Jump to content

Degeneration Of Morals


Recommended Posts

Amen KrustyKidd. Look, the American system is not perfect. I don't expect to see a perfect system anywhere. The American system, however, is the best there is. The vast majority of the people in the Third World want to come here (this beint told to me by actually people from third world countries). The main opposition that the U.S. actually gets is: 1. from terrorists and third world dictators (yeah, wonderful people they are) 2. the U.N. (who really don't like the fact that without the U.S., they are nothing, and would like to think they rule the world and are rather upset that the overpresumptious yanks dare to defy them,) 3. Countries like France, who don't like the Americans because they think the U.S. has to much power as it is.

Thelonius, I agree that morals are on the decline throughout the world, but the U.S. has no monopoly on this. The U.S. simply has better communications. Bad news being the bread and butter of the press, of course all of the real problems come up here, where as in Third world countries, the press held on far too tight a leash to be so negative, or realistic. Moral decline is everywhere, not just in America.

Please show me a country that can compete with the U.S. for freedom, equality, and justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dear Elder,

Moral decline is everywhere, not just in America.

Please show me a country that can compete with the U.S. for freedom, equality, and justice.

I agree with the first part of your statement. I shall just list the countries that rated higher in my 'world human rights guide' (they account for freedom, justice systems, and equality measures)

Higher than the US for freedom, eqaulity and justice:

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Costa Rica

Denmark

Finland

Greece

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

New Guinea

Portugal

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Uruguay

I deliberately left off France and Germany as these would be highly debatable to the right wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Lonius,

if it's the same site I came across awhile back it says something like freedom of the press, freedom of the individual and something else. It's not too meaningful when you are comparing democratic countries with most differences noted between 1 and 30 rather than 1 and 10. I mean, without looking tell me, who is more free, France or Britain? Luxembourg or Belgium? BTW, is it true that Iraq made 148th place? Tell me, who is 147th? Or 149th? Does it make much difference? Those lucky people that never wanted the US to invade and oust Saddam. LOL.

Now, back to reality. You made a broad statement that should have conclusive and easily understood evidence. You have the US being ranked as 14th or something yet do not address the thousands of other things that it does which are good, far above the rest of the countries listed.

Your point was not a casual one. You did not say that the US was not the best int the world. You said that the US was not free, that greed had replaced equality and justice. That would make one reading that statement to assume that it would rank somewhere about 100 at least. Instead it is 14 or something. Either give us something to make this statement stand on it's own without having to be supported piecemeal by one fact at a time or say that 'I personally think that in America ..."

Freedom, equality, justice etc have long ago taken a back seat to greed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

You have the US being ranked as 14th or something yet do not address the thousands of other things that it does which are good, far above the rest of the countries listed.
I was asked to compare ONE country that was equal to the US on these points. I provided many who were above. As for the 'thousands of other things', I have yet to find one.

The US has enshrined freedom, democracy, and equality, to be sure. But that shrine is a tomb. Are you asking how, 'in America itself' these virtues have been usurped, or how they falsely claim that their 'enshrinement' gives them the 'right' to 'free the world'? Moreso, I meant the latter, however, I can argue the former also.

In America, Mammon is God. All things are guaged now on their serviceable value to this new god. The media does not report news that would conflict with HIS purpose. The fact that a JC Penny factory manager was charged with slavery (and sentenced to 10 years) does not make news in American mainstream media. Why? Because that sort of news would not serve Mammon. If there were only space for one story on the front page, and the choice was "US factory manager charged with slavery overseas" versus "Madonna french-kisses Brittney Spears", which story would I find printed? The one that serves Mammon. Always. To do anything else would be un-American.

I have to go cook dinner for my wife. Once upon a time, this would have been news-worthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Elder,
Moral decline is everywhere, not just in America.

Please show me a country that can compete with the U.S. for freedom, equality, and justice.

I agree with the first part of your statement. I shall just list the countries that rated higher in my 'world human rights guide' (they account for freedom, justice systems, and equality measures)

Higher than the US for freedom, eqaulity and justice:

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Costa Rica

Denmark

Finland

Greece

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

New Guinea

Portugal

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Uruguay

I deliberately left off France and Germany as these would be highly debatable to the right wing.

I provided many who were above.

My goodness Lonius. Seems I have caught you misrepresenting evidence. Here below is the identical the chart you used. With scores this time. Seems that the reason USA placed where it was is simply for ease of catagorizing - ALPHABETICAL ORDER.

STAT SITE

Top 100 Civil and political liberties

1. Australia 6 (2001)

2. Austria 6 (2001)

3. Canada 6 (2001)

4. Denmark 6 (2001)

5. Ireland 6 (2001)

6. Finland 6 (2001)

7. Iceland 6 (2001)

8. Netherlands 6 (2001)

9. Norway 6 (2001)

10. New Zealand 6 (2001)

11. Portugal 6 (2001)

12. Sweden 6 (2001)

13. Switzerland 6 (2001)

14. United States 6 (2001)

15. Uruguay 6 (2001)

16. Argentina 5.5 (2001)

17. Belgium 5.5 (2001)

18. Costa Rica 5.5 (2001)

19. Estonia 5.5 (2001)

20. Czech Republic 5.5 (2001)

21. France 5.5 (2001)

22. Germany 5.5 (2001)

23. Hungary 5.5 (2001)

24. Italy 5.5 (2001)

25. Japan 5.5 (2001)

Let's see, USA 6 same as all above making it the tops in a tie for Democracy and all.

Here's another from the same site"

Top 100 Civil and political liberties

1. Finland 6 (2001)

2. Sweden 6 (2001)

3. Ireland 6 (2001)

4. Iceland 6 (2001)

5. United States 6 (2001)

6. Switzerland 6 (2001)

7. New Zealand 6 (2001)

8. Norway 6 (2001)

9. Canada 6 (2001)

10. Portugal 6 (2001)

11. Austria 6 (2001)

12. Australia 6 (2001)

13. Netherlands 6 (2001)

14. Denmark 6 (2001)

15. Japan 5.5 (2001)

16. Belgium 5.5 (2001)

17. Germany 5.5 (2001)

18. Poland 5.5 (2001)

19. United Kingdom 5.5 (2001)

20. France 5.5 (2001)

21. Italy 5.5 (2001)

22. Spain 5.5 (2001)

23. Slovakia 5.5 (2001)

24. Hungary 5.5 (2001)

25. Czech Republic 5.5 (2001)

Gee, this one puts the US way up above France and Germany. What happened here I wonder? Mammon losing ground?

I deliberately left off France and Germany as these would be highly debatable to the right wing.

And lo and behold! France and Germany were behind because they SCORE LOWER!

More stats to show how the US is not the first in crime:

Crime: Top 100 Frauds (per capita)

1. Germany 10.76 per 1000 people

2. United Kingdom 5.34 per 1000 people

8. Canada 2.69 per 1000 people

10. France 2.39 per 1000 people

14. United States 1.33 per 1000 people

25. Greece 0.04 per 1000 people

Top 100 Burglaries (per capita)

5. United Kingdom 13.99 per 1000 people

7. Canada 9.2 per 1000 people

10. United States 7.48 per 1000 people

13. France 6.21 per 1000 people

18. Japan 2.33 per 1000 people

23. Korea, South 0.06 per 1000 people

Top 100 Car thefts (per capita)

1. Australia 7.12 per 1000 people

3. United Kingdom 5.67 per 1000 people

6. France 5.05 per 1000 people

7. Canada 5.02 per 1000 people

8. Italy 4.23 per 1000 people

9. United States 4.09 per 1000 people

14. Japan 2.44 per 1000 people

22. Germany 1 per 1000 people

23. Hungary 0.99 per 1000 people

Top 100 Embezzlements (per capita)

1. Czech Republic 1 per 1000 people

7. Switzerland 0.32 per 1000 people

13. United States 0.06 per 1000 people

14. Japan 0.01 per 1000 people

Top 100 Convicted (per capita)

1. Finland 33.4 per 1000 people

3. United Kingdom 23.39 per 1000 people

4. France 17.9 per 1000 people

8. Canada 9.28 per 1000 people

11. Germany 6.55 per 1000 people

Top 100 Rapes (per capita)

1. Australia 0.8 per 1000 people

2. Canada 0.75 per 1000 people

3. United States 0.32 per 1000 people

6. United Kingdom 0.14 per 1000 people

7. France 0.14 per 1000 people

15. Germany 0.09 per 1000 people

25. Japan 0.02 per 1000 people

I'll give you one more chance

In America, Mammon is God. All things are guaged now on their serviceable value to this new god. The media does not report news that would conflict with HIS purpose.

Prove this or retract it. Show us how there is a 'Church of Mammon.' Show us the difference between greed and ambition.

For your point to be correct, you must first prove that Freedom equality and justice are gone in the US. Then you must show how it has been replaced by greed. Otherwise you are simply ranting.

I have to go cook dinner for my wife

Right on Lonius! Poor Lady needs a good romantic meal as do we all. Now, do us all a favor while you are singing and boiling the pasta, steak with shrimp and dry red wine. Put her on the forum so she can debate for you, as you are losing in a big way here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear KK,

My goodness Lonius. Seems I have caught you misrepresenting evidence. Here below is the identical the chart you used. With scores this time. Seems that the reason USA placed where it was is simply for ease of catagorizing - ALPHABETICAL ORDER.
Actually, I must shamefully admit that the World Human Rights Guide I used was my own copy, and I did no research on the internet for it. Any 'fault' regarding my information is that it is 'dated', not deliberately misrepresented. ( I won't say how dated, but not much has changed for many countries) The countries were listed, in my book, with percentile scores, out of 100. Tops were 5 countries tied at 98%, Canada only made 96%, and the US was at 90%.

Crime stats were not given great weight in my book, as they do not represent 'political rights and freedoms', as they are between individuals, and not between gov't vs. the people.

More 'weighted' questions were regarding the 'peaceful right to assemble in public, to travel outside one's own country, capital punishment, police search and seizure laws, the ability to practice one's own religion, and the freedom to practice homosexuality between consenting adults', etc.

Prove this or retract it. Show us how there is a 'Church of Mammon.' Show us the difference between greed and ambition.

For your point to be correct, you must first prove that Freedom equality and justice are gone in the US. Then you must show how it has been replaced by greed. Otherwise you are simply ranting.

I did not say that they are 'gone' from the US, only that greed has taken over the #1 spot. Obviously, the name 'Church of Mammon' is a metaphor of my own creation. Just as my church, 'The Church of Sh*t Happens', and my diocese, 'Our Lady of Perpetual Cynicism' is also of my creation. Doesn't mean it needs facts for it not to be true.

I shall give due consideration to how I will explain how, not only myself, but most of the world, believe that America is 'the land of the greedy'. I suggest you look at what America spends most of it's efforts on, not most of it's rhetoric.

I will get back to you soon.

A question, though.

greed and ambition.
Do you believe that there is truly no difference?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as my church, 'The Church of Sh*t Happens', and my diocese, 'Our Lady of Perpetual Cynicism' is also of my creation.

I'm in the Choir there. Maybe I know you.

A question, though. "greed and ambition"

Do you believe that there is truly no difference?

I believe that there is a difference. If you want to expand to this point, yes. Let's do so. However, I believe that sloth, apathy are the opposite of ambition. Ambition is a virtue. Greed is a type of ambition. Sloth and apathy are trade offs for not being ambitious in a certain matter. It's all inter connected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ambition, I believe, implies betterment. For one' self, and for those around them.

Greed is for those who wish to 'get rich quick' and then kick back and enjoy sloth and apathy.

Ambition can mean whatever somebody decides it will. Ambition is simply what a person wants to achieve, whether it be for themselves, for others, or something entirely negative.

Greed IS a kind of ambition, because what some people wish to acheive is money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear udawg,

Ambition can mean whatever somebody decides it will. Ambition is simply what a person wants to achieve, whether it be for themselves, for others, or something entirely negative.

Greed IS a kind of ambition, because what some people wish to acheive is money.

I now feel bad for disliking Hitler, Stalin and Tito. After all, they were only ambitious. If ambition was a good thing. Wait, should I hate ambition now?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally like Thelonius' definition of ambition. The main difference, in my oppinion, between ambition and greed is that greed places no regard to the rights of others, where ambition doesn't necessarily want that. Ambition can very easily be turned to greed. Stalin, Hitler, and Tito had greed for power, which is close to ambition, yet not quite. They certainly had ambition as well. The two need not be mutually exclusive, sadly enough. They wanted to have all the power, to have no peers, to take that power from another instead of earning it. These days, we usually aren't trying to usurp peoples power or take it from the, we are trying to earn it from the people. There certainly are exceptions, and I'm willing to bet a lot of them, but that's what the system is supposed to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote Michael Douglas, Greed is good. It works. It is certainly not immoral. What is immoral is self satisfied rights expectations and whimsical victim fantasies.

KK good post on the inferiority of socialist nations on crime and other stats in total in relationship to population vs. the US.

Libs hate facts, they prefer crying, shouting or telling you that they are right and that's that.

Libs should read about how economies work - you can't regulate, control or monitor human behaviour in the marketplace. Price points, supply, demand attributes and creative destruction are too complex to control. Socialist countries like Canada have more petty and total crime than the US - but of course the media never reports this.

Ambition is the engine of the modern world. Capitalism is not only an economic program but a moral/philosophical one. Novak and others have laid out the moral imperative for capitalism and small gov't. Given the corruption, rot and waste of money in Canada and elsewhere i would assume that most thinking people would recognise that big gov't is not their friend. BTW the US has far too much gov't spend and gov't interference/pork barreling.

"The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve 'the common good.' It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification for capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man's rational nature, that it protects man's survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice."  — Ayn Rand

Moral degeneracy can be traced in all ages to the time when life became too easy, money too free and expectations too political. Is it moral to run up massive debts and unfunded liabilities which in Canada total 2x the GNP ?? Who will pay for this ?

Less gov't more self reliance and perforce, by necessity, higher standards of living. 'Grants' and 'Entitlements' break morality not enhance it.

Can you imagine the ninnies in Canada today fighting WW2 ? No way. Moral rot is too pervasive and moral rot is endemic in many levels;

-personal

-business

-gov'tl

-media bias

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Less gov't more self reliance and perforce, by necessity, higher standards of living. 'Grants' and 'Entitlements' break morality not enhance it.

Can you imagine the ninnies in Canada today fighting WW2 ? No way. Moral rot is too pervasive and moral rot is endemic in many levels;

This is simply unbelievable.

You should never ever post again on morality given your behavior on these boards.

What "grants and entitlements" forced you to steal somebody's words and post them as your own ?

Moral rot indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Less gov't more self reliance and perforce, by necessity, higher standards of living. 'Grants' and 'Entitlements' break morality not enhance it.

Can you imagine the ninnies in Canada today fighting WW2 ? No way. Moral rot is too pervasive and moral rot is endemic in many levels;

This is simply unbelievable.

You should never ever post again on morality given your behavior on these boards.

What "grants and entitlements" forced you to steal somebody's words and post them as your own ?

Moral rot indeed.

Mr. Hardner, if you are going to throw around accusations, please back them up. I fail to see the problem with Craig's post. If you see one, please do back it up. Also, Craig has just as much right as anyone to post on what he likes. If you are going to make a statement, do support it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Elder.

You may have not seen my post in US politics under the thread 'Will Amnesty Sink George Bush In 2004?'.

Craig posted to Morgan about Bush's policies and his article almost exactly matches a WSJ article, except for some minor changes.

An acquaintance of mine was expelled from university for the exact same thing once.

I look forward to your pending condemnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardner, you add a lot of hot air and nothing much interesting to the forum.

On 2 of your posts your plagiarised:

Posted: Jan 11 2004, 03:41 PM 

I agree with most of your post Krusty, with the following caveats:

- Almost every government makes up bogeyman for its own purposes, Canada included. Remember Brian Tobin grandstanding over the offshore fishing issue ?

- True democracy in the middle east could very well mean the election of a government which is hostile to Israel. This is not an easily solvable problem. Hopefully, the peoples of these countries will start to see the benefits of peaceful co-existence even if acceptance is impossible. I believe Iran, even with its problems, is starting to see the wisdom of this path

This is taken from among other sources:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east...racy_11-07.html

It was also almost verbatim in a National Post article that same day.

As well:

Posted: Jan 18 2004, 01:49 PM 

Hollinger International dumps Black, sues

Conrad Black has begun his downfall, it seems. The former swashbuckler of the right, who bought the Financial Post and re-oriented it as the national right-wing National Post has been accused of engaging in illegal and unethical business practices. From his comments and actions, it seems that something improper did happen.

I'd like to take a second to explain what Black's actions say about right-wingers in general.

Firstly, some recent background on CB.

Conrad Black was a newpaper magnate at the top of his game in 2000 when the newly Reform-ed Canadian Alliance leadership contest was in full swing. The National Post gave full coverage to the event, supporting Stockwell Day - a Christian fundamentalist - as a young, bright, principled alternative to the corrupt Liberals etc. etc.

Day got the nomination, then got torpedoed in the election. Eventually, Black couldn't afford to keep losing money with the Post, so he unloaded it to a longtime Liberal supporter and skipped the country. This left may conservatives wondering if they might not have been better off without Black's "help".

Anyway, fast forward to fall 2003 when it's discovered that Conrad was taking money from the Hollinger til as "loans" then coeercing the board to not worry about repayments so much. If he owned a corner store and did this, it would be called "stealing" but in the high world of corporate mishmash it engenders endless litigation and out-of-court settlements rather than jail time.

So. What do Conrad Black's immoral and unethical actions say about right-wingers in general, seeing that he was the head cheerleader for Conservative Canada just a few years ago ?

The answer is: absolutely nothing.

This is the problem of the hasty generalization. ie. if a member of a group misbehaves, it doesn't signify anything about the larger group.

Hasty Generalization is used too often in arguments on this and other boards. I've seen it used against Jews, Muslims, Liberals, Conservatives and other groups.

The reason it's wrong is that one single person doesn't represent his demographic group in totality. Bill Clinton's indescretions don't signify that all liberals are lecherous, Conrad Black's apparent indescretions don't signify that all corporate barons are immoral thieves.

Hasty Generalization. Watch for it.

this is a direct ripoff off an op ed piece that was found on many sites including; http://www.cric.ca/en_html/nouvelles/ and in the Toronto Star that same day.

If you steal information at least quote the source.

Further your posts are largely vacuous. You usually write one liners with no content. Some winners include:

Posted: Jan 23 2004, 12:29 PM 

And where did YOU get YOUR numbers ?

NR Article

Some background info in this article that admits that there has been a net loss of jobs under GWB.

But some of this is owing to natural cycles in the economy. Some of it is due to the internet bust. Some of it is due to manufacturing jobs which are going away permanently - and both Dems and Repubs can take credit for this as it's part of the export of these jobs that goes with globalization.

From what i read on the posts on the topic, sources were given about 10 times - why do you repeatedly ask for sources and then ignore them ?

You also said:

Based on US population figures.

1.3 trillion dollars for healthcare to support a population of approximately 281 million.

The cost per capita for US healthcare is approximately

$4620 US dollars.

The cost per capital for Alberta healthcare is approximately

$2450 CDN dollars.

When you convert for the exchange rate, this means that the Alberta (Canadian) system covers twice the people at half the cost.

Sources ?? The figures are wrong and the comparisons wholly inaccurate. Where are your sources and from what site did you steal this information from? Numerous other posts already dealt with Health care spend in detail. Do you bother to read anything on this topic - before you declared yourself the instant expert ?

You said:

Posted: Dec 11 2003, 06:48 PM 

Who's more likely to act in self-interest - thousands of ecology minded volunteers who care about the planet, or corporations whose reason for existence is profit ?

What is the purpose of this post ? It states nothing - the rebuttal is obvious. Companies profit from a clean world, and better technology and better use of inputs. So what is your point ?

You said about Limbaugh - of whom i know very little:

He's a proven liar. There are many examples. If you can't see this, then you're a blind follower and aren't open minded to debate about it. This wouldn't be a surprise because Rush makes his living preaching to the converted every day.

One example of his lying I can remember is when he said that banks assumed all the risks in the federal student loan programme. He didn't have a clue. The loans are guaranteed by the government. When pressed, he claimed that there's a risk in that a bank that fills out the forms incorrectly could be held responsible.

You quote that he lied - where is the source ? from who? and what is their vested interest in hating Limbaugh ?? Why is it true ?

You said:

Read what I wrote. I wrote that America has SHIFTED to the left socially, not that America is LEFT socially.

Do you understand the difference ?

What is the support for gay rights, living together, etc. etc. now versus 1980 ?

Sources ? Rationale ? Ever heard of the 60s hippie culture, civil rights, minority rights and like minded so called leftist movements ? Other commentaries aplenty state the opposite that the US has moved in a conservative direction especially under Bush. Sources ?

You said:

LBJ did it masterfully with radio, then television. Reagan's team was arguably one of the best. Now, it's all about attack ads and misleading television spots.

The powers that be will continue to run North America into the ground because it works to do so. Chretien and GW Bush are two leaders who typify the problems of paying attention to polls and appearances at the cost of real problems being ignored.

The founding fathers didn't set up our democracy to be run by uninformed rabble in an environment of mass media.

Sources ? North America run into the ground - in all areas as compared to whom - the EU ??? From where does this idea come from. The area of the world with high living standards and wealth is destroying itself in all areas ?? Bush pays attention to polls ?? Sources ??? If he did he would not have made his tax cuts and would have pulled out of Iraq. Real problems ignored ?? Such as ? Can you list them with sources ? If not why did you post this ?

You said:

World politics involves more than just listening to what the US president says and following. There are many hotspots, many despots in the world. If the US, being the only superpower, is going to set the agenda then fine - might makes right. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there's some kind of higher ideal behind this.

The US's biggest allies in the middle east are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Its biggest trading partner is China.

Where would you rather live - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China or France ?

Freedom is not a higher ideal nor security ?? What is then ? Health care spending ??? Sources for this ?

You said Saudi is the US biggest ally in the ME. This is untrue. US' biggest ally in the ME is Israel not Saudi Arabia. Pakistan is in Asia by the way not the Middle East and is a pretty important focal point in getting Al Qaeda, so what is your ponit about Pakistan? That the US should not work with it to capture AQ suspects ?? Again a post with no purpose or intelligence.

And we could go on but why bother.

You add no value. Add some posts with intelligence and a point of view that is supported without ripping off bad op ed pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is taken from among other sources:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east...racy_11-07.html

It was also almost verbatim in a National Post article that same day.

You are simply retaliating for my exposure of Craig Read's plagiarism.

I didn't read the newshour piece nor the National Post article that you don't source.

Look at Craig's piece and the WSJ piece. They're almost identical. Word for word. I challenge you to quote the part of the PBS piece that you said I plagiarized.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are other examples not only of you lifting op ed pieces but of adding zero value in the discussion. The regulations are pretty clear, you accuse others of not following them and then commit the same acts yourself. At least be consistent. I did not reference any one individual either i just commented on your posts, you seem to believe that you follow the rules - you stated it yourself many times - i am just pointing out you don't. If you yourself plagiarise then don't accuse others of doing so, especially since some of them post many many items and might forget to either quote or source. You should grant some leeway instead of using it to refute their posts. Many ideas contrary to your own have value. For instance i just replied to a long post by Morgan where for sure he took info from some sites - did I cry and beat him over the head ? No i just questioned some of the statements and asked for sources.

In other words i acted like a normal person should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are other examples not only of you lifting op ed pieces but of adding zero value in the discussion.

Give some examples of these if you have them.

The regulations are pretty clear, you accuse others of not following them and then commit the same acts yourself. At least be consistent. I did not reference any one individual either i just commented on your posts, you seem to believe that you follow the rules - you stated it yourself many times - i am just pointing out you don't.

Give some examples.

If you yourself plagiarise then don't accuse others of doing so, especially since some of them post many many items and might forget to either quote or source. You should grant some leeway instead of using it to refute their posts.

Check out the offending post. It's a word-for-word copy for the most part. He added a few extra words here and there, that's it.

I don't plagiarize.

Many ideas contrary to your own have value. For instance i just replied to a long post by Morgan where for sure he took info from some sites - did I cry and beat him over the head ? No i just questioned some of the statements and asked for sources.

Taking info, paraphrasing ideas is acceptable. That's a normal part of the give and take of ideas in a forum.

Word-for-word plagiarism is not acceptable.

In other words i acted like a normal person should.

Morgan hasn't plagiarized, though. I don't care if people disagree with my ideas but I want to engage in honest debate with people based on their own ideas.

If I wanted to discuss with people who agreed with me all the time, I wouldn't be on this forum.

I'll look at your longer post above now and respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave you examples URLs and sources.

And you just committed exactly what i mentioned already - you just repeat yourself. Someone will give sources, documentation and proof and you ignore it - you just repeat 'show me proof'. You did this on the US job creation posts - so many times i wondered if you actually had bothered to read what the other guys were saying.

I posted many of your posts in which you have no sources, make allegations and directly use OP ed pieces that are not your own - about 10 in fact.

If you want to be the so called moral policeman of this site, then follow the regulations. You break 2 of them consistently:

1. Sourcing information that is not your own.

2. Adding value to the posts by posting information that is relevant or aids the discussion.

My former post outlines this in some detail vis a vis your posts.

Morgan did take information that was not his own making and repost it. He might have reformatted it - but my reaction is so what ? At least he thinks through the issues, adds some ideas and then makes a statement. On the other hand i could write the moderator, complain, and use my Software program to match plagiarised paragraphs with web material and create a fracas. But I don't - all i asked is for sources to be given on a few points he made.

Civilised discourse i call it. My point to you is to have some common sense and realise that nothing posted here is original. If you read a T. Star article yesterday on a topic and posted on it today i would bet that maybe some of the info you read would seep into your post. You might even quote from it and not tell us. My reaction is so what - as long as you give some leeway and recognise that most people here are not interested in 'I said you said' discourse but discussing some ideas.

So let's move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Rasputin:

Hardner, you add a lot of hot air and nothing much interesting to the forum.

This is a comment on me, personally. I'll take that as it stands.

On 2 of your posts your plagiarised:

QUOTE 

Posted: Jan 11 2004, 03:41 PM 

I agree with most of your post Krusty, with the following caveats:

- Almost every government makes up bogeyman for its own purposes, Canada included. Remember Brian Tobin grandstanding over the offshore fishing issue ?

- True democracy in the middle east could very well mean the election of a government which is hostile to Israel. This is not an easily solvable problem. Hopefully, the peoples of these countries will start to see the benefits of peaceful co-existence even if acceptance is impossible. I believe Iran, even with its problems, is starting to see the wisdom of this path

This is taken from among other sources:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east...racy_11-07.html

I scanned the article. There's a general discussion of the benefits of democracy in Iraq, which I agree with. But I didn't see anything close to plagiarism. As I said, I didn't see this article or the television program it transcribes before you posted it.

Plagiarism is a serious charge. Please post which parts of the article you say I copied, along with my corresponding post.

It was also almost verbatim in a National Post article that same day.

Please provide the article.

As well:

QUOTE 

Posted: Jan 18 2004, 01:49 PM 

Hollinger International dumps Black, sues

Conrad Black has begun his downfall, it seems. The former swashbuckler of the right, who bought the Financial Post and re-oriented it as the national right-wing National Post has been accused of engaging in illegal and unethical business practices. From his comments and actions, it seems that something improper did happen.

I'd like to take a second to explain what Black's actions say about right-wingers in general.

Firstly, some recent background on CB.

Conrad Black was a newpaper magnate at the top of his game in 2000 when the newly Reform-ed Canadian Alliance leadership contest was in full swing. The National Post gave full coverage to the event, supporting Stockwell Day - a Christian fundamentalist - as a young, bright, principled alternative to the corrupt Liberals etc. etc.

Day got the nomination, then got torpedoed in the election. Eventually, Black couldn't afford to keep losing money with the Post, so he unloaded it to a longtime Liberal supporter and skipped the country. This left may conservatives wondering if they might not have been better off without Black's "help".

Anyway, fast forward to fall 2003 when it's discovered that Conrad was taking money from the Hollinger til as "loans" then coeercing the board to not worry about repayments so much. If he owned a corner store and did this, it would be called "stealing" but in the high world of corporate mishmash it engenders endless litigation and out-of-court settlements rather than jail time.

So. What do Conrad Black's immoral and unethical actions say about right-wingers in general, seeing that he was the head cheerleader for Conservative Canada just a few years ago ?

The answer is: absolutely nothing.

This is the problem of the hasty generalization. ie. if a member of a group misbehaves, it doesn't signify anything about the larger group.

Hasty Generalization is used too often in arguments on this and other boards. I've seen it used against Jews, Muslims, Liberals, Conservatives and other groups.

The reason it's wrong is that one single person doesn't represent his demographic group in totality. Bill Clinton's indescretions don't signify that all liberals are lecherous, Conrad Black's apparent indescretions don't signify that all corporate barons are immoral thieves.

Hasty Generalization. Watch for it.

this is a direct ripoff off an op ed piece that was found on many sites including; http://www.cric.ca/en_html/nouvelles/ and in the Toronto Star that same day.

You posted a link to the website but not to a specific article. I wrote the piece about generalizations, and the pitfalls in using them - citing the Black story from memory as an example of why generalizations don't (generally ;) )work.

Again, I challenge you to post the op-ed piece you cite and my piece side by side.

If you steal information at least quote the source.

Further your posts are largely vacuous. You usually write one liners with no content. Some winners include:

QUOTE 

Posted: Jan 23 2004, 12:29 PM 

And where did YOU get YOUR numbers ?

NR Article

Some background info in this article that admits that there has been a net loss of jobs under GWB.

But some of this is owing to natural cycles in the economy. Some of it is due to the internet bust. Some of it is due to manufacturing jobs which are going away permanently - and both Dems and Repubs can take credit for this as it's part of the export of these jobs that goes with globalization.

This "one-liner" as you call it is five lines long.

I don't know if you caught it, but it was actually a defense of GWB against some of the more simplistic attacks against his economic record.

I described how cycles in the economy are inevitably pinned to the sitting president whether he deserves it or not.

From what i read on the posts on the topic, sources were given about 10 times - why do you repeatedly ask for sources and then ignore them ?

In other posts, yes, they were given. But posters are constantly posting figures that conflict with each other and we're left to wonder why.

Besides, it's this forum's policy for posters to back up their arguments. If you find that policy to restrictive, post on Rabble or FreeDominion. Those forums make no requirement on posting evidence.

You also said:

QUOTE 

Based on US population figures.

1.3 trillion dollars for healthcare to support a population of approximately 281 million.

The cost per capita for US healthcare is approximately

$4620 US dollars.

The cost per capital for Alberta healthcare is approximately

$2450 CDN dollars.

When you convert for the exchange rate, this means that the Alberta (Canadian) system covers twice the people at half the cost.

This is ridiculous. I sourced all my figures with links to the Alberta budget, US federal stats and other sites.

Sources ?? The figures are wrong and the comparisons wholly inaccurate. Where are your sources and from what site did you steal this information from? Numerous other posts already dealt with Health care spend in detail. Do you bother to read anything on this topic - before you declared yourself the instant expert ?

Taking statistics from a statistics site or the official Alberta budget site is not plagiarism or stealing. As I stated above, the information is in the links.

Where did I declare myself the expert ? I posted some stats and waited for a response - some debate - which is the purpose of this forum.

Rather than declaring me an instant expert, why not try debating me.

Of course, you didn't even click on the links to check the figures so perhaps you don't understand the fundamentals of reasoned debate. I'm not sure....

You said:

QUOTE 

Posted: Dec 11 2003, 06:48 PM 

Who's more likely to act in self-interest - thousands of ecology minded volunteers who care about the planet, or corporations whose reason for existence is profit ?

What is the purpose of this post ? It states nothing - the rebuttal is obvious. Companies profit from a clean world, and better technology and better use of inputs. So what is your point ?

Companies also have short-term profit requirements and, ultimately, their responsibility is to the shareholder. This is the purpose of enterprise.

You said about Limbaugh - of whom i know very little:

QUOTE 

He's a proven liar. There are many examples. If you can't see this, then you're a blind follower and aren't open minded to debate about it. This wouldn't be a surprise because Rush makes his living preaching to the converted every day.

One example of his lying I can remember is when he said that banks assumed all the risks in the federal student loan programme. He didn't have a clue. The loans are guaranteed by the government. When pressed, he claimed that there's a risk in that a bank that fills out the forms incorrectly could be held responsible.

You quote that he lied - where is the source ? from who? and what is their vested interest in hating Limbaugh ?? Why is it true ?

I posted this awhile ago. Limbaugh never denied making the statement.

"So, as I said: When banks take that kind of risk, they are entitled to their profits ."

Rush Limbaugh responds to FAIR. Associated Press, June 28, 1994.

Their vested interest in hating Limbaugh is to force him to be more prudent and professional in his statements. He seems to be listening. People don't go after William F. Buckley, or even David Frum as much because these columnists are much more careful and intelligent with their arguments.

You said:

QUOTE 

Read what I wrote. I wrote that America has SHIFTED to the left socially, not that America is LEFT socially.

Do you understand the difference ?

What is the support for gay rights, living together, etc. etc. now versus 1980 ?

Sources ? Rationale ? Ever heard of the 60s hippie culture, civil rights, minority rights and like minded so called leftist movements ? Other commentaries aplenty state the opposite that the US has moved in a conservative direction especially under Bush. Sources ?

I researched this before posting and found that support for gay marriage is about 50% now and was a lot less in 1980. This should be so obvious as to not require reinforcement.

If you disagree, let me know and I will provide some evidence.

But, discourse is a two way street, you understand...

You said:

QUOTE 

LBJ did it masterfully with radio, then television. Reagan's team was arguably one of the best. Now, it's all about attack ads and misleading television spots.

The powers that be will continue to run North America into the ground because it works to do so. Chretien and GW Bush are two leaders who typify the problems of paying attention to polls and appearances at the cost of real problems being ignored.

The founding fathers didn't set up our democracy to be run by uninformed rabble in an environment of mass media.

Sources ? North America run into the ground - in all areas as compared to whom - the EU ??? From where does this idea come from. The area of the world with high living standards and wealth is destroying itself in all areas ?? Bush pays attention to polls ?? Sources ??? If he did he would not have made his tax cuts and would have pulled out of Iraq. Real problems ignored ?? Such as ? Can you list them with sources ? If not why did you post this ?

This is opinion. I can't source a scientific study about continent-grounding now can I ? Nor can I quote a laboratory study about Reagan, LBJ's or Chretien's political prowess.

The ideas come from my own head.

You said:

QUOTE 

World politics involves more than just listening to what the US president says and following. There are many hotspots, many despots in the world. If the US, being the only superpower, is going to set the agenda then fine - might makes right. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that there's some kind of higher ideal behind this.

The US's biggest allies in the middle east are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Its biggest trading partner is China.

Where would you rather live - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China or France ?

Freedom is not a higher ideal nor security ?? What is then ? Health care spending ??? Sources for this ?

You said Saudi is the US biggest ally in the ME. This is untrue. US' biggest ally in the ME is Israel not Saudi Arabia. Pakistan is in Asia by the way not the Middle East and is a pretty important focal point in getting Al Qaeda, so what is your ponit about Pakistan? That the US should not work with it to capture AQ suspects ?? Again a post with no purpose or intelligence.

If freedom and freedom alone were the driving force behind these actions then we'd see action against many other countries.

Again, you can't source an opinion. It's an opinion. But if you disagree, then tell me why Pakistan was on the list of "bad" nations, then switched over.

You're correct about my errors calling SA the biggest US ally, and that Pakistan is not in the ME.

The purpose of the post is to explain that a nation such as the US has to balance its ideals with what is practical. Publically, of course, they claim that their driving motivation is the quest for global freedom and there's nothing wrong with saying that to keep up morale etc.

But, as you acknowledge, there are sometimes other motivations that require you to downplay the evils that men do. In the past, they did this with Iraq and Saddam. Today, they do it with Pakistan.

And we could go on but why bother.

You add no value. Add some posts with intelligence and a point of view that is supported without ripping off bad op ed pieces.

Well, Rasputin, I'm surprised to say that you did have two points against me amid the insults and false acusations.

As I have said, debate and discussion is the whole point of being here. Debate and discussion of our ideas and others' ideas will make us better informed citizens.

You have made some very serious allegations here and failed to back them up, though. If you want me to continue this dialogue your next step is to provide evidence of your charges.

I will re-post something of the offending Craig Read post below to further demonstrate what constitutes plagiarism. This I do for your edification, and to help you in this challenge, which is, again, to...

* Please provide evidence of your serious charge of plagiarism. *

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rasputin:

Just saw your post above.

I think you don't understand the difference between plagiarism and quoting information.

Here are a few paragraphs Craig Read's post AGAIN from the Amnesty will sink... thread:

Bush's 'guest-worker' proposal would create a legal means -- a renewable three-year work visa -- for new immigrants to enter the country and take jobs that Americans don't want. Illegal immigrants already living here would become eligible for guest-worker status after paying a fine. The plan also would allow for circular migration, which means that farm hands could return home to their families after the harvest without worrying about another life-risking trek back to the U.S. Immigrant workers would enjoy the protection of our labor laws and be able to quit or switch jobs without fear of deportation.

The proposal also has the advantage of making it easier to track foreigners who enter the USA. Valuable homeland security resources are now being squandered chasing down Honduran gardeners and Mexican pool hands instead of more likely terrorist threats. Giving them legal status would let the law-abiding move out into the open and away from possible exploitation by cynical employers or landlords.

Now here is the Wall Street Journal op-ed piece from January 9th.

Mr. Bush's guest-worker proposal would create a legal means -- a renewable three-year work visa -- for new immigrants to enter the country and take jobs that Americans don't want. Illegal immigrants already living here would become eligible for guest-worker status after paying a fine. The plan also would allow for circular migration, which means that farm hands could return home to their families after the harvest without worrying about another life-risking trek back to the U.S. Immigrant workers would enjoy the protection of our labor laws and be able to quit or switch jobs without fear of deportation.

The proposal also has the advantage of making it easier to track foreigners who enter the country in our post-September 11 world. Valuable homeland security resources are now being squandered chasing down Honduran gardeners instead of more likely terrorist threats. Giving them legal status would let the law-abiding move out into the open and away from possible exploitation by cynical employers or landlords.

I challenge you to post one of my pieces and the piece from which you think I stole it. Cut and paste them side by side so we can compare.

Can you do that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have gone way off topic here. This is not to discussed who has plagiarized what. Hardner, your post on Craigs plagiarism was true and appalling, however it absolutely adds nothing to the discussion (nor have the last I-really-don't-care-to-count-how-many posts between you and Rasputin.) Ad-hominum (meaning accusing people instead of fighting ideas) is logical fallacy that is beneath intelligent debate. We are on here to present ideas and try to make some influence, not throw around accusations. I am a huge fan of ending useless arguments. Let's please get back on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...