Huh. My butt has been getting soundly kicked. Funny, I haven't noticed.Noticing is not important when one can just jump to a new side of a discussion or subject linking back with only ad hominem innuendo. In such patterns, not noticing is a well honed skill. Thanks for noticing.
Huh. My butt has been getting soundly kicked. Funny, I haven't noticed.Noticing is not important when one can just jump to a new side of a discussion or subject linking back with only ad hominem innuendo. In such patterns, not noticing is a well honed skill. Thanks for noticing. Using tactics that ignore observable evidence, use ad hominem innuendo, and jump to a new opinion in opposition to another does not rise to the standard of "good faith" dialogue. It is trolling. CFI does allow for actions in such cases. Good Bye TimB Good Bye? You don't need to leave. You are the one that started an imagined "butt-kicking" contest. I do not favor that sort of thing, but neither am I prone to passively be a subject of such. My preference would be that we each assume that the other has some legitimate reasonable point that they are trying to make, and "play nice" from there. Whaddaya say? I will follow your lead (as I have been).
A recap and Tim's behavior. Tim starts by introducing those who accept unbridled capitalism as people who turn other people into commodities. He asserts that this " is all of us, to the extent that we accept unbridled capitalism." Tim is so adamant about his opinion he admittedly "butts in".I'll butt in with a single statement. "Slavery is the perfect form of unrestricted (unbridled) capitalism". This man, Larry Reed, is president of the Foundation for Economic Education. It does not appear he advocates or owns slaves: http://libertarianchristians.com/2016/01/22/real-heroes/?utm_source=LibertarianChristians.com+List&utm_campaign=cc16171d83-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_78901f0b30-cc16171d83-331936697 If Write 4U's hypothetical statement is correct, a search of slavery in the modern world, should show up highly capitalistic nations. Here are the nations where slavery is legal today including Russia and China (not known for unbridled capitalism) http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/23/countries-with-most-slaves_n_6207628.html My brief analysis is that there is insuffficient scientific evidence to support Write4U's statement "Slavery is the perfect form of unrestricted (unbridled) capitalism" Slavery seems connected with capitalism only through Marxist writings. This fits with the Russia and China inclusion in the top slave holding list. They don't call it slavery, but ask the workers trapped within these systems what they think of it: IMPACT OF ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION ON THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING IN THE GREATER MEKONG SUB-REGION COUNTRIES http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/147426/2/20_Suk-Rutai_Impact_Apstract.pdf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ January 2006 The Nexus between Free Trade Agreements and the Trafficking of Human Beings Claudine Chastain http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1191&context=law_globalstudies ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Human Trafficking in the era of Globalization: The case of Trafficking in the Global Market Economy by Majeed A. Rahman http://www2.hu-berlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue1_2011_54_71_Glossary.pdf ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Using tactics that ignore observable evidence, use ad hominem innuendo, and jump to a new opinion in opposition to another does not rise to the standard of "good faith" dialogue. It is trolling. CFI does allow for actions in such cases. Good Bye TimB"butting in" What an interesting concept. What an odd thing to get all huffy about, at an open discussion forum, no less. … by a newbie at that. :grrr:
I was doing a web search on verbal behavior. It just happened to be a topic, at the time, that a psychologist who was briefly involved in the forum (back in 2011, I guess) had mentioned in a post. I had not heard of CFI prior to that, and possibly, never would have, otherwise.I don't think I'm the only one around here who's glad you did find us!
Why not actually learn something specific to your opinions posted at a whim on this board through hard work and study about slavery, economics, and profit? here is a good place to start: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-2, there are many more.OK I read the article and it's one of those that when I was finished and tried to summarize what new information or insights I gleaned from the article, there was nothing. It's a bunch of rambling and what the hell, the south engaged in a vicious war to retain their slavery economy - seems to me a strong indication they found it damned profitable. Your turn - shine your self-assumed light of clarity on that article and please share what you believe are the insightful quotes and what I should have learned from them.
If anyone wishes to go on, I require a definition of unbridled capitalism as that is a popish term with a religious heritage. Can you imagine using a term made popular by a man who believes that his words can be the words of God? OMG.:ahhh: perhaps you could clarify what the hell that's supposed to mean? Although your "requiring" is pretty impressive sounding. _________________________________________________________________ unbridled capitalism = putting profits above all other concerns. Aka: Profits über alles
@ JSmith,
JSmith - 23 January 2016 06:18 PM If anyone wishes to go on, I require a definition of unbridled capitalism as that is a popish term with a religious heritage. Can you imagine using a term made popular by a man who believes that his words can be the words of God? OMG.I require that from now on you start every post with, *IMO*. That will properly clarify your authority to *require* anything from anyone.
Pope Francis, "Unbridled capitalism is the 'dung of the devil', says Pope Francis The pontiff condemns the impoverishment of developing countries by the world economic order and apologised for the church’s treatment of native Americanshttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/10/poor-must-change-new-colonialism-of-economic-order-says-pope-francis Actually, this term has been around long before Pope Francis came along. [quote]"Unbridled Capitalism": New Evidence http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/unbridled-capitalism-new_b_8177598.html Ask the people of Flint if they think "unbridled capitalism" is a good thing. Ask the victims of frackers if the *Halliburton Loophole*, exempting *frackers* from EPA standards, is a good thing. You may want to check up on the term *acceptable risk*, a capitalist coined phrase, resulting in the deaths of thousands which could have been prevented with stricter regulations and oversight. Have you ever considered that *robbery at gun point* fits the definition of the term *unbridled capitalism*.
Since you are bothered by the idea of humans being turned into commodities, let me ask:"Where do you see this in your community firstly, the wider nation secondly, and the world thirdly? Who is turning humans into commodities and how?If I wanted to argue that organ transplants should be banned then it would be up to me to prove that it was causing such a problem in the world. However, I made no such argument. When it comes to personal morality, no justification other than "it bothers me" is required. If someone doesn't like the idea of killing animals for food, then they are free to be vegetarians. If someone doesn't like the idea of ending the life of cells with even the potential to become a human being then they are free to abstain from abortion. But if they want to ban others from doing these things then they have to establish they are actually causing harm to people, and that is what they cannot do. Organ transplants bother me because of the very principle of the thing, and it does so enough that I do not want organ transplants myself. But that is as far as it goes. I make no judgement on anyone who chooses to have organ transplants themselves. I do not see any justification for that precisely because I cannot make the case you request above. If I could, then indeed I would argue that this practice should be banned. But I cannot, so I argue no such thing.