Not all companies are that bad. If you want to talk about cool game developers, check out Insomniac Games.
http://www.insomniacgames.com/careers.php
http://www.insomniacgames.com/careers.php
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-02-27 15:26:18)
I'm not saying all are bad, I'm just saying it's naive to assume that the managements of mega corporations are particularly ethical. Because at the end of the day, their job depends on the shareholders, not workers. And shareholders want lots and lots of profits.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Not all companies are that bad. If you want to talk about cool game developers, check out Insomniac Games.
I should not have said democracies but modern countries with modern governments and capital punishment was not abolished in many places until pretty recent. The point of my post is still valid when I say that you can not start an argument based on one country in which SOME states use capital punishment and then try to equate it to what is going on all over the muslim world in regards to death for not following the "state" religion. That comparison is utterly ridiculous no matter how you slice it.Sorcerer0513 wrote:
There is?DeathBecomesYu wrote:
There is capital punishment in many, many modern democracies and it has nothing to do with how America and SOME of its states choose to punish major capital crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deat … ld_Map.png
the holocaust was "germany's business"...Marinejuana wrote:
It's called national sovereignty and it's in your best interests to leave it alone.sergeriver wrote:
Well, I suppose I should have left this to Lowing, but this is too much. How can Ahmadinejad claim Iran is moderate and then they have this BS in the penal code? One thing is Sharia law, which is from the Dark Ages, but adding this to a penal code in the 21st Century is outrageous.
edit: Also, saying that the radical muslims are living in the stone age isn't fucking ethnocentrism it's the truth. I had a muslim friend who was a cool guy, and I have a muslim teacher who is very nice. Know why? They aren't crazy-ass, Sharia-following, radical nutcases like those tools who run nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Last edited by HurricaИe (2008-02-27 15:46:56)
Well, true, but I think that what Schuss was focusing on, is this statement by FallenMorgan: "A country should not kill it's own people."DeathBecomesYu wrote:
I should not have said democracies but modern countries with modern governments and capital punishment was not abolished in many places until pretty recent. The point of my post is still valid when I say that you can not start an argument based on one country in which SOME states use capital punishment and then try to equate it to what is going on all over the muslim world in regards to death for not following the "state" religion. That comparison is utterly ridiculous no matter how you slice it.
So I don't think he was equating it, he just tried to show the error(hypocrisy?) of that post:
If he says a country should not kill it's own people, that means it should not kill them for any reason, no? Then why focus only on NK, Iran and Saudi Arabia? Cos that's popular right now? If UN did indeed rewrite it as his post states, US would be affected too, never mind that it does not use it for something as ridiculous as abandoning the "state" religion as Iran proposes.FallenMorgan wrote:
Absolute bullshit. A country should not kill it's own people. I say the United Nations or something should write a new resolution on human rights, that would kick the shit out of North Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. I hate it when people say it's none of our business.
And there are no profits without workers. But what are you going to do, ban capitalism? That'll sure boost the common man.Sorcerer0513 wrote:
I'm not saying all are bad, I'm just saying it's naive to assume that the managements of mega corporations are particularly ethical. Because at the end of the day, their job depends on the shareholders, not workers. And shareholders want lots and lots of profits.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Not all companies are that bad. If you want to talk about cool game developers, check out Insomniac Games.
Corporations =/= capitalism. You can happily dispose of corporations while retaining capitalism.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
And there are no profits without workers. But what are you going to do, ban capitalism? That'll sure boost the common man.Sorcerer0513 wrote:
I'm not saying all are bad, I'm just saying it's naive to assume that the managements of mega corporations are particularly ethical. Because at the end of the day, their job depends on the shareholders, not workers. And shareholders want lots and lots of profits.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Not all companies are that bad. If you want to talk about cool game developers, check out Insomniac Games.
Actually, I dont think there is any country in the world where the government or laws haven't killed its own people, past and present. No one can say they have clean hands when it comes to that. It happens in different forms, different ways, even neglect and inaction. Also, I dont see anyone focusing on just those 3 countries you mentioned. The OP is correct, this type of Sharia law is affecting almost every Muslim country in this world and now its creeping into penal codes of what some consider the "moderate" muslim countries and they will use it to kill some of their own people.Sorcerer0513 wrote:
Well, true, but I think that what Schuss was focusing on, is this statement by FallenMorgan: "A country should not kill it's own people."DeathBecomesYu wrote:
I should not have said democracies but modern countries with modern governments and capital punishment was not abolished in many places until pretty recent. The point of my post is still valid when I say that you can not start an argument based on one country in which SOME states use capital punishment and then try to equate it to what is going on all over the muslim world in regards to death for not following the "state" religion. That comparison is utterly ridiculous no matter how you slice it.
So I don't think he was equating it, he just tried to show the error(hypocrisy?) of that post:If he says a country should not kill it's own people, that means it should not kill them for any reason, no? Then why focus only on NK, Iran and Saudi Arabia? Cos that's popular right now? If UN did indeed rewrite it as his post states, US would be affected too, never mind that it does not use it for something as ridiculous as abandoning the "state" religion as Iran proposes.FallenMorgan wrote:
Absolute bullshit. A country should not kill it's own people. I say the United Nations or something should write a new resolution on human rights, that would kick the shit out of North Korea, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. I hate it when people say it's none of our business.
well i have to say this post really wanders, i dont see you you make any main point for me to rebut, but since you put some effort into making it a debate, heres my reply, i didnt leave out anything from your post:
it sounds like we can agree up to this point, but u seem to think its a natural or unavoidable process, and that by this process of expansion and elimination we will just have to accept whoever comes to power and devalues our labor most. i disagree with this idea because i see it as needless defeatism. the same way we can largely keep people from raping and murdering each other (with laws), we can also do a lot more to ensure that as corporations expand, they dont short change the working class. i disagree with the stratification of ownership and wages within modern corporations. if a small business was bought out by a large corporation but it let the locals run the franchises as they please, and if those people could make about as much money and live as well while running the franchise as they did before a corporation undercut their prices, then i couldnt really complain. but when a corporation uses its size and ability to temporarily absorb losses to destroy previous lifestyles and local economies (to be replaced), then i think our laws should reflect these practices as violent and destructive in the same way that they would if weapons were involved. but i still dont think its fair to uphold any of our standards on people across the globe that we do not understand.
okay, sure. im hopeful too.Pug wrote:
Ok, I'll try:Marinejuana wrote:
Well I wasn't planning on submitting that post to any journals for peer-review, but I'm certain that you can find more substance in my post than many of the others here. For example, there are many posts like your empty, but insulting, reply that add virtually nothing to the "debate and serious talk" beyond an admission of extreme bias.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
marinejuana, the amount of nonsense you spew far outweighs your good points.
Corporations employ people. It is hopeful that those in charge of those corporations are ethically operating as being corporate-responsible. Making money is not a crime, unless you are stepping on someone to accomplish this goal. This is a point you agree with.
foreign corporations or domestic? we can debate about how to legislate our own corporations all day long because a corporation is not a sovereign state (hard to believe, isnt it?), but to legislate a sovereign state negates its sovereignty and the freedom for those people to have their own culture.pug wrote:
So your point is that countries have the sovereignity to kill their own people because of religious intolerance, and yet they shouldn't be held to the same standards as corporations?
so your point here is that they arent smart? thanks for your opinion, the oil is on their land, they can do wtf they want. your opinion of their intelligence is, once again, irrelevant to their sovereign enterprises. if they go on a Nazi warpath invading countries and policing neighborhoods, then fine, we can talk about taking action to prevent damage to our own republic or our allies, but as it stands, there is still no call to action or unusual demand for us to strip them of their national sovereignty.pug wrote:
Those who control the oil are elevated to a position of power. Rather than be smart about their position of power, the radical branches of Islam have taken it upon themselves to dictate the terms of the deal.
okay, well u are mixing separate points by invoking my use of the word business plan, but ignoring your overall confusion, illegals "take our jobs" when in their institutional poverty, they become so desperate that they will work illegally or at extremely low wages in order to survive. i had thought ATGs employee stole from him and then worked under the table, unlicensed, undermining ATGs business. if people in mexico could get a decent slice of the $120 nikes that they pump out all day, then they wouldnt be so desperate and poor that they travel through a thousand miles of desert to live in the US breaking laws and evading police to achieve a nourishing blue collar american lifestyle.pug wrote:
As far your comments on the labor market, ATG's case has to do with unethical people who are not playing by the laws we have in the US. I'm not quite sure how this equates to a biz plan revolving around starting a sweatshop.
correct.pug wrote:
I would think the labor market has been driven down by globalization of the economy.
that would depend on everything about your business and laws.pug wrote:
How long do you think a company can maintain an edge when it's paying 10x as much for a US worker rather then elsewhere?
what decision? to start ripping people off? the only way it could come to that is if you have people like our present multinationals which depend on nearly-slave labor to undercut local businesses so that the market for the corporation further expands, and at this point, a small business could make that decision between going under or starting up a sweatshop, or otherwise working illegally to keep the doors open and the checks coming. more often than not, the small businesses just close, and the large corporations continue to perfect their admittedly efficient, privately owned machines while the people have no choice but to accept less in return for a hard days work.pug wrote:
So how long do you think a company can hold out before competition forces them grudgely to make this unfortunate decision? Isn't the corporation's actions dictated by its market? You might want to assign the blame to the corporation...I don't as I see it as eventual.
it sounds like we can agree up to this point, but u seem to think its a natural or unavoidable process, and that by this process of expansion and elimination we will just have to accept whoever comes to power and devalues our labor most. i disagree with this idea because i see it as needless defeatism. the same way we can largely keep people from raping and murdering each other (with laws), we can also do a lot more to ensure that as corporations expand, they dont short change the working class. i disagree with the stratification of ownership and wages within modern corporations. if a small business was bought out by a large corporation but it let the locals run the franchises as they please, and if those people could make about as much money and live as well while running the franchise as they did before a corporation undercut their prices, then i couldnt really complain. but when a corporation uses its size and ability to temporarily absorb losses to destroy previous lifestyles and local economies (to be replaced), then i think our laws should reflect these practices as violent and destructive in the same way that they would if weapons were involved. but i still dont think its fair to uphold any of our standards on people across the globe that we do not understand.
ah, conspiracy theories, u guys love to toss that term around when u are uncomfortable with ideas.pug wrote:
And your points about the war are more of a conspriracy theory.
i give you like 30 lines of text that you can quote, but instead you write this horrible paraphrase and expect me to endorse your straw man. yes, muslim-paranoia feeds the mass media, international banking, military industrial, oil industry cow, but no, that wasnt how i responded to the OP. i only pointed that out when ATG made the comment that muslims are the worlds cancer. my response to the OP was that they have sovereignty, so no matter how we may feel about them, we have to stfu and leave them alone. my response to ATG and the rest of you that post all day about every little thing that could possibly scare you about muslims, i included the notes about how the illegal war on terror is (maybe coincidentally?) a very profitable enterprise (maybe coincidentally?) conducted between our government and military, the banks that loaned us the war, and the hand full of mass media corporations which crammed it down our throats with these daily articles about new things to fear on the other side of the world. its just something to think about if you are buying all of the propaganda to the point where ud wish harm on people you dont know. just consider your sources. the media has a conflict of interest.pug wrote:
Here's a simple topic - if you are Iranian and decide you no longer follow Allah = death. Your response: it's the media feeding the corporate cow.
yes. to be honest, it seems like you barely skimmed my post before thoughtlessly typing out a couple blocks of disorganized rhetorical tangents.pug wrote:
Did I misinterpret you?
Last edited by Marinejuana (2008-02-27 18:33:49)
MJ:
Much clearer. Thx.
I didn't bother w/ the stuff we agree or will never agree on:
Disorganized lol. We've done this before, you'll continue to fracture the argument until I tire.
You have stated it's okay because Iran is a sovereign nation. I have a little problem with that. Sure, lots of leaders and governments kill their own people - I'm not the one condoning it because they are muslim.
2) What the a-hole did is illegal, unethical, and can be done by anyone, whether they are an illegal or not (case in point...this guy was not)
My opinion is people are complaining about being unemployed, yet there's job openings for lots of people who won't work because the pay isn't good enough or because they won't do shit work. The solution is to solve poverty in Mexico and the rest of Central America. How to do that?
I can tell you the slice of $120 Nikes WAS coming from Mexico at first...but now its elsewhere in the world.
But beyond that:
You believe that it's the corporation's fault.
I believe the corporation's behavior is to serve its market.
So since the US is the largest market...aren't we special that we are whining about this problem.
Or is it because you believe essentially the Middle East has no foreign interests to places like Europe, the US, & etc? Therefore, Iran should be ignored because essentially its invisible and doesn't trade internationally?
Isn't Iran essentially trying to sell oil overseas? What do multinationals do again? Same thing, but the multinational is evil, while Iran is free to kill someone for celebrating Christmas.
I want Iran to do its own thing within its borders. Kill as many Iranians as you want. Its wrong. It shouldn't happen. I know that all I'm going to whine about it on this forum.
But it's real and it's not created by the media.
You head is seriously fucked up BTW
Much clearer. Thx.
I didn't bother w/ the stuff we agree or will never agree on:
I did think you needed to explain yourself a little better. I personally have no idea why were off over on this tangent, which is why I asked what exactly the media and corporations have to do with Iranian law.mj wrote:
yes. to be honest, it seems like you barely skimmed my post before thoughtlessly typing out a couple blocks of disorganized rhetorical tangents.
Disorganized lol. We've done this before, you'll continue to fracture the argument until I tire.
I have no interest in Iran beyond the fact I do believe they are screwing up the Middle East because of fanatic behavior. But beyond that I'm not buying the "media is evil" in this case. Specifically if Iranian, if you decide you don't want to be muslim = death. I think that's wrong. Do I want Iran to stop that? Sure. What that entails? Don't know.mj wrote:
i give you like 30 lines of text that you can quote....its just something to think about if you are buying all of the propaganda to the point where ud wish harm on people you dont know. just consider your sources. the media has a conflict of interest.
You have stated it's okay because Iran is a sovereign nation. I have a little problem with that. Sure, lots of leaders and governments kill their own people - I'm not the one condoning it because they are muslim.
Or the alternative is I think you are a nut and there's no use in debating this as you will not change your mind. Waste of time.mj wrote:
ah, conspiracy theories, u guys love to toss that term around when u are uncomfortable with ideas.
One thing you have failed to figure - the economy has been expanding up until recent (this jan I think). The principal area of expansion - small businesses. I have no idea where you are getting your information. But beyond that, if your small business cannot survive in the crosshairs of a corporation...you have a weakness in your business model. That's not illegal...it's a natural part of capitalism.mj wrote:
what decision? to start ripping people off?...needless defeatism,....etc etc...wall of text in the middle
1) ATG did not hire an illegal alien. He hired someone who can legally work in the US with an International Tax Id Number (ITIN).mj wrote:
okay, well u are mixing separate points by invoking my use of the word business plan, but ignoring your overall confusion, illegals "take our jobs" when in their institutional poverty, they become so desperate that they will work illegally or at extremely low wages in order to survive. i had thought ATGs employee stole from him and then worked under the table, unlicensed, undermining ATGs business. if people in mexico could get a decent slice of the $120 nikes that they pump out all day, then they wouldnt be so desperate and poor that they travel through a thousand miles of desert to live in the US breaking laws and evading police to achieve a nourishing blue collar american lifestyle.
2) What the a-hole did is illegal, unethical, and can be done by anyone, whether they are an illegal or not (case in point...this guy was not)
My opinion is people are complaining about being unemployed, yet there's job openings for lots of people who won't work because the pay isn't good enough or because they won't do shit work. The solution is to solve poverty in Mexico and the rest of Central America. How to do that?
I can tell you the slice of $120 Nikes WAS coming from Mexico at first...but now its elsewhere in the world.
But beyond that:
You believe that it's the corporation's fault.
I believe the corporation's behavior is to serve its market.
So since the US is the largest market...aren't we special that we are whining about this problem.
No nice try. By dictating the terms, it means we need to be more tolerant of muslims...but its not reciprocated.mj wrote:
so your point here is that they arent smart?
Actually I'm confused. Corporations started the wars. Corporations are greedy. Iran has oil. Iran wants money. Corporations should act in an ethical manner. Iran can kill its own people, because they are sovereign nation?mj wrote:
foreign corporations or domestic? we can debate about how to legislate our own corporations all day long because a corporation is not a sovereign state (hard to believe, isnt it?), but to legislate a sovereign state negates its sovereignty and the freedom for those people to have their own culture.pug wrote:
So your point is that countries have the sovereignity to kill their own people because of religious intolerance, and yet they shouldn't be held to the same standards as corporations?
Or is it because you believe essentially the Middle East has no foreign interests to places like Europe, the US, & etc? Therefore, Iran should be ignored because essentially its invisible and doesn't trade internationally?
Isn't Iran essentially trying to sell oil overseas? What do multinationals do again? Same thing, but the multinational is evil, while Iran is free to kill someone for celebrating Christmas.
I want Iran to do its own thing within its borders. Kill as many Iranians as you want. Its wrong. It shouldn't happen. I know that all I'm going to whine about it on this forum.
But it's real and it's not created by the media.
You head is seriously fucked up BTW
Last edited by Pug (2008-02-28 23:08:03)
luls, all that maryjanewanah abuse done kilt all teh braincells!!!!Pug wrote:
You head is seriously fucked up BTW
Are you fucking kidding me? Put down the joint once in awhile.Marinejuana wrote:
Research ethnocentrism. You are not their judge, and your pathetic attempt at dehumanizing their culture is tasteless.Bernadictus wrote:
Wow. Just wow.
I always knew these people lived in the stoneages, but hell. Their leaders are living in a primordial soup.
You go live there then. Since you seem to be so ambivalent to it.Marinejuana wrote:
Research ethnocentrism. You are not their judge, and your pathetic attempt at dehumanizing their culture is tasteless.Bernadictus wrote:
Wow. Just wow.
I always knew these people lived in the stoneages, but hell. Their leaders are living in a primordial soup.
Either that or get the fuck out of your self-proclaimed moral high ground.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Tell that to the people in Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur, the descendants of the people who died in the Nazi Germany, etc. Human rights are not a matter of national sovereignty, they are a world's concern. Why did the US remove Saddam, who was an asshole indeed?Marinejuana wrote:
It's called national sovereignty and it's in your best interests to leave it alone.sergeriver wrote:
Well, I suppose I should have left this to Lowing, but this is too much. How can Ahmadinejad claim Iran is moderate and then they have this BS in the penal code? One thing is Sharia law, which is from the Dark Ages, but adding this to a penal code in the 21st Century is outrageous.
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-02-28 02:41:45)
Do tourist girls have to wear cover there?
When are you people going to come around to my side of this thing? How much more evidence do you need? I've said from the word go, "kill every single one of them and destroy any evidence the religion existed."
Though not possible it would be my preferred option. Destroy every mosque, eliminate every Muslim, erase all electronic and written copies of the Koran, and be done with it. Wipe them out.
It's going to have to be done sooner or later to us or to them. The stated goal of their "bible" is to kill all Christians and Jews. Why give them the chance to get it done? If my neighbor went to a church every day and said "I must kill Bob Wheeler" you can bet your ass I'd take him out before he got to me.
Too bad it's so logistically impossible.
Though not possible it would be my preferred option. Destroy every mosque, eliminate every Muslim, erase all electronic and written copies of the Koran, and be done with it. Wipe them out.
It's going to have to be done sooner or later to us or to them. The stated goal of their "bible" is to kill all Christians and Jews. Why give them the chance to get it done? If my neighbor went to a church every day and said "I must kill Bob Wheeler" you can bet your ass I'd take him out before he got to me.
Too bad it's so logistically impossible.
educated by those who believe in democracy...Spark wrote:
Democracy only works in countries with educated people.
So your saying that people who believe in Democracy have a large enough bias in this area not to see the 'truth'. Please support your inferred contention that Democracy can work well in countries without educated people.CommieChipmunk wrote:
educated by those who believe in democracy...Spark wrote:
Democracy only works in countries with educated people.
QFTSpark wrote:
You go live there then. Since you seem to be so ambivalent to it.Marinejuana wrote:
Research ethnocentrism. You are not their judge, and your pathetic attempt at dehumanizing their culture is tasteless.Bernadictus wrote:
Wow. Just wow.
I always knew these people lived in the stoneages, but hell. Their leaders are living in a primordial soup.
Either that or get the fuck out of your self-proclaimed moral high ground.
It seems to me the insistence that Islam is "peaceful and tolerant" is the REAL generalization. Whatcha think?sergeriver wrote:
The European Union has criticised the new penal code being drafted in Iran, particularly a section that imposes the death penalty for giving up Islam. Death for apostasy already exists in Iran under Sharia - or Islamic - law. But the changes would for the first time bring the punishment into the criminal code. In the past, Iranian courts have handed down the death penalty in such cases, but have done so relying on Sharia law. If the draft is approved by parliament, the sentence will be formalised in the country's criminal code.
Well, I suppose I should have left this to Lowing, but this is too much. How can Ahmadinejad claim Iran is moderate and then they have this BS in the penal code? One thing is Sharia law, which is from the Dark Ages, but adding this to a penal code in the 21st Century is outrageous.
Who knows? That part of the world is fucked up.lowing wrote:
It seems to me the insistence that Islam is "peaceful and tolerant" is the REAL generalization. Whatcha think?sergeriver wrote:
The European Union has criticised the new penal code being drafted in Iran, particularly a section that imposes the death penalty for giving up Islam. Death for apostasy already exists in Iran under Sharia - or Islamic - law. But the changes would for the first time bring the punishment into the criminal code. In the past, Iranian courts have handed down the death penalty in such cases, but have done so relying on Sharia law. If the draft is approved by parliament, the sentence will be formalised in the country's criminal code.
Well, I suppose I should have left this to Lowing, but this is too much. How can Ahmadinejad claim Iran is moderate and then they have this BS in the penal code? One thing is Sharia law, which is from the Dark Ages, but adding this to a penal code in the 21st Century is outrageous.
Well since Europe and and the US has admittedly a very small percentage of Muslims, compared to all of the Islamic hot spots in the world, I think it is a fair assessment to say that peace and tolerance in Islam is the exception and not the rule. Wouldn't you??sergeriver wrote:
Who knows? That part of the world is fucked up.lowing wrote:
It seems to me the insistence that Islam is "peaceful and tolerant" is the REAL generalization. Whatcha think?sergeriver wrote:
The European Union has criticised the new penal code being drafted in Iran, particularly a section that imposes the death penalty for giving up Islam. Death for apostasy already exists in Iran under Sharia - or Islamic - law. But the changes would for the first time bring the punishment into the criminal code. In the past, Iranian courts have handed down the death penalty in such cases, but have done so relying on Sharia law. If the draft is approved by parliament, the sentence will be formalised in the country's criminal code.
Well, I suppose I should have left this to Lowing, but this is too much. How can Ahmadinejad claim Iran is moderate and then they have this BS in the penal code? One thing is Sharia law, which is from the Dark Ages, but adding this to a penal code in the 21st Century is outrageous.
Although I think that will be pretty inconvenient to admit for the lot of you.
Last edited by lowing (2008-02-29 16:20:35)
This is a very disturbing prospect. I can't believe that someone would actually advocate the killing of over 1 billion people.Dersmikner wrote:
When are you people going to come around to my side of this thing? How much more evidence do you need? I've said from the word go, "kill every single one of them and destroy any evidence the religion existed."
Though not possible it would be my preferred option. Destroy every mosque, eliminate every Muslim, erase all electronic and written copies of the Koran, and be done with it. Wipe them out.
It's going to have to be done sooner or later to us or to them. The stated goal of their "bible" is to kill all Christians and Jews. Why give them the chance to get it done? If my neighbor went to a church every day and said "I must kill Bob Wheeler" you can bet your ass I'd take him out before he got to me.
Too bad it's so logistically impossible.
We really can't say shit against Iran as long as we're allied with Saudi Arabia and trade heavily with China (2 of the biggest human rights offenders around).