Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I should of said "He wasn't talking exclusively about Americans".

... I'm trying to eat soup.

At 3/19/04 06:56 PM, IceWraith15 wrote:

Because the people in India are poor, and therfore are expendable, in our mission to exploit everyone and gain more money for our Capitalist nation.

no....Americans don't exploit people, it's the governments of the countries in question. The corporations are the ones which set up factories.

But the governments allow them to.

At 3/19/04 06:00 PM, Jimsween wrote: "Nobody made a conscience deciscion to knowingly kill someone"
How many times am I going to have to tell you to read my posts until you actually get it?

This was one of the reasons investigators concluded that
i n t e n t i o n a l e m p l o y e e s a b o t a g e,
not an accident during tank washing, must have caused the disastrous leak.

Maybe the disgruntled employee was asleep so he wouldn't make a "conscience decision"?

Where did I say you should?

You said that we should respect the deaths of some, but not others. Soldiers would be included in the "some"

At 3/18/04 06:33 PM, IceWraith15 wrote:

Do you have any idea how many minutes the people in Asia or Africa, who work themselves to death in sweat shops to deliver us cheap clothes get,

I agree, but that isn't our fault.

No? Than whose is? It's the corporations in the western world who abuse those people.

or all the people in third world countries wo are starving to death because we use all the soil to feed our livestock,

That's more caused by their governments keeping all the food for themselves, America makes most of it's own livestock.

B to the Ullshit. I did not say anything about where the US (And I was not talking about the US specifically, but about the entire western world) keeps their livestock, I was talking about were the western world grows the food they feed to their livestock: On the fertile soil in the third world, wich should be used to feed the starving local people.

or all the people in Afghanistan and Iraq who got bombed an shot because the US wanted some cheap oil reserves?

THE IRAQ WAR WAS NOT ABOUT OIL!!!!!!!!
and it wasn't the people we were bombing it was SADDAM HUSSEIN, and in Afghanistan it was Al-Queda (Remember 9-11?)

It fucking was about oil! Enron (Bush's company) needed to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, wich would only be possible if the US got control of the region. And the US was bombin Saddam you say? Strange, I thought you couldn't survive a bomb hitting you. And there has never been any proof of a link between 9-11, Al Quaida an the Taliban. Glad to have opened your eyes, join us next time.

Lemme see... nothing plus nothing plus nothing is..... NOTHING!

Good point, but you can't blame the U.S for all the world's problems, the U.S puts a HELL lot of effort into improving the world, and what do we get? A bunch of French whores calling us the "World policemen."

First of all, I wasn't exclusively blaming the US, second, the US is not trying to improving the world, the US is trying to improve it's own wealth and power. I mean, how much better did the world get thanks to the Vietnam war, the Chile coup, the first and second Gulf war and the war in Aghanistan?

At 3/16/04 05:16 PM, Jimsween wrote: Waah waah waaah, I had to be quiet for a while, waaaah waaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Don't you realise this is what you sound like to the rest of us, Sween?

At 3/19/04 05:57 PM, Jimsween wrote: Aww, tear tear.

When your argument is based solely on the anger of a victim, you need to rethink it.

My argument on the Swaeatshops issue is based mostly around the fact that we're working people to the bone, and keeping them starving for our profit.

At 3/20/04 01:45 AM, crass_clock wrote:

At 3/19/04 06:00 PM, Jimsween wrote: "Nobody made a conscience deciscion to knowingly kill someone"
How many times am I going to have to tell you to read my posts until you actually get it?

This was one of the reasons investigators concluded that
i n t e n t i o n a l e m p l o y e e s a b o t a g e,
not an accident during tank washing, must have caused the disastrous leak.

Maybe the disgruntled employee was asleep so he wouldn't make a "conscience decision"?

I read the article punk, I'm watiing for you to give me evidence that some employee knew it would kill all those people. If I shoot a person but the bullet goes through him and into another, it doesn't mean I was trying to kill that other person.

Where did I say you should?

You said that we should respect the deaths of some, but not others. Soldiers would be included in the "some"

I never said that. I said that we do respect the deaths of some, but not others, and then I explained why. If anything we shouldn't be forced to repect any deaths, but we are, which is why I explained why we are forced to for some and not others.

At 3/20/04 11:09 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 3/19/04 05:57 PM, Jimsween wrote: Aww, tear tear.

When your argument is based solely on the anger of a victim, you need to rethink it.

My argument on the Swaeatshops issue is based mostly around the fact that we're working people to the bone, and keeping them starving for our profit.

First of all, we don't keep them starving. A starving worker is not efficient at all. We just don't give them an excess of food, humans can live on very little food a day. Second, so?

At 3/20/04 11:50 AM, Jimsween wrote: I read the article punk, I'm watiing for you to give me evidence that some employee knew it would kill all those people. If I shoot a person but the bullet goes through him and into another, it doesn't mean I was trying to kill that other person.

WHAT?
The fact that releasing insane amouts of toxic fuckin gas everywhere can kill people isn't common knowledge amongst workers of a chemical plant?

Where did I say you should?

You said that we should respect the deaths of some, but not others. Soldiers would be included in the "some"

I never said that. I said that we do respect the deaths of some, but not others, and then I explained why. If anything we shouldn't be forced to repect any deaths, but we are, which is why I explained why we are forced to for some and not others.

IN OTHER WORDS you said that we should respect the deaths of some, but not others.

At 3/21/04 02:02 AM, crass_clock wrote:

At 3/20/04 11:50 AM, Jimsween wrote: I read the article punk, I'm watiing for you to give me evidence that some employee knew it would kill all those people. If I shoot a person but the bullet goes through him and into another, it doesn't mean I was trying to kill that other person.

WHAT?
The fact that releasing insane amouts of toxic fuckin gas everywhere can kill people isn't common knowledge amongst workers of a chemical plant?

And how do you know thats what he/she wanted to happen? What would an uneducated manual worker know about how chemical plants work.

Where did I say you should?

You said that we should respect the deaths of some, but not others. Soldiers would be included in the "some"

I never said that. I said that we do respect the deaths of some, but not others, and then I explained why. If anything we shouldn't be forced to repect any deaths, but we are, which is why I explained why we are forced to for some and not others.

IN OTHER WORDS you said that we should respect the deaths of some, but not others.

NO, are you stupid or something. I said we DO respect the deaths of some, but not others. And I previously explained why that is so, and why that is not hypocritical. READ YOU MORON.

At 3/21/04 02:12 AM, Jimsween wrote: And how do you know thats what he/she wanted to happen? What would an uneducated manual worker know about how chemical plants work.

CAUTION! DO NOT EAT!

At 3/20/04 11:53 AM, Jimsween wrote: First of all, we don't keep them starving. A starving worker is not efficient at all. We just don't give them an excess of food, humans can live on very little food a day. Second, so?

I know humans can live on very little food a day. It stops them asking for higher wages when they're worrying firstyly about death. The "so" comment confused me. Do you really not care?

At 3/21/04 02:31 AM, crass_clock wrote:

At 3/21/04 02:12 AM, Jimsween wrote: And how do you know thats what he/she wanted to happen? What would an uneducated manual worker know about how chemical plants work.

CAUTION! DO NOT EAT!

And how does that tell you that a huge cloud of gas is going to form and kill thousands of people if.

Also, the fact that the US govnerment said it was not intentional would explain why everyone thought it was not intentional and therefore didn't get sad. Der, not everyone spends thier whole life on the internet searching news stories.

At 3/21/04 03:37 AM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 3/20/04 11:53 AM, Jimsween wrote: First of all, we don't keep them starving. A starving worker is not efficient at all. We just don't give them an excess of food, humans can live on very little food a day. Second, so?

I know humans can live on very little food a day. It stops them asking for higher wages when they're worrying firstyly about death. The "so" comment confused me. Do you really not care?

I don't care, but I don't see what this has to do with the argument. You middle sentence made little sence. I'm going to assume some missing words here, the fact that humans can live on very little food a day stops them from asking for higher wages when they're worrying firstly about death? Thats two contradictory statements.

At 3/21/04 01:38 PM, Jimsween wrote: And how does that tell you that a huge cloud of gas is going to form and kill thousands of people if.

How does a warning label warn you? Oh I haven't got the foggiest idea.

Also, the fact that the US govnerment

WTF?

It took place in India.

At 3/21/04 05:00 PM, crass_clock wrote:

At 3/21/04 01:38 PM, Jimsween wrote: And how does that tell you that a huge cloud of gas is going to form and kill thousands of people if.

How does a warning label warn you? Oh I haven't got the foggiest idea.

It doesn't tell you exactly what will happen. If you see a huge tube of chemicals do you automatically know what it does?

Also, the fact that the US govnerment

WTF?

It took place in India.

And Union Carbide is an American company, der. Didn't you even read your own source?

At 3/21/04 07:34 PM, Jimsween wrote: It doesn't tell you exactly what will happen. If you see a huge tube of chemicals do you automatically know what it does?

Well it doesn't release fabulous cash prizes and delicious soup into the air if I fuck around with it, that's for sure.

And Union Carbide is an American company, der. Didn't you even read your own source?

Also, the fact that the US govnerment said it was not intentional

Where did it say that?

At 3/21/04 01:41 PM, Jimsween wrote: I don't care, but I don't see what this has to do with the argument. You middle sentence made little sence. I'm going to assume some missing words here, the fact that humans can live on very little food a day stops them from asking for higher wages when they're worrying firstly about death? Thats two contradictory statements.

No. Humans first worry is to get some food. The only way they can gain their (pitifl, bujt just sustaining) about of food is by working in the sweatshops. If they ask for higher wages, they get fired, and die.

At 3/21/04 11:28 PM, crass_clock wrote:

At 3/21/04 07:34 PM, Jimsween wrote: It doesn't tell you exactly what will happen. If you see a huge tube of chemicals do you automatically know what it does?

Well it doesn't release fabulous cash prizes and delicious soup into the air if I fuck around with it, that's for sure.

There is a big difference between a leak killing a few people on the floor and it killing all the people at the plant. Maybe the guy just wanted to kill a coworker, we don't know.

And Union Carbide is an American company, der. Didn't you even read your own source?

Also, the fact that the US govnerment said it was not intentional

Where did it say that?

The extreme limitations of Union Carbide's role have been confirmed repeatedly by U.S. courts, including the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded, [...] No Americans were employed at the plant at the time of the accident

And the US government wasn't the only one to say it was an accident, everyone else was too.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993140
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisda...r/3/newsid_2698000/2698709.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANO...5/16/bhopal.express/index.html
http://in.news.yahoo.com/040304/43/2bt6j.html

So how are people supposed to get sad when NOBODY is telling them it is intentional, even the families of the victims think it was an accident.

At 3/22/04 02:14 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: No. Humans first worry is to get some food. The only way they can gain their (pitifl, bujt just sustaining) about of food is by working in the sweatshops. If they ask for higher wages, they get fired, and die.

And what does that have to do with keeping them starving. Are you agreeing now?

At 3/22/04 01:08 PM, Jimsween wrote: There is a big difference between a leak killing a few people on the floor and it killing all the people at the plant. Maybe the guy just wanted to kill a coworker, we don't know.

That's like killing a fly with a nuclear bomb, it's fucking stupid beyond belief.

So how are people supposed to get sad when NOBODY is telling them it is intentional, even the families of the victims think it was an accident.

Yeah everyone except the independent investigators.
link

At 3/22/04 01:10 PM, Jimsween wrote: And what does that have to do with keeping them starving. Are you agreeing now?

If they keep them starving, just on the brink of collapsing, they wont ask for wages, because they aren't strong enough to fight their side.

At 3/22/04 04:49 PM, crass_clock wrote:

At 3/22/04 01:08 PM, Jimsween wrote: There is a big difference between a leak killing a few people on the floor and it killing all the people at the plant. Maybe the guy just wanted to kill a coworker, we don't know.

That's like killing a fly with a nuclear bomb, it's fucking stupid beyond belief.

And how was he supposed to know the effects would be like nuclear bomb? If you walk into a missile silo, do you know the size of the blast of the missiles you see?

So how are people supposed to get sad when NOBODY is telling them it is intentional, even the families of the victims think it was an accident.

Yeah everyone except the independent investigators.
link

And what is this supposed to prove? Everyone thought it was an accident, so why should they be sad? Forgive me but it sure looks like your just looking for ways to change the subject.

At 3/22/04 05:16 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 3/22/04 01:10 PM, Jimsween wrote: And what does that have to do with keeping them starving. Are you agreeing now?

If they keep them starving, just on the brink of collapsing, they wont ask for wages, because they aren't strong enough to fight their side.

But they aren't keeping them starving. Your just making assumptions now, what proof do you have that they are starving?

Bum, go do some research now and prove it to Jimsween that a 50 cents / hour wage is not conducive to feeding your entire family. Please. For the love of god.

At 3/23/04 09:34 PM, Red_Skvnk wrote: Bum, go do some research now and prove it to Jimsween that a 50 cents / hour wage is not conducive to feeding your entire family. Please. For the love of god.

Lets say he has a 14 hour day, being that it is a sweatshop. Thats 7 dollars, that can buy you 7 whoppers, 7 whoppers have a total of 6,200 calories. Lets say you have 3 kids and one wife, all you get a double portion to make up for the calories burnt in working, thats 2,000 for you and 1,000 for the rest. Unless your family is working (which would just give more money to spend) 1,000 a day is more than enough to sustain yourself, and actually allows some weight gain. But more than likely the rest of your family is working too, so lets assume all thier wages are 25 cents/hour, they all work 12 hour days, that is 4 dollars per person, now, they could go buy a tub of crisco and eat that, and they could easily become overwight within a matter of months, but more likely they are going to buy some fruit or something, which would still keep them from starving.

It is very unlikely to see any people with paying jobs starving, starving usually occurs when there is a lack of food in general, such as during a famine.

At 3/23/04 08:47 PM, Jimsween wrote: If you walk into a missile silo, do you know the size of the blast of the missiles you see?

No, but you know that they';re missiles abd that missiles can causae a shitload of damage, like chemical p[lanbts/.

And what is this supposed to prove? Everyone thought it was an accident,

Thatr everyone is wrong.

And I might add, those charity fund where you send in money seem to think a child can be given food clothing and shelter for just 80 cents a day. I always thought that was bullshit, but meh.

At 3/23/04 10:47 PM, crass_clock wrote:

At 3/23/04 08:47 PM, Jimsween wrote: If you walk into a missile silo, do you know the size of the blast of the missiles you see?

No, but you know that they';re missiles abd that missiles can causae a shitload of damage, like chemical p[lanbts/.

But, you do not know the extent of the damage. Some missiles have less of a blast radius than a grenade, before hearing about this I wouldn't think "sabotaging" one part of a chemical plant would cause the whole thing to go a mess, so how would an uneducated manual laborer (most likely) know any better?

And what is this supposed to prove? Everyone thought it was an accident,

Thatr everyone is wrong.

So? What does this have to do with them being sad over it? Really you just proved my point that they did not know what really happened, so it wouldnt have made much sense for them to be sad.

substitute something like rice or potatoes for 'whopper' and you have a point.

What I got out of Bum's post from awhile ago is that people, especially those making, say, 50 cents an hour, are especially in danger of losing their job (factories already in 3rd nations have even less incentive to stick around if they find somewhere cheaper), and not being able to find food then...

Just to stick out there for whatever purpose -
2 billion people "live" on less than a dollar a day currently, correct?. I don't know the numbers of people actually dropping dead of starvation every day... hum.