Against ALL women - Infanticide, Slavery, Rape, Trafficking... (#3)

Message boards : Politics : Against ALL women - Infanticide, Slavery, Rape, Trafficking... (#3)
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 53 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1678897 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 0:06:57 UTC - in response to Message 1678674.  


Hermetically sealed in unsupported presuppositions which cannot be proved, but may easily be disproved by a single case. Binary unthinking at its finest.

The only binary thinking is on your part where you assume that the capitalistic system you so revere is the only and best way of doing things.

Can someone chose to be exploited? After all most everyone has accepted an employment offer at some point in their life, and we all know that all employers exploit their laborers all the time. Yes, all laborers are exploited by all employers.

Which is why we have unions.

What is different, other that novel and unique, about hiring a womb over leg and arm muscles? Is it some religious objection because it is a womb? Some kind of moral thought that she is a akin to a prostitute? Perhaps there is a comparison, a strip club pole dancer and a prostitute. One uses arms and legs, the other a womb. Is that it?

These women do not have the same laws and protections that most other labourers have. Also, the idea that there is some sort of equivalence between someone giving birth and someone giving time and effort for other work shows a phenomenal ignorance on the trials and realities of having a baby and giving it up for adoption. I am sure some women can go thought it un-traumatised, but most don't.

I don't ascribe to the idea that traumatising people for profit because they are desperate is the a shining example of freedom. I think it is slavery by another name.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1678897 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde "Liberal" Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 15469
Credit: 45,361,931
RAC: 653
United States
Message 1678903 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 0:44:33 UTC - in response to Message 1678897.  


Hermetically sealed in unsupported presuppositions which cannot be proved, but may easily be disproved by a single case. Binary unthinking at its finest.

The only binary thinking is on your part where you assume that the capitalistic system you so revere is the only and best way of doing things.

Can someone chose to be exploited? After all most everyone has accepted an employment offer at some point in their life, and we all know that all employers exploit their laborers all the time. Yes, all laborers are exploited by all employers.

Which is why we have unions.

What is different, other that novel and unique, about hiring a womb over leg and arm muscles? Is it some religious objection because it is a womb? Some kind of moral thought that she is a akin to a prostitute? Perhaps there is a comparison, a strip club pole dancer and a prostitute. One uses arms and legs, the other a womb. Is that it?

These women do not have the same laws and protections that most other labourers have. Also, the idea that there is some sort of equivalence between someone giving birth and someone giving time and effort for other work shows a phenomenal ignorance on the trials and realities of having a baby and giving it up for adoption. I am sure some women can go thought it un-traumatised, but most don't.

I don't ascribe to the idea that traumatising people for profit because they are desperate is the a shining example of freedom. I think it is slavery by another name.

Women should be considered children, and must be protected from their decisions?
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--- Lord Acton
ID: 1678903 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1678918 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 1:47:59 UTC - in response to Message 1678903.  


Women should be considered children, and must be protected from their decisions?

Not all choices are free choices, Clyde.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1678918 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde "Liberal" Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 15469
Credit: 45,361,931
RAC: 653
United States
Message 1678921 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 2:18:37 UTC - in response to Message 1678918.  


Women should be considered children, and must be protected from their decisions?

Not all choices are free choices, Clyde.

Of course.

But in this instance.

Do any women have free will?

Or should all be considered exploited?
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--- Lord Acton
ID: 1678921 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1678929 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 2:40:16 UTC - in response to Message 1678921.  


Women should be considered children, and must be protected from their decisions?

Not all choices are free choices, Clyde.

Of course.

But in this instance.

Do any women have free will?

Or should all be considered exploited?

You figure it out, Clyde.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1678929 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde "Liberal" Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 15469
Credit: 45,361,931
RAC: 653
United States
Message 1678950 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 3:26:17 UTC - in response to Message 1678929.  
Last modified: 13 May 2015, 3:27:14 UTC


Women should be considered children, and must be protected from their decisions?

Not all choices are free choices, Clyde.

Of course.

But in this instance.

Do any women have free will?

Or should all be considered exploited?

You figure it out, Clyde.

Understand.

'Inconvenient Question'
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--- Lord Acton
ID: 1678950 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1679105 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 8:55:07 UTC - in response to Message 1678897.  

I don't ascribe to the idea that traumatising people for profit because they are desperate is the a shining example of freedom. I think it is slavery by another name.

But what if the alternative is abject poverty? Poverty driven prostitution? Working in a sweat shop? Trying your luck with human traffickers to get to Europe or the United States?

Exploitation is wrong, but it is rather easy to say that its wrong and that it should be illegal and then deny people the opportunity to make money. Does that help those women, does it give them the money they need so they aren't forced to find alternative sources of income that might be worse.
ID: 1679105 · Report as offensive
Profile Gone with the wind Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 41592
Credit: 42,035,602
RAC: 2,376
Message 1679126 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 9:50:57 UTC - in response to Message 1679105.  
Last modified: 13 May 2015, 9:51:42 UTC

That is a reasonable point of view. This "baby oven" business is two sided. What about a genuinely in love couple that can't have children because the wife cannot conceive. They go down the route of IVF with a surrogate mother. The surrogate mother may do it out of compassion for the couple, she may do it for the money. Is it wrong in that case given the outcome?

Women forced to sell their bodies on the street as prostitutes just to eat and to survive is totally abhorrent to me, but it has gone on since biblical times, and I think it always will do. Then again we have the high society women that are classed as "escorts" that make very serious money and actually enjoy the lifestyle that it gives them. What about them, are they being exploited or are they in turn exploiting others themselves?
ID: 1679126 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1679263 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 16:29:07 UTC - in response to Message 1679105.  

I don't ascribe to the idea that traumatising people for profit because they are desperate is the a shining example of freedom. I think it is slavery by another name.

But what if the alternative is abject poverty? Poverty driven prostitution? Working in a sweat shop? Trying your luck with human traffickers to get to Europe or the United States?

Exploitation is wrong, but it is rather easy to say that its wrong and that it should be illegal and then deny people the opportunity to make money. Does that help those women, does it give them the money they need so they aren't forced to find alternative sources of income that might be worse.

So you propose the less of two evils argument? Does that make it right though?

I mean this argument is used to justify child labour and any number of abhorrent practices.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1679263 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1679347 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 20:17:35 UTC - in response to Message 1679263.  

So you propose the less of two evils argument? Does that make it right though?

I mean this argument is used to justify child labour and any number of abhorrent practices.

No its not right, but I think its not right that people live in poverty. After all, its poverty that drives people to do this kind of thing. But unless we solve poverty, we can't solve exploitation, and we can only respect the choice of the individual in what way he or she wishes to be exploited.
ID: 1679347 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1679348 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 20:21:37 UTC - in response to Message 1679347.  

So you propose the less of two evils argument? Does that make it right though?

I mean this argument is used to justify child labour and any number of abhorrent practices.

No its not right, but I think its not right that people live in poverty. After all, its poverty that drives people to do this kind of thing. But unless we solve poverty, we can't solve exploitation, and we can only respect the choice of the individual in what way he or she wishes to be exploited.

A lot of this poverty is caused by rampant capitalism and exploitation. I am not sure that more of the same is the cure.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1679348 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1679354 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 20:36:47 UTC - in response to Message 1679348.  

A lot of this poverty is caused by rampant capitalism and exploitation. I am not sure that more of the same is the cure.

The optimist in me agrees and eagerly anticipates the coming singularity.

The realist in me disagrees. Capitalism is what we have and its the framework in which we have to solve these problems. And it is possible. Little more than a century ago the west was also build on exploitation, yet we enacted laws that protected us from it. We had child labor and unfair wages and labor practices, and all of that is gone now. Children go to school, we got a social safety net, minimum wages, etc. Not perfect, but exploitation has become more difficult in the west. People will only stand for so much exploitation before they revolt. And there are cautious signs that the standard of living is improving in many of the poorer countries.
ID: 1679354 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1679355 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 20:41:20 UTC - in response to Message 1679354.  

A lot of this poverty is caused by rampant capitalism and exploitation. I am not sure that more of the same is the cure.

The optimist in me agrees and eagerly anticipates the coming singularity.

The realist in me disagrees. Capitalism is what we have and its the framework in which we have to solve these problems. And it is possible. Little more than a century ago the west was also build on exploitation, yet we enacted laws that protected us from it. We had child labor and unfair wages and labor practices, and all of that is gone now. Children go to school, we got a social safety net, minimum wages, etc. Not perfect, but exploitation has become more difficult in the west. People will only stand for so much exploitation before they revolt. And there are cautious signs that the standard of living is improving in many of the poorer countries.

I think you are forgetting that everyday there are people who are trying to take away all these rights that we fought for. Not one of these things occurred because 'benevolent capitalism' gave them too us. Pretty much all of them were fought for and in a lot of cases people died so we could have them. Exploitation has gotten harder because people stood up and said "no, this is wrong".
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1679355 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1679357 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 20:46:32 UTC - in response to Message 1679355.  
Last modified: 13 May 2015, 20:56:44 UTC

I think you are forgetting that everyday there are people who are trying to take away all these rights that we fought for. Not one of these things occurred because 'benevolent capitalism' gave them too us. Pretty much all of them were fought for and in a lot of cases people died so we could have them. Exploitation has gotten harder because people stood up and said "no, this is wrong".

Very true ES99.
Protecting democracy and struggle for equality is something you have to do every day.
Remember there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over.
ID: 1679357 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1679369 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 21:09:24 UTC - in response to Message 1679355.  

I think you are forgetting that everyday there are people who are trying to take away all these rights that we fought for. Not one of these things occurred because 'benevolent capitalism' gave them too us. Pretty much all of them were fought for and in a lot of cases people died so we could have them. Exploitation has gotten harder because people stood up and said "no, this is wrong".

Yes, but my point is that its not enough to just stand up and say that something is wrong. There need to be alternatives for people to use that are better than the thing that is wrong. Otherwise you are just telling people to stop earning money in a specific way and thats not helping them.
ID: 1679369 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1679380 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 21:53:33 UTC - in response to Message 1679369.  

I think you are forgetting that everyday there are people who are trying to take away all these rights that we fought for. Not one of these things occurred because 'benevolent capitalism' gave them too us. Pretty much all of them were fought for and in a lot of cases people died so we could have them. Exploitation has gotten harder because people stood up and said "no, this is wrong".

Yes, but my point is that its not enough to just stand up and say that something is wrong. There need to be alternatives for people to use that are better than the thing that is wrong. Otherwise you are just telling people to stop earning money in a specific way and thats not helping them.

This is true, but the first step is to admit it is wrong rather than finding ways to justify it.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1679380 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 25851
Credit: 50,519,322
RAC: 18,689
United States
Message 1679412 - Posted: 13 May 2015, 23:15:41 UTC - in response to Message 1679348.  

So you propose the less of two evils argument? Does that make it right though?

I mean this argument is used to justify child labour and any number of abhorrent practices.

No its not right, but I think its not right that people live in poverty. After all, its poverty that drives people to do this kind of thing. But unless we solve poverty, we can't solve exploitation, and we can only respect the choice of the individual in what way he or she wishes to be exploited.

A lot of this poverty is caused by rampant capitalism and exploitation. I am not sure that more of the same is the cure.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aR6Eq.uqJAyA
Capitalism Is Worst System Except for the Rest

ID: 1679412 · Report as offensive
Profile Clyde "Liberal" Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 99
Posts: 15469
Credit: 45,361,931
RAC: 653
United States
Message 1679455 - Posted: 14 May 2015, 3:00:34 UTC - in response to Message 1679380.  

[quote]I think you are forgetting that everyday there are people who are trying to take away all these rights that we fought for. Not one of these things occurred because 'benevolent capitalism' gave them too us. Pretty much all of them were fought for and in a lot of cases people died so we could have them. Exploitation has gotten harder because people stood up and said "no, this is wrong".[/t.quote]
Yes, but my point is that its not enough to just stand up and say that something is wrong. There need to be alternatives for people to use that are better than the thing that is wrong. Otherwise you are just telling people to stop earning money in a specific way and thats not helping them.

This is true, but the first step is to admit it is wrong rather than finding ways to justify it.

As an Anti-Capitalist, I do see all the problems.

Acknowledging is the easy part. Not the 'solution'.

We have see the Horrors of some Anti-Capitalist Ideological 'solutions'. Not only in the last century. But still in the present.

The time for stomping feet, and yelling "This is wrong", is long past.

When will the Ideologues apologize to the ten-of-millions of innocents there 'Solutions' murdered, and are still murdering.

What we need is hard nosed practical peoples Solutions.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
--- Lord Acton
ID: 1679455 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1679513 - Posted: 14 May 2015, 7:44:02 UTC - in response to Message 1679412.  
Last modified: 14 May 2015, 7:44:30 UTC

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aR6Eq.uqJAyA
Capitalism Is Worst System Except for the Rest

Thats a dumb column.

First fatal flaw, she argues that actually what went wrong wasn't because of free markets running rampant, its because the markets werent free enough. Noooo, it really would only have been a free market if the government had let the entire financial system collapse, as punishment for bad risks taken. Also interest shouldn't have been set by central bankers because thats interference with the free market, instead we should have just let it go, even if it resulted in out of control inflation or the economy would have just stagnated. And I'd like to hear those same people then, complaining about how the government didn't do enough to get the economy to its feet by manipulating interest rates.

Then she says one smart thing, namely that overseers have been napping. But wait, overseers? Isn't the sole job of an overseer to restrict the 'free market' to some degree to prevent system failure? Didn't you just write that the market wasn't free enough?

Well lets move on to ask the CATO institute about the free market, because obviously they have a non biased opinion about the economy. Oh right, they are funded by the Koch Brothers and have a decisively Libertarian approach to economics. It should then come as no surprise that the guy blames the government for market failures, because it totally makes sense to blame the government for banks screwing up.

Then someone argues that its capitalism that has lifted millions out of poverty, because 'the government stepped back'. Ehhh, not exactly. What you see in China, and Singapore and all those other countries that are quickly getting stronger economies is not that the government steps back. They have adopted hybrid forms of capitalism, that do actually involve a lot of state control and state protection. Its state capitalism, not free market capitalism.

And then comes a bit of complaining about how the government is all about political self interest, incapable of checking the markets and how capitalism supposedly results in growth and freedom. While that growth bit is true, capitalism does not produce freedom. Why would it? The implicit assumption that free markets result in free people is a delusion that has little actual evidence to support it. Furthermore, while capitalism produces growth, it also produces massive amounts of inequality, which is exactly the problem. '

In the end, this argument that 'Capitalism sucks, but everything else sucks more' is not a very good argument. If capitalism sucks, then get rid of it, because its not good to have a system that sucks. Okay, so any of the tried alternatives are worse. Cool, so you know what you don't have to try again. But surely there are more alternatives than communism and socialism. So yeah that column was worthless trash.
ID: 1679513 · Report as offensive
Profile Wiggo "Democratic Socialist"
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 16996
Credit: 236,149,139
RAC: 181,196
Australia
Message 1679523 - Posted: 14 May 2015, 9:05:12 UTC
Last modified: 14 May 2015, 9:07:06 UTC

Personally to eradicate a majority of poverty over the world I think that all companies on the Stock Market should all be force to buy their shareholders out and the Stock Market should be closed down.

The Stock Market is where the worst and greediest in human nature reside and once they're cut out of the loop the world will eventually be a better place to live in (though they will be poorer).

If an important infrastructure company can't do it then the government should take it over for the people.

It's really time for us all to bite the bullet and address this issue world wide as it is bad for the better good of the majority whether you like it or not, it will certainly have an impact on the rich in the end (which they won't like) and the poor will eventually not be poor (though they will likely suffer the most during transition, but they win in the end).

Greedy capitalists and investors are who are making the world the way it currently is, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (prove me wrong).

P.S. You can blame the French for starting this foolish crap in the first place as they invented it back in the 12th century before other western countries (mainly the U.S.A.) took it to the ridiculous.

Cheers.
ID: 1679523 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 53 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Against ALL women - Infanticide, Slavery, Rape, Trafficking... (#3)


 
©2019 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.