So many hungry people

[theraven]

but even more fat people!


Obesity has reached pandemic proportions throughout the world and is now the greatest single contributor to chronic disease, an international conference was told here.

"This insidious, creeping pandemic of obesity is now engulfing the entire world," Australia's Monash University professor Paul Zimmet, chair of the 10th International Congress on Obesity, said on the opening day of the conference.

The spread of the problem was "led by affluent western nations, whose physical activity and dietary habits are regrettably being adopted by developing nations," Zimmet told more than 2,000 delegates.

The world now has more fat people than hungry ones, according to World Health Organisation figures, with more than a billion overweight people compared to 800 million who are undernourished.

The congress on obesity is held every four years, with the last three staged in Toronto (1994), Paris (1998) and Sao Paulo (2002).

"The conference will treat obesity as the keystone of all health priorities because it is the single greatest contributor to chronic disease throughout the world," said University of Sydney professor Ian Caterson, the event co-chair.

"There are now more overweight people in the world than undernourished and we are seeing the double burden of the extremes of malnutrition -- undernutrition and overnutrition -- in many developing countries.

"We know this is not about gluttony -- it is the interaction of heredity and environment. We know that small changes can make a big difference in peoples weight and health."

Zimmet said the problem needed urgent solutions -- not just widespread changes to diet and exercise but the rethinking of national policies on urban and social planning, agriculture policy, education, transport and other areas.

He also warned in an opening address that the growth of obesity-related diabetes, or so-called "diabesity", was set to bankrupt health budgets all over the world.

Around 370 speakers and presenters at the six-day congress will discuss a range of issues, including scientific research on how the brain regulates energy and advances in the prevention and clinical management of obesity.

The conference is being attended by academics and health professionals from Australia, Japan, the United States, Britain, Canada, Sweden, Indonesia and New Zealand.

boy capitlism sure is starving its people :-p

[RaiseYourVoice]

a billion have too much too eat while 800 million have too less to eat... that doesnt disturb you?

[Everyday Anarchy]

I think the number of starving people is irrelevent. It's the fact alone that people are starving to death that is horrible.
What is capitalism to decide who lives and who dies?
Shouldn't everybody have the right to eat? Afterall, it's a basic necessity, who are you to deny that to someone?

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:34 PM
I think the number of starving people is irrelevent. It's the fact alone that people are starving to death that is horrible.
What is capitalism to decide who lives and who dies?
Shouldn't everybody have the right to eat? Afterall, it's a basic necessity, who are you to deny that to someone?
1) capilitsm is not a sentinte entity, its a system encompased by people

2) the only rights anyone shoudl have is the right to be bale to conduct thier business and speak as they wish within reaon

[Phugebrins]

Thirteen percent of the world's population are undernourished. That we can demonstrably afford to feed them only makes that statistic thw worse.
Much obesity is caused by quality, not quantity of food - just look at the sectors of society it affects the most: it's predominantly the poor.

[Guerrilla22]

Typical reactionary mentality; 3 people live, 2 people die, great success!

[CheRev]

I think theraven is arguing that capitalist countries are doing so well that they they have excess food, while poor countries that are not as capitalist are starving for that very same reason (correct me if I´m wrong there was very little of your own input in the post). Clearly a very good argument he´s got going here with lots of detailed research gone into it :rolleyes:

theraven you forget that the capitalist countries you refer to exploit the poor countries by taking their natural resources (either for free or for dirt cheap prices), this is one of the main things that prop up the wealth of these rich countries. If these people were given fair prices for their products they might not be as badly off.

Also you forget that many of these countries are ravaged by wars that were often started by these capitalist countries you refer to. Usually when they are trying to force in a particular regime that favours them.

Also your totally wrong that capitalism is the answer for these starving countries (if that´s what you are arguing) as there are numerous countries in South America (and elsewhere) that tried the capitalist path and look were they are now: poverty-stricken with mass slums, enormous violence and numerous corrupt governments. This is now only starting to change (granted very slowly), due to a wave of more socialistic policies.

And you´ll notice a link between obesity and poverty in these countries you refer to, as poor people are generally only able to afford high-fat foods such as McDonalds etc. Sure they´re not starving but they are probably going to suffer a long drawn out illness that could lead to death. The difference isn´t that great.

I could go on but there really is very little point.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:11 PM
I think theraven is arguing that capitalist countries are doing so well that they they have excess food, while poor countries that are not as capitalist are starving for that very same reason (correct me if I´m wrong there was very little of your own input in the post). Clearly a very good argument he´s got going here with lots of detailed research gone into it :rolleyes:

theraven you forget that the capitalist countries you refer to exploit the poor countries by taking their natural resources (either for free or for dirt cheap prices), this is one of the main things that prop up the wealth of these rich countries. If these people were given fair prices for their products they might not be as badly off.

Also you forget that many of these countries are ravaged by wars that were often started by these capitalist countries you refer to. Usually when they are trying to force in a particular regime that favours them.

Also your totally wrong that capitalism is the answer for these starving countries (if that´s what you are arguing) as there are numerous countries in South America (and elsewhere) that tried the capitalist path and look were they are now: poverty-stricken with mass slums, enormous violence and numerous corrupt governments. This is now only starting to change (granted very slowly), due to a wave of more socialistic policies.

And you´ll notice a link between obesity and poverty in these countries you refer to, as poor people are generally only able to afford high-fat foods such as McDonalds etc. Sure they´re not starving but they are probably going to suffer a long drawn out illness that could lead to death. The difference isn´t that great.

I could go on but there really is very little point.
well capitlism is the answer, there are few coutnires in the third wrold that have tried capilsitm succesfully in the proper condiotsn (ie one where the ruel of law is in effect and the buiesnsmen aren't scared the military will take it away). also you'll note int he artilce the obeisty said that while its tarted in western coutnires its now a big problem in the third wrold..

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

one in 5 people live on less than $1 a day...

correct me if I'm wrong but that's more than one billion

a hell of a lot of people will go hungry from that

and that's "ok" because while they're doing that all the western fat cats are going around doing their own business

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 06:28 PM
one in 5 people live on less than $1 a day...

correct me if I'm wrong but that's more than one billion

a hell of a lot of people will go hungry from that

and that's "ok" because while they're doing that all the western fat cats are going around doing their own business
1dollar buys a lot in some places...not everyone shops at the organic farmrs market u do...

[CheRev]

well capitlism is the answer, there are few coutnires in the third wrold that have tried capilsitm succesfully in the proper condiotsn (ie one where the ruel of law is in effect and the buiesnsmen aren't scared the military will take it away). also you'll note int he artilce the obeisty said that while its tarted in western coutnires its now a big problem in the third wrold..

Man your spelling is so bad it actually hurt to read it!


also you'll note int he artilce the obeisty said that while its tarted in western coutnires its now a big problem in the third wrold..

Because the people in the third world are poor and thus can´t afford healthy non-fattening food. I said that already.


well capitlism is the answer,

Prove it


there are few coutnires in the third wrold that have tried capilsitm succesfully in the proper condiotsn (ie one where the ruel of law is in effect and the buiesnsmen aren't scared the military will take it away).

Come on, you´re looking for a utopian society to start off with. That´s another reason why capitalism won´t work. Also there´s no proof that either of these would make a difference, and if they did, and it did turn out to be a ´great capitalist country´then you´d be left with lots of obesity [plus all the other deficiencies of capitalism], as the article said.

[Jazzratt]

Idiot. This does not in any way, shape or form show a success for capitalism. It simply means that we have an abundance of food and logically should be able to feed everyone adequetly, but guess what, the price system once more proves an ineffeciant way of distributing resources.

[theraven]

Because the people in the third world are poor and thus can´t afford healthy non-fattening food. I said that already.

or they have a lot to eat...




Prove it


see:

America
India
China
europe

capilistm has imrpoved all of thme.



Come on, you´re looking for a utopian society to start off with. That´s another reason why capitalism won´t work. Also there´s no proof that either of these would make a difference, and if they did, and it did turn out to be a ´great capitalist country´then you´d be left with lots of obesity [plus all the other deficiencies of capitalism], as the article said.

the communist is telling me my idea for society is utopain? :lol: :lol:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Trust me, none of the masses of miserable starving third worlders are getting fat from eating unhealthy food. Trust me.

Yes, lot's of people are affording to get fat. That doesn't mean that they're not oppressed. Ah... well it looks like you can afford plenty of uh... lard to deep-fry all your food, and McDonald's on a regular basis... You're doing just fine. Capitalism has treated you well. Why would you want to have democratic control of the product of your labor, anyways?

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by theraven+Sep 3 2006, 06:35 PM--> (theraven @ Sep 3 2006, 06:35 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 06:28 PM
one in 5 people live on less than $1 a day...

correct me if I'm wrong but that's more than one billion

a hell of a lot of people will go hungry from that

and that's "ok" because while they're doing that all the western fat cats are going around doing their own business
1dollar buys a lot in some places...not everyone shops at the organic farmrs market u do... [/b]
Oh I see. I never realised that in some thrid world countries, &#036;1 will but enough food for you and your family every day and give you a decent standard of living <_<

When will you people realise, the reason people are starving is because of capitalism affecting the third world. The reason people are getting obese is capitalism running wild in rich, developed countries. Capitalism can be blamed for both, because it all depends on the state of the country it is affecting (funny how the state of these countries is also an effect of capitalism). Without wanting to sound like a raving loony lefty, capitalism can be blamed for the vast majority of the hardships the world over.

[Tungsten]

Tommy-K

When will you people realise, the reason people are starving is because of capitalism affecting the third world.
We might realise when we&#39;re given something a little meatier than "the reason people are starving is because of capitalism".

The reason people are getting obese is capitalism running wild in rich, developed countries.
I thought it was because people ate too much and did too little excercise. I don&#39;t see how an economic system can be rationally blamed for that.

Without wanting to sound like a raving loony lefty,
Too late.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:36 PM
Tommy-K

When will you people realise, the reason people are starving is because of capitalism affecting the third world.
We might realise when we&#39;re given something a little meatier than "the reason people are starving is because of capitalism".
How about this: The fact that people are starving when there is enough food to go around shows that there is definate, concrete evidence that the price system is an inefficiant method of distributing food. The fact that more profits can be garnered from scarce recources shows that the price system requires scarcity to thrive. The price system (inefficiant and scarcity based) is a cornerstone of the market economy, which is in turn a cornerstone of capitalism, therefore capitalism as a whole is inefficiant and requires scarcity - in this case manifested by the starvation and sufferiung in the third world.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 01:40 PM
How about this: The fact that people are starving when there is enough food to go around shows that there is definate, concrete evidence that the price system is an inefficiant method of distributing food. The fact that more profits can be garnered from scarce recources shows that the price system requires scarcity to thrive. The price system (inefficiant and scarcity based) is a cornerstone of the market economy, which is in turn a cornerstone of capitalism, therefore capitalism as a whole is inefficiant and requires scarcity - in this case manifested by the starvation and sufferiung in the third world.
[QUOTE]

Why is there enough food to go around? what brought us to this happy state of affairs (which is really unprecedented in human history)? Socialism? No.

Perhaps the problem is insufficient capitalism.

Socialists always seem to conceive of socialism as some sort of a continuation of capitalism; that the productive results will remain the same, and perhaps even get better. "Starvation PROVES the price system is false. We have more than enough food..." to paraphrase the argument. Install socialism, goes the cant, and what we have now will not only be preserved, but more will be created, and more fairly distributed.

Except of course when things change, things change. Its basic, and obvious, but socialists often seem to overlook this.

Capitalism has brought about the state of affairs which have resulted in more than enough food being produced to feed the world. How can a socialist in 2006 say that had the socialist of 1950, or 1900, got his way, this state of affairs would still be true?

Socialism requires change. Socialists ought not rely upon the success of capitalism to bail them out of the weaknesses in socialism.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 4 2006, 02:24 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 4 2006, 02:24 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 01:40 PM
How about this: The fact that people are starving when there is enough food to go around shows that there is definate, concrete evidence that the price system is an inefficiant method of distributing food. The fact that more profits can be garnered from scarce recources shows that the price system requires scarcity to thrive. The price system (inefficiant and scarcity based) is a cornerstone of the market economy, which is in turn a cornerstone of capitalism, therefore capitalism as a whole is inefficiant and requires scarcity - in this case manifested by the starvation and sufferiung in the third world.
Why is there enough food to go around? what brought us to this happy state of affairs (which is really unprecedented in human history)? Socialism? No. [/b]
It&#39;s a bit hard to paint that as a logical argument - we have capitalism in this world but we have not had any socialism to speak of.

Perhaps the problem is insufficient capitalism. We have capitalism worldwide. We definatley have far too much of the fucking stuff.


Socialists always seem to conceive of socialism as some sort of a continuation of capitalism; that the productive results will remain the same, and perhaps even get better. "Starvation PROVES the price system is false. We have more than enough food..." to paraphrase the argument. Install socialism, goes the cant, and what we have now will not only be preserved, but more will be created, and more fairly distributed. You are applying arguments against socialism to a technocratic argument, which is bloody stupid of you. I never made any argument along the lines of your paraphrasing, the price system is true - we have it holding us back after all - my argument is simply that it is inefficiant. I&#39;m not arguing that we keep what we have, but through improvements in technology (many of which we already have, but are not widley used thanks to their adverse effects on profits) we can have even more.

Except of course when things change, things change. Its basic, and obvious, but socialists often seem to overlook this. Yes things change...and?

Capitalism has brought about the state of affairs which have resulted in more than enough food being produced to feed the world. How can a socialist in 2006 say that had the socialist of 1950, or 1900, got his way, this state of affairs would still be true? Capitalism&#39;s asking price is too high (to use a price based metaphore). How exactly could you make claims that it wouldn&#39;t, whether or not we would have this state of affairs had the previous socialist movements succeeded is entirely moot as they did not succeed. Arguing about historical posibilities is a thourghouly illogical thing to do, argue only in terms of here and now. Here and now - where your precious system has proved itself obselete.

Socialism requires change. Socialists ought not rely upon the success of capitalism to bail them out of the weaknesses in socialism. We will have change, mainly an increase in abundance as the profitablity insentive to keep resources scarce is removed.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 4 2006, 02:40 PM--> (Jazzratt &#064; Sep 4 2006, 02:40 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 02:24 PM

[email protected] 4 2006, 01:40 PM
How about this: The fact that people are starving when there is enough food to go around shows that there is definate, concrete evidence that the price system is an inefficiant method of distributing food. The fact that more profits can be garnered from scarce recources shows that the price system requires scarcity to thrive. The price system (inefficiant and scarcity based) is a cornerstone of the market economy, which is in turn a cornerstone of capitalism, therefore capitalism as a whole is inefficiant and requires scarcity - in this case manifested by the starvation and sufferiung in the third world.
Why is there enough food to go around? what brought us to this happy state of affairs (which is really unprecedented in human history)? Socialism? No.
It&#39;s a bit hard to paint that as a logical argument - we have capitalism in this world but we have not had any socialism to speak of.

Perhaps the problem is insufficient capitalism. We have capitalism worldwide. We definatley have far too much of the fucking stuff.


Socialists always seem to conceive of socialism as some sort of a continuation of capitalism; that the productive results will remain the same, and perhaps even get better. "Starvation PROVES the price system is false. We have more than enough food..." to paraphrase the argument. Install socialism, goes the cant, and what we have now will not only be preserved, but more will be created, and more fairly distributed. You are applying arguments against socialism to a technocratic argument, which is bloody stupid of you. I never made any argument along the lines of your paraphrasing, the price system is true - we have it holding us back after all - my argument is simply that it is inefficiant. I&#39;m not arguing that we keep what we have, but through improvements in technology (many of which we already have, but are not widley used thanks to their adverse effects on profits) we can have even more.

Except of course when things change, things change. Its basic, and obvious, but socialists often seem to overlook this. Yes things change...and?

Capitalism has brought about the state of affairs which have resulted in more than enough food being produced to feed the world. How can a socialist in 2006 say that had the socialist of 1950, or 1900, got his way, this state of affairs would still be true? Capitalism&#39;s asking price is too high (to use a price based metaphore). How exactly could you make claims that it wouldn&#39;t, whether or not we would have this state of affairs had the previous socialist movements succeeded is entirely moot as they did not succeed. Arguing about historical posibilities is a thourghouly illogical thing to do, argue only in terms of here and now. Here and now - where your precious system has proved itself obselete.

Socialism requires change. Socialists ought not rely upon the success of capitalism to bail them out of the weaknesses in socialism. We will have change, mainly an increase in abundance as the profitablity insentive to keep resources scarce is removed. [/b]
Socialism says they wish to change the system. Fine. But they base their thinking as to the world as it currently is as a result of capitalism. They then say that the various changes will allow the productive processes of capitalism to continue, and perhaps even improve, but in a more fair and equitable manner, democratically controlled by the people ecte ect.

But when the system is changed, the results change. yes, nobody can know for certain what the world would be like in 2006 had the socialists won in 1900. But that y world which exists today, the world which needs some fine tuning as per the socialists, is the result of capitalism, not socialism. So the socialist is relying upon the successes of capitalism to continue after smashing that system. It seems rather silly. After all, was the capitalist system any less obsolete for the socialist of 1900 or 1950?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:08 PM
Socialism says they wish to change the system. Fine. But they base their thinking as to the world as it currently is as a result of capitalism. They then say that the various changes will allow the productive processes of capitalism to continue, and perhaps even improve, but in a more fair and equitable manner, democratically controlled by the people ecte ect.

But when the system is changed, the results change. yes, nobody can know for certain what the world would be like in 2006 had the socialists won in 1900. But that y world which exists today, the world which needs some fine tuning as per the socialists, is the result of capitalism, not socialism. So the socialist is relying upon the successes of capitalism to continue after smashing that system. It seems rather silly. After all, was the capitalist system any less obsolete for the socialist of 1900 or 1950?
The capitlaist system has been obsolete for quite some time, as illustrated by its various incompetancies and failures and, yes, the existence of socialists. Try to reply with something beyond &#39;Be happy with the breadcrumbs, because this loaf isn&#39;t for the likes of you.&#39; and &#39;People failed to get this loaf in the past but, hey, you&#39;re getting bigger crumbs now.&#39;

[adz170]

i dont see anyone who has said that people in the first world also starve yet.....
they&#39;re are thousands of homeless people every year who die because of food deprevation , this proves that capitalism is not perfect ( nothing can be perfect) and theyre has to be something better , but communism is far from perfect its self , it is an idea which is unrealistic , i hate to say but it will never happen. ;) ;) ;) :ph34r:

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 12:34 PM
I think the number of starving people is irrelevent. It&#39;s the fact alone that people are starving to death that is horrible.
What is capitalism to decide who lives and who dies?
Shouldn&#39;t everybody have the right to eat? Afterall, it&#39;s a basic necessity, who are you to deny that to someone?
capitalism is thus far the only realistic solution thus far offered to end global hunger.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 4 2006, 09:20 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 4 2006, 09:20 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 12:34 PM
I think the number of starving people is irrelevent. It&#39;s the fact alone that people are starving to death that is horrible.
What is capitalism to decide who lives and who dies?
Shouldn&#39;t everybody have the right to eat? Afterall, it&#39;s a basic necessity, who are you to deny that to someone?
capitalism is thus far the only realistic solution thus far offered to end global hunger. [/b]
On what evidence? So far everything points to it being too inefficiant.

[Phugebrins]

"capitalism is thus far the only realistic solution thus far offered to end global hunger."
And precisely how is Capitalism solving global hunger? By making a million obese so it balances out?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 4 2006, 04:28 PM--> (Jazzratt &#064; Sep 4 2006, 04:28 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:20 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 12:34 PM
I think the number of starving people is irrelevent. It&#39;s the fact alone that people are starving to death that is horrible.
What is capitalism to decide who lives and who dies?
Shouldn&#39;t everybody have the right to eat? Afterall, it&#39;s a basic necessity, who are you to deny that to someone?
capitalism is thus far the only realistic solution thus far offered to end global hunger.
On what evidence? So far everything points to it being too inefficiant. [/b]
capitalism and free trade brings capital to countries where there was little to none before, which will inevitably build an infrastructure from which greater food stocks can be produced for the country. without foriegn investment many places wouldn&#39;t be able to feed themselves.

capitalism is very effecient, although it depends what task you&#39;re judging it on.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 4 2006, 09:58 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 4 2006, 09:58 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:20 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 12:34 PM
I think the number of starving people is irrelevent. It&#39;s the fact alone that people are starving to death that is horrible.
What is capitalism to decide who lives and who dies?
Shouldn&#39;t everybody have the right to eat? Afterall, it&#39;s a basic necessity, who are you to deny that to someone?
capitalism is thus far the only realistic solution thus far offered to end global hunger.
On what evidence? So far everything points to it being too inefficiant.
capitalism and free trade brings capital to countries where there was little to none before, which will inevitably build an infrastructure from which greater food stocks can be produced for the country. without foriegn investment many places wouldn&#39;t be able to feed themselves. [/b]
Very good, but this takes a lot of time and energy (more than six decades and still starvation in these countries?), proving it to be utterly inefficiant. This is by no means the only inefficiancy of the price system - mearly one of many.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 4 2006, 05:07 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 4 2006, 05:07 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:20 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 12:34 PM
I think the number of starving people is irrelevent. It&#39;s the fact alone that people are starving to death that is horrible.
What is capitalism to decide who lives and who dies?
Shouldn&#39;t everybody have the right to eat? Afterall, it&#39;s a basic necessity, who are you to deny that to someone?
capitalism is thus far the only realistic solution thus far offered to end global hunger.
On what evidence? So far everything points to it being too inefficiant.
capitalism and free trade brings capital to countries where there was little to none before, which will inevitably build an infrastructure from which greater food stocks can be produced for the country. without foriegn investment many places wouldn&#39;t be able to feed themselves.
Very good, but this takes a lot of time and energy (more than six decades and still starvation in these countries?), proving it to be utterly inefficiant. This is by no means the only inefficiancy of the price system - mearly one of many. [/b]
those are just the realities of developing infrastructure, its not like any other system could do it better.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 4 2006, 10:12 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 4 2006, 10:12 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:20 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 12:34 PM
I think the number of starving people is irrelevent. It&#39;s the fact alone that people are starving to death that is horrible.
What is capitalism to decide who lives and who dies?
Shouldn&#39;t everybody have the right to eat? Afterall, it&#39;s a basic necessity, who are you to deny that to someone?
capitalism is thus far the only realistic solution thus far offered to end global hunger.
On what evidence? So far everything points to it being too inefficiant.
capitalism and free trade brings capital to countries where there was little to none before, which will inevitably build an infrastructure from which greater food stocks can be produced for the country. without foriegn investment many places wouldn&#39;t be able to feed themselves.
Very good, but this takes a lot of time and energy (more than six decades and still starvation in these countries?), proving it to be utterly inefficiant. This is by no means the only inefficiancy of the price system - mearly one of many.
those are just the realities of developing infrastructure, its not like any other system could do it better. [/b]
What if one didn&#39;t have to take profitablity into consideration? Or need to use capital?

Also, if you look at the system as is you will notice that it does have some nations holding more recources and so on than others - making it an inefficiant distribution system. I mean fuck it&#33; It can&#39;t even distribute enough housing in its flagship nation (USA), let alone provide food, clothing, water and housing globally.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 4 2006, 03:29 PM--> (Jazzratt &#064; Sep 4 2006, 03:29 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 03:08 PM
Socialism says they wish to change the system. Fine. But they base their thinking as to the world as it currently is as a result of capitalism. They then say that the various changes will allow the productive processes of capitalism to continue, and perhaps even improve, but in a more fair and equitable manner, democratically controlled by the people ecte ect.

But when the system is changed, the results change. yes, nobody can know for certain what the world would be like in 2006 had the socialists won in 1900. But that y world which exists today, the world which needs some fine tuning as per the socialists, is the result of capitalism, not socialism. So the socialist is relying upon the successes of capitalism to continue after smashing that system. It seems rather silly. After all, was the capitalist system any less obsolete for the socialist of 1900 or 1950?
The capitlaist system has been obsolete for quite some time, as illustrated by its various incompetancies and failures and, yes, the existence of socialists. Try to reply with something beyond &#39;Be happy with the breadcrumbs, because this loaf isn&#39;t for the likes of you.&#39; and &#39;People failed to get this loaf in the past but, hey, you&#39;re getting bigger crumbs now.&#39;[/b]
[QUOTE]

Tp prove socialism, one must prove socialism. Offering up critiques of capitalism is not a defense of socialism. Even if capitalism is as inefficient as you claim, that in no way demonstrates that socialism will be any more efficient.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 4 2006, 10:15 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 4 2006, 10:15 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:20 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 12:34 PM
I think the number of starving people is irrelevent. It&#39;s the fact alone that people are starving to death that is horrible.
What is capitalism to decide who lives and who dies?
Shouldn&#39;t everybody have the right to eat? Afterall, it&#39;s a basic necessity, who are you to deny that to someone?
capitalism is thus far the only realistic solution thus far offered to end global hunger.
On what evidence? So far everything points to it being too inefficiant.
capitalism and free trade brings capital to countries where there was little to none before, which will inevitably build an infrastructure from which greater food stocks can be produced for the country. without foriegn investment many places wouldn&#39;t be able to feed themselves.
Very good, but this takes a lot of time and energy (more than six decades and still starvation in these countries?), proving it to be utterly inefficiant. This is by no means the only inefficiancy of the price system - mearly one of many.
those are just the realities of developing infrastructure, its not like any other system could do it better.
What if one didn&#39;t have to take profitablity into consideration? Or need to use capital?

Also, if you look at the system as is you will notice that it does have some nations holding more recources and so on than others - making it an inefficiant distribution system. I mean fuck it&#33; It can&#39;t even distribute enough housing in its flagship nation (USA), let alone provide food, clothing, water and housing globally. [/b]

And exactly how will socialism change a state of affairs where some countries have more resources than others (and kindly leave aside that whole world will be socialist line. Unless there is an instatntaeneous worlwide revolt, a socialist community is going to have to function side by side to a capitalist oone)?

And there is a housing glut in the USA, not shortage.

[Phugebrins]

"its not like any other system could do it better."
Disgusting though the regime was, the Soviet Union went from third-world-backwater to world superpower in a few decades, despite two devastating invasions and economic hostility from most of the developed world.

"And there is a housing glut in the USA, not shortage."
If it&#39;s anything like the UK, there&#39;s a glut - of homes that the poor cannot afford. About 250,000 here are without home, and pretty much the same number go unoccupied. Distribution problem again.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:20 PM
Tp prove socialism, one must prove socialism. Offering up critiques of capitalism is not a defense of socialism. Even if capitalism is as inefficient as you claim, that in no way demonstrates that socialism will be any more efficient.
What do you want proved?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 4 2006, 05:15 PM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 4 2006, 05:15 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:20 PM

[email protected] 3 2006, 12:34 PM
I think the number of starving people is irrelevent. It&#39;s the fact alone that people are starving to death that is horrible.
What is capitalism to decide who lives and who dies?
Shouldn&#39;t everybody have the right to eat? Afterall, it&#39;s a basic necessity, who are you to deny that to someone?
capitalism is thus far the only realistic solution thus far offered to end global hunger.
On what evidence? So far everything points to it being too inefficiant.
capitalism and free trade brings capital to countries where there was little to none before, which will inevitably build an infrastructure from which greater food stocks can be produced for the country. without foriegn investment many places wouldn&#39;t be able to feed themselves.
Very good, but this takes a lot of time and energy (more than six decades and still starvation in these countries?), proving it to be utterly inefficiant. This is by no means the only inefficiancy of the price system - mearly one of many.
those are just the realities of developing infrastructure, its not like any other system could do it better.
What if one didn&#39;t have to take profitablity into consideration? Or need to use capital?

Also, if you look at the system as is you will notice that it does have some nations holding more recources and so on than others - making it an inefficiant distribution system. I mean fuck it&#33; It can&#39;t even distribute enough housing in its flagship nation (USA), let alone provide food, clothing, water and housing globally. [/b]
you seem to be confusing equality with effeciency (although if thats your gauge for effeciency than yeah sure ok). if a country cannot provide an economic incentive (which i can&#39;t really htink of a country that would never be able to that) i don&#39;t really see why they deserve the investment.

the way i look at effeciency in capitalism is tha tit will always insure that recources are focused primarily on the most productive areas of society.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:06 AM
you seem to be confusing equality with effeciency (although if thats your gauge for effeciency than yeah sure ok). if a country cannot provide an economic incentive (which i can&#39;t really htink of a country that would never be able to that) i don&#39;t really see why they deserve the investment.

My gauge for efficiency is how well everyone has their basic needs treated. Capitalism fails at this utterly.


the way i look at effeciency in capitalism is tha tit will always insure that recources are focused primarily on the most productive areas of society. Well then you should be balking at this, in terms of capital its electronics that are most productive, so we should be putting resources into that.

[Orion999]

People have been starving in Africa for thousands of years. How is this capitalisms fault?

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

If u look at that article, you can see several mistakes....first of all, what you would define as "Starving People" - there is no "regulation" for that, so thus the numbers are impossible to determine.

Yet, if u consider ppl with buying power of less than &#036;1 a day as poverty, than 3 billion people suffer that problem.

The reason so many people are fat (mostly in industrial nations) is because capitalists now make Whoppers (800+ Calories) only &#036;1 each, so thus its pretty hard not to become fat.

It still serves the capitalists purpose - you die early from diabetes and liver problems, so they don&#39;t have to concentrate on your old-person-ness.

I don&#39;t see any differences really.

If u can die from starvation u can die from overweight.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:26 AM

My gauge for efficiency is how well everyone has their basic needs treated. Capitalism fails at this utterly.

[/quote]
Okay.

Prove socialism will do better.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The point of politics is to provide justice. There is nothing just about capitalism. The most democratic societies on earth have been socialist... Spainish republic, Allende&#39;s Chile, Paris Commune, USSR. We win.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 6 2006, 12:14 AM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 6 2006, 12:14 AM)
[email protected] 5 2006, 01:26 AM

My gauge for efficiency is how well everyone has their basic needs treated. Capitalism fails at this utterly.

Okay.

Prove socialism will do better. [/b]
I can&#39;t speak for socialism very well, so I shall leave that for somone else.

Technocracy on the other hand will be better because it is a system built on the idea of efficiant distribution of energy and resources. A system built on abundance above scarcity and of course technology something that is stagnating in capitalism after the intial golden age (all we seem to be building now, for example, are new luxury items - an inefficiant waste of time).

[Phugebrins]

"People have been starving in Africa for thousands of years. How is this capitalisms fault?"
That people were starving before capitalism is not the fault of capitalism - the fact that people are starving now, when we have the technology and resources to feed them IS.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+Sep 6 2006, 10:50 AM--> (Jazzratt @ Sep 6 2006, 10:50 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 12:14 AM

[email protected] 5 2006, 01:26 AM

My gauge for efficiency is how well everyone has their basic needs treated. Capitalism fails at this utterly.

Okay.

Prove socialism will do better.
I can&#39;t speak for socialism very well, so I shall leave that for somone else.

Technocracy on the other hand will be better because it is a system built on the idea of efficiant distribution of energy and resources. A system built on abundance above scarcity and of course technology something that is stagnating in capitalism after the intial golden age (all we seem to be building now, for example, are new luxury items - an inefficiant waste of time). [/b]

Okay. So prove "technocracy" will be a more efficient system of distribution.

[KC]

People have been starving in Africa for thousands of years. How is this capitalisms fault?

Do you know anything about the history of Africa?

[red team]

Okay. So prove "technocracy" will be a more efficient system of distribution.

Simple, everything from the oil that powers your car to the electricity that power factory machinery to the food that power human labour are measureable in terms of scientifically quantifiable energy units. Given that everything including products that are manufactured and purchased needs a measurable amount of energy to shape into its final useful form, if the total amount of energy that a civilization uses to make their goods and services are distributed evenly among the consumers of such goods and products and we simply let consumer demand for a product measured in quantity acquired determine future adjustments to production quantity for a product there would be virtually no way and no reason for the economy to periodically stall (the business cycle) and for people to be forced by economic necessity to take on jobs they don&#39;t want to do or be forced by the necessity of a price-based economy to be left without an income to live when business becomes unprofitable and needs to mass-fire workers.

Energy credits are different from money in that energy credits are simply the measured amount of the sum total of energy used up in making all the products and services available to the people to acquire for consumer use in contrast to ownership which will be impossible given that everybody has an equal amount of energy credits to stake a claim of consumer use for any given product or service.

But even if such a situation were to occur in that someone stake a claim upon a product and leaves it idle introducing artificial consumer scarcity where there was none before, this could easily be remedied by introducing a scarcity fee for idle resources equivalent in cost to the proportion of time it was intentionally left idle over the useful lifetime of the resource (this should be familiar to anybody in the bookkeeping field as depreciation) plus the difference in cost in securing an alternative resource (which is usually more expensive in energy costs to make). But, again this is a hypothetical situation that would seldom arise given that everybody is allocated an even amount of energy credits since machine labour already far outproduces human labour in terms of quantity of goods and services churned out making any inequalities in energy credits for bonuses given out (let&#39;s say for the small amount of time taken to do manual work that&#39;s not yet automated) insignificant. In any case the bonus given out for manual work would be measured as the amount of average consumer expenditures in energy credits over the time that a worker uses to work and therefore not participating in consumption (as everybody else would who are not working).

Energy credits are also different from money in that they cannot be traded, negotiated or hoarded as individual debt trading tokens as money is. It&#39;s simply the total measured amount of energy used up in the production process of a society and changes according to the amount of energy available to the given society, so if you build more power plants or discover a new source of fuel you have more total energy credits. Also energy credits are bounded to the product or service once the act of purchase is made effectively taking it out of circulation until such time as when the consumer item is destroyed or consumed at which time the energy credit also is consumed or the item is bought by somebody else in which case the energy credit remaining as measured as the remaining useful lifetime of the item is returned to the public consumer energy pool. This by the way is all computerized with smart cards and network computer accounts so paper money is obsolete.

[Terminator]

Shouldn&#39;t everybody have the right to eat?

I find this as an interesting concept. Yeah, i guess you should have your right to eat, in the other hand, shouldn&#39;t i have the right to not let you eat? I think the concepts of freedom, rights, democracy , etc.. they are all very conflictive, and it&#39;s almost utopian in my idea for them to live harmoniusly...

And about Africa...who are we kidding? I really don&#39;t understand people who say "What if "they" wouldn&#39;t have been "colonized"....listen, there is no IF in this world, and yeah, what if? Indigenous tribes would have been technologically advanced? Give me a break, there are even tribes living in mud huts trading cattle as their form of currency, i don&#39;t understand what these people are trying to say? Unfortunately for Africans i guess, most of Africa has been too isolated to ever have becomed "civilized" or more advanced then they ever were...You think people weren&#39;t dying and starving before colonization? Of course they were, it&#39;s called "droughts" and "famines", and yeah of course colonization brought upon much tribal warefare thats for sure which has been another burden for Africa....but other than that there is no "IF" in Africa, as if they would have becomed this great civilization able to rival that of the Chinese or Japanese not to mention of course Europe? Yeah right...

[KC]

Yeah, i guess you should have your right to eat, in the other hand, shouldn&#39;t i have the right to not let you eat?

No. Why the hell should you have that right?

[red team]

shouldn&#39;t i have the right to not let you eat?

Only if you can prove to me that every single piece of food found on your plate is due to your own personal, unaided, physical effort. I doubt you can. The only reason wealthy people have a large enough ownership of surplus that they have the power to refuse access to that surplus to others who have a shortage is by leveraging the unpaid labour of others.

[Terminator]

No. Why the hell should you have that right?

Well, it&#39;s not nice, but of course i have the right as an individual to do that. The right to kill is justified in many circumstances. It&#39;s what im saying, it&#39;s very conflictive. You have the right to egg my car, and i have the right to beat your fucking ass up&#33; See what im saying? But when it comes to hunger, how exactly is it my fault a kid in Etheopia is not getting his sufficient food supplies? And how exactly is it in the most remotest way my "RIGHT" to help him at all?


Only if you can prove to me that every single piece of food found on your plate is due to your own personal, unaided, physical effort.

Only people who directly deal with harvesting, fishing, and so on can fit into that category. And how exactly does this constitute my right to not leat you eat? So are you advocating since i have the food that i have through my effort it&#39;s my right to not share it? Hey, viola YOUR A CAPITALIST&#33; :lol:


The only reason wealthy people have a large enough ownership of surplus that they have the power to refuse access to that surplus to others who have a shortage is by leveraging the unpaid labour of others.

What? No shit, of course , if you have more money than the next guy your obviously going to have access to more things than he does....it&#39;s not rocket science.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I don&#39;t think you will get too many arguements from anyone on this board that the corporate pay structure in most companies is ridiculous.

I know someone who used to work for one of the largest companies in the US. He saw lots of corporate greed but he also saw a willingness to take care of employees in other ways. All in all, I&#39;d give them a B-

While I agree with some of you guys that much needs to be done to make it illegal to pay such different salaries for workers at the top and bottom of companies, it doesn&#39;t mean we should start a revolution. Capitalism is not a perfect system, but it&#39;s the best system.

The rub of it is that it does not matter how much one makes if the person does not spend/invest wisely.

IMO, the average household would be a lot better off spending and investing more prudently rather than buying a house they can barely make the payments on, living off the credit cards for a few years and then refinacing to take out their equity to pay off their credit cards now that bankruptcy is no longer so friendly for the home buyer.

If one were to disconnect their cable and internet, drive an older car, and not spend on every trend that comes along, they could likely afford health insurance, and live a financially more solid life IMO. People largely have a choice as to how they live, and decisions have consequences.

The "keeping up with the Jones&#39;" mentality leads people to feel that they are entitled to something they are not--a high standard of living.

You communists always put the blame directly on capitalism, the business owners, the government, and NEVER to the people.

It&#39;s always somebody else&#39;s fault.

[adz170]

i think all the predominately strong countries need to take their colonialism rate into thought , and look at how much they import from countries and how much they export . But america is greedy and it imports alot more then it exports , this is what makes strong dumbass countries . The United States of Imperialism &#33;&#33; Fools&#33;. :D :lol:

[Orion999]

That makes no sense adz.

[Terminator]

That makes no sense adz

Word&#33; lol

adz you have much to learn my boy. First of all we don&#39;t need to export much in terms of raw materials, our speciality is services , and we are the biggest exporter of that. In the other hand, even if we were doing what you said, whats your point? We are paying the people that we buy the supply from, so how is that greedy?

[Orion999]

By Importing more than we export, we are contributing to he growth of other countries economies. We pay them market prices for every thing we buy from the, and this makes them richer, so what is the problem?

[KC]

Well, it&#39;s not nice, but of course i have the right as an individual to do that. The right to kill is justified in many circumstances. It&#39;s what im saying, it&#39;s very conflictive. You have the right to egg my car, and i have the right to beat your fucking ass up&#33;

Those aren&#39;t rights. Those are abilities. I have the ability to egg your car, and you have the ability to try to "beat me up" (although I don&#39;t think you&#39;d get very far).


But when it comes to hunger, how exactly is it my fault a kid in Etheopia is not getting his sufficient food supplies?

Who the hell said it was your fault? It&#39;s capitalism&#39;s fault.


And how exactly is it in the most remotest way my "RIGHT" to help him at all?[QUOTE]

Your "right"? I don&#39;t think you know what a right is. But it is your obligation because you are a member of this society, as is that boy. His suffering affects your life, whether you realize it or not.

[Orion999]

I will not deny that it is a absolute shame that we throw away so much food in America and not send it to Africa.

When did the U.S.S.R or REd China ever try and feed Africa?

Why does America send 100&#39;s of millions of dollars of AIDS medication to Africa if we don&#39;t give a fuck

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 01:47 AM
I will not deny that it is a absolute shame that we throw away so much food in America and not send it to Africa.

Good for you. Why don&#39;t you act on that shame and attempt to get a more efficient system put in place?



When did the U.S.S.R or REd China ever try and feed Africa? When did America let up on them long enough to allow them to spread socialism across Africa?


Why does America send 100&#39;s of millions of dollars of AIDS medication to Africa if we don&#39;t give a fuck Mainly so that government officials and the like can sleep more easily at night, despite knowing how horribly inefficiant their medication distribution is.

[Terminator]

Those aren&#39;t rights. Those are abilities. I have the ability to egg your car, and you have the ability to try to "beat me up" (although I don&#39;t think you&#39;d get very far).

Well than, in that case any right can be an ability. And ohh yes, watch out now Kayembi whatever here is Arnold Schwarzenneger in steroids and he knows that im a skinny midget so yes, i won&#39;t get very far lmao :rolleyes:


Who the hell said it was your fault? It&#39;s capitalism&#39;s fault.

How exactly is it capitalisms fault as well? Did you know that actual starving people in the world are very few, it&#39;s malnutrition. How would communism fix malnutrition in Africa? You think malnutrition wasn&#39;t happening even before the colonozation period? THINK AGAIN&#33; Anyways, damn right it aint my fault people in Etheopia are dying, and it aint capitalisms fault either , ever heard of ethnic conflicts? (WHich might i add goes on in Africa more often than anywhere else hummmm) , droughts, famines etc.. this all contributes, as well as being poor ass countires with corrupt leaders who ravage their own country.



Your "right"? I don&#39;t think you know what a right is. But it is your obligation because you are a member of this society, as is that boy. His suffering affects your life, whether you realize it or not.

Well then, please indulge me, what is a "right"? Because what you say as my "obligation" is total crap. You sound like a preacher telling me i have to save someone because it&#39;s my "obligation" and my natural duty, my only natural duty is to have sex with woman, hows that? So hells no, his suffering does not affect me in any way shape or form, and i am not obligued under any circumstance to help him. Of course my human side would probably compell me to do something if i saw him directly in front of me, give him a couple of dollars, then move on with my life. I think you have no grasp of how society and humans work my friend...

[Janus]

When did the U.S.S.R or REd China ever try and feed Africa?
Both countries sent large amounts of aid in the 60&#39;s and 70&#39;s.


Why does America send 100&#39;s of millions of dollars of AIDS medication to Africa if we don&#39;t give a fuck
Where do you get those figures? Much of the money is sent by private donors anyways.

[superiority]

Terminator: That&#39;s a ridiculously shortsighted form of egoism. You seem to have the idea that if any action does not result in immediate benefit to you within the next ten minutes, you are morally justified in not undertaking that action. Such an outlook could be used to justify any action at all, by anyone, for no other reason other than they felt like it. Utilising this, however, it is moral for me to stab you in the face, because it would make me feel good and there is no obligation for me to regard any of your rights. Your philosophy is inherently self-defeating.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 7 2006, 01:28 AM

Given that everything including products that are manufactured and purchased needs a measurable amount of energy to shape into its final useful form, if the total amount of energy that a civilization uses to make their goods and services are distributed evenly among the consumers of such goods and products and we simply let consumer demand for a product measured in quantity acquired determine future adjustments to production quantity
[QUOTE]

This is sort of the nub of whole theory. When you speak of "consumers" of products, i am not sure if you refer to the final product of production (say gasoline at a pump) or if these energy credits also include other production (such as drilling for the oil, or refining it into gasoline or jet fuel, all of which presently cost "money"). You also suggest that people who receive energy credits will receive those energy credits of what they actually use. So a person with an aoutomobile would be allocated more credits than a person without, but what about the worker who uses mass transit? A formula is needed to calculate how much energy he is using.

When you say "we can adjust" future production based upon past production, you leave out

1. Who is "we."
2. Unforeseen events, which may neccessitate unplanned further production or need for energy credits.
3. Comparing the value and expenditure of one form of energy against another.

An economy is not static. It is constantly changing. I don&#39;t think these energy credits are up to snuff, as it seems to require a static situation.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

And once again, the communists dodge my responses to their assertions.

Why do you guys do that? And when you do, I assume that you guys can&#39;t muster up an intelligent response and aren&#39;t really that informed about economics and society.

[Terminator]

Terminator: That&#39;s a ridiculously shortsighted form of egoism. You seem to have the idea that if any action does not result in immediate benefit to you within the next ten minutes, you are morally justified in not undertaking that action. Such an outlook could be used to justify any action at all, by anyone, for no other reason other than they felt like it. Utilising this, however, it is moral for me to stab you in the face, because it would make me feel good and there is no obligation for me to regard any of your rights. Your philosophy is inherently self-defeating.


Hells yes im egoistic, such is human nature along with greed and slefishness. Of course, im morally justified to do right about anything, what are morals? Who can tell me whats wrong or right? Helping someone, hows that my "OBLIGATION"? Like i said, human nature would kick in if i saw that starving child in front of me, but then i would move on with my life, thats just how it is.


And yes, of course, it is your right to stab me in the face if you desire, then you will suffer against the rights given to me by society to avenge such action even after im dead. Helping someone else is about self gratification specially when that person is thousands of miles away whom i don&#39;t even know and have no direct or indirect contact with him, so there is no moral obligation there. There are people who are shot in the middle of a street in broad daylight and it&#39;s not in Africa, and how many people decide to just walk away cuz "ITS NOT MY PROBLEM"? UFF most people do that actually, in fact last weekend i was watching TV and i heard 3 gunshots, i just said to myself "OHH shit i think they shot someone, ohh well it aint my problem", kept on doing what i was doing. Your going to tell me i had a "moral obligation" to go help him? What are you? The Pope? psss

[KC]

Well than, in that case any right can be an ability. And ohh yes, watch out now Kayembi whatever here is Arnold Schwarzenneger in steroids and he knows that im a skinny midget so yes, i won&#39;t get very far lmao

A right is a privilege given to you by society. You have the right to free speech, free press, own a gun, etc... In other words, you&#39;re allowed free speech, you&#39;re allowed free press, you&#39;re allowed to own a gun, etc... because society has given you those rights. If the government repeals that right, then you no longer have it (i.e. you no longer have right to privacy as decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Hudson v. Michigan).



How exactly is it capitalisms fault as well?

Unequal distribution of resources, including food and the necessities people need to surive. It isn&#39;t profitable to send food to Africa so it doesn&#39;t happen.


How would communism fix malnutrition in Africa?

Equal distribution of resources.


So hells no, his suffering does not affect me in any way shape or form, and i am not obligued under any circumstance to help him.

See: The development of extremism in the middle east. ;)


I think you have no grasp of how society and humans work my friend...

You&#39;re the one saying that other people suffering doesn&#39;t affect you in any way, which is a complete bullshit statement, rather easily disproven by looking at events currently happening in the world.


Why do you guys do that?

I&#39;m guessing that nobody wanted to waste their time.


And yes, of course, it is your right to stab me in the face if you desire, then you will suffer against the rights given to me by society to avenge such action even after im dead.

Again, those aren&#39;t rights, genius. Those are abilities.

[superiority]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 05:00 PM
Hells yes im egoistic, such is human nature along with greed and slefishness. Of course, im morally justified to do right about anything, what are morals? Who can tell me whats wrong or right? Helping someone, hows that my "OBLIGATION"? Like i said, human nature would kick in if i saw that starving child in front of me, but then i would move on with my life, thats just how it is.
It wasn&#39;t the egoism I took issue with, it was the ridiculous shortsightedness of it, since it easily leads to events harmful to you, contradicting itself.

I also take issue with the &#39;human nature&#39; thing. I would contend that it is human nature to co-operate for mutual benefit, in much the same way that most pack animals do -- see, there&#39;s egoism in that ("what will have the best consequences for me") but there&#39;s also thinking and foresightedness ("okay, I&#39;ll agree not to kill any of you guys if you agree not to kill me").

I can&#39;t believe that you accept that I am justified in stabbing you in the face, while simultaneously claiming to be an egoist.