Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Liberal, and What is a Conservative?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 254 (138309)
08-30-2004 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by joshua221
08-30-2004 9:43 PM


Just to clarify
This reminds me of the relationship in the show "third rock from the sun" between the lady Mary and the guy who does the Family Guy voice for the baby. LOL
Seth McFarlane is not on Third Rock, nor does John Lithgow provide any voices for The Family Guy.
You seem to be doing exactly what you are condemning buzsaw about...
No, Schraf supports her statements with evidence, and has never, to my knowledge, abandoned threads simply because she wasn't "winning".
I've seen Buz do that a lot, though.
Don't persecute buzsaw for not taking a biased test
I'm not sure we've seen any evidence that the test is truly biased, though. For instance, everybody who's taken it so far winds up pegged down in Lefty land, including me.
If the test was biased in favor of liberalism or whatever, wouldn't our scores all have wound up near the zero, in the middle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by joshua221, posted 08-30-2004 9:43 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by nator, posted 08-31-2004 9:14 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 106 by joshua221, posted 08-31-2004 2:46 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 254 (138316)
08-30-2004 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog
08-30-2004 10:28 PM


I would disagree with the terminology of globalization. The world economy has been essentially globalized since before ww2. What you would term globalization is just a progression of economic integration. Reduction in tariffs and such is a current trend, but hardly the only one. Of course, globalization, as the term might imply also, seems to mean a wider and more rapid dissemination of information across teh globe, at least to the 25 to 30 percent of the population that has access to modern communications. However, the term is not used with precise definitions, and thus has different meaning depending on which group is using it.
Secondly, you seem to refer to corporations as seperate entities. Some groups work ethically, others do not. However, last I checked, humanity is not some amporhus entity and neither are corporations. I suggest that you clarify your terminology. The question you must then ask is where do you want to see the benefits of such trade. The essence of any trade is to exchange goods, usually money for products. However, trade is hardly evil, and neither are coroprations. Like any form of human organization, invention, or endevour, there are postive and negative consequeces. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, and in some cases, it is quite valid. However, I would also argue that modern corporations and industrialization also aid in the rapid production of cheap goods that can vastly help people, aka humanity, by meeting needs and services at a fraction the price it would without such buisness organizations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2004 10:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Mammuthus, posted 08-31-2004 5:53 AM Darwin Storm has replied
 Message 96 by Silent H, posted 08-31-2004 6:03 AM Darwin Storm has replied
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2004 9:00 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 93 of 254 (138324)
08-30-2004 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus
08-29-2004 1:29 PM


dig
you're a conservative if you think it is better to re-elect a bad president than to try a different one, unless the president is a democrat.
you're a liberal if you think it is better to elect someone new than to re-elect a bad president.
It is never too late to stop going down the wrong road.
heh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-29-2004 1:29 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Silent H, posted 08-31-2004 6:08 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 111 by Trump won, posted 08-31-2004 6:52 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 254 (138343)
08-31-2004 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by jar
08-30-2004 7:22 PM


Re: And the grid Buz?
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations
If ecomonomic globalization is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity by state controlled enterprise rather than by private trans-national corporate enterprise?

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 08-30-2004 7:22 PM jar has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 95 of 254 (138362)
08-31-2004 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Darwin Storm
08-30-2004 11:08 PM


I think another aspect of globalization is in the form of ownership. There has been a switch from state owned or locally traded companies to small time stockholders and international investors. Thus, a "German" company may have a majority American, British, etc. stock ownership.
quote:
However, I would also argue that modern corporations and industrialization also aid in the rapid production of cheap goods that can vastly help people, aka humanity, by meeting needs and services at a fraction the price it would without such buisness organizations.
There is a downside to this as well. In order to push down prices, a lot of labor intensive jobs are outsourced to places with no worker protection so that in effect, slave or indentured servant like conditions are used to produce the goods and other people benefit from the workers not being paid a living wage. So I would say the benefits are confined mostly to the developed western countries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 11:08 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 12:53 PM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2004 9:04 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 96 of 254 (138363)
08-31-2004 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Darwin Storm
08-30-2004 11:08 PM


I agree with your general attitude toward social surveys, they certainly can bias results by the nature of the questions.
HOWEVER, this is a survey about one's personal preferences and so they are pretty much quoting biased views and grading your political orientation based on your reaction to them.
This does not force one to choose something they life because it is worded in a way that make you feel bad for making a selection. Indeed your reactions, and buz's seem to indicate you should have a much easier time answering the questions than I did, because such extremist language can often be read one way or another and I can't say which direction I fall on it.
Obviously they COULD have used neutral position statements and gauged where you stand from departure from the neutral, but there is no problem in measuring departure from varying extreme positions.
I have to say I would have preferred more neutral language because it would have made things clearer what was being asked.
Yours was definitely clearer, though I think you were wrong in identifying consumers and producers as the proper choice. Producers would include those actually MAKING products, and I think this was supposed to suggest just the financial investors and corporate leadership of the producers.
That would not make it biased, but create a neutral sounding choice.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 11:08 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 12:57 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 97 of 254 (138364)
08-31-2004 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
08-30-2004 11:36 PM


It is never too late to stop going down the wrong road.
I suppose your statements could be reworded to fit the analogies the GOP uses.
Conservative: It is better not to switch horses mid course... (especially when it's our time honored horse).
Liberal: It is when he's he keeps going the wrong way.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 11:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 08-31-2004 9:30 AM Silent H has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 98 of 254 (138380)
08-31-2004 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
08-30-2004 5:46 PM


Re: And the grid Buz?
quote:
OK mother Schraf, but after this, I'd like you to allow me to represent myself when and if my opinion is given in surveys.
Fine, but I think you are overreacting.
Everybody knows that you haven't taken the survey.
And I think I was pretty accurate, don't you? Aren't you pretty much in line with Bush, Ariel Sahron, and Margaret Thatcher?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 08-30-2004 5:46 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Buzsaw, posted 08-31-2004 10:04 AM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 99 of 254 (138382)
08-31-2004 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by crashfrog
08-30-2004 10:32 PM


Re: Just to clarify
quote:
and has never, to my knowledge, abandoned threads simply because she wasn't "winning".
Oh, I have done this on a couple of occasions with Holmes, but never, ever with Buzsaw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 08-30-2004 10:32 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by joshua221, posted 08-31-2004 2:47 PM nator has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 100 of 254 (138385)
08-31-2004 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Silent H
08-31-2004 6:08 AM


Conservative: It is better not to switch horses mid course... (especially when it's our time honored horse).
I thought the "tricky-dicky" version was
"Don't change dicks in the middle of a screw"
except in this case it is rape.
heh

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Silent H, posted 08-31-2004 6:08 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 254 (138391)
08-31-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by nator
08-31-2004 9:06 AM


Re: And the grid Buz?
And I think I was pretty accurate, don't you? Aren't you pretty much in line with Bush, Ariel Sahron, and Margaret Thatcher?
I don't know. Likely I'd answer many of the questions differently than some or all of the above and a number of questions I could not honestly give a yes or no answer. Madear, likely you also would've considered it boldly intrusive of me to try and represent your score by answering for you and pidgeonholing you into the slot of my pick.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by nator, posted 08-31-2004 9:06 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by nator, posted 08-31-2004 6:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 254 (138477)
08-31-2004 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Mammuthus
08-31-2004 5:53 AM


Well, I both agree and disagree with your stance (actually various points. First off, multinational companies aren't inherentaly a bad trend. The abuses by a few are teh same abuses we have seen when companies were strictly nationalistic entities. So the real complaint should be, do we structure and regulate companies properly with the law, or should their be changes.
As for your second statement, the whole idea of making things en mass is to drive the price down (economy of scale), and thus make products available to more than just the wealthy. As for outsourcing, that is a mixed bad. I agree that countries that use slave labor, etc, should be sanctioned, but what about countries whos people are free but poor? Isnt the reason outsourcing works is because of a sever descrepency in economies? Providing jobs and investment to these coutries may reduce temporarily some job creation in wealthier countries, but there are positive effects as well. First off, such economies gain enormously (often the outsourced jobs pay such people several time what they make in their own economy). Secondly, the investment expands their economy and wealth, thus developing them as a market (which in the future increases jobs for everyone since the marketplace expands).
Now, I believe that outsourcing shouldn't be unregulated, and I also believe that we currently don't have enough understanding of the economic impact ( on both sides of the issue).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Mammuthus, posted 08-31-2004 5:53 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 08-31-2004 9:10 PM Darwin Storm has replied
 Message 139 by Mammuthus, posted 09-01-2004 4:17 AM Darwin Storm has replied

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 254 (138478)
08-31-2004 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Silent H
08-31-2004 6:03 AM


Yours was definitely clearer, though I think you were wrong in identifying consumers and producers as the proper choice. Producers would include those actually MAKING products, and I think this was supposed to suggest just the financial investors and corporate leadership of the producers.
Well, companies provide jobs and require the services of those making and designing the products, those that market them, those that provide ivnestments, etc. Heck, a good portion of the workforce is employeed by such companies. You can't just talk about companies like the only people who are part of them is upper managment and investors. Seems like a false characterization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Silent H, posted 08-31-2004 6:03 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Silent H, posted 08-31-2004 2:09 PM Darwin Storm has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 254 (138481)
08-31-2004 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Darwin Storm
08-30-2004 9:05 PM


Re: And the grid Buz?
quote:
Employees, in operating in their jobs, are producers. However, you are no longer addressing the issue of the importance of consumer/producer.
Wouldn't you say that at least philosophically the employees at lower positions are looked at differently than the fat cats at the top of the corporate ladder? I don't remember Tyco having an ice sculpture that pissed out expensive vodka surrounded by winged dancers at the company picnic. While I may not be addressing the consumer/producer topic I am addressing the original, and nebulous, "betterment of humanity" in the original question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-30-2004 9:05 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 7:18 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 105 of 254 (138504)
08-31-2004 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Darwin Storm
08-31-2004 12:57 PM


You can't just talk about companies like the only people who are part of them is upper managment and investors. Seems like a false characterization.
See, now you're just being silly. The statement could have been made more value neutral, but it doesn't have to make no statement at all.
The point was to get YOUR reaction of where the fruits of greater global integration of business should end up. They CAN separate the upper management and the investors, from the rest, to ask what your opinion is.
As a separate question though, are you seriously suggesting to me that investors and the upper management are NOT the major recipients of income from major national corporations, much less the focus of whose interests these corporations are serving?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 12:57 PM Darwin Storm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Darwin Storm, posted 08-31-2004 7:26 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024