Religion and Politics

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:25 am

No it doesn't. Does a first degree burn trivialize a third degree burn because they're both called burns?
Sorry, I must have missed the post where you made a distinction between first-degree slavery and third-degree slavery.

It appeared that you went out of your way to make slavery and employment seem as similar as possible.
Slavery is being forced to work for the benefit of someone else. If you're not forced, then it's not slavery.
Well, if I don't want to work but I have to work to put food on the table, then I'm being forced to work and therefore I'm a slave.

Maybe I don't want to work in some particular co-op but I have no choice because there are only a limited number of available jobs. I'm being forced once again.

Those kinds of issues are going to arise whether I'm an employee of a capitalist or a partner in a co-op.
Are all burns the same even though graded by degrees? They're still burns.
So you're admitting that capitalist wage-slavery is significantly better than real slavery?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10869
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Serendipper » Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:30 am

phyllo wrote:
No it doesn't. Does a first degree burn trivialize a third degree burn because they're both called burns?
Sorry, I must have missed the post where you made a distinction between first-degree slavery and third-degree slavery.

I didn't. You did. I'm just playing along. Slavery is slavery and I don't condone any variety, although you see condemning the one as somehow trivializing the other, presumably because you support capitalism???

It appeared that you went out of your way to make slavery and employment seem as similar as possible.

Yes they are similar, but I didn't go out of my way to show it.

CEOs are compensated 400x the salary of their average employee, but did masters live 400x better than their slaves? What did it cost to own a slave back then and what % is that of the income generated on the plantation? I suspect the ratio isn't all that different and perhaps it's worse today than in the slave-days. Wouldn't that be ironic lol

Slavery is being forced to work for the benefit of someone else. If you're not forced, then it's not slavery.
Well, if I don't want to work but I have to work to put food on the table, then I'm being forced to work and therefore I'm a slave.

Right.

Maybe I don't want to work in some particular co-op but I have no choice because there are only a limited number of available jobs. I'm being forced once again.

The only way you can choose to work is if you do not have to work. If you have to work to live, then working is not a choice, but a compulsion. What you are talking about is having the choice about what type of work you might want to do, which is irrelevant to the slavery status.

Are all burns the same even though graded by degrees? They're still burns.
So you're admitting that capitalist wage-slavery is significantly better than real slavery?

Sure, why wouldn't I? Being a well-paid prostitute is better than being a crack-whore, but still isn't anything to brag about.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:08 am

I didn't. You did. I'm just playing along. Slavery is slavery and I don't condone any variety, although you see condemning the one as somehow trivializing the other, presumably because you support capitalism???
No.

You asked why a compulsion to eat and sleep and to paint my kid's room should not be called slavery. And I replied that it would trivialize slavery and the suffering of slaves to call it slavery.

That exchange had nothing to do with capitalism.
Yes they are similar, but I didn't go out of my way to show it.
It didn't say that you "showed it".
CEOs are compensated 400x the salary of their average employee, but did masters live 400x better than their slaves? What did it cost to own a slave back then and what % is that of the income generated on the plantation? I suspect the ratio isn't all that different and perhaps it's worse today than in the slave-days.
What does compensation have to do with it?

The critical point would appear to be the ownership and control by one person of another person. Abuse finally made people seek an end to slavery. The fact that some people were very rich while others were very poor was not the motivation. The abolitionists didn't care about that.
Sure, why wouldn't I?
Okay, that's settled. :D
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10869
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby barbarianhorde » Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:41 am

I'm an anarchist. If I were free to do what I want without some bossman putting me in jail or taking away my resources I'd be providing my own food with hunt and gathering and planting crop here and there. But that's illegal in all kinds of ways. There isn't space that some asshole doesn't claim to own, all game is domesticated and owned, hardly any wild fruits hanging around anywhere. So if I don't find a way to be my own capitalistic boss and get others to do the grunt work for me I am nothing more than a slave of this goddamme co-op I had nothing to do with founding. I didnt choose this economy, but it doesnt have laws to allow exempting people, but it does have laws to dispose of my nuisance if I dont comply with the rules i didnt make or cboose, so you bet I am a prisoner of it, a slave. I am forced to pay taxes for things I morally puke on. Damme rignt this is far from being free. Except for one thing. I can make a million dollars if I put my mind to it. I can buy my own freedom.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: pit of snakes

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Serendipper » Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:05 pm

phyllo wrote:
I didn't. You did. I'm just playing along. Slavery is slavery and I don't condone any variety, although you see condemning the one as somehow trivializing the other, presumably because you support capitalism???
No.

You asked why a compulsion to eat and sleep and to paint my kid's room should not be called slavery. And I replied that it would trivialize slavery and the suffering of slaves to call it slavery.

Right, so admitting one form of slavery is trivializing the other to you. So then admitting you have a first degree burn is trivializing folks with third degree burns; admitting you have a cold is trivializing those with stage 4 cancer; admitting you have financial problems is trivializing those starving in africa. It seems according to your philosophy, we're not allowed to label anything unless we are the worst case of it lest it trivialize those who are the worst. I don't see any benefit from holding that philosophy unless you have an agenda, such as capitalism or possibly religion, that you wish to defend. What else could it be? Why do you want to draw a distinction between first degree and third degree slavery?

CEOs are compensated 400x the salary of their average employee, but did masters live 400x better than their slaves? What did it cost to own a slave back then and what % is that of the income generated on the plantation? I suspect the ratio isn't all that different and perhaps it's worse today than in the slave-days.
What does compensation have to do with it?

Because compensation is the point of slavery. People didn't own slaves because they liked to be mean to people, but to make a profit.

The critical point would appear to be the ownership and control by one person of another person.

No that's more of a side-effect. The critical point is the profit.

Abuse finally made people seek an end to slavery. The fact that some people were very rich while others were very poor was not the motivation. The abolitionists didn't care about that.

I'm not sure how bad the abuse was. Abusing your slaves wouldn't make any sense since they wouldn't be able to work as hard. I've never seen anyone abuse their horse because they depended on it for work and transportation. If people do not abuse animals (typically), then why would they abuse humans? I suspect history is distorted to demonize slavery and I'm sure abuse did exist, but I doubt it was as common as we're led to believe. I think the end of slavery was a matter of dignity rather than physical suffering.

The civil war had absolutely nothing to do with slavery, but tariffs and the control of the north over the south. The US was meant to be a confederation of states rather than one big country under a central authority. The scotus had already ruled in favor of slavery before the war began, so why would the south launch an attack if slavery were the motivation? It was about tariffs on cotton causing starvation in the south to which the north was immune since they didn't deal in cotton.

Slavery was on its way out anyway due to the tractor and general ebbing towards civil rights which is just an artifact of a prosperous society; as prosperity rises, people find new monsters to fight. First it was slavery and race, then women's rights, then the handicapped, then gays and trannies. I don't know what's coming next, but we'll find something that was once considered trivial to make a big deal out of.

Sure, why wouldn't I?
Okay, that's settled. :D

I wasn't aware it was disturbed lol
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Serendipper » Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:33 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:I'm an anarchist. If I were free to do what I want without some bossman putting me in jail or taking away my resources I'd be providing my own food with hunt and gathering and planting crop here and there. But that's illegal in all kinds of ways.

Societies don't fare well being hunter gatherers and farming requires cooperation because of the amount of food produced in a short time that needs to be stored and sold for storable profit to be traded back for food later. Economies always evolve to what they are now because that is what works best.

There isn't space that some asshole doesn't claim to own, all game is domesticated and owned,

Buy a hunting license and you could fill your freezer with deer meat.

hardly any wild fruits hanging around anywhere.

Wild fruit doesn't exist in any meaningful supply. Farming is absolutely necessary and even that is difficult on smaller scales. It's much more efficient to delegate farming to those who are best equipped and then participate in a market economy.

So if I don't find a way to be my own capitalistic boss and get others to do the grunt work for me I am nothing more than a slave of this goddamme co-op I had nothing to do with founding. I didnt choose this economy, but it doesnt have laws to allow exempting people, but it does have laws to dispose of my nuisance if I dont comply with the rules i didnt make or cboose, so you bet I am a prisoner of it, a slave.

Because of the abundance of machines and technological efficiencies, the ONLY reason you have to work is because OTHER people can't stand that fact that you might get something for nothing. There is no REAL reason you have to work. You're a slave to the ideology that people must suffer for money.

I am forced to pay taxes for things I morally puke on. Damme rignt this is far from being free. Except for one thing. I can make a million dollars if I put my mind to it. I can buy my own freedom.

Only 4% of people make it from the bottom 5th to the top 5th, so good luck! Putting lots of people to work making you money is the easiest way to get rich. Move to a place where there aren't many human rights. Places like California make it too hard to take advantage of people; the southeast is best.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:53 pm

Right, so admitting one form of slavery is trivializing the other to you. So then admitting you have a first degree burn is trivializing folks with third degree burns; admitting you have a cold is trivializing those with stage 4 cancer; admitting you have financial problems is trivializing those starving in africa. It seems according to your philosophy, we're not allowed to label anything unless we are the worst case of it lest it trivialize those who are the worst. I don't see any benefit from holding that philosophy unless you have an agenda, such as capitalism or possibly religion, that you wish to defend. What else could it be? Why do you want to draw a distinction between first degree and third degree slavery?

Please don't distort what I said.

Please don't put words in my mouth.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10869
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Serendipper » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:45 pm

phyllo wrote:
Right, so admitting one form of slavery is trivializing the other to you. So then admitting you have a first degree burn is trivializing folks with third degree burns; admitting you have a cold is trivializing those with stage 4 cancer; admitting you have financial problems is trivializing those starving in africa. It seems according to your philosophy, we're not allowed to label anything unless we are the worst case of it lest it trivialize those who are the worst. I don't see any benefit from holding that philosophy unless you have an agenda, such as capitalism or possibly religion, that you wish to defend. What else could it be? Why do you want to draw a distinction between first degree and third degree slavery?

Please don't distort what I said.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

It's not a distortion to take your reasoning to its ends.

If 1+1=2, then 2+2=4 is not a distortion, but a continuation of the reasoning.

If recognizing wage-slavery as slavery is trivializing a harsher form of slavery, then recognizing a first degree burn as a burn is trivializing third degree burns because it follows the general form: If recognizing lesser-X as a form of X, then major-X is trivialized. If I'm in error, then kindly point out my error.

I've conceded that wage-slavery is not as bad as indentured servitude, but it's still slavery.

And what got the whole thing going was my saying that slavery was a necessary evil, as capitalists would invariably have to argue unless they dogmatically refuse to concede that wage-slavery is a form of slavery, and if they did, it would be totally obvious as to why.

And another thing, Peter Schiff (die-hard capitalist) pointed out: It used to be that people prided themselves for working for themselves and it was a mark of shame to have to work under someone else (because you couldn't stand on your own, you had to resort to working for someone else). Now a man is measured by WHERE he works or WHO he works for rather than admired for standing on his own (Note: I'm not being sexist in using "man", but the men worked back then and I have to make a comparison). The shame (loss of dignity = slavery aspect) has been massaged out of our culture, and not only that, but the extent to which one is a slave is now an object of pride.

Conservatives pride themselves on their work ethic and call liberals lazy, but liberals call conservatives stupid because they're advocating their own servitude and that's like a cow defending the slaughterhouse... or a black slave defending black slavery. The reasons a slave would defend servitude are: he is too ignorant to see it, too stubborn (ignore-ant) to believe it, or genuinely feel he's better as a slave than being left to one's own devices, which is, beyond a doubt, the situation of today: there are just too many people in society for every one of them to be self-sustaining. And therefore, slavery is necessary. Always was and always will be, except in the future, the machines will be our slaves... that is until someone decides that machines have feelings too, and dignity, and we will be back in the same ethical boat we're in now.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby phyllo » Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:12 pm

I specifically said that I don't consider the compulsion to eat, sleep and paint my kid's room to be slavery.

What don't you understand about that point of view?

To use your analogy, I don't think that what you call a burn is a burn at all. Therefore all this stuff that you are saying is not even applicable:
If recognizing wage-slavery as slavery is trivializing a harsher form of slavery, then recognizing a first degree burn as a burn is trivializing third degree burns because it follows the general form: If recognizing lesser-X as a form of X, then major-X is trivialized. If I'm in error, then kindly point out my error.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10869
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Serendipper » Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:32 am

phyllo wrote:I specifically said that I don't consider the compulsion to eat, sleep and paint my kid's room to be slavery.

What don't you understand about that point of view?

I asked why you do not consider those activities to be slavery and you said "Because it trivializes slavery and the suffering of slaves. "

To use your analogy, I don't think that what you call a burn is a burn at all. Therefore all this stuff that you are saying is not even applicable:
If recognizing wage-slavery as slavery is trivializing a harsher form of slavery, then recognizing a first degree burn as a burn is trivializing third degree burns because it follows the general form: If recognizing lesser-X as a form of X, then major-X is trivialized. If I'm in error, then kindly point out my error.

So you're saying a burn that is less than third degree is not a burn?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:09 pm

Serendipper wrote:
phyllo wrote:I specifically said that I don't consider the compulsion to eat, sleep and paint my kid's room to be slavery.

What don't you understand about that point of view?

I asked why you do not consider those activities to be slavery and you said "Because it trivializes slavery and the suffering of slaves. "

To use your analogy, I don't think that what you call a burn is a burn at all. Therefore all this stuff that you are saying is not even applicable:
If recognizing wage-slavery as slavery is trivializing a harsher form of slavery, then recognizing a first degree burn as a burn is trivializing third degree burns because it follows the general form: If recognizing lesser-X as a form of X, then major-X is trivialized. If I'm in error, then kindly point out my error.

So you're saying a burn that is less than third degree is not a burn?

Getting a little color in your cheeks is not a burn. A first degree burn is considered a burn. It seems like he is saying something like the word slavery carries connotations that do not apply to having to eat and the other examples. And yes, if you were in a conversation with someone with third degree burns and you had first degree and you kept making them equivalent,
rough day for both us, each burned,
you would be trivializing their experience.
But if you just got a little color, iow nothing a doctor would call even a first degree burn, it would be even more ridiculous. We use words to deliniate things. It's floppy, and often we can't come up with neat categories and even the burn scales have some grey areas.

But if I run at you on the street pointing finger going bang bang and run past you, I didn't try to kill you, even if it was a bit scary.

Or is your argument that there are ONLY differences in degree and never in kind and it would be irrational to ever say something was not in a category.

Like if you went under a bright incandescent bulb you were burned, because perhaps one cell had its temperature raised to some extent?
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Serendipper » Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:22 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Getting a little color in your cheeks is not a burn. A first degree burn is considered a burn. It seems like he is saying something like the word slavery carries connotations that do not apply to having to eat and the other examples. And yes, if you were in a conversation with someone with third degree burns and you had first degree and you kept making them equivalent,
rough day for both us, each burned,
you would be trivializing their experience.
But if you just got a little color, iow nothing a doctor would call even a first degree burn, it would be even more ridiculous. We use words to deliniate things. It's floppy, and often we can't come up with neat categories and even the burn scales have some grey areas.

But if I run at you on the street pointing finger going bang bang and run past you, I didn't try to kill you, even if it was a bit scary.

Or is your argument that there are ONLY differences in degree and never in kind and it would be irrational to ever say something was not in a category.

Like if you went under a bright incandescent bulb you were burned, because perhaps one cell had its temperature raised to some extent?


I'm just saying that the degree of something doesn't remove it from the category. Slavery is slavery regardless of the degree of slavery and burns are burns regardless of the degree of burn. Like sky blue is blue, but less blue than navy blue, but it's still blue.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby phyllo » Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:29 pm

I'm just saying that the degree of something doesn't remove it from the category.
You're putting all sorts of things into the category of 'slavery' which don't belong there.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10869
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:45 pm

Serendipper wrote:I'm just saying that the degree of something doesn't remove it from the category. Slavery is slavery regardless of the degree of slavery and burns are burns regardless of the degree of burn. Like sky blue is blue, but less blue than navy blue, but it's still blue.
Sure, the degree of something can remove it from a category. This can be within scientific categories and within everyday speech, and some of my examples were examples of this. I included when one is exposed to heat, which is what causes burns, but it is not a burn. The degree of the effects of the heat, if low enough, no longer qualify it, in medicine, as a burn. Further you have the assumption of your conclusion in your argument. Eating is, for you, some degree of slavery, so it is merely a difference in degree, hence it is slavery. Even if no one owns you and could sell you, you still want that to be defined as slavery. Having a need does not make one a slave, except metaphorically, perhaps. A drop of water on the ground is not a lake or an ocean. It's not even a puddle.

Someone gently caressing my cheek is not slapping me, even if the movement is exactly the same only slowed down immensely.

The sun is not a red giant, though it is a star like red giant stars are.

Pluto is no longer considered a planet.

Normal blood pressure is not high blood pressure, which has its connotations of health problem.

A whisper is not a scream.

Tapping you on the shoulder (using the socially accepted degree of force and in the correct, pretty wide range, situations) is not assault.

Legally, medically, scientifically and in everyday speech changes in degree CAN AND DO shift categories.

Sometimes there are grey areas. And yes, differences in degree do not always entail different categories.

But, then, again, it often does. A gale is different in degree from...other windy situations.

A short person is not always a dwarf, due to degree of difference from average height.

Change the frequency of something and it can change category - ultrasound, now a difference color, now its microwave radiation...etc.

Bald. People with the usual amount of hair are not bald, even if they lose some hair, but lose enough, a difference in degree of hair loss, and they are.

And then you need to demonstrate that those things you are calling slavery are merely differences in degree rather than in kind. I don't think you've done that.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:33 am

phyllo wrote:
I'm just saying that the degree of something doesn't remove it from the category.
You're putting all sorts of things into the category of 'slavery' which don't belong there.

You mean I'm putting all the blue colors in the category of blue and then you're insisting that they don't belong there as if we should have a category for each color, but that defeats the purpose of having categories because the purpose of categories is to group similar things that are not exactly the same.

Wage-slavery is slavery and you've offered no rationale to be the basis for a change of my opinion. All you've demonstrated so far is that you do not like the idea because it undermines some notion you previously harbored, but are unable to admit it lest you also undermine your objection.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Serendipper » Sun Sep 16, 2018 2:01 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:I'm just saying that the degree of something doesn't remove it from the category. Slavery is slavery regardless of the degree of slavery and burns are burns regardless of the degree of burn. Like sky blue is blue, but less blue than navy blue, but it's still blue.
Sure, the degree of something can remove it from a category.

Actually that doesn't make literal sense. How can the degree of a category remove it from the category? We could have subcategories, but those don't remove from the main category.

This can be within scientific categories and within everyday speech, and some of my examples were examples of this. I included when one is exposed to heat, which is what causes burns, but it is not a burn.

If it is not a burn, then it is not a burn. If it is a burn, then it is a burn. Seems easy. The degree of a burn cannot mean it is not a burn or there wouldn't be a degree to it.

The degree of the effects of the heat, if low enough, no longer qualify it, in medicine, as a burn.

If it is not a burn because no damage was done, then it is in the category of near-burn.

Further you have the assumption of your conclusion in your argument. Eating is, for you, some degree of slavery, so it is merely a difference in degree, hence it is slavery. Even if no one owns you and could sell you, you still want that to be defined as slavery.

Slavery doesn't mean ownership. Ownership means ownership. Indeed, I own animals but do not subject them to any sort of work. They're called pets. And I could borrow your car and make it my slave for the evening, but I do not own the car.

A drop of water on the ground is not a lake or an ocean. It's not even a puddle.

To bacteria it is.

Someone gently caressing my cheek is not slapping me, even if the movement is exactly the same only slowed down immensely.

But the intent is different.

The sun is not a red giant, though it is a star like red giant stars are.

All stars are in the category of star, regardless of color.

Pluto is no longer considered a planet.

Yes but it's not for a matter of degrees, but 100% absence of certain qualifications.

Normal blood pressure is not high blood pressure, which has its connotations of health problem.

But all blood pressure higher than normal is considered high regardless of how high.

A whisper is not a scream.

But vocalizations above normal are considered screams regardless of intensity.

Tapping you on the shoulder (using the socially accepted degree of force and in the correct, pretty wide range, situations) is not assault.

Actually, I think it is.

But, then, again, it often does. A gale is different in degree from...other windy situations.

But if it's a gale, then it doesn't matter the degree of a gale that is it; it's still a gale.

A short person is not always a dwarf, due to degree of difference from average height.

But if a person is in the category of dwarf, then it's not a matter of the degree to which.

Change the frequency of something and it can change category - ultrasound, now a difference color, now its microwave radiation...etc.

But all sounds are sounds and all EMF are EMF. This is the distinction between lesser slavery and greater slavery, but they're both slavery.

And then you need to demonstrate that those things you are calling slavery are merely differences in degree rather than in kind. I don't think you've done that.

Then the problem is on your end because I have done that. Formerly you believed slavery meant ownership, so perhaps now that I've corrected that, maybe the rest will fall into place for you. Slavery is essentially the theft of productivity for one's own gain and whether 100% of productivity is stolen or something less than 100% doesn't change the categorization. Either we work together as partners or one of us is slave to the other; I can't think of a third possibility because either we split the fruits of our labors amicably or we do not.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby omar » Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:08 am

Hello Fixed

Condoning something that has already happened and has led to prosperity of the nation is different from condoning ongoing acts of brutality.
That was why we chose Trump over Clointonk.*


I don't believe that the prosperity of the nation is tied to the election of Trump. If anything it has survived Trump and his mercantilist approach to trade. Not only that but if anonymous is believed then again Trump is merely a figure hear that is tolerated and even resisted. And don't get me wrong, I disagree with the efforts of those inside the WH to dull Trump's Presidency because he represents the will of the People (even the will of those who did not vote to allow the vote of others to decide their future). The Nation learned from the mistakes of W. Bush and they were his mistakes and he was allowed to make such mistakes, to exercise the powers granted to the occupant of the President's Office.

Again I much rather have more people feel angry and hurt to vote than apathetic about who wins or loses.
omar
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Where Crocs thrive

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:55 am

Hey Omar
The math is pretty simple, trump is the first us prez to tax corps overseas so much that they move their companies back to the US. Trumpy has already made us back close to a trillion in two years. Comes with record employment.

Funny is that he already said he was gonna do this literally 30 years ago when he said he might have to run to eventually save the country which he did. Logic is really elementary. But ok it is still pretty deep. Capitalism is more logical than fair.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: pit of snakes

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby barbarianhorde » Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:04 pm

Trump is like Napoleon no less, saved US last minute like Nap saved France. Like Nap the international elites hate him and will make sure there is gonna be war and mass death. It's coming, I can see because eve though trump saved the children of ME from Isis and the US from bankruptcy and thousands of more sweet things he did and zero wrongs, the good people of the world still curse him. The good people deserve to see what they are really doing. A lot of people will go insane in guilt and shame when they see what the fought against and for. It will be pretty spectacular.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
~ Владимир Ильич Ульянов Ленин

THE HORNED ONE
User avatar
barbarianhorde
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:26 pm
Location: pit of snakes

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Bob » Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:40 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:Hey Omar
The math is pretty simple, trump is the first us prez to tax corps overseas so much that they move their companies back to the US. Trumpy has already made us back close to a trillion in two years. Comes with record employment.

Funny is that he already said he was gonna do this literally 30 years ago when he said he might have to run to eventually save the country which he did. Logic is really elementary. But ok it is still pretty deep. Capitalism is more logical than fair.

If a country exports a greater value than it imports, it has a trade surplus or positive balance, and conversely, if a country imports a greater value than it exports, it has a trade deficit or negative balance

The US trade deficit widened by 9.5 percent to USD 50.1 billion in July of 2018 from a downwardly revised USD 45.7 billion in the previous month and slightly below market expectations of USD 50.3 billion. It is the highest trade gap in five months as imports hit a new record high and exports of soybeans and civilian aircraft fell sharply. 
Total exports slumped 1 percent month-over-month to USD 211.08 billion, following a 0.7 percent drop in June. Exports of goods decreased USD 2.3 billion to USD 140.8 billion, mainly due to lower sales of capital goods (USD -0.9 billion); civilian aircraft (USD -1.6 billion); foods, feeds, and beverages (USD -0.9 billion); soybeans (USD -0.7 billion); other goods (USD -0.5 billion). On the other hand, exports of services increased USD 0.2 billion to USD 70.3 billion: charges for the use of intellectual property rose USD 0.1 billion; other business services, which includes research and development services; professional and management services; and technical, trade-related, and other services, went up USD 0.1 billion.

Total imports increased 0.9 percent month-over-month to a record high value of USD 261.16, after rising 0.7 percent in June. Imports of goods went up USD 1.9 billion to USD 213.9 billion, boosted by purchases of capital goods (USD 0.7 billion); computers increased (USD 0.5 billion); computer accessories (USD 0.3 billion); other goods increased (USD 0.7 billion); industrial supplies and materials (USD 0.5 billion); fuel oil (USD 0.3 billion); crude oil (USD 0.3 billion); automotive vehicles, parts, and engines (USD 0.5 billion). On the other hand, imports fell for consumer goods (USD -0.8 billion); pharmaceutical preparations (USD -1.3 billion). Imports of services increased USD 0.3 billion to USD 47.2 billion: travel (for all purposes including education) increased USD 0.2 billion and other business services went up USD 0.1 billion.

According to unadjusted data, exports fell to China (-7.7 percent); Canada (-10 percent), the EU (-15.7 percent) and OPEC (-16.6 percent) but rose to Mexico (2.2 percent) and Japan (1.9 percent). Imports increased from all major partners: China (+5.6 percent); the EU (3.5 percent); Japan (2.4 percent) and OPEC (11.5 percent) while it declined from Mexico (-4.7 percent) and Canada (-5.2 percent):

The goods trade deficit with China rose 10 percent to a record of USD 36.8 billion. The trade deficit also increased with the EU (+50 percent to a record of USD 17.89 billion), Japan (+2.9 percent to USD 5.46 billion), OPEC (+90 percent to USD 3.45 billion) and Canada (+57.6 billion to USD 3.15 billion) but fell with Mexico (-25 percent to USD 5.54 billion). 

Considering the first seven months of the year, the goods and services deficit increased 7 percent, with exports rising 8.6 percent and imports 8.3 percent. The US trade deficit increased with all main trading partners except Canada (-3.6 percent to USD 11.18 billion): China (+8.7 percent to USD 222.566); the EU (+14.1 percent to USD 95.15 billion); Mexico (+6.5 percent to USD 43.58 billion); Japan (+1 percent to USD 40.09 billion) and OPEC (+49.7 percent to USD 14.36 billion). https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta ... e-of-trade
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless.
TS Eliot
User avatar
Bob
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3323
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby phyllo » Sun Sep 16, 2018 3:40 pm

Slavery is essentially the theft of productivity for one's own gain and whether 100% of productivity is stolen or something less than 100% doesn't change the categorization.
So by your own definition of slavery, eating and sleeping are not slavery since in those activities there is no "theft of productivity for one's own gain".

Why don't you just admit it and jump out of the hole that you dug for yourself.

Then one could move on to discussing if employment is some sort of theft or if it is a trade of labor for compensation.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10869
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby omar » Mon Sep 17, 2018 6:25 am

barbarianhorde wrote:Hey Omar
The math is pretty simple, trump is the first us prez to tax corps overseas so much that they move their companies back to the US. Trumpy has already made us back close to a trillion in two years. Comes with record employment.

Funny is that he already said he was gonna do this literally 30 years ago when he said he might have to run to eventually save the country which he did. Logic is really elementary. But ok it is still pretty deep. Capitalism is more logical than fair.


The math, I'm afraid, is not that simple.
Tariff do not save us money. The tariffs are passed on to the consumer. Your price will be increased, which is one of the reasons that he may have waited to after the tax cuts were passed to shit on the capitalist system. That system was the legacy of America's domination in the world after WW2. It was our choice. We were not victims of it, we were the beneficiaries of it.
Perhaps you believe that outsourcing is bad. However, in the case of the Boeing 787 development, it was a necessary condition, securing both the cash and the greatest possible number of customers at the price of having to develop China's manufacturing. Instead of fighting a war which is more likely to spur the application of robotics and automation to ever greater areas of production (built in America....by Watson), the US should have instead continued to do like China and invest on it's future, creating the infrastructure for electric vehicles for example, thus ensuring that we would lead the world in an emerging technology that could change everything. Instead we get into a trade war. You know how stupid it is to get into a trade war with the EU at the same time that you're trying to win a trade war with Canada, Mexico, and China? Complaining about foreign manufacturer's like BMW and Mercedes when in fact they have built fabrics here in the US, thus, like Airbus, could easily escape any effects of the war (as Airbus knows).

In the end, tariffs will increase what we pay. Perhaps they will eat the profits of certain companies, but in the case of Apple for example, the costs of the tariffs will remain less than the costs of shifting operations into the US where everything from rent to labor costs will be much more damaging to profits. This bullshit also flies in the face of our commitment to free markets and small government that stays out of the path of businesses. This is the nationalization of industries. This is fucking communism. We are on the path of guaranteeing the jobs of metal workers, coal miners, auto workers (and whomever else is deemed as essential to winning a toss-up state) for the sake of "national security". Rather than letting the discomfort of losing one's job spur change towards emerging industries (and the government should educate people displaced) we've prolonged the eventual death of coal and will encourage Detroit to produce another Aztek.
omar
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Where Crocs thrive

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Serendipper » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:13 pm

barbarianhorde wrote:Hey Omar
The math is pretty simple, trump is the first us prez to tax corps overseas so much that they move their companies back to the US. Trumpy has already made us back close to a trillion in two years. Comes with record employment.

Funny is that he already said he was gonna do this literally 30 years ago when he said he might have to run to eventually save the country which he did. Logic is really elementary. But ok it is still pretty deep. Capitalism is more logical than fair.

So Trump has taxed the cheap overseas labor to make it equivalent to the expensive american labor and this anti-efficiency is beneficial how? It's across the board price increase to subsidize an inefficient workforce that the free market had determined was antiquated. Trump is meddling in the free market, and not only that, but in a nonsensical way by a sentimental and nostalgic effort to bring back the past.

Trump said in 2016 that the unemployment numbers were a lie and the real number was closer to 42%:



Now suddenly those same numbers are believable simply because he's in charge, but the participation rate is still at historic lows. The fact remains that the unemployment number doesn't count folks who are unemployed for a certain length of time.

The civilian labor force is 161,776,000 and the population is 328,365,000 leaving 166,589,000 people not working. Subtract out students, seniors, disabled, housewives, etc and we're still left with a sizable portion of the population who could be working.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Serendipper » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:18 pm

omar wrote:
barbarianhorde wrote:Hey Omar
The math is pretty simple, trump is the first us prez to tax corps overseas so much that they move their companies back to the US. Trumpy has already made us back close to a trillion in two years. Comes with record employment.

Funny is that he already said he was gonna do this literally 30 years ago when he said he might have to run to eventually save the country which he did. Logic is really elementary. But ok it is still pretty deep. Capitalism is more logical than fair.


The math, I'm afraid, is not that simple.
Tariff do not save us money. The tariffs are passed on to the consumer. Your price will be increased, which is one of the reasons that he may have waited to after the tax cuts were passed to shit on the capitalist system. That system was the legacy of America's domination in the world after WW2. It was our choice. We were not victims of it, we were the beneficiaries of it.
Perhaps you believe that outsourcing is bad. However, in the case of the Boeing 787 development, it was a necessary condition, securing both the cash and the greatest possible number of customers at the price of having to develop China's manufacturing. Instead of fighting a war which is more likely to spur the application of robotics and automation to ever greater areas of production (built in America....by Watson), the US should have instead continued to do like China and invest on it's future, creating the infrastructure for electric vehicles for example, thus ensuring that we would lead the world in an emerging technology that could change everything. Instead we get into a trade war. You know how stupid it is to get into a trade war with the EU at the same time that you're trying to win a trade war with Canada, Mexico, and China? Complaining about foreign manufacturer's like BMW and Mercedes when in fact they have built fabrics here in the US, thus, like Airbus, could easily escape any effects of the war (as Airbus knows).

In the end, tariffs will increase what we pay. Perhaps they will eat the profits of certain companies, but in the case of Apple for example, the costs of the tariffs will remain less than the costs of shifting operations into the US where everything from rent to labor costs will be much more damaging to profits. This bullshit also flies in the face of our commitment to free markets and small government that stays out of the path of businesses. This is the nationalization of industries. This is fucking communism. We are on the path of guaranteeing the jobs of metal workers, coal miners, auto workers (and whomever else is deemed as essential to winning a toss-up state) for the sake of "national security". Rather than letting the discomfort of losing one's job spur change towards emerging industries (and the government should educate people displaced) we've prolonged the eventual death of coal and will encourage Detroit to produce another Aztek.

Yes, tariffs are a tax on the poor and middle class to go along with the tax cuts for the rich. Also, let's not forget that Trump scotus pick (Gorsuch) resulted in sales tax for online purchases, which is another tax on the poor. This is absolutely not sustainable. The only purpose of taxation is redistribution from the rich to the poor, but Trump has it backwards.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Religion and Politics

Postby Serendipper » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:31 pm

phyllo wrote:
Slavery is essentially the theft of productivity for one's own gain and whether 100% of productivity is stolen or something less than 100% doesn't change the categorization.
So by your own definition of slavery, eating and sleeping are not slavery since in those activities there is no "theft of productivity for one's own gain".

Well you can't be slave to yourself, but you could look at it as being slave to the activity because the activity of eating and sleeping is stealing productivity from our goals. I typically only eat once a day for that very reason.

Why don't you just admit it and jump out of the hole that you dug for yourself.

I'm not in a hole.

Then one could move on to discussing if employment is some sort of theft or if it is a trade of labor for compensation.

You cannot trade what you are not conscious of. Since you have no way of knowing what profit your labor is transferring to an employer, there is no way you could agree to it. And since employment is required to survive, the whole notion of "voluntary" is lost anyway.

Let us not forget this post: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=194156&start=25#p2708620

Or to use the technical
39:17
term economists like: he has to rip the
39:20
workers off, he has to steal from them
39:25
part of what their labor added.

That's a bold, passionate, and emphatic statement from a professor of economics with an alma mater of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. Surely he's not confused.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users