the norm.
You're ridiculous. You've just claimed resolution on a debate that didn't happen
This conversation has never been about neo-marxism but it has seem to have become whatever tangent you want to run to. You clearly can't defend Hillary as a Marxist because all you have done is attempted to change the subject or redefine certain conditions whenever I try to refocus the conversation on the initial issue of whether Hilary cant be properly called a "Marxist".
Given that her platform makes no effort to eliminate economic classes (which is absolutely key to Marxism) you know you don't have a leg to stand on so you keep running off on tangents.
The fact that you keep redefining the conversation
http://www.differencebetween.c...
Where do you get me calling Clinton and Sanders Marxist-Leninist or even just Marxist? You qoute me talking about how the term Marxism is used in modern parlance and then make up whatever you want. We're talking about another user who called Clinton Marxist. Part of my responce to your claims was that Marxism in the common parlance of our time typically refers to economic issues and not issues of race or gender issues as you described above. ...and then you're diving head first into the tangent that I didnt want to be dragged into and ignoring Marxisms relation to economics which was the point
Of course class was primarily defined by wealth and ones place in the capitalistic economic system so economic issues are key to his philosophies. The proletariat, the bourgeoisie; defined by their place in their current economic system. Of course he does branch off a bit be it's all based off this dominant theme.
You also fail to address the use of the term "Marxist" in modern parlance which is used overwhelmingly in an economic context.
As for your second part, I really have no desire to be drawn into a debate about Liberals being racist, classist or similiar nonsense when both of our parties clearly use ethnic identity and class to further their own gains but not nearly as much as some people like to claim.
Don't get me wrong Bernie is my favored candidate for the nomination but this "the system is rigged" stuff being blamed for Bernie's loss has got to go.
Sure, the Democratic nomination system could certainly be better but with Hillary ahead in the popular vote by over three million votes ( http://www.realclearpolitics.c... ) it's pretty clear she has the popular mandate. Not only did Bernie not get enough votes, he's so far behind that he was cleary not the prefered candidate for the voters. There shouldnt be any controversy here.
When one refers to another as a Marxist I'm pretty sure it's a given that they would elaborate more if it wasn't about the other's economic policy. Economics being Marx's chief concern and most certainly what he's popularly known for today.
In othet words, calling a candidate like Hilary (who in regards to the economy is a moderate) a Marxist without further elaboration like the above post did is obsurd. It's like calling someone a Nazi because they felt certain points of the Nazi's economic policy had merit.
...old people are on average more responsible than young people! Groundbreaking research!
Yes, generalizations are not perfect. Way to point that out.
In the context of how people generally identify ethnicity albinos often look "white". Of course they're pink though, all "white people" are technically a shade or two off from such.
There was a guy who used to show up at a lot of parties I went to years ago. Nobody ever had a clue that he was ethnically Mexican. I remember when he first spoke Spanish around me my reaction was "wow, you speak Spanish really well". We laughed about the aftermath.
Heaven forbid we generalize for convenience sake. Of course there are all sorts of cultures within the generic grouping that is "Asian". Should we not be able to generalize at all? Please tell me what is so "primitive" about grouping people by geographic and historic relations? Will this method be perfect? Of course not but no generalization ever is.
Way to point out border regions cause complications. You havent refuted my point at all.
Why would some one who is content to have how and where their media purchases can be used dictated to them by the company they're buying from care about privacy?
In other words, there is probably a strong cross over between those who care about consumer rights and those who care about privacy. Why would anyone who cares about corporate encroachment dictating how they use their media go with Apple because they supposedly care about privacy? Meanwhile, the bulk of the public could care less about either issue.
Well people can self identify how they would like. Obviously using "white" instead of "European" for ethnic origin creates problems for the data but really at the end of the day there's a continent called Asia, if your ethnic background is from there then you're Asian.
You didnt actually read my post did you? I called you an idiot for claiming that liberals are trying to outlaw automation. Just because you want them to be (as you clearly want me to be even though i said nothing of the sort) doesnt it make it true
So instead of treating his staff as disposable cogs in the machine as many current minimum wage jobs currently do he treated them as humans by paying them a wage high enough to afford one of his cars. Of course this increased employee retention. Just because his actions benefited himself as well doesnt negate my point.
I normally ignore AC comments but this was just too stupidly funny to ignore.
By your above reasoning if Hitler called carrots the greatest vegetable of all time we should all hate them. Just because Hitler liked something doesnt make it evil.
I stopped reading after you made the claim that people making more money will be able to afford fewer products. Cost of labor is only a small part of most products cost to produce. The increase in end product cost shouldnt even cancel out a wage increase let alone make the net gain to the recipiant negative.
This of course changes when people start saving their money from wage increases instead of spending it so there is a ceiling to what can be done with minimum wage.
Of course the data doesnt support that.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
If you scroll down to the table where they list every increase in national minimum wage and its effect on job growth you can plainly see that minimum wage increases seem to have very little effect on overall employment in a historic context. Some increases lead to job losses, some to job gains.
Of course wages make up only a small part of the overall value of a product so you're just plane wrong.
So because school teachers who (while I agree are under paid) get 3 months off every year might end up making the same as "burger flippers", we shouldn't boost minimum wage?
So you'd like your food served to you by people living in poverty?
A major change up is coming in terms of how we see human labor. A change in labor costs in favor of labor in the short term is humane and only helps improve quite a few people's standard of living. In the long term, it is only speeding up the inevitable long term question of how we spend or society's wealth. Our wealthy can continue to pretend to live in a self righteous void and be slaughtered like French royalty during the French revolution wondering why the common folk can't just eat cake or it can decide that maybe their wealth is owed to the societies they live in and cede some of it back to everyone.
Would Bill Gates be anything if he was born in Somalia? Would any of the world's billionaires? Every hugely successful person owes a debt to the society they live in and we are getting closer and closer to the need for them to pay some back.
It's exactly double that by most measurements I've seen. So companies will have to raise prices? There will be more people able to afford them which will only help their bottom line. Henry Ford acted with a great bit of social responsibility by paying his employees enough to where they could afford one of his cars. The least a fast food place could do is pay its employees enough to afford one of its shitty meals.