Get rid of the bad students (and the notion that they're entitled to an education), make the schools safer, and there will be more interest in teaching.
1) Getting rid of "bad students" without any consideration to why they are "bad" will do nothing to stop the actual problem you speak of..namely them being "hoodlums who don't want to learn." Nothing good comes from treating any segment of society as of less worth then any other.
2) Students will only take education as seriously as it is instilled in them that it is serious. While this task certianly rest on the parents shoulders above all, inner city schools with little resources to go by and teacher that enter the situation feeling, much like you do, that these "bad" kids are just dangerous and incapable of learning, it's pretty easy to just give up on yourself as well.
3) I know teachers. They get by. But barely, esp. in the city where standards of living are higher and the best teachers are NEEDED. And frankly, with salaries anything less then better that comperable careers within the same disciple, there is no insentive to become a teacher. Even with a good classroom it is still an very deficult, mentally and phycially taxing job that most people CAN'T do well.
Excelant point friend! Maybe this kid didnt have specific message (though anyone growing up smart and poor in the pathetic public schools we have in this country has every reason to want to stick it the system) but this is basically modern day civil disobendance. Of course its against the law, even more so of course it only crime is creating a material loss. That is kind of the point, the rediculousness of a system that so in love with the idea of privite property it ignores people.
Besides, this kid is obviously smart and has time on his hands. We should be taking kids like this, find out what they wants to do in life and giving them everything they need to get it. These unfortunately are end up being the kids that end up dead, in the streets or in the military. Lest that how it was where I come from.
Then what do you suggest? Hacking govenment up alone can't be a good solution. the fact remains that unless smart people like those on these forums start talking possible improvements to our governmental system, things will just get worse. That is what democracy is suppose to be about after all. So speak to the problems of the system.
The mirror example is only one why this condition can be manifest. The condition can be met with reference to sound, assuming a situation where hearing is the dominate sense. Its just a point where you recongize the difference between internal sound and external sounds. Self awareness is not special, it is exactly what is says, being aware that there is a self. How can that statement have any meaning unless there is some external stimuli that you are seperate from the rest of the world? Perhaps you are just a little bias in this case
Im really finding the critisims of this all over this board to be interesting. It basically comes down to "reconizing a pattern that is my own is cool and all, but obviously conscienseness is more complicated then that." Ummm....why? I mean arent you a little biased? Last I heard what is conscienceness is still an open question. And really in all things we do, even the most complicated, it is still just a function of recognizing a particualar situation and that we as an entitiy can do something about that. Whether we are deciding to get an apple or a pear for lunch, or whether we should quit our job or not, its at least possible that it simply comes down to recongizing and reacting to a pattern.
This is all based on the assumption that there are loads of idiots out there that will randomly decide to edit articles of which they have no knowledge. True, this becomes a problem with more derisive subjects, but for, say, an article on the history of string theory or the description of last week's episode of Battlestar Galactica, why would a person who has no real knowledge of the subject go on this article in the first place...let alone be compelled to edit it?
What is interesting about the wikipedia debate is that it goes into the how we view humanity as a collective body in general. Are most people idiots or experts? What qualifies someone as an expert? What is a bias? How does even introducing the concept of expert effect the dissemination and censorship of information? Debate is all well and good, but when it comes down to it, no one can prove all people (excluding you, dear/.er) are stupid, evil idiots and no one can prove that all people are intelligent, reasonable individuals.
Besides, even now in our modern goggled age, school textbooks are riddled with errors, present vastly different views of histories depending on the region (even within a single country) and no one seems to mind or question. Wikipedia, even at it's worst, at least acknowledges the subjective of the idea of truth and expertise itself. And furthermore, unlike authoritative texts, it allows the reader to be an active participant and invites debate. Imagine the possibilities of a school system where all the students where encourage to help create the textbooks themselves instead of memorizing facts they assume are true without any thought?
Of course this all IMHO.
Because hell, I don't really know if wikipedia exists at all.
There are things worst then jail, my friend. Taking the long view, what then happens when no public univerties exist? What choice is there then? Even if freedom of speech in theory exists, the lack of any public space makes these freedoms irrelavent. Combime with this the (quite understandable in free market term) goal of consolidation of power in the private relam and you have world where the constitution doesn't really matter. Even in our current society, public institutions are often looked down upon compared to more elite private intitutions. What choice is there?
The framers where not gods... just because something is currently not illegal doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Time change and laws should be change to accomadate. Thank god for free speech that all people, regardless of their background, can help inform the government on what these changes could entail. We can only hope that things will remain this way in the future.
Is life that important that there is no future, no matter how dark, worth risking your life fighting against? It is a sad state of affairs, we amercan. A nation founded on fighting the status quo laydowning down without a fight without a peep.
What is your point here? That it is simply impossible for government to be honest so the hell with it? That human nature is so inherently vile and selfish it is a pointless exercise to push for anything otherwise? The human species has reach unbelievable technological highs is a extremely small amount of time. Why not try (and fail and try again) to make societies that actually work for everyone? How is the question for this goal any less lofty or noble or intelectually interesting then any other?
(oh ya...it's not profitable...what does profitablity mean again? You mean like...it's worth more bananas and an extra hug from your mother?)
Actually, the current generation tend to watch damatically less tv then previously. Video games and just simple blog surfing have definately found their niche. And in marketing to teens, use of internet buzz, happenings and other tactics is gaining more and more steam. I think many truely undersestimate how savy our current generation could be. What are the effects of an entire generation of people that are growing up in a society where everyone can talk to everyone everywhere at any time. I think it is nothing less then evolotion of the mind.
Dude, why are you reacting this intensely to this? Microsoft is a COMPANY. Their goal is make as much profit as possible by what ever legal means they can. Of COURSE they should used there patients to stiff such products! That is why patients exist. They need to protect there own property. Each and any every one of these innovate new website's should be sued to the hilt if by Microsoft if they can. What are you...some kind of SOCIALIST!?!?!
I disagree. I think that it will just drive people back into file sharing. The problem is that there is no longer a problem with scarcity when it comes to music, popular music in particular. Variable pricing structures make sense when a product is not easily avalible or there are excess production costs. These are variables a person can understand and justify towards paying more. But with the rise of digital media, the general public is learning slowly but shorely that the forces that move prices up and down have little to do with the actual product. And further, there are not easy ways for ANYONE to talk about these problems and moblize people to do something about about outside any kind of economic structure. Look at sony and the rootkit thing. Look at the falling profits of popular movies. Peevish email has a lot more currency these days then they use to.
I'm curious, is there ANY fight worth fighting? At what point does money become so important that you are willing to give up all your rights? Just because this is the society we live in does not mean it is the only society that is possible.
I feel there is no need to judge right or wrong specifically. Simply imagine that all people are you, that all people exist just like you exist, the same feelings and motivations, loving and eating and thinking and dieing like you do. Everyone's brain works the same way, so this is not an unusual thought. Thus you could easily be born in the shoes of anyone else in ANY situation in the world. It is a matter of chance that you where born as "you." Thus, why not try to live life as if everyone could be you...that everyone exists as you do. This does not mean that you have an absolute a idea of what everyone wants, not at all. It's more just a sense of universal empathy, that all people ARE people and need to be heard, understood and comunitcated with on there own terms, not on arbitray assumptions we make. Interestingly enough, the bible said it best: Do unto others as you wish them to do to you. Love is God after all.
_warren
Is anyone really as happy and open as they where at 5 years old.
If it is truly possible that that kind of wonder and joy can be accieved on a societal level. I welcome it. Fuck all this...I want to be that happy my whole life.
I have heard some incredible political commentary on Family Guy. Much more in fact then most other dramaic series. Furthermore think about this...when else in history has a show allowed it self to the THAT FREE. This is a sitcom that requires no plot, that is composed entirely of reference. That is a new idea in television writing. That doesn't in the least bit excite you? What happens when naratives don't have to be narative anymore?
in all honesty...yes.
Fuck and shit are a collection of letters that we have decided to give a certain meaning and pronunciation in this culture. In most cases the only reason these words have become "bad" is because they where derived from lower class dialects. But their meaning is arbitrary. We can, and do, change there meanings all the time.
This is one of the problems that face American perceptions of hip-hop, as words like bitch, shit, fuck and nigga simply DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING in poor black American culture. And in the construction of a well made rap, there is constant, very intentional play with what the meaning of a word and structure of sentences. Believe or not, but those that really know hiphop know it's about subverting language. Its not unlike the new musical vocabulary jazz created, another poor black American musical form that was initially decried as primitive, crude and unintelligible. Combine that with the new language of culture where everyone saw that one episode of family guy, and the very idea of how we use language can be challenged.
I think soon people on a mass level will understand that a word is only misspelled if they decide it is. Or that me judging another person's speach as "not proper" or "inarticulate" is just another way of saying that I am ignorance of an entirely different way of comunicating...that I NEED TO LEARN FROM OTHERS. I what i find interesting is that, for the most part, these ideas are seem lost on older generations. And like orwell told us so many years back, those that control language control society. So for fucking sake, yall, question some shit. 4 serious, yo. Holla@yaboi. 1
dude...look at the history of art since the 50s. Art does not exist in a vaccum. One of the hallmarks of post-modernism using materials from culture to make new art or putting cultural iconography in new contexts. That is why a lot of modern art uses branding imaging and actual current events are source material. We live in a world where copyrighted material is our culture. Thus it is the basis for the art of today. With access to it, none of this kind of art can exist.
To take the example of P2P music, look at hiphop. Hiphop is an inherently postmodern form of music, it created music from music and by digitally maniputating music to turn it into something else. And it REQUIRES listening to as much and as deverse types of music as possble. Because of the way distrubtion works, not only is more obsure, interesting source material to work with is hard to fine, but music that is easy to find is so fearcely protected that it cannot be sampled anyway.
Take a step back even from that. Musicians learn from listening to music. You may have a great ear, but if you are poor in a world without P2P you will not have a means to learn what is out there. People dont use P2P because it's free. They do it because the love music and can't get it any other way. When it comes right down to it, our need as humans to hear good music outways the need to line the pockets of people who already have a lot of money. Art is not a comodity that can be owned.
The government can work on it, sure, but the fact of the matter is that a patient is placed on the most straightforward way of creating the vaccine and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The govenment from finding another alternative. And chances are people will already be dead before the government, with less resources and marketing power, can reinvent an entirely different way to solve piviotal problem for which a perfectly good solution already exists. And thus we are right back where we started.
As for your confusion over my last line of argument, what I am saying is this. Obviously capitalism working very well in your life. There are lots of people in this country for whom it does not. Situations like this, where many many people die because of economic self interest is the result. Maybe this is not capitalism's problem. I personally think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. The point is not to be on one side or another or to be pro or anti anything, that was a term you introduced and it's techincally accurate but very limited. The point is to continously question why we have the system we have and how it can be improved for the benefit of everyone. We have a system where bad things can happen pretty easily if one where so inclined and that makes doing these bad things in the best interest of those who hold powers ranes. This is not some "evil pharma corps" fault...it is the fault of the structure of the system. There is no evil, just people working within a system they execpt as the status quo. Thus the last line...why not see how we as a society, as citizens, how we can improve fellow citizens and ultimately the citizens of the entire world. Unfortuantely questioning the way things are is not something we are in the habit of doing, apathy is much easier.
I agree with you. Our laws are not based on what is moral. THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!
The idea of morals is relative, but still, at the very least our government should work in the interests of it's citizens. We live in a country where it is ok to do extremely immoral things legally. And yet if someone who has no money to feed his kids sell drugs and kills no one at 19, he will be put in jail for life. Don't you see something wrong with that? Is that the kind of society you feel confortable living it?
good point. no gun. No in this case the gun is held to the collective heads of an entire nation. We are talking about DRUGS FOR A POSSIBLE PANDEMIC. This is not a bike. this is physical harm on a massive scale. I'm sorry, but if you will no sell me a bike even if it means my family will die, it is am moral act on your head. There is no plosible deniablity here. Money is a CONSTRUCT...we are talking about peoples lives. Do you really feel that at our base humans are so base?
So lets say government competes with the free market. And due to a push of money into R&D one year, a coorporation come up with a AIDS vacince and patients it. Whoopee! But wait, aren't we right back were we started? Once again, the same forces are driving the corporation to protect it's investment in the cure of AIDS. And since the patient is enforced by the government, the public good once again does not come into account.
Also, please stop with the knee jeck response to the idea of an "anti-capitalist." The point is to question, not to label either side. The point is to explore all the options you can. We are still evolving man, and the human race still has tons of room to grow. Can't you at least allow us to see what else is possible?
I think you are missing the point Max. Capitalism is a system based on wealth and wealth alone. And it is also built to facilate transperancy (except in some token ways to a company's stock holders) You are right that unless we actually look thoughly and objective we can't prove these conisidences conspirary theories trumpet. But you can't prove it either. Nobody can because the deals that may or may not have happened are not transpirant to the Public. Further, those that are the alleged targets of these conspiracies are poor, underprivaged and "uneducated" so who is going to believe them over a profitable rich business man. What I am saying is that regardless of what is actually happening, we have a system in place that ALLOWS such things to happen quite easily and that in ITSELF IF WRONG. Alternatives are possible, but obivous not at all profitable.
Really, you would. Why is that? I mean, if even you can acknowledge the strangeness of the situation, shouldn't steps be taken to find out instead of going on blind faith? I mean IF it is that the greedy pharma theory is true, you can imagine how huge the impact is. At some point, isn't it import to question our assumptions about how life is?
Slashdot Mirror
Get rid of the bad students (and the notion that they're entitled to an education), make the schools safer, and there will be more interest in teaching. 1) Getting rid of "bad students" without any consideration to why they are "bad" will do nothing to stop the actual problem you speak of..namely them being "hoodlums who don't want to learn." Nothing good comes from treating any segment of society as of less worth then any other. 2) Students will only take education as seriously as it is instilled in them that it is serious. While this task certianly rest on the parents shoulders above all, inner city schools with little resources to go by and teacher that enter the situation feeling, much like you do, that these "bad" kids are just dangerous and incapable of learning, it's pretty easy to just give up on yourself as well. 3) I know teachers. They get by. But barely, esp. in the city where standards of living are higher and the best teachers are NEEDED. And frankly, with salaries anything less then better that comperable careers within the same disciple, there is no insentive to become a teacher. Even with a good classroom it is still an very deficult, mentally and phycially taxing job that most people CAN'T do well.
Excelant point friend! Maybe this kid didnt have specific message (though anyone growing up smart and poor in the pathetic public schools we have in this country has every reason to want to stick it the system) but this is basically modern day civil disobendance. Of course its against the law, even more so of course it only crime is creating a material loss. That is kind of the point, the rediculousness of a system that so in love with the idea of privite property it ignores people.
Besides, this kid is obviously smart and has time on his hands. We should be taking kids like this, find out what they wants to do in life and giving them everything they need to get it. These unfortunately are end up being the kids that end up dead, in the streets or in the military. Lest that how it was where I come from.
Then what do you suggest? Hacking govenment up alone can't be a good solution. the fact remains that unless smart people like those on these forums start talking possible improvements to our governmental system, things will just get worse. That is what democracy is suppose to be about after all. So speak to the problems of the system.
The mirror example is only one why this condition can be manifest. The condition can be met with reference to sound, assuming a situation where hearing is the dominate sense. Its just a point where you recongize the difference between internal sound and external sounds. Self awareness is not special, it is exactly what is says, being aware that there is a self. How can that statement have any meaning unless there is some external stimuli that you are seperate from the rest of the world? Perhaps you are just a little bias in this case
Im really finding the critisims of this all over this board to be interesting. It basically comes down to "reconizing a pattern that is my own is cool and all, but obviously conscienseness is more complicated then that." Ummm....why? I mean arent you a little biased? Last I heard what is conscienceness is still an open question. And really in all things we do, even the most complicated, it is still just a function of recognizing a particualar situation and that we as an entitiy can do something about that. Whether we are deciding to get an apple or a pear for lunch, or whether we should quit our job or not, its at least possible that it simply comes down to recongizing and reacting to a pattern.
This is all based on the assumption that there are loads of idiots out there that will randomly decide to edit articles of which they have no knowledge. True, this becomes a problem with more derisive subjects, but for, say, an article on the history of string theory or the description of last week's episode of Battlestar Galactica, why would a person who has no real knowledge of the subject go on this article in the first place...let alone be compelled to edit it? What is interesting about the wikipedia debate is that it goes into the how we view humanity as a collective body in general. Are most people idiots or experts? What qualifies someone as an expert? What is a bias? How does even introducing the concept of expert effect the dissemination and censorship of information? Debate is all well and good, but when it comes down to it, no one can prove all people (excluding you, dear /.er) are stupid, evil idiots and no one can prove that all people are intelligent, reasonable individuals.
Besides, even now in our modern goggled age, school textbooks are riddled with errors, present vastly different views of histories depending on the region (even within a single country) and no one seems to mind or question. Wikipedia, even at it's worst, at least acknowledges the subjective of the idea of truth and expertise itself. And furthermore, unlike authoritative texts, it allows the reader to be an active participant and invites debate. Imagine the possibilities of a school system where all the students where encourage to help create the textbooks themselves instead of memorizing facts they assume are true without any thought?
Of course this all IMHO.
Because hell, I don't really know if wikipedia exists at all.
There are things worst then jail, my friend. Taking the long view, what then happens when no public univerties exist? What choice is there then? Even if freedom of speech in theory exists, the lack of any public space makes these freedoms irrelavent. Combime with this the (quite understandable in free market term) goal of consolidation of power in the private relam and you have world where the constitution doesn't really matter. Even in our current society, public institutions are often looked down upon compared to more elite private intitutions. What choice is there?
The framers where not gods... just because something is currently not illegal doesn't mean it shouldn't be. Time change and laws should be change to accomadate. Thank god for free speech that all people, regardless of their background, can help inform the government on what these changes could entail. We can only hope that things will remain this way in the future.
Is life that important that there is no future, no matter how dark, worth risking your life fighting against? It is a sad state of affairs, we amercan. A nation founded on fighting the status quo laydowning down without a fight without a peep.
What is your point here? That it is simply impossible for government to be honest so the hell with it? That human nature is so inherently vile and selfish it is a pointless exercise to push for anything otherwise? The human species has reach unbelievable technological highs is a extremely small amount of time. Why not try (and fail and try again) to make societies that actually work for everyone? How is the question for this goal any less lofty or noble or intelectually interesting then any other? (oh ya...it's not profitable...what does profitablity mean again? You mean like...it's worth more bananas and an extra hug from your mother?)
Actually, the current generation tend to watch damatically less tv then previously. Video games and just simple blog surfing have definately found their niche. And in marketing to teens, use of internet buzz, happenings and other tactics is gaining more and more steam. I think many truely undersestimate how savy our current generation could be. What are the effects of an entire generation of people that are growing up in a society where everyone can talk to everyone everywhere at any time. I think it is nothing less then evolotion of the mind.
Dude, why are you reacting this intensely to this? Microsoft is a COMPANY. Their goal is make as much profit as possible by what ever legal means they can. Of COURSE they should used there patients to stiff such products! That is why patients exist. They need to protect there own property. Each and any every one of these innovate new website's should be sued to the hilt if by Microsoft if they can. What are you...some kind of SOCIALIST!?!?!
I disagree. I think that it will just drive people back into file sharing. The problem is that there is no longer a problem with scarcity when it comes to music, popular music in particular. Variable pricing structures make sense when a product is not easily avalible or there are excess production costs. These are variables a person can understand and justify towards paying more. But with the rise of digital media, the general public is learning slowly but shorely that the forces that move prices up and down have little to do with the actual product. And further, there are not easy ways for ANYONE to talk about these problems and moblize people to do something about about outside any kind of economic structure. Look at sony and the rootkit thing. Look at the falling profits of popular movies. Peevish email has a lot more currency these days then they use to.
I'm curious, is there ANY fight worth fighting? At what point does money become so important that you are willing to give up all your rights? Just because this is the society we live in does not mean it is the only society that is possible.
more like kill at least 50,000 people (not including injuries)
I feel there is no need to judge right or wrong specifically. Simply imagine that all people are you, that all people exist just like you exist, the same feelings and motivations, loving and eating and thinking and dieing like you do. Everyone's brain works the same way, so this is not an unusual thought. Thus you could easily be born in the shoes of anyone else in ANY situation in the world. It is a matter of chance that you where born as "you." Thus, why not try to live life as if everyone could be you...that everyone exists as you do. This does not mean that you have an absolute a idea of what everyone wants, not at all. It's more just a sense of universal empathy, that all people ARE people and need to be heard, understood and comunitcated with on there own terms, not on arbitray assumptions we make. Interestingly enough, the bible said it best: Do unto others as you wish them to do to you. Love is God after all. _warren
Is anyone really as happy and open as they where at 5 years old. If it is truly possible that that kind of wonder and joy can be accieved on a societal level. I welcome it. Fuck all this...I want to be that happy my whole life.
I have heard some incredible political commentary on Family Guy. Much more in fact then most other dramaic series. Furthermore think about this...when else in history has a show allowed it self to the THAT FREE. This is a sitcom that requires no plot, that is composed entirely of reference. That is a new idea in television writing. That doesn't in the least bit excite you? What happens when naratives don't have to be narative anymore?
in all honesty...yes. Fuck and shit are a collection of letters that we have decided to give a certain meaning and pronunciation in this culture. In most cases the only reason these words have become "bad" is because they where derived from lower class dialects. But their meaning is arbitrary. We can, and do, change there meanings all the time. This is one of the problems that face American perceptions of hip-hop, as words like bitch, shit, fuck and nigga simply DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING in poor black American culture. And in the construction of a well made rap, there is constant, very intentional play with what the meaning of a word and structure of sentences. Believe or not, but those that really know hiphop know it's about subverting language. Its not unlike the new musical vocabulary jazz created, another poor black American musical form that was initially decried as primitive, crude and unintelligible. Combine that with the new language of culture where everyone saw that one episode of family guy, and the very idea of how we use language can be challenged. I think soon people on a mass level will understand that a word is only misspelled if they decide it is. Or that me judging another person's speach as "not proper" or "inarticulate" is just another way of saying that I am ignorance of an entirely different way of comunicating...that I NEED TO LEARN FROM OTHERS. I what i find interesting is that, for the most part, these ideas are seem lost on older generations. And like orwell told us so many years back, those that control language control society. So for fucking sake, yall, question some shit. 4 serious, yo. Holla@yaboi. 1
dude...look at the history of art since the 50s. Art does not exist in a vaccum. One of the hallmarks of post-modernism using materials from culture to make new art or putting cultural iconography in new contexts. That is why a lot of modern art uses branding imaging and actual current events are source material. We live in a world where copyrighted material is our culture. Thus it is the basis for the art of today. With access to it, none of this kind of art can exist. To take the example of P2P music, look at hiphop. Hiphop is an inherently postmodern form of music, it created music from music and by digitally maniputating music to turn it into something else. And it REQUIRES listening to as much and as deverse types of music as possble. Because of the way distrubtion works, not only is more obsure, interesting source material to work with is hard to fine, but music that is easy to find is so fearcely protected that it cannot be sampled anyway. Take a step back even from that. Musicians learn from listening to music. You may have a great ear, but if you are poor in a world without P2P you will not have a means to learn what is out there. People dont use P2P because it's free. They do it because the love music and can't get it any other way. When it comes right down to it, our need as humans to hear good music outways the need to line the pockets of people who already have a lot of money. Art is not a comodity that can be owned.
The government can work on it, sure, but the fact of the matter is that a patient is placed on the most straightforward way of creating the vaccine and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The govenment from finding another alternative. And chances are people will already be dead before the government, with less resources and marketing power, can reinvent an entirely different way to solve piviotal problem for which a perfectly good solution already exists. And thus we are right back where we started. As for your confusion over my last line of argument, what I am saying is this. Obviously capitalism working very well in your life. There are lots of people in this country for whom it does not. Situations like this, where many many people die because of economic self interest is the result. Maybe this is not capitalism's problem. I personally think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. The point is not to be on one side or another or to be pro or anti anything, that was a term you introduced and it's techincally accurate but very limited. The point is to continously question why we have the system we have and how it can be improved for the benefit of everyone. We have a system where bad things can happen pretty easily if one where so inclined and that makes doing these bad things in the best interest of those who hold powers ranes. This is not some "evil pharma corps" fault...it is the fault of the structure of the system. There is no evil, just people working within a system they execpt as the status quo. Thus the last line...why not see how we as a society, as citizens, how we can improve fellow citizens and ultimately the citizens of the entire world. Unfortuantely questioning the way things are is not something we are in the habit of doing, apathy is much easier.
I agree with you. Our laws are not based on what is moral. THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!! The idea of morals is relative, but still, at the very least our government should work in the interests of it's citizens. We live in a country where it is ok to do extremely immoral things legally. And yet if someone who has no money to feed his kids sell drugs and kills no one at 19, he will be put in jail for life. Don't you see something wrong with that? Is that the kind of society you feel confortable living it?
good point. no gun. No in this case the gun is held to the collective heads of an entire nation. We are talking about DRUGS FOR A POSSIBLE PANDEMIC. This is not a bike. this is physical harm on a massive scale. I'm sorry, but if you will no sell me a bike even if it means my family will die, it is am moral act on your head. There is no plosible deniablity here. Money is a CONSTRUCT...we are talking about peoples lives. Do you really feel that at our base humans are so base?
So lets say government competes with the free market. And due to a push of money into R&D one year, a coorporation come up with a AIDS vacince and patients it. Whoopee! But wait, aren't we right back were we started? Once again, the same forces are driving the corporation to protect it's investment in the cure of AIDS. And since the patient is enforced by the government, the public good once again does not come into account. Also, please stop with the knee jeck response to the idea of an "anti-capitalist." The point is to question, not to label either side. The point is to explore all the options you can. We are still evolving man, and the human race still has tons of room to grow. Can't you at least allow us to see what else is possible?
I think you are missing the point Max. Capitalism is a system based on wealth and wealth alone. And it is also built to facilate transperancy (except in some token ways to a company's stock holders) You are right that unless we actually look thoughly and objective we can't prove these conisidences conspirary theories trumpet. But you can't prove it either. Nobody can because the deals that may or may not have happened are not transpirant to the Public. Further, those that are the alleged targets of these conspiracies are poor, underprivaged and "uneducated" so who is going to believe them over a profitable rich business man. What I am saying is that regardless of what is actually happening, we have a system in place that ALLOWS such things to happen quite easily and that in ITSELF IF WRONG. Alternatives are possible, but obivous not at all profitable.
Really, you would. Why is that? I mean, if even you can acknowledge the strangeness of the situation, shouldn't steps be taken to find out instead of going on blind faith? I mean IF it is that the greedy pharma theory is true, you can imagine how huge the impact is. At some point, isn't it import to question our assumptions about how life is?