| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2011 12:48:50 AM · #426 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Haha. Your liberal cohort is slowy backing away from you and the trap you are walking into.
So, remind me again. When we regulate a company, it's because the company, not a person, is doing something wrong?
And when you say people's behavior is subject to regulation all the time, that might include things like, oh I don't know, smoking pot in you own home or one dude marrying another? Those count? We are allowed to regulate those per the whims of society?
And if you say society can't go against the constitution, haven't you just discounted the constitution because it has appointed the SCOTUS to decide things like...whether a company is the same as a person or whether corporations can lobby their representatives?
Yer right Spaz. I'm just a simpleton here who's got no clue about nuthin'. |
We also regulate things like assault, rape, murder, theft, fraud, child labor, how you drive your car and how many chickens you can have in town. Or maybe you'd prefer anarchy?
You're the one who brought up the Constitution. If SCOTUS said the sky was green, would that make it so? |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 01:17:07 AM · #427 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Oh, and I watched the Republican debate tonight. (I don't know why I keep torturing myself with these things!) So I thought it important to correct at least one of the many misleading assertions made by the candidates re: Social Security. Several of them said that Social Security is in the red. This is false!! Social Security has a surplus of over $2 trillion and will be solvent for the next 36? years -- something like that. Social Security is cash-flow negative, meaning it's taking in less than it pays out. But Social Security will operate in the black for decades to come due to the surplus it accrued when it was cash-flow positive. Just sayin...
Over and out. |
I'm not defending the candidates (they don't represent me), but is there any chance they were referring to the fact we have borrowed against Social Security? In other words, the money that should be there isn't because it has been spent on other things? |
They did talk briefly about that, the fact that the Social Security revenues are mixed in with general revenues. It's all in one big pot. But that doesn't change the fact that Social Security is not operating in the red, as they claimed. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 01:30:44 AM · #428 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Haha. Your liberal cohort is slowy backing away from you and the trap you are walking into.
So, remind me again. When we regulate a company, it's because the company, not a person, is doing something wrong?
And when you say people's behavior is subject to regulation all the time, that might include things like, oh I don't know, smoking pot in you own home or one dude marrying another? Those count? We are allowed to regulate those per the whims of society?
And if you say society can't go against the constitution, haven't you just discounted the constitution because it has appointed the SCOTUS to decide things like...whether a company is the same as a person or whether corporations can lobby their representatives?
Yer right Spaz. I'm just a simpleton here who's got no clue about nuthin'. |
We also regulate things like assault, rape, murder, theft, fraud, child labor, how you drive your car and how many chickens you can have in town. Or maybe you'd prefer anarchy?
You're the one who brought up the Constitution. If SCOTUS said the sky was green, would that make it so? |
Perhaps you need to be more careful with your words. You said you were fine with regulating ethical behavior. Ethical behavior and legal behavior are not necessarily synonymous. The SCOTUS does not, in my book, define ethics. It does define legality. If the SCOTUS said legally the sky is green, it would be so. In fact, they declared that legally a tomato is a vegetable when scientifically it is a fruit.
But this distinction only helps me, not you. You wanted to regulate having companies (ie the people running them) to act ethically. Saying you want to regulate companies to act legally is redundant. So at the end of the day you are stuck with either saying passing laws to force ethical behavior is fine (which is fine by me), or you are stuck taking back your statement. But you are still stuck with determining who decides what is ethical and what isn't. We both seem to agree that isn't the SCOTUS, so who is it? |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 02:23:29 AM · #429 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Haha. Your liberal cohort is slowy backing away from you and the trap you are walking into.
So, remind me again. When we regulate a company, it's because the company, not a person, is doing something wrong?
And when you say people's behavior is subject to regulation all the time, that might include things like, oh I don't know, smoking pot in you own home or one dude marrying another? Those count? We are allowed to regulate those per the whims of society?
And if you say society can't go against the constitution, haven't you just discounted the constitution because it has appointed the SCOTUS to decide things like...whether a company is the same as a person or whether corporations can lobby their representatives?
Yer right Spaz. I'm just a simpleton here who's got no clue about nuthin'. |
We also regulate things like assault, rape, murder, theft, fraud, child labor, how you drive your car and how many chickens you can have in town. Or maybe you'd prefer anarchy?
You're the one who brought up the Constitution. If SCOTUS said the sky was green, would that make it so? |
Perhaps you need to be more careful with your words. You said you were fine with regulating ethical behavior. Ethical behavior and legal behavior are not necessarily synonymous. The SCOTUS does not, in my book, define ethics. It does define legality. If the SCOTUS said legally the sky is green, it would be so. In fact, they declared that legally a tomato is a vegetable when scientifically it is a fruit.
But this distinction only helps me, not you. You wanted to regulate having companies (ie the people running them) to act ethically. Saying you want to regulate companies to act legally is redundant. So at the end of the day you are stuck with either saying passing laws to force ethical behavior is fine (which is fine by me), or you are stuck taking back your statement. But you are still stuck with determining who decides what is ethical and what isn't. We both seem to agree that isn't the SCOTUS, so who is it? |
In the end, what does law do? It regulates behaviors that harm society.
I really don't give a shit who does it as long as they do a better job than the idiots who put the proverbial fox in charge of the hen house. SCOTUS doesn't say something is ethical or not, they say if something is Constitutional or not. The two are not mutually inclusive.
Message edited by author 2011-11-10 02:40:43. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 05:40:21 AM · #430 |
Never got to hear it... it says that it is is unavailable.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 09:37:55 AM · #431 |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 09:47:39 AM · #432 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Haha. Your liberal cohort is slowy backing away from you and the trap you are walking into.
So, remind me again. When we regulate a company, it's because the company, not a person, is doing something wrong?
And when you say people's behavior is subject to regulation all the time, that might include things like, oh I don't know, smoking pot in you own home or one dude marrying another? Those count? We are allowed to regulate those per the whims of society?
And if you say society can't go against the constitution, haven't you just discounted the constitution because it has appointed the SCOTUS to decide things like...whether a company is the same as a person or whether corporations can lobby their representatives?
Yer right Spaz. I'm just a simpleton here who's got no clue about nuthin'. |
We also regulate things like assault, rape, murder, theft, fraud, child labor, how you drive your car and how many chickens you can have in town. Or maybe you'd prefer anarchy?
You're the one who brought up the Constitution. If SCOTUS said the sky was green, would that make it so? |
Perhaps you need to be more careful with your words. You said you were fine with regulating ethical behavior. Ethical behavior and legal behavior are not necessarily synonymous. The SCOTUS does not, in my book, define ethics. It does define legality. If the SCOTUS said legally the sky is green, it would be so. In fact, they declared that legally a tomato is a vegetable when scientifically it is a fruit.
But this distinction only helps me, not you. You wanted to regulate having companies (ie the people running them) to act ethically. Saying you want to regulate companies to act legally is redundant. So at the end of the day you are stuck with either saying passing laws to force ethical behavior is fine (which is fine by me), or you are stuck taking back your statement. But you are still stuck with determining who decides what is ethical and what isn't. We both seem to agree that isn't the SCOTUS, so who is it? |
ok look no caps again, anyhow who is SCOTUS, second a tomato is a fruit your right and i don't care what they say.
my question to you doc is, i don't know about where you live but here there are no companies hiring full time employees they cut them off at 32 hours a week so that they don't have to pay for health insurance. the way i see it is that if all the businesses follow this plan you won't have any customers some time in the near future. as much as people would love to work for free it's impossible. so should the businesses be allowed to get away with treating people like that to me that's unethical if you are going to work someone to the point of exhaustion, like most american companies do, than shouldn't you be required to provide healthcare? |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 11:17:31 AM · #433 |
Supreme Court of the United States.
Health Care is a totally broken system. I don't know what to suggest. Just telling a company right now they have to provide health care is not the simple answer. Many companies (mainly small ones) honestly cannot afford it. It has become so expensive. I don't have the answer for you though other than somehow move to a one-payer system (ie. health insurance through the government). Even that has its problems as we see European countries struggle under the debt of their social obligations. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 11:28:59 AM · #434 |
seriously the supreme court said that a tomato is a vegetable no wonder this country is so f'ed up.
i think a lot of the problem with health care started when managed care/HMO's started funneling people through the system as fast as they can to make money. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 11:50:52 AM · #435 |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 12:53:41 PM · #436 |
if WE cant even agree what is ethical, what gives me, you or anyone the right to decide how a company should act?
|
|
|
|
11/10/2011 01:03:34 PM · #437 |
seriously they are eating the wrong tomatoes cause when they are ripe they are sweet haha. did u see that tomato tree that was kinda kewl. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 01:15:53 PM · #438 |
The fruit/vegetable status of tomatoes is a legal issue, and has solely to do with the application of import tariffs (taxes)* and nothing to do with botany.
*and those lobbying for lower taxes ...
If you want to get picky, lots of "vegetables" are botanically fruits: cucumbers, squashes, peppers, eggplant, etc. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 01:35:45 PM · #439 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The fruit/vegetable status of tomatoes is a legal issue, and has solely to do with the application of import tariffs (taxes)* and nothing to do with botany.
*and those lobbying for lower taxes ...
If you want to get picky, lots of "vegetables" are botanically fruits: cucumbers, squashes, peppers, eggplant, etc. |
you can't change something from a fruit to a vegetable solely for the purpose of making money that is like telling a white kid look we'll give you the scholarship but you are now Asian so we can collect money from the government. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 01:43:12 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
if WE cant even agree what is ethical, what gives me, you or anyone the right to decide how a company should act? |
We just can't agree on the finer points.
Is rape ethical? Murder? Assault? Driving 100mph down the street in front of an elementary school? Ponzi schemes? |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 01:57:47 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
you can't change something from a fruit to a vegetable solely for the purpose of making money ... |
Well, that's what was done. I don't know the current status of this -- the original legal case was a long time ago. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 02:09:29 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
if WE cant even agree what is ethical, what gives me, you or anyone the right to decide how a company should act? |
One of the great shifts of the last few years is the legal notion that a corporation, a company or an entity created for the purpose of business is not only equal to a real person, but is better than a human being with all the rights of a person but few of the responsibilities.
Saying that simple humans have no ethical right to limit the behaviors of companies, puts companies on the level of gods.
Message edited by author 2011-11-10 14:10:15. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 03:22:51 PM · #443 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
if WE cant even agree what is ethical, what gives me, you or anyone the right to decide how a company should act? |
We just can't agree on the finer points.
|
right, and those finer points are what you want to change and i don't. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 03:35:41 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
if WE cant even agree what is ethical, what gives me, you or anyone the right to decide how a company should act? |
We just can't agree on the finer points.
|
right, and those finer points are what you want to change and i don't. |
That wasn't your question. The answer to your question above is that the same things that give the society the right to say rape, murder or driving 100mph in front of a school is wrong give it the right to say corporations will act a certain way.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2011 04:53:09 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
if WE cant even agree what is ethical, what gives me, you or anyone the right to decide how a company should act? |
We just can't agree on the finer points.
|
right, and those finer points are what you want to change and i don't. |
That wasn't your question. The answer to your question above is that the same things that give the society the right to say rape, murder or driving 100mph in front of a school is wrong give it the right to say corporations will act a certain way. |
I believe it is already just as illegal for a corporation to rape, murder and drive 100MPH. ;-) |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 05:20:11 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by mike_311:
if WE cant even agree what is ethical, what gives me, you or anyone the right to decide how a company should act? |
We just can't agree on the finer points.
|
right, and those finer points are what you want to change and i don't. |
That wasn't your question. The answer to your question above is that the same things that give the society the right to say rape, murder or driving 100mph in front of a school is wrong give it the right to say corporations will act a certain way. |
I believe it is already just as illegal for a corporation to rape, murder and drive 100MPH. ;-) |
We do regulate their behavior, just not enough. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 05:57:27 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
We do regulate their behavior, just not enough. |
i guess im still gunshy about too much regulation becuase we have no protection that the regulation is in our best interests. take the net neutrality vote today, i'm all for regulating the net and keeping it neutral. while i usually advocate a hands off approach, its clear in this case the the telcos have their hands deep in the republican pockets and want this regulation repealed.
Message edited by author 2011-11-10 17:57:49. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 05:58:52 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by Spork:
We do regulate their behavior, just not enough. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I've never really been able to figure it out other than what seems to be a human tendancy to want to regulate everybody else. |
Message edited by author 2011-11-10 17:59:44. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 06:24:20 PM · #449 |
//www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=buovLQ9qyWQ
Police beating students that occupied CAL to protest about budget cuts and tuition hikes
Regardless of the occupy-movement's goals, are police behaving correctly?
eta: //www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/10/thousands-gather-for-occupy-cal-protest_n_1086963.html
They let go of ~40 janitors, plan to raise tuition 81% (over 4 years), and give $100,000 raises to the presidents. makes sense.
Message edited by author 2011-11-10 18:42:15. |
|
|
|
11/10/2011 06:29:11 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork:
We do regulate their behavior, just not enough. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...I've never really been able to figure it out other than what seems to be a human tendancy to want to regulate everybody else. |
|
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
At some point in this thread I'll bet  DrAchoo quotes himself and  Spork in a seemingly clever way. |
|
|
