Is it 'moral' for corporate decision-makers to place company profits before consumers' health/lives?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is it 'moral' for corporate decision-makers to place company profits before consumers' health/lives?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:35 am At the time of the historical origin of 'the free world' there were others besides the OT prophets who invented (or discovered) the same sort of society founded upon universalism instead of tribalism.
Between globalism (which is what I think you mean to say) and tribalism there are middle positions, such as nationalism. But the history of globalism, as an aspiration, is not promising. Globalist aspirations have, from the ziggurats of Mesopotamia to The Third Reich and the Soviet Union, to today's European Union, not resulted in happiness and wellbeing for the world. And Socialism has hands bloodier than any creed that man has ever clung to, by orders of magnitude.

So before you denigrate tribalism, perhaps it would be worth considering that under tribalism, violence is limited in scope by the size and power of the tribe; but under globalist utopianism, the range for violence is as great as the numbers of people involved, as terrible as the technology in hand, and as broad as the world itself.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is it 'moral' for corporate decision-makers to place company profits before consumers' health/lives?

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 3:50 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:35 am At the time of the historical origin of 'the free world' there were others besides the OT prophets who invented (or discovered) the same sort of society founded upon universalism instead of tribalism.
Between globalism (which is what I think you mean to say) and tribalism there are middle positions, such as nationalism. But the history of globalism, as an aspiration, is not promising. Globalist aspirations have, from the ziggurats of Mesopotamia to The Third Reich and the Soviet Union, to today's European Union, not resulted in happiness and wellbeing for the world. And Socialism has hands bloodier than any creed that man has ever clung to, by orders of magnitude.

So before you denigrate tribalism, perhaps it would be worth considering that under tribalism, violence is limited in scope by the size and power of the tribe; but under globalist utopianism, the range for violence is as great as the numbers of people involved, as terrible as the technology in hand, and as broad as the world itself.
No. I mean universal as opposed to tribal.

Nazis and Stalinists had tribal affiliations to people of their own kinds. Xian and Islamic fundamentalists have tribal affiliations to their own kind. Rich governing elites look to their own kind before they look to the poorer sort of people, unless socialist checks and balances are firmly in place.

No politician nor any intelligent adult believes in Utopia.

Nationalism is tribalism. Racism is tribalism. Male chauvinism is tribalism. White supremacy is tribalism. Nepotism in government is tribalism. Trumpism is tribalism. Religious fundamentalism is tribalism.

More than any other figure Paul was responsible for making Christianity
international
.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... lCode=mila
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is it 'moral' for corporate decision-makers to place company profits before consumers' health/lives?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 6:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 3:50 pm
Belinda wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:35 am At the time of the historical origin of 'the free world' there were others besides the OT prophets who invented (or discovered) the same sort of society founded upon universalism instead of tribalism.
Between globalism (which is what I think you mean to say) and tribalism there are middle positions, such as nationalism. But the history of globalism, as an aspiration, is not promising. Globalist aspirations have, from the ziggurats of Mesopotamia to The Third Reich and the Soviet Union, to today's European Union, not resulted in happiness and wellbeing for the world. And Socialism has hands bloodier than any creed that man has ever clung to, by orders of magnitude.

So before you denigrate tribalism, perhaps it would be worth considering that under tribalism, violence is limited in scope by the size and power of the tribe; but under globalist utopianism, the range for violence is as great as the numbers of people involved, as terrible as the technology in hand, and as broad as the world itself.
No. I mean universal as opposed to tribal.
But you forgot "national."
No politician nor any intelligent adult believes in Utopia.
If that's true, then no intelligent adult or politician believes in Socialism.
Nationalism is tribalism. Racism is tribalism. Male chauvinism is tribalism. White supremacy is tribalism. Nepotism in government is tribalism. Trumpism is tribalism. Religious fundamentalism is tribalism.
Oh, I see. "Tribalism" means nothing particular to you. You just use it to tar anything you don't like.

Well, I'd use it more precisely. Nationalism isn't tribalism if the nation is multi-tribal. That is, a multicultural nation that is interested in preserving its own existence is not being racist, or tribalist, or supremacist, or anything. They're just being nationalist. We should make a distinction.

And that's the problem with calling anything that's not Globalist "tribalist." It's actually just an empty pejorative, a way of trying to say, "If you don't agree with my Globalist agenda, you're stupid, backward and primitive."

As for Christianity, it is very international, in that it appeals to every nation. But it's not at all "Globalist," in that everything it says about so-called "new world orders" as created by human beings is completely negative.
KLewchuk
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2020 12:11 am

Re: Is it 'moral' for corporate decision-makers to place company profits before consumers' health/lives?

Post by KLewchuk »

FrankGSterleJr wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:40 am In what was later described by a U.S. investigation committee as a “culture of concealment,” Boeing’s decision to keep its ill-fated 737 Max planes flying—regardless of indicators, including employee alerts, they should be grounded and serious software glitches corrected—resulted in hundreds of passengers’ lives lost.

While an ousted, sacrificial CEO received more than $62 million to leave Boeing, 346 ticket-buyers received a most horrific death.

And when I read about such seriously questionable big business negligence cases as that of Boeing’s failure to ground their 737 Max fleet even when warned well in advance, I picture corporate CEOs figuratively shrugging their shoulders and defensively saying that their job is to protect shareholders’ bottom-line interests.

Meanwhile, the shareholders, also figuratively shrugging their shoulders, defensively state that they just collect the dividends—the CEOs are the ones to make the moral and/or ethical decisions.

Yet, couldn’t those same Boeing decision-makers and/or their young families also potentially be flying on one of its ill-fated flights?

Assuming the CEOs are not sufficiently foolish to believe their loved-ones will somehow always evade such repercussions related to the former’s reckless decisions, I wonder whether the profit objective of a CEO’s job-description nature is somehow irresistible to him or her?

It brings to mind the allegorical fox stung by the instinct-abiding scorpion while ferrying it across the river, leaving both to drown.

I would think of it this way (thought experiment). Let's say that you went to your doctor and your doctor prescribed some medicine from which he earned profit. He didn't know for certain, but believe it was more likely than not to increase your well being (honest eval). Further, let's say that this is the evaluation of other knowledgeable people. Contrast this with a situation where I prescribe you something which I know will harm you but can convince you to sign a "waiver form". Two different situations.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Is it 'moral' for corporate decision-makers to place company profits before consumers' health/lives?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:27 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:41 pm Asking why 'socialism' is like asking why civilization at all?
That's the funniest line I've seen in a long time. No, Scott; "Socialism" is not the same as "civilization." Civilizations have happened long before Karl Marx ever appeared, and have been around long after his hypocritical bones were mouldering in a grave.

I was not speaking about corporations.

Go back to this question: what are we going to do about small businesses that are being killed off at a horrendous rate?

As for "selectivity" on Orwell, not at all. We all know, if we know his bio, that Orwell started as a Socialist, then saw what it was really all about...from the inside. That's when he said what he said. And he said it to the British Socialists, who thereafter hated him for telling them the truth he knew about them.
What about "what are we going to do about INDIVIDUAL humans that are being killed off at a horrendous rate?"

You are having some apparent compassion for 'business' owners as though the mere act of having one makes them validy more worthy than others who may not.

As for 'corporations', most 'small businesses' incorporate regardless of size because (1) they CAN, and (2) it benefits them it they can separate the entities lost from affecting what they already own. Regardless, the question above applies: how are small business owners any more significant than the lives of individuals who are at risk INDIRECTLY from those who favor going to these businesses during this pandemic? If one person in my household of many could opt to go to such a place respecting this logic, they FORCE those they come home to to be extra vigilent to NOT catch what you might bring home. That is, to favor even ONE person's freedom in favor of keeping businesses open, destroys the 'freedom' of MANY other persons choice NOT to take the risk. There is no means to hold the customer's capacity to spread Covid accountable until, possibly, AFTER they have spread it to others. It is EASIER to close the business, even at the risk of them losing it, than to risk the potential customers/clients lives and all the lives they indeterminately risk upon those who even intentionally chose NOT to go out.

By the way, this is a discussion about 'corporations' here. While you may have only meant an aside notice of concern, my argument for 'socialism' is that ALL government's are 'social' constructs. But the problem is about those who believe those 'social' rules that get used to redistribute wealth. You feel that the 'owner' has some intrinsic feature of Nature that guarantees they have perfect 'freedom' to rule over when the concept of 'ownership' by nature is fixed ONLY to one's personal body, to what they can carry, and to what they can enforce BY THEIR OWN individual will. The animals in Nature require fighting constantly for life and liberty. But a 'civilized' world is itself a "social" artificial contruct to which governing systems are negotiated and set up to serve for ALL members of that civilization equally, not some special function to SAVE the power of those who have it into perpetuity as though they are God's [or Nature's] selected superior beings.

I already agree to the fact that there are problems with socialism. But the main one is that they almost always come from impoverished conditioned societies in which the wealthier classes think their 'right to own' suffices to rule OVER those who are FORCED to accept it or .... become slaves? ...be inferior(ated) by the 'owner-class' who can arbitrarily set the minimal terms of negotiating that favors them unilaterally? We used to be able to go to a local store and 'negotiate' what we think something is worth. But now we default to REQUIRE paying what is on the price tag regardless of its determination of worth. Socialism is a check on those who believe that their INDEPENDENCE permits 'freedom' to exploit others, to 'own' others, to force others to accept your terms at the expense of the 'freedom' of those you have power over.

You believe in bullshit aphorisms like, "Only YOU are what assures your success," and that "if you don't succeed, you didn't try hard enough", etc. The reality is that for ANY person to 'benefit' by some action or state, it requires at least some other to have a deficit of the same. This is 'conservation' of Nature. The environment always has more power over any individual. And yet, the conservative isn't interested in noticing they are NOT 'conserving' equal opportunity NOR equality of status of each person individually born to the same world. The conservative interest in permitting a 'government' at all, is where it is used AGAINST the very people as a democratic force. You favor a minority interest based on inheritance while shunning the 'left' for their own SET of minorities, even though they are the majority of the set of them. [This is WHY the left has favored 'culture'. They have no power of position to argue against the present dominating power opposing them on the basis of economic differences alone. That is, you are only 'qualified' to BE represented in government IF you have more money over the others. And while the majority are 'poorer' to a minority who are 'richer', how can you NOT recognize that the collective power of 10 people with $10 to contribute = 1 person with a $100 contribution? That is, you oddly overlook the fact that 'nature' apart from civilization defaults favor to those able to create the laws and who are elible to enforce them.

Socialism is a necessity or any supposed 'government' set up is a sham meant to get the enemies of the rich (the poor) to be the only ones who shall pay taxes AND have those taxes be used ONLY to police the poor. Why WOULD any rational person without power think it is 'fair' they should select a system of governing rules that both go against them AND make them pay for the enforcement of those same rules? If it is 'fair' for the conservative to cry they are being 'taxed' it is hypocritical to expect those who are already 'taxed' MORE NOT to demand a system of government that repairs them 'fairly.'
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is it 'moral' for corporate decision-makers to place company profits before consumers' health/lives?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:17 am Go back to this question: what are we going to do about small businesses that are being killed off at a horrendous rate?
That's easy: stop driving them to despair by destroying their businesses.
You believe in bullshit aphorisms like, "Only YOU are what assures your success," and that "if you don't succeed, you didn't try hard enough", etc.
No, I have not said either of those things. You should ask me, rather than trying to turn me into the false representation of some enemy you've dreamed up, Scott. You don't know whether or not I'm a laissez-faire capitalist. You don't know what I believe about free markets, or individual initiative, or any other such thing...because you've not asked me about those things either.

I understand the impulse to run ahead and create an easy, predictable opponent. But it's not wise. And here, unfortunately, it isn't the truth either.

You know I believe Socialism is evil. And we have abundant data to show that it is. The devastated economies, the Socialist account in human misery, and the overwhelming pile of bodies tells us it is. But though its effects have proved universally evil, it has remained attractive to people because it proceeds from good (if somewhat misguided and naive) motives in many people. People don't like other people not to be happy. People want things to be better. They want to help others. They are willing to share. And such people cannot imagine why anybody wouldn't perhaps want Socialism.

Of course, there are base motives for Socialism as well. Some people just think it will get them "free stuff" at the expense of others, and are lazy and selfish: they don't actually want to contribute to the social good, but rather to draw on it for their own benefit. Others imagine it will give them an exciting opportunity to reengineer society to please their own purposes, and are willing to push aside anyone who disagrees. Others recognize in Socialism the best opportunity to impose big government and totalitarian tyranny. But the ordinary Joe probably thinks everybody has sweet and decent motives for campaigning for Socialism: and that's what makes ordinary Joe the big patsy for the tyrants that he is.

But back to this: Socialism has never worked. We know this. Never. And in every case where it's been tried, it's killed significant number of human beings. So how long is it going to be until the compassionate types realize this, and say, "Y'know," maybe Socialism isn't the way toward peace, equality and light..."?

If they are actually compassionate, they will. :shock:
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Is it 'moral' for corporate decision-makers to place company profits before consumers' health/lives?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 5:22 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:17 am Go back to this question: what are we going to do about small businesses that are being killed off at a horrendous rate?
That's easy: stop driving them to despair by destroying their businesses.
You believe in bullshit aphorisms like, "Only YOU are what assures your success," and that "if you don't succeed, you didn't try hard enough", etc.
No, I have not said either of those things. You should ask me, rather than trying to turn me into the false representation of some enemy you've dreamed up, Scott. You don't know whether or not I'm a laissez-faire capitalist. You don't know what I believe about free markets, or individual initiative, or any other such thing...because you've not asked me about those things either.

I understand the impulse to run ahead and create an easy, predictable opponent. But it's not wise. And here, unfortunately, it isn't the truth either.
You come from the 'postive think' side of thinking which your label, "Immanuel KAN" and your right-wing demeanor implies. I am NOT against you as a person but am seem to require playing the 'game' that the "anti-socialist" haters believe. You support an anti-democratic position when you presume a 'right' to impose upon others for merely having power over them through things like wealth or religious authority. You've shown to me that while you CAN argue logical, that you stop me if I'm being convincing and become illogical contrary to me knowing you are intelligent enough.

I didn't approve of Trump for the very example he represented by believing it is alright to lie.....even with the clear evidence present for all to see. And while I don't think you are as he is, nor am accusing you of favoring him, you represent the ill part of the foundational thinking of the right in general, ...a belief that "ownership" is intrinsic to nature beyond what one requires for existing.
You know I believe Socialism is evil. And we have abundant data to show that it is. The devastated economies, the Socialist account in human misery, and the overwhelming pile of bodies tells us it is. But though its effects have proved universally evil, it has remained attractive to people because it proceeds from good (if somewhat misguided and naive) motives in many people. People don't like other people not to be happy. People want things to be better. They want to help others. They are willing to share. And such people cannot imagine why anybody wouldn't perhaps want Socialism.

Of course, there are base motives for Socialism as well. Some people just think it will get them "free stuff" at the expense of others, and are lazy and selfish: they don't actually want to contribute to the social good, but rather to draw on it for their own benefit. Others imagine it will give them an exciting opportunity to reengineer society to please their own purposes, and are willing to push aside anyone who disagrees. Others recognize in Socialism the best opportunity to impose big government and totalitarian tyranny. But the ordinary Joe probably thinks everybody has sweet and decent motives for campaigning for Socialism: and that's what makes ordinary Joe the big patsy for the tyrants that he is.

But back to this: Socialism has never worked. We know this. Never. And in every case where it's been tried, it's killed significant number of human beings. So how long is it going to be until the compassionate types realize this, and say, "Y'know," maybe Socialism isn't the way toward peace, equality and light..."?

If they are actually compassionate, they will. :shock:
You are completely brainwashed if you presume the last couple hundred years are all that matters! Did 'evil' not exist prior to th 1800s when "socialism" wasn't an official expression? If you are presume the poor person is evil for asking for handouts, how the FUCK does PROFIT not PROVE your own selfishness to the most absurd degree? How is it possible for a Millionaire, let alone a Billionaire to exist?

If you assume all (or even 'most') of these wealthy people 'earned' their way from poverty, prove it beyond someone winning the lottery!

Profit, by the way, is all gains AFTER expenses, not merely what one would earn on a tit-for-tat trade. This operates on GREED and intentional deception,.....like requiring to keep information from one you are buying from cheap that you KNOW another will pay you ten times more for. That is EXPLOITATION, it is GREED, it is all those 'sins' you pretend to believe in.

I also do NOT think that Socialism is ideal. NO system of government can effectively please nor treat people fairly. You DECLARE that Socialism has 'evils' but only have the same old general classes of evidence: The Soviet Union's 'purging' (something that isn't even documented sufficiently enough by contrast to the right-winged Hitler of the same period). "Gosh darn it, (hick...up)...evil done not exist before then. Everyone know it. Them Socialistic came 'long and ruined our perfect world! Gosh I with fer them ol' days when we didn't need bridges and roads and laws en stuff! :cry: "

"Socialism" versus "Capitalism" by comparison to one family is like having the difference between having your family 'social' gatherings at holidays VS. the one spoiled child (or parent) who thinks it is alright to have more than his share at the table because he can whip your fucking ass if you dared to ask him to share or, because he was at the table first [ie like claiming property or inheritance 'rights'] Yet, hypocritically, on the last point, I doubt you'd give up your land to give back to the Natives of your country nor would you think it 'evil' to exploit technicalities to steal properties from others. You just need a system that "legitimizes" your 'right' to profiteer on anothers' flaws that put some 'sucker' you beat up with your golden staff on the street who now has to beg for food.

Personally, I'm tired of discussing politics now. No offense, ...I may get another wind, but I need a break. I believe that the issue requires delving into the problems that arise by allowing religion to be treated as though it is the 'heart' of reasoning for many. And this is something you gave up when I was sincerely trying to get you to define things. So if I don't respond for the next while, I apologize ahead of time. It's giving me a headache.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is it 'moral' for corporate decision-makers to place company profits before consumers' health/lives?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:50 am You come from the 'postive think' side of thinking which your label, "Immanuel KAN" and your right-wing demeanor implies.
Oh ho. You got that 100% wrong. I can see you don't know what "Immanuel" means. The name is a pun on Kant, obviously; but it has zero to do with "positive think." I'm nowhere near that trivial. :wink:
...the "anti-socialist" haters...
That's funny. It's like the phrase, "anti-Fascist haters," or "anti-Inquisition haters." One can't help but take it as a compliment, given what the system in question has been associated with in past.

No, I don't "hate" Socialists. But this much I'll grant you: I know what Socialism has done, and so I know that anybody who loves mankind does not love Socialism.
You support an anti-democratic position when you presume a 'right' to impose upon others for merely having power over them through things like wealth or religious authority.

Wrong again, Scott. I've advocated for neither. I'm quite sure you've missed the mark on that one. Again, you're trying to fit me into a suit you've built for me, based on some idea you've got in your head, there. I'm neither an advocate of of wealth nor of religious authority.

What strange ideas you get!
...a belief that "ownership" is intrinsic to nature beyond what one requires for existing.

Again, you'll have to show me where I said this. To my knowledge, I never did. But I do believe in property rights, which I believe in for the same reason John Locke did -- namely, their connection to freedom of conscience.
Did 'evil' not exist prior to th 1800s when "socialism" wasn't an official expression?
Of course it did. The impulses that Socialism makes worse and gives greater license are very old...as old as the human race. But Socialism gave evil a new lease and credibility it had never had before. What's ironic is that Socialism takes a "good" and "compassionate" line of argument, but uses it to debase the value of individual humans. It makes their value defined by their utility to the collective, instead of it being intrinsic to their existence as human beings.

That is why Socialist regimes kill so many people -- because the State and collective completely supersede and replace the value of the individual. So individuals can be rounded up, beaten down, sent to gulags, or shot into a ditch...because the collective "needs" it done.

But the evil that makes men kill each other? No, that came long before Socialism. Socialism just dressed it up in the language of "the common good."
If you are presume the poor person is evil for asking for handouts...
That was nothing I ever said.
If you assume all (or even 'most') of these wealthy people 'earned' their way from poverty, prove it...
I don't. Some did, some didn't. I make a distinction, and treat people who have money as individuals. With those who are decent people, or who have earned what they have, I have no problem; but I have just as much objection as you do to those who are not decent or got their gains by ill means. What I don't do, that you seem to want to do, is treat them as a "class," as a group that's all the same. They, too, deserve to be recognized individually, according to who they really are, not according to a cliche or stereotype of the evil wealthy.

But what you don't realize is that YOU are the wealthy. :shock: Yes, that's right: relative to most of the world, you are a rich man, Scott. You own a computer, your own clothes, maybe a residence and maybe a car. You have health care, disposable income, enough food every day...Looked at that way, the global community has a Socialist claim against you, Scott -- namely, that you ARE a member of the wealthy class. Most of the world does not have what you have. Be careful what you wish for; because what you have is forfeit if globalism and Socialism ever join up.
You DECLARE that Socialism has 'evils' but only have the same old general classes of evidence: The Soviet Union's 'purging' (something that isn't even documented sufficiently enough by contrast to the right-winged Hitler of the same period).

Hitler was Left wing too: "national Socialist," remember? NAZI. Here ya go: https://www.aier.org/article/why-hayek- ... ocialists/ But actually, we can skip Russia, if Russia offends you. Let's use China, or Romania, or Albania, or Zimbabwe, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or North Korea, or Cambodia...You see, Scott, Socialism has NEVER worked. It's NEVER not killed a whole bunch of people, and it's NEVER not ruined economies.

So why does anyone still plump for it? Only because they don't know Socialism's own deeds. They prefer to imagine that they could manage to avoid all the human rights and economics disasters that plagued every singe Socialist regime before them. But what makes them so specially wise and virtuous? Did not the Soviets or the Maoists start with their heads full of collectivist ideals? And what became of all those ideals? Gulags. Re-education camps. Purges. Secret police. Pogroms. Genocides. Misery, poverty and social collapse.
I need a break.
Then feel free to have one. No problem.
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Is it 'moral' for corporate decision-makers to place company profits before consumers' health/lives?

Post by Scott Mayers »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:04 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:50 am You come from the 'postive think' side of thinking which your label, "Immanuel KAN" and your right-wing demeanor implies.
Oh ho. You got that 100% wrong. I can see you don't know what "Immanuel" means. The name is a pun on Kant, obviously; but it has zero to do with "positive think." I'm nowhere near that trivial. :wink:
So ARE you a supporter of the "positive thinking" movements, most commonly associated to business training seminars and network marketing schemes? I have to ask given you didn't deny this as though my ONLY concern relates to the label you selected.

And while you're at it, tell me your intended meaning of it that you didn't provide but just asserted was a 'pun'. I already assumed it is a 'pun' on the name and gave my interpretation. So if I'm wrong, what IS your meaning.

If it helps, I only notice right-wingers favoring things like rhetoric for the sake of appeal REGARDLESS of any 'truth'. The QAnon issue is an example of the extreme but the lying is still at least presumed 'normal' for conservatives when lying on ads as though it is okay to attempt to appeal to others using tricks and expecting that society has to have the burden to screen through which things are true and not.

...
...the "anti-socialist" haters...
That's funny. It's like the phrase, "anti-Fascist haters," or "anti-Inquisition haters." One can't help but take it as a compliment, given what the system in question has been associated with in past.

No, I don't "hate" Socialists. But this much I'll grant you: I know what Socialism has done, and so I know that anybody who loves mankind does not love Socialism.
The reverse is the case. The intent of the 'socialist' is to extend compassion to legislating laws that serve PEOPLE. The right-wing ideals only support the 'leaders' based most preferentially on 'ownership' privilege. The 'Democratic' party is labeled to indicate the priority to treat each person's power as EQUAL. Now I know that the GROUPs that fund the party will still favor religious extremism but differs ONLY in that the groups are NOT of one kind. On the right, the predominance there is representative of those extreme religions that favor a smaller subset of people, such as 'White Fundamentalist Christians' or "Israeli Nationalism" (a National Socialist system, to point out what you write below.) That the consolidation of the GROUPS based on religios thinking is no less dangerous than the ISIS terrorists who think the same way but believe their own religion and people are absolutely correct.

That is, the right-wing ideal FAVORS religion IN PRINCIPLE for the same reason that they do lying, as though life is a game about how well you can trick people into losing for your profit.
You support an anti-democratic position when you presume a 'right' to impose upon others for merely having power over them through things like wealth or religious authority.

Wrong again, Scott. I've advocated for neither. I'm quite sure you've missed the mark on that one. Again, you're trying to fit me into a suit you've built for me, based on some idea you've got in your head, there. I'm neither an advocate of of wealth nor of religious authority.

What strange ideas you get!
I sense that YOU are not that extreme but you falsely interpret the left as though they are the very 'conspiratorial' evil doers IN PRINCIPLE. [The 'in principle' here means that the foundation of the system's intent, not the actual financial supporters of groups using the left as a mere TOOL for their own right-wing agendas.

An example of today's extreme agendas on the left might be like the "Matriarchal" groups founded on an extreme interpretation of feminism. Another might be to the 'moderate' religious of all the major classes. As such, many Catholics, for instance, would favor the left for how most have become less extreme than their prior power during things like the Inquistion, the nature of the Pope's of these modern times adapting to CHANGE (ie 'progress') by accepting things like evolution or gay rights (very recent).
...a belief that "ownership" is intrinsic to nature beyond what one requires for existing.

Again, you'll have to show me where I said this. To my knowledge, I never did. But I do believe in property rights, which I believe in for the same reason John Locke did -- namely, their connection to freedom of conscience.
"Conscience" is a belief about 'morals' that is an invented term extending the non-religious "conscious" states of mind. That is, it is 'dualistic' and imposes a 'right' to people who already do not NEED permission to believe. They need a right to express their thoughts, not merely have 'freedom' to think.

The point about asserting the right as 'anti-democratic' is that about the concept of 'republicanism', which believes intrinsically in the virtue of an isolated set of authority figures who do the voting, .....like the electorial college that was thought to be a check on the capacity for irrational crowd mentalities. One of the very issues that gave rise to the downfall of the Soviet Union relates to how the 'soviets' (groups based upon one's authority and occupation): those groups who represent unions of people demanding CONSERVATION of their industries even where the output of those systems no longer have validity. [Example, if a group of employees running a carriage company for horses might demand that they maintain a right to exist even where the products lack any actual consumers. This is THE issue of the left that contributes to stalling, especially when or where such societies already happen to come from poverty and then are further isolated by other countries that prevent them from competition. ...something that is at fault of those like yourself who might agree to placing trade embargoes on Socialist countries.

The right-wing side derived from those favoring the Royalty and Churches leaders as 'authoritative' regardless of their intellectual qualifications. They are 'anti-democratic' thus, by implying that some people are born with relative 'superiority' over others. And if this standard is wealth, this certainly BEGS intelligence unless you qualify those who intentionally use manipulating 'sales' tactics as 'superior' intellects for succeeding!?
Did 'evil' not exist prior to th 1800s when "socialism" wasn't an official expression?
Of course it did. The impulses that Socialism makes worse and gives greater license are very old...as old as the human race. But Socialism gave evil a new lease and credibility it had never had before. What's ironic is that Socialism takes a "good" and "compassionate" line of argument, but uses it to debase the value of individual humans. It makes their value defined by their utility to the collective, instead of it being intrinsic to their existence as human beings.

That is why Socialist regimes kill so many people -- because the State and collective completely supersede and replace the value of the individual. So individuals can be rounded up, beaten down, sent to gulags, or shot into a ditch...because the collective "needs" it done.

But the evil that makes men kill each other? No, that came long before Socialism. Socialism just dressed it up in the language of "the common good."
Your right. But the alternative to this is WORSE. Contrary to your classification scheme, for instance, National Socialism is NOT a 'Socialist' government that treats the 'demos' as their authority. Rather, they believe that some race and particular set of beliefs are APPROPRIATELY 'social' and that, where used to AIDE people, it ONLY aides those of the particular Nationality first and foremost.

The White Supremacists are an example. They are not on the left and are Neo-national Socialists. Why are these groups found only on the right? And then how can you presume them as "socialist" by the standards of universal appeal?

I already AM a big critic of those on the left where I am involved. I had to back out of supporting the NDP here in Canada, a 'socialist' but non-communist, precisely for supporting 'culture' laws that discriminate by TRADING which people get to have the 'equal rights to abuse'! I still have no alternative choice because the 'right' here would condemn me as 'evil' for simply NOT being religious.
If you are presume the poor person is evil for asking for handouts...
That was nothing I ever said.
Then maybe you need to check out whether you actually 'fit' in with the actual policies of the 'right'. You appear to be more of a mixed centralist, a libertarian perhaps? But the concept of 'conservativism' is founded on the tenet that there should be a 'right' to make laws pertaining to particular religious ideology, to remove 'social services', like health care, welfare, human-rights branches of government, regulatory bodies, etc. What else do you presume 'socialism' to apply that you don't like? [You can't use non-representative abusers of the left where the principle intents are NOT defining. The Conservative favors a subset of people who 'own' debt of others and who believe intrisically in those 'exploits' I keep mentioning, such as seeking to pay the least of someone's labor to gain the most of other PEOPLE. We aren't talking cattle here. Yet people are considered 'commodities' to or 'consumers'.

You expect non-regulatory systems, for instance, correct? If you don't believe in these things, I think you need to redress what those on the left who share similar views to yours believe.
If you assume all (or even 'most') of these wealthy people 'earned' their way from poverty, prove it...
I don't. Some did, some didn't. I make a distinction, and treat people who have money as individuals. With those who are decent people, or who have earned what they have, I have no problem; but I have just as much objection as you do to those who are not decent or got their gains by ill means. What I don't do, that you seem to want to do, is treat them as a "class," as a group that's all the same. They, too, deserve to be recognized individually, according to who they really are, not according to a cliche or stereotype of the evil wealthy.

But what you don't realize is that YOU are the wealthy. :shock: Yes, that's right: relative to most of the world, you are a rich man, Scott. You own a computer, your own clothes, maybe a residence and maybe a car. You have health care, disposable income, enough food every day...Looked at that way, the global community has a Socialist claim against you, Scott -- namely, that you ARE a member of the wealthy class. Most of the world does not have what you have. Be careful what you wish for; because what you have is forfeit if globalism and Socialism ever join up.
I've always lived by comparing myself to others less fortunate. The only actual reason I have things like a computer and the internet is due to my accepting things that most would normally not endure. For instance, I don't date, am not nor ever was married, never owned a car (nor could afford to if I wanted to) and learned to adapt to isolation that permits me to control my variables better than others under similar conditions.

Am am 'rich' if you interpret that I have a 'library' perhaps? But that again is due to what I could not afford to do competitively. Those books are also relatively cheap to most who would only prefer to see them as 'decorations'. I am 'rich' if I consider my own invested interest in intellectual pursuits and collecting talents, like playing guitar, for instance. I am 'rich' if I consider the kind of Forest-Gump experiences I've had.

But here is where I am not so 'rich': I won the lottery once but was technically too young (by a mere few months), was dependent upon the relatives who stole my ticket and had to keep it to myself not knowing that other people would believe me given I lacked supports.

I am not 'rich' in that I was forced even living with the same relatives who stole the ticket to go to social services for support while attempting to finish highschool (not to mention that one of them ended up 'volunteering' for the same social services I struggled hard to get.

I am not 'rich' in that others whom I had to associate with being poor who presumed I should not have had difficulties but must not have tried hard enough. The conservatives whom I had almost no choice to get entry-level jobs from, have always utilized my enthusiasm to benefit from by taking credit for what I may have done and have paid me based upon how desperate my situation was. Thus I was discriminated from all sides,...bad family, ...bad friends, ....bad employers. And I assure you that the 'left' did no better for how they 'conserved' things like Union jobs for insiders with priority. And where I HAD to work in positions that union workers of some establishment wouldn't DARE do for whatever reasons, I was scolded if I dared to look at their employment boards in the lunch rooms.

The lack of things that many take for granted, like allowances, for instance, were non-existent for me and my siblings. We were all adopted to parents who thought we were pets that should have absolute respect for them, experienced corporal punishments that were already presumed dead even in the seventies.

I assure you that I am not deluded into thinking that the 'left' is somehow the most ideal system. And I can't mention much more than these but to state that I have a sibling that lives in a tent city to this day (if she is even still alive.) Supporting those on the 'right' are tantamount to suggesting that I shouldn't have even had what sources/resources of 'socialist' concepts I had to fight for to survive. Even the workers employed by governments wanting to curb the costs there, were 'conservatives' of some sort for the most part, whether they be of a system that is 'socialist' in concept. You would not, for instance, find someone in power of those 'social services' available as coming FROM those communities. To the conservative, they'd just prefer to scrap all social services and let the increased demand for jobs force the poor to have to accept the conditions of virtual slavery.

I'm only asserting these things here in respect that I do NOT believe you are an 'evil' person but rather you are naive to the relaties. Yet I STILL look at my conditions throughout as always being 'better' than someone else's as though I should if only to give me relative hope. But I still didn't give up. I had to endure living with people I did not want to, I had to endure the biases that even the middle-class average people took for granted as though EVERYONE received the same benefits. I would bet that if you took a stat on the successful people have as a minimum is family supports (that not even social govenments can guarantee), a car by the time you are 20 (even if it was a beater), and an ability to work while still at home and be able to have the freedom to spend it without being expected to contribute to the household. It was defeating when you work as a 13 year old making money only to have it taken from you by my 'authorities' who were virutally EVERYONE. No automy nor compassion existed simply based on the stereotype that "white people are privileged" by all sides except for those who were far removed from being able to do anything regardless.

The nature of the seemingly trivial things, like having enough food for lunch when going to school, or to how those presuming that your failure are always your own and who then turn around to exploit THAT to their benefit. The "get-a-jobbers" of the general population turns the tables on who the real 'owners' of the businesses you apply to work ARE. And if you burn out and cannot keep trying, you then get accused of being 'negative' and advised with the same doled out, "you haven't tried hard enough because you aren't (now) still knocking on doors" as though anything officiated as a 'job' suffices.

Had some of the social services existed back then that now exists, like the 'child advocates', I and my siblings could have had supports that prevented parental abuses. Even now these are still limited. And the only advocacy tend to be of those very GROUPS who support extremes of some sort or other, like how the laws in my country favor giving tax-free status to other fellow strugglers in my own poverty class based solely on a genetic association without noticing that the GROUP's classification scheme should have been "Impoverished" , not merely the socially defined "cultural" class of some relative 'majority' OF the poor.

It doesn't matter that the social services had not always been there in ways that favored me nor that they served others for being defined on racially discriminating grounds. The fact that the 'left' favors social services at all makes them a relatively appealing system in contrast to the right who would have both shamed me when young for not having decent clothes, no car, or no credible history of employment worthy of respect. That I still notice successes as relating to family is itself MORE supported on the left than the right. So I'm forced to vote for the parties that LEAST harm me or others that I now have sufficient compassion to recognize.

I've never had drug problems, though I've been surrounded by those who have. (I only started pot recently for it being legalized and not something that I'd use for 'socializing') I've been fortunate in my own redressing that, "it could be worse" mentality that you just presumed that I lacked respecting. I DO. And the very fact that I'm risking what I am saying here publicly just to appeal to your sense of compassion about the left versue the right should in response to what you just said, make me think again, "it could have been worse". My parents were 'conservative' minded and the one that still exists has at least two homes in gated communities both here in Canada and in the U.S., are very well respected, and all on the basis of being able to hide his head in the sand as soon as me and my siblings reached the official 'legal' age of 18.

Even my natural family turned out to be 'conservative' to the extreme. Yet how? My natural mother had four kids she adopted out and kept only two. And she based her choice to adopt out on the religious absurdity of feeling that they'd be penalized in an afterlife if they aborted us instead, something that I think, contrary to my own existence, would have been appropriate.

I'm going to stop on this. I have more I could say about OTHERS, but cannot. I think you get the point. The 'left', as problematic as it is, is faulted for the same identical problems that exist on the right IN PRINCIPLE: a belief that it is a 'good' thing to profit upon others' losses. They got ahead for what responsibilities they were able to pass onto society as a whole. And if those protections aren't there, you SUPPORT a rise in things like Communism on one end and National Socialism at the other. The reason for the uprising of groups like "Black Lives Matter", that represent a form of 'supremacy' by some, wouldn't exist if the right had NOT exploited benefiting from the losses of others.
You DECLARE that Socialism has 'evils' but only have the same old general classes of evidence: The Soviet Union's 'purging' (something that isn't even documented sufficiently enough by contrast to the right-winged Hitler of the same period).

Hitler was Left wing too: "national Socialist," remember? NAZI. Here ya go: https://www.aier.org/article/why-hayek- ... ocialists/ But actually, we can skip Russia, if Russia offends you. Let's use China, or Romania, or Albania, or Zimbabwe, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or North Korea, or Cambodia...You see, Scott, Socialism has NEVER worked. It's NEVER not killed a whole bunch of people, and it's NEVER not ruined economies.

So why does anyone still plump for it? Only because they don't know Socialism's own deeds. They prefer to imagine that they could manage to avoid all the human rights and economics disasters that plagued every singe Socialist regime before them. But what makes them so specially wise and virtuous? Did not the Soviets or the Maoists start with their heads full of collectivist ideals? And what became of all those ideals? Gulags. Re-education camps. Purges. Secret police. Pogroms. Genocides. Misery, poverty and social collapse.
This is PURE rhetoric and crap. My family growing up, when actually relatively functional, worked for NATO. You know one of those 'Forest Gump' moments for us was to have a day at the White House during Christmas in the Carter Administration. You speak here of an extremely naive stereotype that gets put out by the right, like the QAnon conspirators. The Soviets' problem was that they STARTED out as due to real impoverished conditions during and after WWI. The same in an opposite way that granted Germany their National Socialism, also suggests that the litral stresses of wide spread suffering is what causes these issues.

But we have more evidence of the Nazi exterminations than we do of any of what you are asserting that has existed as rumours even before the U.S.S.R. dissolution. But take China in contrast. They've managed to survive, are and will be the dominant new economic power. They survived and while there are 'abuses' that only those of the arrogant 'religious' communities suffer, we still have far more abuses here in our Western systems that supercede the worst of the worst in those socialist countries.

I'm not FOR 'socialist' flaws. But that 'side' of the political spectra reflects compassion that I know would have assured me dead long ago. And I might have gambled into trying those extremes that lead to the degradation in ghettos, like criminal gangs, prostitution, and drug abuse. Thus, had those 'socialist' things as relatively trivial they were for me, still had 100% more power to enable me to succeed to where I am now, as humble as it may be, than to have suffered either for starving, for exposure, or to the conditions of slavery that the right-wing ideals of capitalism has always profited most for.

I have to close here. I think I've said enough for my points here. And do NOT feel 'sorry' for anything I've said. I'm not looking for 'pity' of those experiences....because.....as I have always reminded myself of...

"it could have been worse." Others certainly have had worse conditions by far than me.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is it 'moral' for corporate decision-makers to place company profits before consumers' health/lives?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Scott Mayers wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:48 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 6:04 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:50 am You come from the 'postive think' side of thinking which your label, "Immanuel KAN" and your right-wing demeanor implies.
Oh ho. You got that 100% wrong. I can see you don't know what "Immanuel" means. The name is a pun on Kant, obviously; but it has zero to do with "positive think." I'm nowhere near that trivial. :wink:
So ARE you a supporter of the "positive thinking" movements
Not a bit.
So if I'm wrong, what IS your meaning.

This is a good time of year to tell you. It comes from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel
If it helps, I only notice right-wingers favoring things like rhetoric for the sake of appeal...
So you've never heard of political correctness or critical theory? You've never head of BLM or Antifa? And you've never heard Nancy Pelosi speak?
The intent of the 'socialist' is to extend compassion to legislating laws that serve PEOPLE.
Not really, Scott. That's only the intent of the well-meaning followers , not the Socialist leaders. The intent of the Socialist leaders is to take control. I hate to say it, but the well-meaning ones only become the "useful idiots" of the Revolution. Thereafter, they're all disposable. You'll see that time and time again, in the history of Socialism.

You'll see it again in the Socialist rhetoric being pumped out of Davos, over the alleged "Great Reset." The billionaires who are running the show there are not dispersing their billions to the crowd; they have firm hand on their own resources. No, it's you, the ordinary person, who is going to lose all your possessions and still, according to them, be happy.

They clearly know better.
You support an anti-democratic position when you presume a 'right' to impose upon others for merely having power over them through things like wealth or religious authority.

Wrong again, Scott. I've advocated for neither. I'm quite sure you've missed the mark on that one. Again, you're trying to fit me into a suit you've built for me, based on some idea you've got in your head, there. I'm neither an advocate of of wealth nor of religious authority.

What strange ideas you get!
I sense that YOU are not that extreme but you falsely interpret the left as though they are the very 'conspiratorial' evil doers IN PRINCIPLE.
Not falsely, Scott. I interpret Socialism based on its own history, it's own actions, and the actions of its present leaders as well. The Democrats are millionaires living in gated communities, who campaign against ownership and national walls.

Do you not ever question that? :shock:
Did 'evil' not exist prior to th 1800s when "socialism" wasn't an official expression?
Of course it did. The impulses that Socialism makes worse and gives greater license are very old...as old as the human race. But Socialism gave evil a new lease and credibility it had never had before. What's ironic is that Socialism takes a "good" and "compassionate" line of argument, but uses it to debase the value of individual humans. It makes their value defined by their utility to the collective, instead of it being intrinsic to their existence as human beings.

That is why Socialist regimes kill so many people -- because the State and collective completely supersede and replace the value of the individual. So individuals can be rounded up, beaten down, sent to gulags, or shot into a ditch...because the collective "needs" it done.

But the evil that makes men kill each other? No, that came long before Socialism. Socialism just dressed it up in the language of "the common good."
Your right. But the alternative to this is WORSE.
Actually it's not. The alternative is not ideal, but it's definitely not worse than Socialism has proved to be. It's literally true that NO ideology since the dawn of time has ever piled up corpses in anything close to the piles that Leftism has created: over 100 million in the last century alone.
Contrary to your classification scheme, for instance, National Socialism is NOT a 'Socialist' government that treats the 'demos' as their authority. Rather, they believe that some race and particular set of beliefs are APPROPRIATELY 'social' and that, where used to AIDE people, it ONLY aides those of the particular Nationality first and foremost.
Nazism is "national Socialism." Communism is "international Socialism." That's the key difference, and the reason why Hitler fought with Stalin. Their difference was really over who should be running the program, not so much over what program should be run. And you can see they really turned out to be "birds of a feather" in every respect.
The White Supremacists are an example.

I have never met one. If you ever do, you can tell him I don't agree with him.
...the 'right' here would condemn me as 'evil' for simply NOT being religious.
I've never met somebody like that. But you live on the prairies, don't you...
You appear to be more of a mixed centralist, a libertarian perhaps?

That's closer to the truth. I'd be a sort of conservative classical liberal, if you had to peg it.
What else do you presume 'socialism' to apply that you don't like?
Loss of freedom. Absorption by the collective. Robbery by government. The anti-Christianity, antisemitism and the use of minorities as pawns. The bad scholarship and dishonest news reporting. The gulags and re-education camps. And the general dishonesty. There's a lot I don't like about Socialism, actually.
I think you need to redress what those on the left who share similar views to yours believe.

I'm hopeful you might turn out to be one I could speak with, Scott.
I've always lived by comparing myself to others less fortunate.

I've met the less fortunate, and lived with them.
Am am 'rich' if you interpret that I have a 'library' perhaps?

You're unbelievably wealthy compared to the people I've lived with...if you live in Canada. Where I've been, whatever you live in would be a palace.
I am not 'rich' in that others whom I had to associate with being poor who presumed I should not have had difficulties but must not have tried hard enough. The conservatives whom I had almost no choice to get entry-level jobs from, have always utilized my enthusiasm to benefit from by taking credit for what I may have done and have paid me based upon how desperate my situation was. Thus I was discriminated from all sides,...bad family, ...bad friends, ....bad employers. And I assure you that the 'left' did no better for how they 'conserved' things like Union jobs for insiders with priority. And where I HAD to work in positions that union workers of some establishment wouldn't DARE do for whatever reasons, I was scolded if I dared to look at their employment boards in the lunch rooms.

The lack of things that many take for granted, like allowances, for instance, were non-existent for me and my siblings. We were all adopted to parents who thought we were pets that should have absolute respect for them, experienced corporal punishments that were already presumed dead even in the seventies.
I'm so sorry, Scott. That must have been terribly hard.
To the conservative, they'd just prefer to scrap all social services and let the increased demand for jobs force the poor to have to accept the conditions of virtual slavery.
You must know some very wicked "conservative" people. I've always found conservatives to be massively more charitable than Leftists. The conservatives I've known have been very supportive of various charitable causes, in aid, medicine, education...I've never found that Leftists do more that expect to be able to tell the government that IT should be charitable for them, and especially to them. With a few noted exceptions, they don't tend to practice charity themselves. They just expect it to happen.
I'm only asserting these things here in respect that I do NOT believe you are an 'evil' person but rather you are naive to the relaties.
Heh. I hope not. I would say not.
I had to endure living with people I did not want to, I had to endure the biases that even the middle-class average people took for granted as though EVERYONE received the same benefits. I would bet that if you took a stat on the successful people have as a minimum is family supports (that not even social govenments can guarantee), a car by the time you are 20 (even if it was a beater), and an ability to work while still at home and be able to have the freedom to spend it without being expected to contribute to the household. It was defeating when you work as a 13 year old making money only to have it taken from you by my 'authorities' who were virutally EVERYONE. No automy nor compassion existed simply based on the stereotype that "white people are privileged" by all sides except for those who were far removed from being able to do anything regardless.
I feel a great deal of sympathy for that, Scott. I'm truly sorry that's what happened to you, and I believe what you tell me. That being said, I don't think you'll find that the Left is going to be good to you. That's not what they do. Like I say, they talk about what they want the government to do for you...all the free stuff you're going to get. But then you don't get it.

Want proof? How many black people's lives and neighbourhoods have BLM made better? What about the Democrat run cities of Baltimore, Chicago, Atlanta, LA, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, Kenosha, Washington and Rochester? How are black folks doing in those locales?

But why? :shock: In some cases, the Democrats have had a free hand for forty years or more. Why is it that those cities are all hellholes of misery and degradation? When is this great Leftist leap forward going to come to Washington or Baltimore or LA?

To which city HAS it come? :shock:

None. It never does.

I think you've maybe mistaken big talk for the delivery of goods and services. It's true what Orwell said: Leftists do not love the poor; they spend all their energies on hating the rich....but not rich Leftists like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden or Gavin Newsome...just nameless "other" rich people...you know them, the alleged "1%" who never really get identified... :?
Had some of the social services existed back then that now exists, like the 'child advocates', I and my siblings could have had supports that prevented parental abuses.
Wow. I wish that were true. But after three decades of dealing with Child Services, I can tell you that they're just as incapable as anyone. They're overworked, overloaded, and under-wise. Recently, political correctness has hijacked them altogether, too, and they're now in the business of busting up happy homes instead of keeping bad ones under control. Sad, but true.
Even my natural family turned out to be 'conservative' to the extreme.
You met them? Wow. Well, they sure didn't do you any favours, eh?
I'm going to stop on this. I have more I could say about OTHERS, but cannot. I think you get the point.
Thanks for sharing, Scott. I'm impressed with your courage and forthrightness in telling all this.
The reason for the uprising of groups like "Black Lives Matter", that represent a form of 'supremacy' by some, wouldn't exist if the right had NOT exploited benefiting from the losses of others.
It was actually the Democrats who owned slaves, who created and maintained the KKK, who fought for Segregation, and who only recently have changed their tune. Did you not know?

The Republicans were the "blues," not the "grey's". They were the party of Abraham Lincoln, of Fredrick Douglas, of Emancipation and of Integration. Again, it was the "conservative" side that was against racism.
But we have more evidence of the Nazi exterminations than we do of any of what you are asserting that has existed as rumours even before the U.S.S.R. dissolution.
All Leftist, Socialists. But in point of fact, Stalin killed more than Hitler, and Mao, probably more than both. But Stalin and Mao killed their own people, behind a "red curtain," so few people know that.
But take China in contrast.
I just mentioned them: an absolute human rights disaster. Look at what they're doing to Hong Kong right now.
"it could have been worse." Others certainly have had worse conditions by far than me.
Perhaps. But it still shouldn't have happened to you. And I'm sorry it did. That you have survived it is a considerable mark in your favour as a person.

Thanks for sharing.
Post Reply