These cases are staring at us right in the face, there are so many issues like-
-child labor
-sweatshops
-recession
-the global crisis about the dwindling natural resources
-how mass industrialization is effecting our climate

Don't tell me 'Life isn't fair' when basic human rights are being violated. I have great faith in the compassion of humanity and believe that these atrocities happen, because we allow them to happen. If we made a stand and made it clear to the industry that we do not want to consume goods that are produced by exploiting other human beings, the world's resources, animals, other countries ect, then the market would have to change. The market needs to change because the world cannot sustain this lifestyle.

I have a lot of response to what's already been written, but I'll respond generally instead of to each specific post.

This is my counter to what has been said so far:


The entire anarchy idea which was discussed. Yeah it's logical. Yeah it'd be the easiest solution. Does that mean it would work properly? Who has the right to say that making it legal to kill another would cause people to grow stronger, or if we would just end up with a vengeful, distraught, and completely insensitive world?

The people who would have to learn to defend themselves, survival of the fittest...

Ok... So what happens to the people who are intelligent, but only have ideas that are for the good of man, and do not apply their intelligence to fending off enemies? Some people would rather die than become a killer, and does this mean they are weak? Or rather that they choose not to be what people wish them to be?

On that note, Ayn Rand did have some flaws in her ideas, but so does everyone. Our society is not driven by two types of people, it is driven by many. People tend to want to categorize things and split us into 'this' and 'that', in the case of Ayn Rand "Leaders" and "Followers". She was trying to write about the topic of society as a whole, and attempted to include government and world status in it. That meant she had to adopt some already accepted ideas in order to propagate the ones that were and still today are considerably less popular.

Categorization is useful for splitting things up to make them more easily understood, but we should not lose sight that the entire point is to understand the entire subject, not just it's parts. At a certain point, there must be discussion about the relationship between each part within the entire construct.

Now, as to what could be done about these things ( What I believe about society) :

I've been working on my concepts for a long time and have heard all these types of theories before. I've started to come close to a completely different method, but it is by far the hardest one to continue believing in. The one most people become apathetic about and consider impossible. Believing that humans can learn to co-exist in such a manner that they do not break the afore-mentioned balance, while retaining individuality.

In order to do this, we will have to be able to have much at length discussion with one another and allow the other side to say their part without arguing back that what they say makes no sense. For example, when people debate, they usually pick apart the 'negative' sides that the other person has stated, and then concentrate on what they agreed with, and finally elaborate by stating their own side completely. (I did not do this here, I stated my true reaction without picking apart previously made statements)

In summation, the real issues at hand in the world today are less about "what we don't have" and more about, "We don't agree with this idea". This is such a complex change that most people have not noticed that it happened since it was so gradual. Objects do play their role, but are considerably less important than most people imagine they are.

I'm done for now, I want to see reactions to this before I write more... >_> but I have many more ideas.

I never said killing another would help someone grow stronger. I am saying the strongest will survive according to natural selection. Those who can best adapt to their environment. Everything is fair in anarchy. Being able to manipulate to your will, will most likely let you survive. Not guaranteed though.

Yes, wonderful concept that will kill off all the excess human life flooding this planet due to our attempts to preserve life.

If they choose to not adapt, then they will die. The goal is to wipe out as much human life as possible. This is just the only method of equality that I can think of to apply. Others say for the governments to do mandatory birth controls. I say that is inhumane since someone else is controlling the outcome of a bloodline that may have otherwise survived. My way advocates a natural animal way to deal with overpopulation rather than letting the government control what bloodlines will survive and which ones won't.

1. I will need to know your definition of morality.

2. I will need to know your definition of "balance."

Our issue is that humans are too altruistic in keeping each other alive. If we would embrace death as well as life instead of trying to defy death by all means possible, we wouldn't be in this overpopulation crises we are now in. I don't see how trying to co-exist with an overpopulated crowd is going to help matters at hand.

Yes, petty human issues are about petty individuals and their wants. However, the existence of the species is threatened by something other than our petty fights. Overpopulation, caused by altruism, will kill off our entire species if we don't do something to stop it, and will most likely kill off all the other species of the world as well. Except those damn cockroaches. They don't know how to die.

Yes, but at what point would people -stop- taking, and just become satisfied? For another thing as far as I understand it, anarchy as a concept seems to promote the idea that the strong survive, and the weak die. I agree that this would end up with less people on the planet, but of the people left would they necessarily do what is right? Basically I foresee that this would make most people who are considered allied with the highest good would probably either just go into hiding or some such. Let the others who would fight chaotically take each other on, and perhaps try to influence others into a more correct behavior.

What interests me now that I think about it is if this happened, this would make people show their true colors more accurately. I obviously can't predict what the world will become, and I admit you have interesting ideas... but I think that the way you see it playing out... it probably won't. Too many factors that would influence it, unless there's something I don't see.



I think that there would be other options that would effect the same thing. Those alternative possibilities however would be idealogical and would take considerable time to effect along with conversation about the meaning of certain actions undertaken by mankind. This would also require a sort of 'no-violence' treaty, no matter what the topic is. A solemn promise to discuss things regardless what emotions might come into play.


Agree. Mandatory birth control over-rides free will and is definitely inhumane.


Morality and balance to me would be considered one and the same. There is an ideal way to behave that a lot of people do not remember in this modern age. I.E. sexual indulgence is considered acceptable. If babies come along, no problem. We can put them up for adoption.

In my opinion, it would be brilliant if the school system focused less on the school subjects currently taught, and it was mostly like.. Experience based teaching as in kindergarten. Read a book, discuss what it means. Who cares if you can quote it verbatim, what did it *actually* mean. I think that most of what is wrong with society is this ignorance of how school affects the youth, and what we become as a result of all of those events. College is always available to learn those higher subjects, instead of force-feeding us knowledge over years that we won't completely remember anyways because our minds are still developing during that period.


Hard to say. I believe that things are defined more with a sense of feeling and that the actual words themselves are operative. However as you say you want more explanation, I will try to offer what I believe more accurately.

Balance, is a complicated subject considering it applies to everything that exists. In this particular instance I suppose we are talking about societal balance. That would mean to me that there is no war, and people are not walking around on the streets insulting one another but perhaps engaging in conversation. I would think that there could be less unnecessary shopping centers and instead a farm or two could be planted so that fresh produce would not be hard to come by, and most of it would not go to waste in transport.

I see balance as more of a mental condition, and not so much a physical aspect. I might even agree with your principles but would try to find certain ways to apply it that would encourage the flow of ideas as well, and not entirely the exchange of objects/territory/power. That's what I don't like about the whole thing, those sorts of things would take precedence as you described it.


There does come a certain point where what you say is true. There are many cases where it would be better to just let life end, and things would move from there to a spiritual level. (Whatever you consider to be spiritual as I believe that each individual decides their own personal afterlife, much akin to "What dreams may come" but slightly different in some important ways)

I fail to see how overpopulation will destroy us. As long as people were a bit more responsible about when and where they choose to create more life, we would be fine. The issue at hand there is that people do not take care when deciding to bring a life into the world. Instead, they just go, "Oops.. Had a kid." for the most part. People do not know how to raise those children, and then issues complicate themselves from there. People do not know how to apply what they truly believe to their daily lives, a.k.a. 'being-at-work'. That is an issue too.

I think we are approaching two different aspects of the issue... and that perhaps by discussion might come to a way to fulfill both realities... if luck and brilliance is on our side. XD

Sorry to butt in, Tutela, but I feel I must address this.

I really don't understand how you got that. The "fit", perhaps, fit meaning what it truly means (best suited to the current environment and conditions) and in this case being able to get along with your fellow humans, but not necessarily the strong. It's true that some people just kill to be killing, but would they not be the first to be killed, or at least ostracized? And besides them, who would target the weak? And why? Unless we're going to all be strict cannibals and thus would target those who are the least threat to us, in which case you might have a point.

Now, in Tutela's idea of anarchy, it might very well be survival of the strongest. However, to apply that idea to anarchy in general is faulty.

Again, our definitions differ and cannot be compared to each other. I don't see strong as being physically fit as you seem to. If your intelligence can best the strongest man on earth, so be it. If someone's charismatic ability overrides your intelligence, so be it. Being able to survive does not necessarily refer to physical attributes of the body. If they go into hiding and survive by that tactic, then they will survive.

Name the factors and we'll discuss from there. I can tell you that revenge and spite and jealousy will be key factors in eliminating the majority of people using my strategy to eliminate overpopulation.

I don't see how the concerns you address above would solve our overpopulation issue. Until humans are rationally proportionate to the world once more, we will continue to participate in deforestation, creating pollution, and using industry as a means to survive.

Well, you are one of the few to agree with me on this. Most people I come across say it is more humane to tell people to limit their procreation tactics and control population by not allowing children to be born in the first place. Sort of like what China has done. However, I view that as inhumane, because the individual does not have control of the continuation of their bloodline and thus their survival is at the mercy of the government they live under.

'

What is the ideal way to behave? The only ideal way to behave and what causes us to behave in certain ways directly relates to our survival. Objective morality, in my opinion, is the combination of each individual's own concept of morality. Each individual's own concept of morality is based on survival and what needs to be done to survive. In order for a human (social animal) to survive, it must help the group survive to ensure its own individual ability to survive. Thus, objective morality can be described as keeping the species surviving. This is where subjective views come into play on what is best to keep the species surviving. Everyone has their own view on what is best for the survival of humanity. Christians feel that survival of humanity surpasses the grave and thus promotes saving of the soul to survive past the afterlife. To save the soul, one must follow the Christian Doctrine, according to Christians, and it is written that sex is bad. I'm not even entirely sure where that idea originated from unless it was a political move to hold more control over the masses when it was only originally the Roman Catholic Church.

Where do your morals come from, and why are they your morals? That is what I am asking.

We are only taught that which our superiors were taught. It is a very subjective system that will be biased towards certain cultures, ideals, and practices as according to the culture you are learning it from. There is no "actual" way to view anything. Only a bunch of logical subjective views that we can learn from. Even math is subjective depending on who you talk to. Most people would say that one plus one equals two. However, I can argue successfully that one plus one equals ten.

This is where we differ. Unless you are referring to societal balance as the existence of the human species? You are talking about human issues regarding the clashing of different cultures. I am talking about the existence of humans as a whole. Our enemy is our own overpopulation. Our overpopulation has contributed to pollution, deforestation, world hunger, unnecessary wars, and industry in general. We can no longer live solely off the land due to our overpopulation and are forced to find artificial man-made ways to survive in this day and age. There will come an end to it as we can only destroy the environment so far before it backfires on us.

My balance encompasses life with death, pain with pleasure, sadness with happiness, dark with light. Most humans now a days are striving towards a society that tries to eliminate pain, suffering and early death. This is not natural, and because we have embraced these views and tried to defy that which is the balance, we must compensate by embracing the negative aspects for a while. In order to survive, we will need to embrace death to equal the amount we have been fighting against it.

I described above why overpopulation is destroying us. I assume you will counter with your own reasons. Until then, I have nothing more to argue on. You seem to be thinking on an individual level, whereas I am taking the whole of the human species into perspective, let alone the rest of the species in the world.

Not at all, my wonderful friend. I do not own/run these forums, and even if I did, your opinion would be highly welcome right along with the rest of the opinions.

My survival of the fittest does not equate to survival of the physically strongest. The ability to adapt first and foremost is my number one criteria for who will survive. Anarchy is simply the lack of a single government. If you think about it, the Earth is already an anarchy society as all humans are not united under one government. We are just split up into separate factions that are big enough for us to ignore our anarchistic world as a whole.

@Shonta:

The industries that use child labor, sweat shops ect are industries that are privately owned. Goods are sold or traded and any profits are distributed as the owner sees fit. This is capitalism. Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are privately controlled. The factories that employ underage children and the factories that make employees work is dire conditions are privately owned. The profits the factories make will go directly to the owner. Res ipsa loquitur. Obvious capitalism is obvious.
The depletion of natural resources is an opinion? Natural resources are not indefinite and the search for new sources such as oil has led to the deforestation of rainforests (case study). Oil is a good we consume like gas and electricity. Capitalist industries extract and sell these goods to us for profit.
The climate is changing and science has speculated that man made activities is a likely cause. Industry is responsible for CO2 emissions, burning fossil fuels, reducing natural carbon banks such as the rainforests ect; these factors are consider possible causes of climate change.
What started the recession is debatable; risky lending covers a wide spectrum. Businesses have made poor decisions causing a financial crisis that has affected the global economies. Decisions are driven by profit, but at what cost?
I am critical of capitalist policies; they lack decent consideration to the community, to the environment and to the people affected by their industry. Capitalism needs an ethical reform. Preservation of natural habitats; a living wage; safe and fair working conditions; anti-child labor legislation, and sustainable development are not unreasonable demands.

Nope, China is not and never has been a communist country. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge there has never been a single communist country. What I often see mistaken as examples of communist countries, are in reality Socialist States.

I specifically said ‘The industries that use…’; I did not say “All capitalist industries”. Now would you mind addressing my point instead of sidestepping and quit appealing to logical fallacies.


China’s economy has never been communist. In the late 50s and early 60s Mao did attempt to establish a communist economy in China. His plan was called ‘The Great Leap Forward’ and failed miserable resulting famine and death of millions. Mao’s successor Deng Xiaoping reformed the China’s economy by abolishing legislation that prevented people from owning private businesses. Deng Xiaoping famously said,
He meant that China would adopt what was best for China regardless of ideology.

In regards to child labor. This source estimates that 9% of the 317 million child labourers are employed by industry sector. That means 28 million children are employed by the industry sector. This is list of a few big name brands that have been found using child labourers-

NIKE
GAP
Adidas
WALMART
MATTEL

Here is a report by UNICEF which demonstrates and evaluates four business found using child labour and the legislation the companies put in place to prevent it, PDF. Note how in the document some company policies are criticized.



The search for new energy sources that are clean and renewable is nothing new. Solar polar, HEP, wind and nuclear energy are examples methods that are being used to replace fossil fuels. Oil depletion is not a theory or an opinion, we know it will run out we just don’t know when. Scientists speculate anything from 2030 onwards, (report
).

I don't know where you are finding these generalization? 'Deforestation is real' is not a generalization. My case study said-
If you still don’t believe that deforestation is happening in Ecuador here are some photos.
photo 1
photo 2
Its weird thing to dispute seeing it is so well documented and freely admitted by the companies involved.


That’s the rose tinted view I’m talking about! It dangerous because you honestly believe that capitalism in incapable of evil. The list I gave out early well known brands using child labour. As soon as the scandal is out in the open no one want to buy their goods so they play dumb pretend they didn’t know and implement anti-child labour legislation to show what saints they are. Why didn’t they implement these laws in the beginning or when they performed the first factory audit and found out children were working in those factories?


Gravity and evolution are also opinions but they have an overwhelming amount of evidence to support them. The evidence is significant enough to bring 192 world leaders to Copenhagen to discuss the impacts of climate change. Even if you didn’t want to believe in climate change you can’t deny that deforestation destroys natural habitats and wildlife ect.


I find economics incredible dull. I understand that bull and bear markets are just apart of the financial cycle and the recession will natural progress until there is adequate confidence in the stock market to pull it out of the bear market. Hopefully everyone will learn a valuable lesson about money lending and borrowing, it’s just unfortunate it is at the tax payer’s expense.
I think the only person who could tempt me into debating the recession is Glenn Beck with his ridiculous tree diagrams. That really would be shits and giggles.



Again you are disputing widely known facts. I’m more then happy to raid the International World Organization website to provide you with statistics with wage rates, hazardous labor forces ect. But I suppose I would just have to say Sierra Leone to cover all those bases…

Quit using Argumentum ad Opinionum..it's getting quite annoying.

I want you to define opinion and to define fact for me.

Is gravity opinion or fact?
Is our existence opinion or fact?

I want you to answer both of those questions above so I can further understand your particular specific definitions of fact and opinion.

Furthermore, if everything is opinion and nothing is fact, then there is no point to arguing and debating since everyone is entitled to their own opinions. There are no absolutes in this world, period. Global Warming and Deforestation are indeed "facts" as stated by the world leaders, the leaders we choose to represent our own views. If that is not enough for you, then just continue to wallow in your happy bliss caused by pure ignorance.

It is accepted by the majority of human beings that the Earth is not flat. That does not mean it is necessarily true. I notice how you didn't attack Deforestation. Does the Earth get rid of its trees naturally too? Or is that human influence? It is true that the cause of Global Warming is speculated, however check the graphs below. First one is a normal Earth induced Climate Change and how the trend should be going. The second one is how humans have most likely changed the trend due to their carelessness of taking care of the environment.

http://earthintime.com/holocene.jpg

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog...s,%20Graph.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shtona (Post 1765898585) And I wonder, Tutela, if you would have said that a couple of years ago when Bush was in office? Did he represent your opinions/beliefs? Do you honestly believe that Obama represents mine? Also, I find your trust in them (meaning world leaders) rather ironic. You call me ignorant, but apparently hold anything they say to be fact. Do you not question those in power at all? Do you follow like a sheep to slaughter? Does that not make you ignorant as well? All very good questions to consider...and don't insult me anymore, please. Honestly, you should be tagged for flaming, but, in the spirit of Christmas (which is strange for an Atheist to be saying) I won't report you (again...). Enjoy the holidays...

No one represents my personal beliefs except myself. The fact that universal scientists from many different regions and cultures and countries have all agreed upon the extremely probable cause of global warming being humans should be considered "universal fact" until proven otherwise. Do you know how hard it is to get multiple countries to agree on the same thing? I do not believe in power, so therefore I question the existence of power and do not question those who hold said questioned power. I do not follow unless I am forced to. I am ignorant just as all humans are. If I wasn't ignorant I would know if we truly exist, what our purpose for existing is, as well as a bunch of other unanswered questions. Calling you ignorant is not insulting. It is the truth. Unless you claim to be omnipotent and omniscient? Quit taking my non-existent insults the wrong way, especially since you like to insult females and different races on a regular basis and then complain when others complain. However, being purposefully/stubbornly uninformed is stupidity. Unless you can prove otherwise what worldwide scientists are claiming, then do not assert the opposite and claim it is just "popular opinion." Make sure to back up your assertions with a good foundation of proof.

Other than saying you are full of ignorance, how else did I insult you? If I have, I apologize for it. I meant no insult in what I said.

I hope you enjoy the holidays as well ^^. I personally am looking forward to making sugar cookies when I get home from work :P

The editing of your quote misrepresents your initial premise. Read in its entirity you are clearly appealing to logical fallacy.

You called me out for generalizing and I responded. You can either retract the accusation or pursue your argument- the choice is yours =3

No problems :)

What do you mean?
Do you believe we are running out of oil?
Or do you believe that we are running out of oil but is only considered crisis time when we bleed the earth dry?
Or the world has enough oil for the foreseeable future?
If you could clarify I would appreciate it.

What quote? This post is very fragmented and there are many quotes that you could be referring too.


...by building a giant pipeline through the amazon basin aka the rain forest. It shouldn't require that much leap for the imagination.


Capitalism is much more than a religious ideology where a few bigots are besmirching its good name. Capitalism is an economic and social system where owners produce goods and make profits. The only ethics that exist within capitalism are the ethics that we apply.



Nor does it make it incorrect; perhaps you would like to discuss its credibility?


I said

I did not speculate that you were for or against. All I know about your opinion on climate change is that climate change is a popular opinion- although theory is a better choice of words.

Rant? That's a little rude :shock: Come now, manners are what separate us from the beasts... I jest, I jest.


Actually that is my opinion or I could be lying.

Please refer to Texaco case study to see how the oil industry negatively impacted on local communities.


Whoa I thought you said deforestation was factual.

Again refer to the Texaco case study and look at the impacts on health.

That is an opinion. A very good opinion too. Child labor -bad. Giving your workers cancer -bad. Sustainable management -good. Safe working environment -good. Well that is according to my own morals- there are those in the world who think sending children down diamonds is acceptable and they tend to be the owners of the mines.

Anti child labor is an unreasonable demand? I think you've got a bit carried away with you brackets there. Correct me if I am wrong.



Then would you mind addressing these facts?

Hope your enjoying the holidays!! :)

Yes, and scientific proof, as much as you're going to be able to get is pointing towards humans influencing Global Warming. Therefore, Una's comment is factual based off scientific evidence and not an opinion.

It was simply you arguing that you weren't using the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Opinionum to shrug everything away as an opinion. I was merely questioning your judgments and objectivity when it came to fact and opinion.

As far as Una's comments, I do not agree that capitalism is the biggest threat to humanity and so I will not defend it. As I mentioned earlier, altruism is our biggest threat. I see you have not commented on that theory much after I explained it. Perhaps you agree?

Now before I begin, I point out I have made a terrible job of this lately. In both of my attempts to clarify what I saw as a misunderstanding of someones point, I was incorrect. Haha but let us hope third time is the charm.

Disclaimer aside, it seems to me that Una is not in fact blaming capitalism for causing what they have identified as problems in society. But rather they have been pointed out that it is under a 'capitalist' system that it is possible for such things to occur. This seems to be a position which you have acknowledged to be correct. As you yourself have admitted that the 'capitalist' system does not have sufficient regulations to prevent identified problems from happening.

You claimed Global Warming, along with all other issues Una labeled were opinion and could not be used. I argued that point using global warming as an example of being fact rather than opinion like you feel it is.

Your choice, if you do, I am curious to see how you will oppose my views logically and objectively.

Although I am not see how this address the point. Is this not simply acknowledging that there is grounds to the critique that capitalism does not provide sufficient regulation?

Not sure what you mean by examples. However, I consider altruism pure selflessness. or putting others before yourself or helping others instead of just helping yourself.

Also, just to point something out. An idea doesn't have any meaning until it is actually acted upon. Terrorism is an idea. It only becomes real when people act on it. Capitalism is an idea, it only becomes real when people act on it. An idea holds no meaning and does not exist by itself.