The American Left Slides Into Psychosis - Page 20

Originally Posted by MJ1970

So...

Coercion is justified to stop actions that cost everyone money in the long run.

Have I summarized that correctly?

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Who is "they?"

Originally Posted by jimmac

Oh please! The companies that jazzy was refering to. Don't you read the entire post? You could have answered that one yourself.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

If corporations are "pure evil", then surely you must divorce yourself of anything produced by said "evil" corporations. By using their products and services you are supporting their "evil".

You must immediately retire to a grass hut and live off the fat of the land.

I'd be happy to take any computers or technology off your hands.

Originally Posted by jimmac

They're just trying to make a fast buck and they're not too careful how they do it.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

He did not appear to refer to anyone specifically in this statement:



SO, again, when you said:



Who is "they?"

If corporations are "pure evil", then surely you must divorce yourself of anything produced by said "evil" corporations. By using their products and services you are supporting their "evil".

Originally Posted by jimmac

Yup!

Originally Posted by jimmac

I'm sure you're not suggesting that the govenment just let people start dying left and right becuase of their own stupidity.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Understand?

Originally Posted by MJ1970

OK. So we have established that coercion is justified to stop actions that cost everyone money in the long run.

Now...Since things like running large budge deficits, initiating wars, running a welfare state, et al are all things that are "actions that cost everyone money in the long run" would coercion be justified in stopping those things?




Well, more than suggesting, I'm saying that, in my view, it's beyond the scope and responsibility of government to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their own voluntary choices and actions.

Now...Since things like running large budge deficits, initiating wars, running a welfare state, et al are all things that are "actions that cost everyone money in the long run" would coercion be justified in stopping

in my view, it's beyond the scope and responsibility of government to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their own voluntary choices and actions

Originally Posted by jimmac

Those aren't things that we consume as private citizens so they're in a different catagory. And they aren't directly tied to individual actions.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Those aren't things that we consume as private citizens so they're in a different catagory. And they aren't directly tied to individual actions.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

So you're saying that all corporations are " just trying to make a fast buck and they're not too careful how they do it?"

Originally Posted by MJ1970

OK. So you have further qualifications to the principle: coercion is justified to stop actions that cost everyone money in the long run?

Can you describe these qualifications or exceptions a bit more precisely because this statement:



Seems a bit vague and hand-wavy to me.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Did I say all?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

If corporations are "pure evil", then surely you must divorce yourself of anything produced by said "evil" corporations. By using their products and services you are supporting their "evil".

Originally Posted by jazzguru

If corporations are "pure evil", then surely you must divorce yourself of anything produced by said "evil" corporations. By using their products and services you are supporting their "evil".

Originally Posted by jimmac

Understand?

Originally Posted by jimmac

I'd say probably most.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I was just refering to the particular corporations that jazzy was talking about. In that catagory by their actions.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Now you're playing dumb to walk me into a .......as you would say loaded question.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I mean do individuals directly consume war or budgets?

Originally Posted by MJ1970

When you quoted jazzgurus statement:



You highlight it as follows:



And then said:



So by this I assumed you were implying all corporations since you did not qualify this any further.




OK. So not all, but most. Meaning at least 51%? More?




So you are saying that evil corporations are the one who are "just trying to make a fast buck and they're not too careful how they do it?"

OK. And of all the corporations, this "most"...so more than 51% I guess. And how you determine which are which?

And how you determine which are which

Well, in a way they do. But the principle that you appear to have agreed to was:

Do you no longer agree with this statement?

Originally Posted by jimmac

I've already said " I'd say most ".

Originally Posted by jimmac

By their actions.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I don't remember sighting[sic] specific ones. You're the one who's pursuing that line of thought.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

At least 51%? More?




All their actions or do they just need to do one evil thing and they are then evil?




Well, yes because you're "they're" was unclear to me. Thanks for clarifying.

At least 51%? More?

All their actions or do they just need to do one evil thing and they are then evil?

Originally Posted by jimmac

Why don't you do a study?

Originally Posted by jimmac

Wouldn't you say one's enough?

Originally Posted by jimmac

And my statement wasn't aimed at branding corporations as evil.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I said they're just trying to make a fast buck and they're not too careful how they do it.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I've never said they're evil.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I'd say more misguided.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Maybe you're getting jazzy's and my statements mixed up?

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I am merely asking what you mean by "most" in this case. Simple question. But, mathematically I guess that would have to be a minimum of > 50%. That's fine. So you think that more than 50% of the corporations are evil (based on their actions).




I'm asking what you think.

What I think is that individual actions can be judged as good or evil (this valuation, of course is either subjective and entirely worthless or based on some objective moral code.) Whether an individual or group or organization could be called "evil" (or "good") would probably have to be based on the preponderance of the categorization of their actions.

But it sounds like you think that one evil action and that organization is deemed evil. Is that correct?




Whether it was aimed at that or not, that's where we've ended up and you haven't backed away from it. If you would like to provide some other characterization now, I'd love to hear it.




Yes, we've already established that the "they" you were referring to were "evil" corporations (as defined by their actions).




When you look at the statements in aggregate and their linkages it sure looks like you did.




OK. So not evil but "misguided." Hmmm...OK. So this is a little more vague than evil, but you're saying that:

Most (> 50%) of the corporation are "misguided" based on your characterization that "they're just trying to make a fast buck and they're not too careful how they do it?"




I don't think I am.

Yes, we've already established that the "they" you were referring to were "evil" corporations (as defined by their actions).

When you look at the statements in aggregate and their linkages it sure looks like you did.

But it sounds like you think that one evil action and that organization is deemed evil. Is that correct?

Originally Posted by jimmac

As defined by jazzy. Show me where I said they were " Evil " originally before you decided to get stuck there.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Well...you seemed to have "clarified" your position here. Let's move on. So you think that:

Most (> 50%) corporations are "misguided" based on your characterization that "they're just trying to make a fast buck and they're not too careful how they do it?"

Have I summarized that correctly?

Originally Posted by jimmac

By that I mean they'd favor profit over health concerns.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

So, you believe that most (> 50%) corporations are guided by profit in opposition to health concerns?

Just that I'm as clear as possible, do you assume that just because a corporation is pursuing a profit that it will always ignore health concerns?

Originally Posted by segovius

More untruth...practically everyone I know thinks this (more or less - minus the irrational hyperbole) and is proud to admit it.

In fact, they very often state it in the course of opposing the excesses of these corporations.

I certainly hold this view and have never denied it.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

So, you believe most (> 50%) corporations are guided by profit to the exclusion of health concerns?

Just that I'm as clear as possible: Do you assume that just because a corporation is pursuing a profit that it will always ignore health concerns?

Originally Posted by jimmac

MJ this is a gigantic watse of my time. Focus on those tiny things that really only have an impact on the topic if you twist them a certain way if you want.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

You claimed earlier I was uninterested in dialogue. This is dialogue. I'm trying to arrive at a very clear understanding of your position. If it's a waste of time ignore me and don't reply to me.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Oh! So that's what this was really about.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Yes. That's what this is really about.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I should have said menaingful dialog. So we spent all that time off topic. Nice.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

I guess you'll have to provide your definition of meaningful. I thought it was very meaningful. I now have a clearer idea of where you stand on a couple of things. You believe:

1. Coercion is justified to stop actions that cost everyone money in the long run.
2. Most (> 50%) corporations are guided by profit to the exclusion of health concerns.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I could buy tickets to this. I see his replies through your quotes, and watch you slam him every time. It's like watching my avatar argue with him. We've been down this road a thousand times.

<makes more popcorn>

Originally Posted by jimmac

Yeah. He slams me with his stupid off topic game.

Originally Posted by jimmac

I tried to have a genuine conversation with him and all the time he was looking for a way to slam me. I saw it that way also. He didn't have a point other than thumbing his nose at me and pretending to have a dialog.

Originally Posted by jimmac

He might as well been just saying " Why ? " to every statement I made.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Just like a little kid.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Sorry that you feel my trying to clearly understand your position on items posted in the thread is a "game."




No. I was genuinely trying to get a clear understanding of your view on some items that were posted in this thread.




No. I was asking specific and precise questions in an effort to get a clear understanding of your view on some items that were posted in this thread. That's part of what dialogue is.




No. This is how adults try to converse. They try to understand one another. They ask questions to clarify. They try to avoid assumptions if those assumption have a high probability of being wrong and creating conflict and confusion in the discussion.

Children however...well...they hand wave away questions. They try to misdirect and obfuscate especially when they have been caught in an embarrassing or awkward position. While adults sometimes use snarky, sarcastic and facetious comments, these being the junk food of coversation...they try not to make it the entire diet...whereas children often do eating lots and lots of such verbal "junk food." Children do things like accuse others of certain conduct like extreme partisanship and partisan blindness while being either ignorant of or simply denying their own guilt in that regard.

That's how little kids operate.

They try to misdirect and obfuscate especially when they have been caught in an embarrassing or awkward position.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

SDW2001, will you please pass the popcorn?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

<passes popcorn>

<mmm. popcorn>

Originally Posted by SDW2001

<passes popcorn>

<mmm. popcorn>

I see his replies through your quotes,

Originally Posted by jazzguru

<nom nom nom...>