it is a gift from god13urnzz wrote:
screening shows birth defect
/anti-abortion religious wingnut
Last edited by Shocking (2011-10-09 11:18:50)
inane little opines
/anti-abortion religious wingnut
Nope. I'm not religious burnzz. I just believe in taking responsibility for your actions. I'm not advocating an abortion ban, I just wouldn't personally make that choice.13urnzz wrote:
i don't get how someone can be pro-life and pro-death.Jay wrote:
No innocent life is involved.13urnzz wrote:
how do you feel about capital punishment?
let me ask this - if a girl is raped, the pregnancy endangers the mothers life, the mother is chemically dependent, or a screening shows birth defect - are you still pro-life?
I certainly don't view it as a womans rights issue, however. Something like abortion should require the assent of both parents, unless it is from rape or incest. She chose to spread her legs knowing the possible consequences.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
the term "pro-life" does not account for rape or incest. a woman can never be 'a little pregnant'. Pro-Life means just that, life at all cost regardless.Jay wrote:
Nope. I'm not religious burnzz. I just believe in taking responsibility for your actions. I'm not advocating an abortion ban, I just wouldn't personally make that choice.
I certainly don't view it as a womans rights issue, however. Something like abortion should require the assent of both parents, unless it is from rape or incest. She chose to spread her legs knowing the possible consequences.
as far as choice goes, i do believe Roe vs Wade does not take into account the fathers' wishes, and on those grounds would like to see it amended, or thrown out.
Say whaJay wrote:
I value human rights. I don't consider the ability to murder your unborn children a right.Macbeth wrote:
How about protecting the right of citizens first and foremost and letting democracy decide everything else? The logic of your argument fits along with "if most Germans were okay with the Holocaust than it was fine because of democracy". An extreme example but it's the same logic train. It's a terribly weak logical justification for anything.
I value protecting human rights over the democratic will of a given time. You value?
I don't consider myself to be pro life, and certainly don't have the same morality as those in that movement. My issue is simply with the flip manner with which people view the extermination of human life. It is murder regardless of what people wish to think, it's just murder that society seems to be ok with.13urnzz wrote:
the term "pro-life" does not account for rape or incest. a woman can never be 'a little pregnant'. Pro-Life means just that, life at all cost regardless.Jay wrote:
Nope. I'm not religious burnzz. I just believe in taking responsibility for your actions. I'm not advocating an abortion ban, I just wouldn't personally make that choice.
I certainly don't view it as a womans rights issue, however. Something like abortion should require the assent of both parents, unless it is from rape or incest. She chose to spread her legs knowing the possible consequences.
as far as choice goes, i do believe Roe vs Wade does not take into account the fathers' wishes, and on those grounds would like to see it amended, or thrown out.
Criminals make a conscious decision to commit an act punishable by death. A fetus does not. That's why that argument is invalid. Apple and oranges.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I really can't consider it murder tbh
inane little opines
rdx-fx wrote:
No. You seem to have no idea what I'm talking about.
Holy shit, man.Jay wrote:
Correct. You want to ban the owners from the discussion and replace them with some democratic committee that would surely have the best interest of the company in mind. Why not have the workers set their own wages? Would you expect them to have a longer view than the corporate leadership does in regards to the best interest of the company? Good luck with that.
What you are advocating is some FDR Progressive bullshit where the companies are nationalized 'for the common good'. I'll stick with the shareholders, thanks.
Not only do you not understand a bit of what I wrote, you've made up some fantastical projection of what you imagine I wrote. Then you light your strawman on fire with some line about FDR progressive policies.
Let me put it two ways for you;
One.
Roark, not Keating.
Committee is the death of good ideas.
Two.
Run a publicly traded company as a privately held company should run;
Focus on putting out a quality product, satisfy the customers, and structure the pay & working conditions to attract (and keep) talented & skilled employees.
To a stock trader, a company is a +/- profit projection on his screen.
To the executives, managers, and employees of that company, that is their career, their income, their mortgage payment, the food on their table.
Now which of those is more comitted to the long-term well being of that company?
In a ham & egg sandwich, the chicken is invested, the pig is committed.
How do you suppose the system should be changed? Add rating bureaus that judge company health?
However much you may dislike the fact that the +/- is all that matters to a shareholder, I can't see any other system working properly. There's no real direct reward for a company which takes care of its employees or the environment. It wouldn't make sense to have one anyway, as it's largely non-productive.
The only way you could possibly make shareholders care about these aspects of a company is by creating a strong social stigma around companies that 'misbehave'.... and how would you go about doing that?
However much you may dislike the fact that the +/- is all that matters to a shareholder, I can't see any other system working properly. There's no real direct reward for a company which takes care of its employees or the environment. It wouldn't make sense to have one anyway, as it's largely non-productive.
The only way you could possibly make shareholders care about these aspects of a company is by creating a strong social stigma around companies that 'misbehave'.... and how would you go about doing that?
Last edited by Shocking (2011-10-09 14:11:59)
inane little opines
indeed. man should always have dominion over the woman he plows behind an outback steakhouse.Jay wrote:
Something like abortion should require the assent of both parents
Last edited by Reciprocity (2011-10-09 13:50:51)
Ahh, so the man should have no say at all then. She can keep the kid and force him to pay child support for the next 20 years, or abort a kid that he would be willing to raise on his own. Fuck the man, he's just a sperm donor and dirty.Reciprocity wrote:
indeed. man should always have dominion over the woman he plows behind an outback steakhouse.Jay wrote:
Something like abortion should require the assent of both parents
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
about what she chooses to do with her body? yeah, that sounds about right.Jay wrote:
Ahh, so the man should have no say at all then.
Then exempt men from paying alimony if they don't want the kid.
inane little opines
"Run a publicly traded company as a privately held company should run;Shocking wrote:
How do you suppose the system should be changed? Add rating bureaus that judge company health?
However much you may dislike the fact that the +/- is all that matters to a shareholder, I can't see any other system working properly. There's no real direct reward for a company which takes care of its employees or the environment. It wouldn't make sense to have one anyway, as it's largely non-productive.
The only way you could possibly make shareholders care about these aspects of a company is by creating a strong social stigma around companies that 'misbehave'.... and how would you go about doing that?
Focus on putting out a quality product, satisfy the customers, and structure the pay & working conditions to attract (and keep) talented & skilled employees."
As my original post on the topic stated,
"Build a quality product, profits will follow"
There are direct rewards.
Take care of your employees (including management & executives), and you attract the right talent to develop a better product, foster company loyalty, and generally make a better workplace.
Develop a better product, and you
a) beat your competitors in the marketplace,
b) foster a good reputation & develop brand loyalty, and
c) have satisfied customers that buy your product again
Good executives, managers, and workers = quality product = satisfied & loyal customers = revenue = profitable company.
Looking at the world today,
we (the Western world) cannot compete against China (&co.) on Cheap, so we have to go with Quality.
Germany seems to have had some success with this business model...
believe it or not, it's not especially difficult to fuck a woman and not get her pregnant.Shocking wrote:
Then exempt men from paying alimony if they don't want the kid.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2011-10-09 15:52:13)
Have you seen the length of the BF2s Girl Problems thread lately?Reciprocity wrote:
believe it or not, it's not especially difficult to fuck and woman and not get her pregnant.
Apparently, it is "especially difficult to fuck a woman" 'round these parts.
Nevermind considerations of pregnancy.
I'm from the "other side." As an employer, I hate letting people go, but sometimes it becomes a necessity. People who consistently ignore safety rules, cause crews to lose time by showing up late, or are so touchy that they're difficult to work with or train and put everyone else at unease...eventually, they have to be dropped.oug wrote:
In my small working carreer I've seen all kinds of terrible employers. Twice forced to resign. Twice owed to. I'm missing around 6-7 k. And you know what? Fuck the money - that I have no hope of ever getting btw. One of them was even a very close friend! So if you've never seen your employers as your enemies then I'm very happy for you. Hope you never have to.
Being seasonal work in some part, some people won't get as many hours as they need and will find another job.
What happened to the right of privacy?Jay wrote:
Both sides do it. It's not like Obama and the Democrats are up there standing up for individual rights. I see no difference between the two sides. One wants to ban trans fats, cigarettes, salt, corn syrup, guns, religious expression, etc and the other wants to ban abortion. The former affects me a helluva lot more than the latter.Macbeth wrote:
Because I believe people have rights that supersede temporal law and the the majority of people's view. I don't think 'that's how the system works' is a good justification for little more than tyranny of the majority.FEOS wrote:
If the majority of the public in those states agrees with the position, why do you care? That's the system working.
I would never want to take a company public for that very reason (I'm a control freak and wouldn't want anyone else forcing me to act against my will if I ran a company), but, at the same time, I understand the reasoning behind it. It's a helluva lot easier to secure capital by issuing stock than it is to borrow large sums from a bank, especially when you have to pay interest on a loan. A company like Amazon couldn't have expanded to be as big as it is today if it hadn't gone public.rdx-fx wrote:
rdx-fx wrote:
No. You seem to have no idea what I'm talking about.Holy shit, man.Jay wrote:
Correct. You want to ban the owners from the discussion and replace them with some democratic committee that would surely have the best interest of the company in mind. Why not have the workers set their own wages? Would you expect them to have a longer view than the corporate leadership does in regards to the best interest of the company? Good luck with that.
What you are advocating is some FDR Progressive bullshit where the companies are nationalized 'for the common good'. I'll stick with the shareholders, thanks.
Not only do you not understand a bit of what I wrote, you've made up some fantastical projection of what you imagine I wrote. Then you light your strawman on fire with some line about FDR progressive policies.
Let me put it two ways for you;
One.
Roark, not Keating.
Committee is the death of good ideas.
Two.
Run a publicly traded company as a privately held company should run;
Focus on putting out a quality product, satisfy the customers, and structure the pay & working conditions to attract (and keep) talented & skilled employees.
To a stock trader, a company is a +/- profit projection on his screen.
To the executives, managers, and employees of that company, that is their career, their income, their mortgage payment, the food on their table.
Now which of those is more comitted to the long-term well being of that company?
In a ham & egg sandwich, the chicken is invested, the pig is committed.
It has its good and bad sides. Personally, I'd rather invest and spend my time at a company that chases a series of two year profit cycles than work at a mom and pop shop where I have zero say and where they will more than likely run it into the ground, especially after the initial owner retires and bequeaths his empire to his incompetent kids. To say that privately held companies are inherently more stable and beneficial to the country at large is false. Many thousands more of them fail than have ever succeeded. At least publicly traded companies are audited regularly and forced by the SEC to disclose their financial situation. You won't know a private company is in trouble until everyone is out in the street.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
What right to privacy? That never existed. If it did, every single celebrity tabloid would shrivel up and die. The media can set up shop in the street outside your home and shoot their cameras into your windows or film you out in your yard. You have no privacy.cpt.fass1 wrote:
What happened to the right of privacy?Jay wrote:
Both sides do it. It's not like Obama and the Democrats are up there standing up for individual rights. I see no difference between the two sides. One wants to ban trans fats, cigarettes, salt, corn syrup, guns, religious expression, etc and the other wants to ban abortion. The former affects me a helluva lot more than the latter.Macbeth wrote:
Because I believe people have rights that supersede temporal law and the the majority of people's view. I don't think 'that's how the system works' is a good justification for little more than tyranny of the majority.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat