Plea to Yanks and Rednecks
-
Let me explain, Some of my scum fellow countrymen have seen fit to allow a Green party (commies) come into a position of power here in NZ. One of their negociation points is to get NZ forces to withdraw from Afghanistan. In the words of Pres G.W.Bush "You are either with us or against us" means we are in effect yurning against the US and the rest of the world. So yes it looks like NZ is joining the tri-axis of evil now. As far as I am concerned the USA is now within its rights to invade ( Although probably won't since we have no oil.) Anyhow if the USA is feeling compassionate and decides to invade, it would be a doodle as we recently sold our strike force to our closest aggressor, and most of our military are away from home. Has anyone got any suggestions as to how this can be solved ? Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said byRoger Wright about me.
If ya'll sprang for a case a' coors, I'll run down to the trailer park and round up some of the boys. We'll pack up and be rat down with guns loaded. All we ask for in return (aside from beer money) is a nice double wide located within belching distance of a quick mart and/or a Target super store, but as far away from any school as possible (we don't want our kids wasting their young lives associating with the over educated) :) I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
-
Since I made my post I have been giving this some serious thought. Facts. 1. The US is capitalist, 2. The NZ government is extremly stupid. The US could contract our NZ army to invade NZ for them, they know the terrain etc. Once the invasion is complete the US invoices the new puppet government for the cost of the invasion and a commission. Thus they make a profit, and they also get a puppet government that will follow their lead. What's so great about this, is that everybody including myself will be happy. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Colin, but we have no plans to invade anytime soon. All you have is a fair number of sheep and a volcanic rock to perch on, and we have plenty of both here. But do let us know if you discover any large deposits of diamond or platinum. Policies do change from time to time.:-D "Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "Recursion." "Recursion who?" "Knock, knock..."
-
F**king commies. I hate the whole lefty lot. They are nothing but pseudo-intellectuals with too much time on their hands. Or losers. I wish they get what they wish for: I would love to see their faces when their government adopted their soft-headed policies and they see the results. The left is a bunch of morons and losers with soft-hearted ideas. The gulags are too good for them. Socialism is fundamentally flawed. But try to tell them that. Oh, glad I got that off my chest :) bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
Brian Azzopardi wrote: I would love to see their faces when their government adopted their soft-headed policies and they see the results. All they have to do is visit the People's Republic of California to see the result. Your description is apt: Brian Azzopardi wrote: a bunch of morons and losers with soft-hearted ideas. Except that I would substitute "headed" for "hearted" to be perfectly accurate. "Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "Recursion." "Recursion who?" "Knock, knock..."
-
If ya'll sprang for a case a' coors, I'll run down to the trailer park and round up some of the boys. We'll pack up and be rat down with guns loaded. All we ask for in return (aside from beer money) is a nice double wide located within belching distance of a quick mart and/or a Target super store, but as far away from any school as possible (we don't want our kids wasting their young lives associating with the over educated) :) I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
Halleluja!! I'll sign on, and I'll bring a bunch of my redneck neighbors. They may call us trailer trash, but we can shoot straight, drunk or sober! "Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "Recursion." "Recursion who?" "Knock, knock..."
-
Brian Azzopardi wrote: I would love to see their faces when their government adopted their soft-headed policies and they see the results. All they have to do is visit the People's Republic of California to see the result. Your description is apt: Brian Azzopardi wrote: a bunch of morons and losers with soft-hearted ideas. Except that I would substitute "headed" for "hearted" to be perfectly accurate. "Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "Recursion." "Recursion who?" "Knock, knock..."
In their quest to build utopia the lefties come up with these nice, heart-warming policies thus making anyone who opposes them appear to be a cold-blooded bastard with not consience. Who doesnt want to help the poor, feed the hungry, stop cruelty to animals, etc? In real life however resources are finite and tough decisions have to be made. This, however, does not even begin to enter the mind of the naive left. When you ask them how they will finance their policies they respond with ever higher-taxes. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
Halleluja!! I'll sign on, and I'll bring a bunch of my redneck neighbors. They may call us trailer trash, but we can shoot straight, drunk or sober! "Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "Recursion." "Recursion who?" "Knock, knock..."
Well, OK. But we're not sharing our beer! I'm not a real reverend, I just play one on CP.
-
In their quest to build utopia the lefties come up with these nice, heart-warming policies thus making anyone who opposes them appear to be a cold-blooded bastard with not consience. Who doesnt want to help the poor, feed the hungry, stop cruelty to animals, etc? In real life however resources are finite and tough decisions have to be made. This, however, does not even begin to enter the mind of the naive left. When you ask them how they will finance their policies they respond with ever higher-taxes. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
The next time these morons come demanding your money to help the unfortunate, ask them how much of their personal time and money they spend providing direct assistance to the needy. That usually shuts them up, or they launch into a detailed description of the hard lobbying they do to get others to part with their wealth. Useless idiots. I devote many hours (even when working) to assisting people because I believe it's the right thing to do. Communities, real people with a vision and a goal working together, solve problems. Governments and taxes never do. Those who propose that we all accept less of the fruits of our own labors in order to fund another pack of useless bureaucrats to administer some new program rarely, if ever, have dirtied their hands giving food to a starving family, canvassing motels for short-term housing for a homeless family, providing a ride to an elderly person to a doctor's office, nor any other actual work of charity. Let them back their demands with examples of their own good works, and I'll be willing to listen with a more sympathetic ear! "Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "Recursion." "Recursion who?" "Knock, knock..."
-
In their quest to build utopia the lefties come up with these nice, heart-warming policies thus making anyone who opposes them appear to be a cold-blooded bastard with not consience. Who doesnt want to help the poor, feed the hungry, stop cruelty to animals, etc? In real life however resources are finite and tough decisions have to be made. This, however, does not even begin to enter the mind of the naive left. When you ask them how they will finance their policies they respond with ever higher-taxes. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
And you alternative is ... what exactly? The status quo? Rampant corporate fraud and company execs using company pension schemes as their personal piggy banks? I have always known that capitalism isn't perfect, but I think we are just seeing the very tip of the iceberg with Enron, WorldCom, etc. Who the f*** gave people like this the right to jeopordize MY future by helping reduce my pension to something next to worthless, etc. etc.. You are knocking "the left" so I guess you must must be on "the right" - what would YOU do to make the world a better place? Seriously - what would you change? Please tell me how we can aim for a better society? It's easy to knock the woolly-liberal-bleeding-hearts but do you have a better solution? Is the world fine as it is? Do we all live in a just and fair society? Is this a pipedream? Are people naturally greedy? Here are some things I want. If they make me a f***ing commie, then so be it: * Decent healthcare for all. They have the best health-care system in the world in France, but here in the UK it's straining. Should we follow their lead? * A cleaner environment and less pollution. Does that make me a tree-hugging vegan commie pig? * An end to bogotry - sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. There are many bigots here on CP - doesn't that make people sad? Why is it that "the right" seem to get tainted with the racism brush? (certainly here in the UK that is what people would have you believe). * A decent public transport system so fewer people need a car. I would happily pay more taxes for this but would pumping billions and billions actually make any difference? If not, why? Is there an alternative? (driving in the UK is getting more and more stressful year by year). * People should be able to come and live in this country and better their lives by working hard, WITHOUT being treated like s*** - something the right-wing press in the UK do very well - pushing peoples buttons about asylum seekers. Let's debate these issues. I think deep down I am probably a bit of a leftie on many issues ... or am I? Convince me otherwise.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
And you alternative is ... what exactly? The status quo? Rampant corporate fraud and company execs using company pension schemes as their personal piggy banks? I have always known that capitalism isn't perfect, but I think we are just seeing the very tip of the iceberg with Enron, WorldCom, etc. Who the f*** gave people like this the right to jeopordize MY future by helping reduce my pension to something next to worthless, etc. etc.. You are knocking "the left" so I guess you must must be on "the right" - what would YOU do to make the world a better place? Seriously - what would you change? Please tell me how we can aim for a better society? It's easy to knock the woolly-liberal-bleeding-hearts but do you have a better solution? Is the world fine as it is? Do we all live in a just and fair society? Is this a pipedream? Are people naturally greedy? Here are some things I want. If they make me a f***ing commie, then so be it: * Decent healthcare for all. They have the best health-care system in the world in France, but here in the UK it's straining. Should we follow their lead? * A cleaner environment and less pollution. Does that make me a tree-hugging vegan commie pig? * An end to bogotry - sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. There are many bigots here on CP - doesn't that make people sad? Why is it that "the right" seem to get tainted with the racism brush? (certainly here in the UK that is what people would have you believe). * A decent public transport system so fewer people need a car. I would happily pay more taxes for this but would pumping billions and billions actually make any difference? If not, why? Is there an alternative? (driving in the UK is getting more and more stressful year by year). * People should be able to come and live in this country and better their lives by working hard, WITHOUT being treated like s*** - something the right-wing press in the UK do very well - pushing peoples buttons about asylum seekers. Let's debate these issues. I think deep down I am probably a bit of a leftie on many issues ... or am I? Convince me otherwise.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: An end to bogotry - sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. I'm assuming you meant bigotry. But it's still a bit sloppy; there are sexist people who are not bigots, etc. And there are certainly bigots who are neither sexist, nor racist, nor homophobic, etc. So, although there are certainly bigots on CP, it doesn't sound like that's your real problem. (correct me if i'm wrong on this) You do seem to have a serious issue with people who draw distinctions between others based on the attributes/behaviors you've mentioned. Is this because of your understanding of these specific attributes/behaviors (i.e., the realization that race is generally not particularly useful for categorizing people), or do you simply believe that we should *never* draw distinctions between our fellow humans? There is a real difference between the two, and many people are afraid to admit which one is their primary motive, even to themselves. (yes, there are a couple of other points in your post i'd like to discuss, but this one is probably the most important.)
---
Shog9 If I could sleep forever, I could forget about everything...
-
And you alternative is ... what exactly? The status quo? Rampant corporate fraud and company execs using company pension schemes as their personal piggy banks? I have always known that capitalism isn't perfect, but I think we are just seeing the very tip of the iceberg with Enron, WorldCom, etc. Who the f*** gave people like this the right to jeopordize MY future by helping reduce my pension to something next to worthless, etc. etc.. You are knocking "the left" so I guess you must must be on "the right" - what would YOU do to make the world a better place? Seriously - what would you change? Please tell me how we can aim for a better society? It's easy to knock the woolly-liberal-bleeding-hearts but do you have a better solution? Is the world fine as it is? Do we all live in a just and fair society? Is this a pipedream? Are people naturally greedy? Here are some things I want. If they make me a f***ing commie, then so be it: * Decent healthcare for all. They have the best health-care system in the world in France, but here in the UK it's straining. Should we follow their lead? * A cleaner environment and less pollution. Does that make me a tree-hugging vegan commie pig? * An end to bogotry - sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. There are many bigots here on CP - doesn't that make people sad? Why is it that "the right" seem to get tainted with the racism brush? (certainly here in the UK that is what people would have you believe). * A decent public transport system so fewer people need a car. I would happily pay more taxes for this but would pumping billions and billions actually make any difference? If not, why? Is there an alternative? (driving in the UK is getting more and more stressful year by year). * People should be able to come and live in this country and better their lives by working hard, WITHOUT being treated like s*** - something the right-wing press in the UK do very well - pushing peoples buttons about asylum seekers. Let's debate these issues. I think deep down I am probably a bit of a leftie on many issues ... or am I? Convince me otherwise.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: And you alternative is ... what exactly? The status quo? Rampant corporate fraud and company execs using company pension schemes as their personal piggy banks? I have always known that capitalism isn't perfect, but I think we are just seeing the very tip of the iceberg with Enron, WorldCom, etc. Who the f*** gave people like this the right to jeopordize MY future by helping reduce my pension to something next to worthless, etc. etc.. You are knocking "the left" so I guess you must must be on "the right" - what would YOU do to make the world a better place? Seriously - what would you change? Stop and consider,however, that, aside from all those who sadly lost so much of their retirement, the other group of people who are most hurt by this insider trading activity are all the honest coorporations and their CEO's. They have been pummled. Enron, etc, did not practice capitalism, they betrayed it and should be punished for it. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: * Decent healthcare for all. They have the best health-care system in the world in France, but here in the UK it's straining. Should we follow their lead? Impossible to achieve. The system in France will ultimate go the same way as yours. Nothing is free. When you make public funds available to pay for a service or commodity, you simply make that service or commodity more valuble, hence more expensive, due to the mere fact that there is now more money available in the economy to pay for it. The best way to give everyone access to health care is to immediately outlaw both private and public health insurance programs of any kind. Let market forces dictate medical costs, and everyone will be much more able to avail themselves of higher quality medical care. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: * A cleaner environment and less pollution. At what cost? Are we to return to a preindustrial technology to have a pristine environment? I think coorporations that pollute should be fined if they exceed certain limits. Higher taxes on gasoline would be devastating for the U.S. economy. You simply could not get mass transport systems built to every place people need to go in the U.S. . People would not, could not, use it. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: * An end to bogotry - sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. There are many bigots here on CP - doesn't that make people sad? Why is it that "the right" seem to ge
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: An end to bogotry - sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. I'm assuming you meant bigotry. But it's still a bit sloppy; there are sexist people who are not bigots, etc. And there are certainly bigots who are neither sexist, nor racist, nor homophobic, etc. So, although there are certainly bigots on CP, it doesn't sound like that's your real problem. (correct me if i'm wrong on this) You do seem to have a serious issue with people who draw distinctions between others based on the attributes/behaviors you've mentioned. Is this because of your understanding of these specific attributes/behaviors (i.e., the realization that race is generally not particularly useful for categorizing people), or do you simply believe that we should *never* draw distinctions between our fellow humans? There is a real difference between the two, and many people are afraid to admit which one is their primary motive, even to themselves. (yes, there are a couple of other points in your post i'd like to discuss, but this one is probably the most important.)
---
Shog9 If I could sleep forever, I could forget about everything...
Shog9 wrote: I'm assuming you meant bigotry. OK, I was in full rant mode :-D. Let me clarify. Bigotry in general is my pet hate, and I didn't word it at all well. What I mean is bigotry in the sense of people being intolerant to others that differ from them. I don't really understand how people can judge others becauase they have a problem with their race/religion/sexual preference, etc. Hey, I'm not a big fan of organized religion (let's not got there just now), but I'll respect your beliefs and I certainly won't judge you because of it! You know what I'm getting at Shog. Of course peoeple should draw some distinctions - but based on each individual - people are different and some people aren't very nice at all - but distinctions should be based on someones attitude/actions and not on their, for example, racial group. Categorizing people and making generalisations is always going to end in tears for someone.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: And you alternative is ... what exactly? The status quo? Rampant corporate fraud and company execs using company pension schemes as their personal piggy banks? I have always known that capitalism isn't perfect, but I think we are just seeing the very tip of the iceberg with Enron, WorldCom, etc. Who the f*** gave people like this the right to jeopordize MY future by helping reduce my pension to something next to worthless, etc. etc.. You are knocking "the left" so I guess you must must be on "the right" - what would YOU do to make the world a better place? Seriously - what would you change? Stop and consider,however, that, aside from all those who sadly lost so much of their retirement, the other group of people who are most hurt by this insider trading activity are all the honest coorporations and their CEO's. They have been pummled. Enron, etc, did not practice capitalism, they betrayed it and should be punished for it. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: * Decent healthcare for all. They have the best health-care system in the world in France, but here in the UK it's straining. Should we follow their lead? Impossible to achieve. The system in France will ultimate go the same way as yours. Nothing is free. When you make public funds available to pay for a service or commodity, you simply make that service or commodity more valuble, hence more expensive, due to the mere fact that there is now more money available in the economy to pay for it. The best way to give everyone access to health care is to immediately outlaw both private and public health insurance programs of any kind. Let market forces dictate medical costs, and everyone will be much more able to avail themselves of higher quality medical care. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: * A cleaner environment and less pollution. At what cost? Are we to return to a preindustrial technology to have a pristine environment? I think coorporations that pollute should be fined if they exceed certain limits. Higher taxes on gasoline would be devastating for the U.S. economy. You simply could not get mass transport systems built to every place people need to go in the U.S. . People would not, could not, use it. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: * An end to bogotry - sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. There are many bigots here on CP - doesn't that make people sad? Why is it that "the right" seem to ge
Reverend Stan wrote: They have been pummled. Enron, etc, did not practice capitalism, they betrayed it and should be punished for it. I totally agree, but I fear they may be many more Enrons before things settle down. There are a lot of worried CEOs out there right now I'll wager. AOL - Time Warner ... mmmm ... that could be next. Greed at the end of the day, is to blame. But are most people no inherently greedy? And if so, doesn't this make Enron, WorldCom, etc. inevitable? Of course, the CEOs should be punished - and heavily - but will it be enough? This is an open question - I am really interested to hear what people think about this. Reverend Stan wrote: Let market forces dictate medical costs, and everyone will be much more able to avail themselves of higher quality medical care. How? What about people that cannot afford it? How do we protect them? Do the rest of us pay for it? If so, how? Reverend Stan wrote: At what cost? Are we to return to a preindustrial technology to have a pristine environment? Nope, but I think we are going to get bitten on the ass by this sooner or later. I think the jury is still out on what damage us humans have done to the planet, but I think we should start considering what to do IF we have f*cked things up. A mass-transit system may not work in the US, but surely alternatives to gasoline should be sought without the oil companies throwing a spanner in the works? It may not happen for a while, but oil/gas reserves are going to run dry and the price will go up. Reverend Stan wrote: ...and should be free to discriminate according to their own personal moral beliefs So, someone responsible for, say hiring staff at a company should be able to discriminate against black people? There has to be some protection! Sure, think what you like - but being "free to discriminate" needs some clarification Stan!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Reverend Stan wrote: They have been pummled. Enron, etc, did not practice capitalism, they betrayed it and should be punished for it. I totally agree, but I fear they may be many more Enrons before things settle down. There are a lot of worried CEOs out there right now I'll wager. AOL - Time Warner ... mmmm ... that could be next. Greed at the end of the day, is to blame. But are most people no inherently greedy? And if so, doesn't this make Enron, WorldCom, etc. inevitable? Of course, the CEOs should be punished - and heavily - but will it be enough? This is an open question - I am really interested to hear what people think about this. Reverend Stan wrote: Let market forces dictate medical costs, and everyone will be much more able to avail themselves of higher quality medical care. How? What about people that cannot afford it? How do we protect them? Do the rest of us pay for it? If so, how? Reverend Stan wrote: At what cost? Are we to return to a preindustrial technology to have a pristine environment? Nope, but I think we are going to get bitten on the ass by this sooner or later. I think the jury is still out on what damage us humans have done to the planet, but I think we should start considering what to do IF we have f*cked things up. A mass-transit system may not work in the US, but surely alternatives to gasoline should be sought without the oil companies throwing a spanner in the works? It may not happen for a while, but oil/gas reserves are going to run dry and the price will go up. Reverend Stan wrote: ...and should be free to discriminate according to their own personal moral beliefs So, someone responsible for, say hiring staff at a company should be able to discriminate against black people? There has to be some protection! Sure, think what you like - but being "free to discriminate" needs some clarification Stan!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: but will it be enough? i doubt it. corporate scandals have been around as long as corporations. each time, the govt fixes a loophole, some bright scumbag finds a new one to exploit. it's human nature. i agree that the US needs to get off the oil teat sooner or later. and, i think the automakers should get off the SUV kick, or that govt should do the right thing and reclassify them as trucks. c-
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917 -
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: but will it be enough? i doubt it. corporate scandals have been around as long as corporations. each time, the govt fixes a loophole, some bright scumbag finds a new one to exploit. it's human nature. i agree that the US needs to get off the oil teat sooner or later. and, i think the automakers should get off the SUV kick, or that govt should do the right thing and reclassify them as trucks. c-
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917Chris Losinger wrote: it's human nature. Sadly, this is what I fear. The next few months are going to be interesting. Chris Losinger wrote: i agree that the US needs to get off the oil teat sooner or later. The sooner the better IMHO. I'm sure there are plenty more reserves of oil/gas, but they are in some pretty inhospitable places - getting it out of the ground will be very expensive. And if "Son of Gulf War II" kicks off, then the price may go up high enough to hurt us all...
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Shog9 wrote: I'm assuming you meant bigotry. OK, I was in full rant mode :-D. Let me clarify. Bigotry in general is my pet hate, and I didn't word it at all well. What I mean is bigotry in the sense of people being intolerant to others that differ from them. I don't really understand how people can judge others becauase they have a problem with their race/religion/sexual preference, etc. Hey, I'm not a big fan of organized religion (let's not got there just now), but I'll respect your beliefs and I certainly won't judge you because of it! You know what I'm getting at Shog. Of course peoeple should draw some distinctions - but based on each individual - people are different and some people aren't very nice at all - but distinctions should be based on someones attitude/actions and not on their, for example, racial group. Categorizing people and making generalisations is always going to end in tears for someone.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
I'll work backwards, just for the heck of it... :D Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Categorizing people and making generalisations is always going to end in tears for someone. Not at all. There are situations where this will happen of course, but to say that we shouldn't make distinctions based on superficial measures is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We *need* these generalizations in order to function in society; it is necessary to assume certain things about a person in order to interact with them. Much as i'd love to have every person i deal with on a daily basis be a close personal friend, it just doesn't work that way. The danger comes from assuming things about a certain group that are not helpful: if i assume people driving police cars will pull me over if i drive too fast, i'm helping myself avoid traffic tickets. If i assume people driving white cars will kill me should i drive too slowly, i'm gonna end up in trouble. Nothing wrong with assuming female coworkers will act a bit stressed at certain times of the month; but assuming they can't do their jobs will certainly be counterproductive. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I don't really understand how people can judge others becauase they have a problem with their race/religion/sexual preference, etc. Easily - the same way i can assume a VB programmer doesn't know much about low-level system programming. It's not true across the board, i've known some very knowledgeable VB programmers, and there are plenty of ignorant C++ programmers for that matter, but in quite a few cases the assumption holds true. Now, as i've stated already, you can argue the merits of these classifications, but IMHO, it's easy to see why people make them. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: What I mean is bigotry in the sense of people being intolerant to others that differ from them. Well, i'd call that intolerance, but i do understand why it bothers you. I am saddened that some people will choose to be atheists, but i don't stop being civil towards them knowing this. It is a noble goal that you should, even when disagreeing or disliking another person, still treat them with respect simple because they are a person. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I was in full rant mode Understood :)
---
-
I'll work backwards, just for the heck of it... :D Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Categorizing people and making generalisations is always going to end in tears for someone. Not at all. There are situations where this will happen of course, but to say that we shouldn't make distinctions based on superficial measures is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We *need* these generalizations in order to function in society; it is necessary to assume certain things about a person in order to interact with them. Much as i'd love to have every person i deal with on a daily basis be a close personal friend, it just doesn't work that way. The danger comes from assuming things about a certain group that are not helpful: if i assume people driving police cars will pull me over if i drive too fast, i'm helping myself avoid traffic tickets. If i assume people driving white cars will kill me should i drive too slowly, i'm gonna end up in trouble. Nothing wrong with assuming female coworkers will act a bit stressed at certain times of the month; but assuming they can't do their jobs will certainly be counterproductive. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I don't really understand how people can judge others becauase they have a problem with their race/religion/sexual preference, etc. Easily - the same way i can assume a VB programmer doesn't know much about low-level system programming. It's not true across the board, i've known some very knowledgeable VB programmers, and there are plenty of ignorant C++ programmers for that matter, but in quite a few cases the assumption holds true. Now, as i've stated already, you can argue the merits of these classifications, but IMHO, it's easy to see why people make them. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: What I mean is bigotry in the sense of people being intolerant to others that differ from them. Well, i'd call that intolerance, but i do understand why it bothers you. I am saddened that some people will choose to be atheists, but i don't stop being civil towards them knowing this. It is a noble goal that you should, even when disagreeing or disliking another person, still treat them with respect simple because they are a person. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: I was in full rant mode Understood :)
---
Shog9 wrote: It is a noble goal that you should, even when disagreeing or disliking another person, still treat them with respect simple because they are a person. Spot on. Shog9 wrote: The danger comes from assuming things about a certain group that are not helpful: This is what bugs me. Big time. I see it all the time - ignorance and petty small-mindedness from people that should really know better!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
-
Reverend Stan wrote: They have been pummled. Enron, etc, did not practice capitalism, they betrayed it and should be punished for it. I totally agree, but I fear they may be many more Enrons before things settle down. There are a lot of worried CEOs out there right now I'll wager. AOL - Time Warner ... mmmm ... that could be next. Greed at the end of the day, is to blame. But are most people no inherently greedy? And if so, doesn't this make Enron, WorldCom, etc. inevitable? Of course, the CEOs should be punished - and heavily - but will it be enough? This is an open question - I am really interested to hear what people think about this. Reverend Stan wrote: Let market forces dictate medical costs, and everyone will be much more able to avail themselves of higher quality medical care. How? What about people that cannot afford it? How do we protect them? Do the rest of us pay for it? If so, how? Reverend Stan wrote: At what cost? Are we to return to a preindustrial technology to have a pristine environment? Nope, but I think we are going to get bitten on the ass by this sooner or later. I think the jury is still out on what damage us humans have done to the planet, but I think we should start considering what to do IF we have f*cked things up. A mass-transit system may not work in the US, but surely alternatives to gasoline should be sought without the oil companies throwing a spanner in the works? It may not happen for a while, but oil/gas reserves are going to run dry and the price will go up. Reverend Stan wrote: ...and should be free to discriminate according to their own personal moral beliefs So, someone responsible for, say hiring staff at a company should be able to discriminate against black people? There has to be some protection! Sure, think what you like - but being "free to discriminate" needs some clarification Stan!
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: But are most people no inherently greedy? And if so, doesn't this make Enron, WorldCom, etc. inevitable? Yes, indeed. But here we have an example of what happens when the greed exceeds prudent limits - everyone suffers, especially business. The CEO's may be greedy, but they are not absolute morons. They know that their profit making potential is based ultimately on the faith of share holders and customers in the system itself. I am all for punishing those who broke the law, but I feel that even if the government did nothing, the system would correct itself quite efficiently and effectively for if it did not, it would collapse completely and no one would have anything. Even a CEO has to ask himself what good all his loot does him if there is nothing to buy with it. I don't beleieve there is any need for the heavy hand of government to tighten its grip on the coorporate world. Bureaucratic systems simply cannot manage the complex multitude of economic factors ruling the financial world as efficiently as the millions of us working together, greedily, can do. Capitalism is a much more efficient self correcting system than is government. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: How? What about people that cannot afford it? How do we protect them? Do the rest of us pay for it? If so, how? There is no satisfactory answer to that. But a plan that compensates for that by making sure no one has access to heath care is hardly a solution. From personal experience, I *know* that government involvement in health care makes it less available to those who need it. In the late 1950's my mother had double corneal transplants to save her vision. We were very poor and had no money or insurance to pay for such an experimental proceedure. The full tab was picked up by the Lion's club. In the 1990's when my mother needed only one of the transplants replaced, the Lion's club could no longer help out. Government involvement had simply made it impossible for such voluntary orginaztions to act. As a family, we were better off without the government's help. Thank you very much all the same. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nope, but I think we are going to get bitten on the ass by this sooner or later. I think the jury is still out on what damage us humans have done to the planet, but I think we should start considering what to do IF we have f*cked things up. A mass-transit system may not work in the US
-
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Colin, but we have no plans to invade anytime soon. All you have is a fair number of sheep and a volcanic rock to perch on, and we have plenty of both here. But do let us know if you discover any large deposits of diamond or platinum. Policies do change from time to time.:-D "Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "Recursion." "Recursion who?" "Knock, knock..."
Roger Wright wrote: but we have no plans to invade anytime soon. That really sucks !! I actually supected that. NZ quite likely has a very large offshore oil supply but it is likely to remote to make viable. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: But are most people no inherently greedy? And if so, doesn't this make Enron, WorldCom, etc. inevitable? Yes, indeed. But here we have an example of what happens when the greed exceeds prudent limits - everyone suffers, especially business. The CEO's may be greedy, but they are not absolute morons. They know that their profit making potential is based ultimately on the faith of share holders and customers in the system itself. I am all for punishing those who broke the law, but I feel that even if the government did nothing, the system would correct itself quite efficiently and effectively for if it did not, it would collapse completely and no one would have anything. Even a CEO has to ask himself what good all his loot does him if there is nothing to buy with it. I don't beleieve there is any need for the heavy hand of government to tighten its grip on the coorporate world. Bureaucratic systems simply cannot manage the complex multitude of economic factors ruling the financial world as efficiently as the millions of us working together, greedily, can do. Capitalism is a much more efficient self correcting system than is government. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: How? What about people that cannot afford it? How do we protect them? Do the rest of us pay for it? If so, how? There is no satisfactory answer to that. But a plan that compensates for that by making sure no one has access to heath care is hardly a solution. From personal experience, I *know* that government involvement in health care makes it less available to those who need it. In the late 1950's my mother had double corneal transplants to save her vision. We were very poor and had no money or insurance to pay for such an experimental proceedure. The full tab was picked up by the Lion's club. In the 1990's when my mother needed only one of the transplants replaced, the Lion's club could no longer help out. Government involvement had simply made it impossible for such voluntary orginaztions to act. As a family, we were better off without the government's help. Thank you very much all the same. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Nope, but I think we are going to get bitten on the ass by this sooner or later. I think the jury is still out on what damage us humans have done to the planet, but I think we should start considering what to do IF we have f*cked things up. A mass-transit system may not work in the US
You make a lot of sense my man! Couldn't agree with you more. bibamus, edamus, cras moriemur
[eat, drink, for tomorrow we die]
-
And you alternative is ... what exactly? The status quo? Rampant corporate fraud and company execs using company pension schemes as their personal piggy banks? I have always known that capitalism isn't perfect, but I think we are just seeing the very tip of the iceberg with Enron, WorldCom, etc. Who the f*** gave people like this the right to jeopordize MY future by helping reduce my pension to something next to worthless, etc. etc.. You are knocking "the left" so I guess you must must be on "the right" - what would YOU do to make the world a better place? Seriously - what would you change? Please tell me how we can aim for a better society? It's easy to knock the woolly-liberal-bleeding-hearts but do you have a better solution? Is the world fine as it is? Do we all live in a just and fair society? Is this a pipedream? Are people naturally greedy? Here are some things I want. If they make me a f***ing commie, then so be it: * Decent healthcare for all. They have the best health-care system in the world in France, but here in the UK it's straining. Should we follow their lead? * A cleaner environment and less pollution. Does that make me a tree-hugging vegan commie pig? * An end to bogotry - sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. There are many bigots here on CP - doesn't that make people sad? Why is it that "the right" seem to get tainted with the racism brush? (certainly here in the UK that is what people would have you believe). * A decent public transport system so fewer people need a car. I would happily pay more taxes for this but would pumping billions and billions actually make any difference? If not, why? Is there an alternative? (driving in the UK is getting more and more stressful year by year). * People should be able to come and live in this country and better their lives by working hard, WITHOUT being treated like s*** - something the right-wing press in the UK do very well - pushing peoples buttons about asylum seekers. Let's debate these issues. I think deep down I am probably a bit of a leftie on many issues ... or am I? Convince me otherwise.
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: we are just seeing the very tip of the iceberg with Enron, WorldCom You are following a well-trodden path here. Marx too predicted the end of capitalism and look where both of them are now. Enron, etc only show that enforcement was lacking and that the political process in the US is subject to heavy lobbying. That does not mean that capitalism is inherently flawed. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Do we all live in a just and fair society? No. But it's better. And when was society ever just and fair society? In life there are winners and losers, even under Communism. If by just and fair you mean everyone earning the exact same wage then you're delusional. If by fair and just you mean that each should be rewarded according to the work they put it in well that system is already here; it's called capitalism. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Is this a pipedream? Are people naturally greedy? Socialists and other bleeding-heart liberals suffer from a fatal flaw: they believe that the human race is fundamentally a good-natured, altruistic species. Homo Sapiens only emerged these last 30,000 years. Before that he was an animal. An you do know that an animal's primary instinct is to survive don't u? Well guess what: millions of years of evolution are a lot of baggage. So yes, people are greedy and it's not going to change anytime soon. Utopia is a pipe-dream, a nice one, but a pipe-dream nonetheless. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: Decent healthcare for all. They have the best health-care system in the world in France, but here in the UK it's straining. Should we follow their lead? This can be very easily answered. Are you willing to pay for it through higher taxes? If you are, great. If not, then you're either a hypocrite or one of those "lets soak-the-rich" crowd. I would also like to point out that if you, because of your beliefs, are willing to pay higher taxes then I'm not and I don't want to pay for your ideas. A viable health-care system is possible but very hard to achieve for one good reason: the aging population. A govt funded health system is thus unsustainable or only sustainable through ever higher taxes. I don't say poor people should be left on the street to die. I'm saying that the middle-classes who can afford to pay should. Govt should still provide healthcare for the poor/needy. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: A cl