Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

What DOES have a set rate?

Does? Or should? All work should e paid roughly the same. I mean yeah people higher up probably should be paid a bit more, but is their work millions of times more important than the people at the bottom of a ladder.

The wants of the market fluctuate as people have various needs and wants fulfilled. It's a natural way of maximizing the production of useful products.

Natural? Hmm, it's a way, I'll give you that.

I would say that merit is a consequence of ones ability to do productive work. People who are unable to do productive work have no value or merit. People who can do productive work have great value and merit.

Productive work? Que?

Corporation reduce it's profit. HA HA HA HA, wow that's the funniest thing I ever heard, why would a corporation want to do that. There's no chance in hell that you can get a corporation to voluntarily reduce it's profits.

Because they are greedy bastards?

Corporations feed you. Yes they do, literally and figuratively.
1. Most of the food you eat is corporate.
2. If you have a job, it's probably for a corporation, or you are being fed as a result of someone working for a corporation
3. The computer you are using was made by a corporation (in whole or in parts, either way a corporation did the hard work)
4. The power that you use to cook your food and keep it fresh is likely supplied by a corporation (It might be different in the UK though)
5. the clothes you wear are corporate (small or large, it's still probably corporate)

See, the problem here is that efore big corporations....these things still happened...and they would still after them.(And the UK is not different after bloody Margaret Thatcher (fucking whore))

On the UN. I do not recognise the UN as being the authority on human rights. They could declare the moon to be made of cheese, it wouldn't make it true though.

Why no love for da UN?

How about this. The right to leisure, at whose expense. Leisure and Jobs are products made by man, who's going to provide them. Forcing a corporation to provide them does not respect the property rights of the corporation.

The property rights of a Corporation are not as important as the rights of indivuals.

You are making slaves of the people who are providing the jobs in the first place.

A contract usually takes more freedom away from the worker than the Corporation.

No man has the right to enslave.

But they can sign contracts...right?

As for the right to life, I mean it as one has the right to be free of those who will, through application of force, take it away. Things like killing people or destroying their property. NOT things like, not giving food to homeless people, not donating to foreign aid programs, not working at a soup kitchen.

So by "right to life" you don't actually mean they would be given what is needed to live, just that other people couldn't kill them?

ps: Do you believe this Aryn Rand shite?

what do you mean by "deserve?"

What is the standard by which you use to determine who is deserving. Is it need, or is it merit?

This depends on the definition of merit. Is merit how much they earn? Or do you mean the capitalistic "value"
which is never at a set rate.

If you grow more than you need and do not give away the surplus you are taking more than is right.

i cannot think of a better definition of communism than what you have just said.

Well my view is a it more etreme than the systems it has influenced. Seriously, look at the Northern european "social security".

Indeed you didn't, but that is the idea America is based on.

is that so? i'd like to hear you expound on this.

I'm afraid I will have to refer you to a book for I would do it a great mis-service. It is called "The World We're In" by Will Hutton.

No one forces them to work in the sweatshops. Sure the work sucks, but what is the solution, I'm not going to pay for it.

How about the company just reduces its profits?

I think that to fight corporations is to bite the hand that feeds you.

Corporations feed me?

Oh, I forgot to mention, "gross violation of human rights"

What human right is that? I never heard of the "right to a comfy job"

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

The only rights I acknowledge are: The Right to life (free from coercion), and the right to own property. Everything else must be acquired as a result of ones labors (and luck, I suppose, but who says life is fair?)

This right to life you speak of, it would obviously include the provision of food, water, healthcare and shelter, y'know, essential things for modern day life.

Actually Racism isn't as old as you might think. Racism really started when modern empires started. It was used as a reason for taking places over. "We're civilising them!" and has continued since.

What is wrong with sweatshops?

Well this is the answer I'll give you. They are gross violations of human rights, now from what you said you would probably counter with "But they help the economy, first world nations used to have them blah blah." When first world countries had sweatshops they were A) in a position of power(sweatshops really benefited the nation) B) used in conjunction with protectionist tariffs(B atually follows on from A) C) home-owned. Without protectionist tariffs to protect their home(main) market they could be undercut by other countries. Because the sweatshops are currently foreign owned(or owned by a big chain of sub-contracters) the profits leave the country. And the so-called "trickle-down effect" doesn't really work as most of the money got from the sweatshops is spent on food(which comes mostly from other countries again, they tend to have poor diets due to the long hours they work.)

ps: Sorry for being inarticulate, it was a fucking hard day. I would also like to stress the Human rights issue, when sweatshops were first around there were no such ideals.

if an artist writes a song and the music and then records it then own the rights to it how's that bull???

I did say that I wasn't going to make an arguement for this. Sure people deserve acknowledgement for their work, but do they deserve millions of pounds for it? Do they deserve to earn what the average person earns in their lifetime for one single?

if that's true, then why would the people who claimed the land owe anything to anyone? by your statement they didn't own it either.

The land was for all. All things needed for human survival on this planet come from the land, humans have a natural right to take what they need for survival. For example, in the wild, it is a tiger's right to kill and eat a buffalo, yet they do not own the buffalo. Land is not needed for survival, but in taking it you deny other people of it and its wares, which are needed for survival. In that sense you are stealing from everyone unless you only take what you yourself need for survival, but people didn't do that.

It is not theirs, it is stolen. All wealth comes from appropriation, hoarding of the resources that the world has.

are you saying it's stealing to grow carrots in your back yard?

If you grow more than you need and do not give away the surplus you are taking more than is right.

are you also saying it's wrong to be rich?

I'm not saying it is wrong to be rich, I'm just saying how people are rich.

No, your capitalist society is based on the notion that there is always more land, my capitalist society is based upon the idea that ownership of land is a privaledge, not a right. It is based upon the social contract.

first of all, i never said or gave the notion that there is "always more land".

Indeed you didn't, but that it the idea America is based on.

thomas paine was wrong when he said that property was a natural right. but if you own property you have sovereignty over what it yeilds.

Why?

and what is this "social contract" you speak of?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract". A book which the core beliefs of Europe are based around.

no, but you don't seem to grasp the fact that that's different. as i said before, his royal position is irrelevant to his being alive. he was born into that. before he was born, he was just as alien to the concept of royalty as any other unborn child. the only difference is what people expected of him and what he would become after his birth. you don't have the choice to be born to someone, regardless of that person's social status.

What the hell are you on about? Look, you hae admitted that a foetus is not a human, it is a potential human. Prince Charles is not a king, he is a potential king. As a potential king he does not have the rights that the king does, now a foetus, as a potential human, should not have the rights that a human does have(ie a right to life.)

It has twice the tar of ciggarettes (you know the sticky black lungs you see in health class? those are yours).

It may have twice the tar of ciggarettes, but you only smoke one(or maybe a few more on a good day) spliff while you smoke like packs of ciggarettes.

Not only in health is there a correlation, as schoolwork and behaviour, and all factors of a person's life.
I'm not saying if you smoke marijuana you will totally fail in life, but it isn't helping you any. Marijuana users do 1/4 as well in school (on average and are twice as likely to skip class.

That would e useful information if A) it told you what they did before smoking B) the socio-economic situatation they are in

The facts are in front of you. Marijuana is a harmful drug, and I'm not going to support it's decriminalization.

Caffiene is a harmful drug, alcohol is a harmful drug, infact there probably isn't a "drug" without harmful side effects.

Compassion, true thought, reason, remorse, intelect.....these are what truely define a human and mark our difference from animals. But, all these things a foetus lacks,

true, but an animal cannot learn these things. an animal cannot grow to feel such things. that is what sets an unborn child apart from an animal. human potential.

This is the thing I've been waiting for. This is how it relates to Prince Charles. He is a potential King, but as a potential king should he have the same rights as a King?

I'm currently 16, but strangely, when I first joined (2 years ago) the crowd was a lot older than they are now.

So uninhaitated islands that were discovered and claimed, they were always owned? And what aout when America was colonised did someone already own the land and the colonists stole it? Do you seriously think people always owned land?

i didn't say people always owned All the land.

Then, at some point, someone would have to take the land?

besides, that's irrelevant to our argunebt. the fact is that today's society recognises ownership of land. wether ownership was bought, claimed, or inhierited, pretty much all land was privately or federally owned by the time most of the people alive today were born.

That's irrelevant, land had to be taken for private use at one time, taken from common use. The people who took this land therefore owe something to the people, what they owe is what comes from the land. It is not theirs, it is stolen. All wealth comes from appropriation, hoarding of the resources that the world has.

our capitalist society allows for sovereignty. thus i don't have to give/share anything if i don't want to.

No, your capitalist society is based on the notion that there is always more land, my capitalist society is based upon the idea that ownership of land is a privaledge, not a right. It is based upon the social contract.

I could may up an arguement that it's not actually stealing because copyright is bull, but I'm too lazy. Instead, I'll say this, CDs cost too much, artists are rich anyhow, and you're not stealing from any of the middle men, just not using them. I've pumped enough money into the CD industry, I want a fair share back.

See, I don't think there should be a drinking age. Because something is restricted it is seen as a good, or cool thing to do, if it accepted in society then people will stop going mad on it as we do.

did people always own land?

yes.

So uninhaitated islands that were discovered and claimed, they were always owned? And what aout when America was colonised did someone already own the land and the colonists stole it? Do you seriously think people always owned land?

the "meat of the issue" is that if i own something, you don't. end of story. sovereignty is fair, as is capitalism. it may not be happainess for some people, but it's more fair than socialism.

You've missed or ignored my actual question, did people always own land?

Actually it is an abuse of power. It is infact uncompetative, something which Conservatives pride themselves on. They are selling at a level with which poorer local companies can not compete thus putting them out of business.

and that's unfair... how?

Well, this would need a definition of fair to argue properly. I mean, I wouldn't think that it is fair to abuse a position of power, but you may.

a human is a human because it is born of humans. homo sapien. a creature of a higher intellectual level than anything else of this earth. capable of reason, compassion, true thought, remorse, and other things related to intelect.

Compassion, true thought, reason, remorse, intelect.....these are what truely define a human and mark our difference from animals. But, all these things a foetus lacks, it is no different from an animal which can be killed without a second thought. You finally gave me a real definition.

how is it not right? they can sell things at a loss if they wanted to. it's fair and right. there is no unfair advantage.

Actually it is an abuse of power. It is infact uncompetative, something which Conservatives pride themselves on. They are selling at a level with which poorer local companies can not compete thus putting them out of business.

i think there should have been a rather large bay of iraq a long time ago. any attack by the us on iraq is not unprovoked.

Please tell me when Iraq has attacked the US.....

the answer to each and every one of these questions is no, regardless of circumstance. even if there are starving people in the same country, you have the right to do what you want with what's your's, even food.

Heh, your ideas are based on the established conventions of ownership, which tend to ignore where ownership originally came from. Do you think that people have always owned land? Or are you going to think, and we will get down to the meat of this issue.

"Is it right to kill a human? No. Then abortion is wrong? No, a foetus does not have the defining characteristic that makes humans better than animals(and thus gives them moral rights). And what is that characteristic? Sentiency."

wrong. that quality is humanity.

And by your definition of humanity is being of human parentage? See there's two things wrong with this "definition". Firstly a definition seeks to define something, it usually does this by refering to other things which are also defined by other things. It is a whole web of knowledge. However, your definition is insular, it refers to the same thing that it is trying to define. Obviously you can't define something by using itself to explain as itself is not defined! Therefore, your definition, is by definition, not a definition. Secondly, it does not explain why we are of more moral significance than an animal as it is the equivilant of saying "Humans are better because their parents are other humans".

See the thing is, you know if you define humans, or humanity properly you can't defend it. Another thing, that I've just thought of, is that to be of human parentage, is that your origin is from a human. Now, you say that humanity deserves moral recognition. Well, a little cell in my hand's origin is me, I am human therefore it is of human parentage thus it is humanity and thus it deserves moral rights.

Strangely I changed my MSN nick to this today.
"I'm not defined by the clothes I wear or the music I listen to. The only real definition of who I am is that I am me."

gay couples should not be allowed to marry or adopt. and, by the way, they shouldn't be a political minority either. mariage is a religious institution that has been incorperated into our political society. gay people should not be allowed to get married because of this. the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is just as evil as thievery and drunkenness. it also states verbatum that the act of homosexuality is detestable. so no gays shouldn't be allowed to get married and especially not be allowed to adopt.

So gay people should not have the rights of a "normal" human? Infact, do you think they are sub-human? Thus not deserving the full rights of a human. Or should they be denied rights because you think that being gay is a crime? Should the same happen to drunks? What about a gay drunk?!?! Should they be burnt at the stake for violating the bible?!(even if they are athiests)

No you can't, it doesn't define anything.

you asked me how i define the quality if humanity. humanity is being of human parentage. if your parents are human, you are human, end of story.

That does not define a human. A definition of something tells you what it is so you can identify it. If someone was say looking for an otter and they asked you, what are the defining features of an otter and you said "You can tell an otter by seeing if it is born by another otter." It's not really going to work is it?

You think it is wrong to kill an unsentient human life but not wrong to kill any other unsentient thing. In fact you think it is okay to kill sentient things.

by that exaxct standard, you, too, are pseudo-intellectual. you think it is ok to take the life of an unborn but not of a person who is born.

My thinking is consistant, I think it is right to take the life of something that is unsentient, such as a foetus in the first four or so months.

abd, by the way, it's only right to take the life of a person that's born if they have unjustly taken the life of someone else.

Irrelevant.

And please don't try and say sentiency is irrelevant. It has a centeral place in philosophy, both old and new.

of course sentiency is irrelevant when it comes to our argument. sentiency does not matter when it comes down to the morality of killing an unborn child.

Sentiency is the entire argument. I mean, it goes something like this. "Is it right to kill a human? No. Then abortion is wrong? No, a foetus does not have the defining characteristic that makes humans better than animals(and thus gives them moral rights). And what is that characteristic? Sentiency."

Evil is quite subjective in a lot of cases, but there are things that any sane person will agree are evil. The Holocaust was evil. Not to say that the German people of that time as a whole were evil, but Hitler was. The Rape of Nanking was evil. The 2001 World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks were evil.

Actually some people think that 911 was a good thing you know people chanting "Osama Osama!" There is very few people who would think the elimination of millions of people is a good thing,unless it went with their subjective beliefs.

Not everything is subjuctive.

Because there is a consensus doesn't mean it is right. Truth is not governed by the majority.

What racist remarks...as I said...ENGLAND and JAPAN ARE NOT RACIAL DIVISIONS

Indeed, England and Japan are not races, they are in fact, countries. The English and the Japanese can be defined as races.

and Wade is more likely to ban you BECAUSE YOURE A N00B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not that this is a pissing contest or anything, but you're a n00b.

The meaning of life? We'll know when we get there. If not, well at least we had a fucking good time making the journey.