Bonam Posted August 30, 2011 Report Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) I'm not talking about the wal mart worker. I'm talking about the 14 year old girl working 14 hours a day, 7 days a week for 20 cents an hour. And if you don't think that they work for people that treat them like chattel you are sadly mistaken. All for some crappy T-shirt you buy for $9.99. The proof is out there for you to find. I realize that no matter how much proof I show you, You will dispute it, because you just don't want to find the truth. You like the world the way it is, and you don't want to know where the products you buy come from. Actually I tend to pay attention to where the products I buy come from. Depending on the class of product, there can be a considerable difference in quality. I tend to stay away from clothing and outdoor equipment made in China, for example, because it often exhibits limited durability. Same reason I stay away from cars made in America and instead buy Japanese ones. You are right, I do like the world the way it is. It is working out quite nicely for me. But, being trained as a scientist, I always want to find "truth", to the extent that it is possible to do so, at least on subjects that interest me anyway. So what proof do you have that Walmart exploits child slave labour as part of its operations? In any case, I would say that, if such working conditions exist in China, they say a lot more about the morality of the leaders of China's government than about anyone or anything else. Furthermore, one must also consider the alternative. While perhaps no longer applicable to China, in many underdeveloped nations, a 20c/hour job can mean the difference between starving to death in the streets and being able to afford food and shelter. Remember that the cost of living in these nations is many many times lower than it is in North America. In fact, that is one of the reasons that our economies now face as much trouble that they do, it is because our labour force faces such intense wage competition from overseas, where people can afford to work for much less. Anyway, if this girl of yours has the option of quitting and no longer working there, it's not slavery. Edited August 30, 2011 by Bonam Quote
dre Posted August 30, 2011 Report Posted August 30, 2011 Actually I tend to pay attention to where the products I buy come from. Depending on the class of product, there can be a considerable difference in quality. I tend to stay away from clothing and outdoor equipment made in China, for example, because it often exhibits limited durability. Same reason I stay away from cars made in America and instead buy Japanese ones. You are right, I do like the world the way it is. It is working out quite nicely for me. But, being trained as a scientist, I always want to find "truth", to the extent that it is possible to do so, at least on subjects that interest me anyway. So what proof do you have that Walmart exploits child slave labour as part of its operations? In any case, I would say that, if such working conditions exist in China, they say a lot more about the morality of the leaders of China's government than about anyone or anything else. Furthermore, one must also consider the alternative. While perhaps no longer applicable to China, in many underdeveloped nations, a 20c/hour job can mean the difference between starving to death in the streets and being able to afford food and shelter. Remember that the cost of living in these nations is many many times lower than it is in North America. In fact, that is one of the reasons that our economies now face as much trouble that they do, it is because our labour force faces such intense wage competition from overseas, where people can afford to work for much less. Anyway, if this girl of yours has the option of quitting and no longer working there, it's not slavery. While perhaps no longer applicable to China, in many underdeveloped nations, a 20c/hour job can mean the difference between starving to death in the streets and being able to afford food and shelter. I see a problem with that justification though... it could be used for just about anything. You could even make the same argument about slavery because at least africans sold into slavery were mostly given food and shelter, which is more than many other Africans had. Seems like we as consumers should have our own values on what is fair and not allow the lowest common denominator to determine our values for us. Morally is there really any diference between buying a product made by a company that subjects its workers to horrible conditions and owning such a company? Not really. When you buy a product you vote with your wallet and you fund the practices of that company. We buy stuff from communist countries and autocratic regimes because its cheaper to make stuff in places where workers have no rights, shitty lives, and no political representation. Well no DUH its cheaper! I bet ya we could have bought cheap stuff from Soviet gulags during the cold war too! Todays generation probably WOULD have. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted August 30, 2011 Report Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) I see a problem with that justification though... it could be used for just about anything. You could even make the same argument about slavery because at least africans sold into slavery were mostly given food and shelter, which is more than many other Africans had.There is no comparision. Slaves were required by law to work for their master. If they refused to work their master is legally entitled to use violance to force compliance. People forced by economics to work for a wage are not compelled by law. If they wanted to starve in the street they can walk away from their employers at any time. The difference is extremely important. In developing countries many people starving in the street so a low wage job in bad working conditions offers a way out. Edited August 30, 2011 by TimG Quote
GostHacked Posted August 30, 2011 Report Posted August 30, 2011 If you can spare a couple hours. I do suggest hitting youtube and watching something called 'The Corporation'. Worth the watch. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Posted August 30, 2011 I see a problem with that justification though... it could be used for just about anything. You could even make the same argument about slavery because at least africans sold into slavery were mostly given food and shelter, which is more than many other Africans had. Moot point....slavery in North America (including Canada) was part of an economic system that included many other classes of indentured servitude. And it was enforced by the laws of the day. Seems like we as consumers should have our own values on what is fair and not allow the lowest common denominator to determine our values for us. Morally is there really any diference between buying a product made by a company that subjects its workers to horrible conditions and owning such a company? Not really. When you buy a product you vote with your wallet and you fund the practices of that company. OK....then each consumer can make his/her choice based on their value system, but I am pretty sure what the main driver will be....price. We buy stuff from communist countries and autocratic regimes because its cheaper to make stuff in places where workers have no rights, shitty lives, and no political representation. Well no DUH its cheaper! I bet ya we could have bought cheap stuff from Soviet gulags during the cold war too! Todays generation probably WOULD have. You buy stuff from the United States as well, even while bitching about its domestic and foreign policies. No real difference there... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
CitizenX Posted August 30, 2011 Author Report Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Actually I tend to pay attention to where the products I buy come from. Depending on the class of product, there can be a considerable difference in quality. I tend to stay away from clothing and outdoor equipment made in China, for example, because it often exhibits limited durability. Same reason I stay away from cars made in America and instead buy Japanese ones. You are right, I do like the world the way it is. It is working out quite nicely for me. But, being trained as a scientist, I always want to find "truth", to the extent that it is possible to do so, at least on subjects that interest me anyway. So what proof do you have that Walmart exploits child slave labour as part of its operations? In any case, I would say that, if such working conditions exist in China, they say a lot more about the morality of the leaders of China's government than about anyone or anything else. Furthermore, one must also consider the alternative. While perhaps no longer applicable to China, in many underdeveloped nations, a 20c/hour job can mean the difference between starving to death in the streets and being able to afford food and shelter. Remember that the cost of living in these nations is many many times lower than it is in North America. In fact, that is one of the reasons that our economies now face as much trouble that they do, it is because our labour force faces such intense wage competition from overseas, where people can afford to work for much less. Anyway, if this girl of yours has the option of quitting and no longer working there, it's not slavery. So if I understand you correctly, you are more concerned with the quality of the product that you are purchasing than how it is produced. If you truly have an interest in finding the truth there are plenty of resources out there. No one can force the truth on people they must seek it out for them selves, examine both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusions. This is the only way that you will truly believe, and change the way you behave as a consumer. And finally, allot of the evil acts that are perpetrated arise from the deflection of responsibility. You are responsible for how you act as a consumer. Edited August 30, 2011 by CitizenX Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
CitizenX Posted August 30, 2011 Author Report Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) If you can spare a couple hours. I do suggest hitting youtube and watching something called 'The Corporation'. Worth the watch. Yes it's a great documentary. The Corporation - (Full Movie) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvPXR_6cn0s If your interested in the history of Corporate Personhood check out this video. Very enlightening as to where capitalism went wrong. Some books you might find of interest ....(Please Buy Locally, and from small business) Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism The Divine Right of Capital: Dethroning the Corporate Aristocracy When Corporations Rule the World Unequal Protection: How Corporations Became "People" - And How You Can Fight Back The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism Edited August 30, 2011 by CitizenX Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
wyly Posted August 30, 2011 Report Posted August 30, 2011 It is my view that Corporations are evil entities. So why do I believe this? Before I give my reasons lets look at some definitions. Evil doesn't fit IMO... Asocial is better a·so·cial (-sshl) adj. 1. Not social: "Bears are asocial, secretive animals" (David Graber). 2. Avoiding or averse to the society of others; not sociable: "It's not that you're so asocial, but a man who likes people doesn't wind up in the Antarctic" (Saul Bellow). 3. Unable or unwilling to conform to normal standards of social behavior; antisocial: "crime, riots, drug use and other asocial behavior" (Derek Shearer). 4. Inconsiderate of others; self-centered. Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
CitizenX Posted August 30, 2011 Author Report Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Evil doesn't fit IMO... Asocial is better a·so·cial (-sshl) adj. 1. Not social: "Bears are asocial, secretive animals" (David Graber). 2. Avoiding or averse to the society of others; not sociable: "It's not that you're so asocial, but a man who likes people doesn't wind up in the Antarctic" (Saul Bellow). 3. Unable or unwilling to conform to normal standards of social behavior; antisocial: "crime, riots, drug use and other asocial behavior" (Derek Shearer). 4. Inconsiderate of others; self-centered. How about Amoral ? a·mor·al adjective 1.not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral. 2.having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person. What is your definition of evil ? I derived my definition from the book The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty by Simon Baron-Cohen Edited August 30, 2011 by CitizenX Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Posted August 30, 2011 If you truly have an interest in finding the truth there are plenty of resources out there. No one can force the truth on people they must seek it out for them selves, examine both sides of the argument and come to their own conclusions. This is the only way that you will truly believe, and change the way you behave as a consumer. I have found the truth, but won't change my consumer habits one bit, except to buy more stuff. And finally, allot of the evil acts that are perpetrated arise from the deflection of responsibility. You are responsible for how you act as a consumer. OK....does this mean you are going to sue us for consuming so much? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted August 30, 2011 Report Posted August 30, 2011 How about Amoral ? Yes, amoral is the correct adjective. Corporations have no intrinsic morality. They are neither moral nor immoral. Quote
Remiel Posted August 31, 2011 Report Posted August 31, 2011 Yes, amoral is the correct adjective. Corporations have no intrinsic morality. They are neither moral nor immoral. This could I think be disputed to some degree, but for the purposes of debate it might be better to change the question rather than belabour that point: We need not ask whether corporations are evil if we can answer whether they do evil. Quote
Bonam Posted August 31, 2011 Report Posted August 31, 2011 This could I think be disputed to some degree, but for the purposes of debate it might be better to change the question rather than belabour that point: We need not ask whether corporations are evil if we can answer whether they do evil. Yes, that would be a somewhat less ridiculous thesis to debate. Insofar as "evil" is defined as doing physical, economic, emotional, or environmental harm to someone or something, some corporations certainly do evil. But corporations also do "good", in that they generate economic activity, without which most of us would be living at a much lower standard of living. If one proceeds with such definitions, the real question would be what the ratio of good to evil done by corporations is, and whether there is any alternate system that could provide the same (or more) good while doing less evil. Quote
Remiel Posted August 31, 2011 Report Posted August 31, 2011 Yes, that would be a somewhat less ridiculous thesis to debate. Insofar as "evil" is defined as doing physical, economic, emotional, or environmental harm to someone or something, some corporations certainly do evil. But corporations also do "good", in that they generate economic activity, without which most of us would be living at a much lower standard of living. If one proceeds with such definitions, the real question would be what the ratio of good to evil done by corporations is, and whether there is any alternate system that could provide the same (or more) good while doing less evil. Keep in mind that "doing good" , even a lot of good, need not necessarily mitigate the "doing evil" . A paramedic, a police officer or a soldier may save uncounted people in their lifetimes, but that is not likely to be judged to cancel out the evil if they go out and murder even just a handful of people in cold blood. Quote
CitizenX Posted August 31, 2011 Author Report Posted August 31, 2011 Yes, that would be a somewhat less ridiculous thesis to debate. Insofar as "evil" is defined as doing physical, economic, emotional, or environmental harm to someone or something, some corporations certainly do evil. But corporations also do "good", in that they generate economic activity, without which most of us would be living at a much lower standard of living. If one proceeds with such definitions, the real question would be what the ratio of good to evil done by corporations is, and whether there is any alternate system that could provide the same (or more) good while doing less evil. Any good that comes from a corporation is a byproduct of profit making. They don't employ people because they are good social citizens, if they could get along without any employee's they would. Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
TimG Posted August 31, 2011 Report Posted August 31, 2011 Any good that comes from a corporation is a byproduct of profit making. They don't employ people because they are good social citizens, if they could get along without any employee's they would.So what? That does not change the fact that they do good. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Posted August 31, 2011 So what? That does not change the fact that they do good. Exactly....the "good vs. evil" debate is just another subjective argument with no definitive resolution. All those who only want to sponsor "good" with their consumer choices please step forward so you can die hard. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
CitizenX Posted August 31, 2011 Author Report Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) Hey bush_cheney2004, Ron Paul is America's only hope make sure you vote for him in the next election. Ron Paul 2012 Edited August 31, 2011 by CitizenX Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Posted August 31, 2011 Hey bush_cheney2004, Ron Paul is America's only hope make sure you vote for him in the next election. How would Canadians take to Americans telling them who to vote for? That's just pathetic.... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
CitizenX Posted August 31, 2011 Author Report Posted August 31, 2011 How would Canadians take to Americans telling them who to vote for? That's just pathetic.... Why? Whats the big deal. Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) Why? Whats the big deal. The big deal is that Americans (and Canadians) get to vote (or not vote at all) for the candidate of their choosing. It is pathetic for you to lobby for my vote in another nation, and I know damn well that Canadians would not appreciate like circumstances from "'merkins". America will vote for a president in 2012, and you don't get a say in that. It is pathetic that you may think your fortune is tied to the outcome of an American election. Edited August 31, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
CitizenX Posted August 31, 2011 Author Report Posted August 31, 2011 It is pathetic that you may think your fortune is tied to the outcome of an American election. It's not pathetic, it's a reality. The world is linked to what happens in America. If the states go down, which looks like it is, the whole world is effected. So lighten up.....and ohh yaa VOTE RON PAUL 2012. Check the American board that topic was for you. Quote "The rich people have their lobbyists and the poor people have their feet." The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Posted August 31, 2011 It's not pathetic, it's a reality. The world is linked to what happens in America. If the states go down, which looks like it is, the whole world is effected. So lighten up.....and ohh yaa VOTE RON PAUL 2012. Check the American board that topic was for you. Jeezuz...you are pathetic. If the "states go down", there isn't anything you can do about it anyway. Ron Paul will be another loser in 2012, just like before. I don't vote for losers, and you can't vote at all. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
dre Posted August 31, 2011 Report Posted August 31, 2011 The big deal is that Americans (and Canadians) get to vote (or not vote at all) for the candidate of their choosing. It is pathetic for you to lobby for my vote in another nation, and I know damn well that Canadians would not appreciate like circumstances from "'merkins". America will vote for a president in 2012, and you don't get a say in that. It is pathetic that you may think your fortune is tied to the outcome of an American election. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
jbg Posted September 2, 2011 Report Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) It is my view that Corporations are evil entities. So why do I believe this? Before I give my reasons lets look at some definitions. Corporation - an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. - dicionary.com Corporations are an artificial monstrosity that destroy any possibility of a "free market". They shouldn't exist. They are a mistake that humans made but, I don't think that I'd call them evil. In my view a corporation is a piece of paper that reflects the good and evil of its stakeholders; shareholders, creditors and employees. If corporations did not exist economic growth would not occur since people could not limit their exposure to risk. Edited September 2, 2011 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
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.