| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 7:46 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
the colors... so pretty...
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 2:46 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Meh, he keeps using red.
It's so out of fashion.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 7:46 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | Meh, he keeps using red.
It's so out of fashion. |
i c wut u did thar.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:46 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kmisho wrote: | 3. Individual coercion
4. Voluntary government |
1. Immoral.
2. Impossible.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Coin Operated Boy
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23071
Local time: 7:46 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | kmisho wrote: | 3. Individual coercion
4. Voluntary government |
1. Immoral.
2. Impossible. |
prove it.
no, thats not me just being snarky to KnoB... i would really like for him to explain WHY.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 2:46 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | prove it.
no, thats not me just being snarky to KnoB... i would really like for him to explain WHY. |
A voluntary government is not a government, it's a company.
Unless you think companies are governments too, but then I wonder why every time you hear some one talk about the government, don't you ask them "which one?", but know he probably means that organization of which the congress, senate, courts, police, etc are a part of?
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:46 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | Look, I realize that you want me to validate you, but that's your problem. Get over your man-crush. |
| gnosis wrote: | | No, I'm here do debate you Knight. |
No, you're here to try to get some validation from me, since clearly I know what I'm talking about and you just pretend that you do.
| gnosis wrote: | | Debating involves putting up points and counterpoints, |
Then by all means: make some fucking points. Your utter lack of ability to do that is laughable.
Honestly, the degree to which you bitch and moan about the red herring of "vulgarity" merely shows that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and that you want to deflect the conversation from that fact. Your childish fucking tantrums about the word "fuck" show that you don't want to debate. If you did want to debate, you wouldn't try some candy-ass "oh, you used the word 'fuck'! My eyes can't take it! Oh noes!" fucking childish bullshit.
So fuck you, kid. You're not fooling anyone other than yourself.
| gnosis wrote: | | The whole point of libertarianism is reduction of government. My point is that it is absolutely ridiculous to expect a politician to limit government, they ARE the government. |
For the most part, yes, although there are a few who do try.
What--you thought I didn't fucking know that?
| gnosis wrote: | | Never expect someone who has been given power to limit their own power. The only way to limit government is by empowering of the individual, or the "people" to replace its functions. The only way this will ever be possible is through free and equal access to information for each and every individual. |
And who will ensure this free and equal access?
| gnosis wrote: | | Government is there to protect us from idiots and wackos (like Knight). |
Awwww....poor baby.
Grow up, kiddo.
| gnosis wrote: | | I think that it may be possible that socialism and capitalism are not as polar opposites as some "free market" fanatics would like to have us think |
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | They are. Your utter lack of knowledge in this area is laughable. |
| gnosis wrote: | | I hope this doesn't injure your obviously fragile ego Knight |
The fact that you don't know shit makes me laugh.
Remember: you're the fucktard who believes something that flies in the face of reality. Telling you that you're wrong and being done with it is proper.
| gnosis wrote: | | Socialism is basically "a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.". |
i.e. there's no such thing as a free market in socialism. So they're polar opposites.
Did you mean to just fuck yourself over?
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7245
Local time: 4:46 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| josephpalazzo wrote: |
It's not a hasty generalization when your posts are awashed with these generalizations |
THAT was a hasty generalization too. You did it again!
| Quote: | and the labelling of people instead of providing counter-claims.
Second, what's wrong with Ivan? He can't defend himself? |
I'm sure he would if he thought it important. I slapped you because I felt like it. You deserved it, so I don't feel bad.
| Quote: | Since when are you his lawyer? Do you have a lawyer's licence to practice? Even if you did, with your single digit IQ, one would be foolish to hire you or let you speak in his/her name.
Note, that my post was addressed to Moloth, not to you. But Ivan still corrected what was happening -- a derailment of the thread -- and promptly splitted the thread, to his credit. But you, fucking moron, had to jump on this occasion to throw mud in my direction. Guess what? That is a two-way street. |
Well you suck at driving down the street then. Or are you throwing mud down the street? Even your metaphors are mixed up.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Munky's analogy was false. Do you know what a false analogy is? Are you reading the word "false" and getting it's usage confused? |
An analogy can be badly constructed or irrelevant to a discussion, or may have other attributes, BUT NOT A FALSE ATTRIBUTE. |
LOL! You DID! Jeeeezuz christ! Joe, you have got to be kidding. I can't believe that you could be so fucken confused. BTW, inserting the word "attribute" in after the fact is a rather dishonest thing to do.
| Quote: | IN LOGIC, ONLY FACTIVE STATEMENTS HAVE TRUE/FALSE VALUES.
How many times do you need to be told that in order for you to understand this elementary concept? Analogy may contain a series of statements. Some of them may be factive. But T/F values would apply only to those factive statements. The analogy, as a whole, CANNOT be false. Get it, fucking moron... |
Uhu... I ALMOST feel sorry for you as I post this link.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrissyFos
Lobal Dominatrix
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 5315
Local time: 7:46 PM
Location: Here, There and Everywhere
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | kmisho wrote: | 3. Individual coercion
4. Voluntary government |
1. Immoral.
2. Impossible. |
prove it.
no, thats not me just being snarky to KnoB... i would really like for him to explain WHY. |
Until reciprocal altruism is fully realized by individuals in society, we will be always be limited to the prisoner's dilemma. Wait...is that a pig that just flew over head? Defect, defect, defect...
_________________
This space is reserved for inarticulate meat puppets who have no true perspective outside the refuge of quotation marks.
Reverend Mother
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3942
Local time: 2:46 AM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | Ha! Yeah, I figured you might get your dander up at such a statement, but then again, I'm a union man...you can't have been shocked I said it. |
Shocked, no, but disappointed.
Especially with that "I'm a union man" excuse.
| Quote: | | I've got a book in storage about judicial activism in early American labor history that basically makes the argument that nowhere in the world did courts play so active a role in labor disputes as in the U.S.-- but I'll be damned if I'm gonna dig it out of storage for an internet debate, so I guess I'll have to let you have that one. |
I see no contradiction between the claims.
American courts could have been the most active in the world when it comes to labor disputes, while still being pathetically insignificant on the whole.
| Quote: | | 1. Same reason they agree to anything-- better to agree than risk a strike. |
So painting it as a voluntary agreement between the workers and employers was quite dishonest.
| Quote: | | 2. Often the unspoken understanding between the company and the union is that during the term of the contract, unions will help management to discipline the workforce. That's the common labor-management relationship in advanced capitalist nations. In fact, when bargaining a first contract, the union shop and arbitration articles are often tied to the no strike/no lockout/no slowdown article. |
Ah the classic "socialism cures the problems it itself causes".
Unions are given the legal privilege to besiege the employer's property, so they can graciously offer to not to use it.
| Quote: | | The NLRA does not codify "union shop", the Taft-Hartley amendments simply allow states to ban such agreements. |
Again, while I certainly don't like the idea of the government interfering in private contracts, it's an obvious example of one intervention leading to the next.
Was it not for union privileges, this regulation would never happen.
| Quote: | | I guess, but if a worker wants to file a grievance or take a case to arbitration which could cost the union thousands of dollars (and under Federal law the union cannot discriminate against members of the bargaining unit according to union membership or non-membership) doesn't it seem fair they should have to pay something? And believe me, it happens all the time-- it seems like the most anti-union assholes are always the first to run to the union when they get in trouble with management. |
Anecdotal evidence doesn't fly, sorry.
| Quote: | | But since the union isn't signing the paychecks and doesn't have access to the employees as a captive audience 40 hours a week, the union's means to coerce (or even influence) employees are less than that of the employer. |
Yes, but the act limits the control of the employer over their own property. Your probably don't give much of a damn about that, but it is stacking the laws against the employer.
But I do grant you that you've given some examples of the same happening to the unions.
| Quote: | | All an employer has to do in order to fire a unionized worker is be patient and build a paper trail to establish "just cause" to discharge them. Most cases of union workers getting their jobs back are the result of the manager being arrogant or incompetent and not giving the worker due process. |
So in order to operate in a sane manner, the employer has to assume all workers are not trustworthy allocate his resources to collect evidence "just in case", rather then to... oh I don't know, actually produce something?
| Quote: | | Can you please point me to the part of the Act which establishes this? I'm not familiar with it. |
Like I said, fuck me if I'm going to read the whole act, but in a summary I've read it says the law granted unions exemption from vicarious responsibility.
| Quote: | | Big difference between assault and mass murder. Though there have been some rare instances of scabs being murdered, could you please point to a single instance of unions machine gunning down masses of unarmed men, women and children? |
No, I can't point you to any examples, nor do I see the need to. The difference is scale, not principle.
| Quote: | In theory yes, but in practice I've found it's often easier to leverage a large, publically-traded company than a smaller, privately-held company.
[...] |
Again, it's just an anecdote.
| Quote: | | My point was that the law isn't as much in our favor as you seem to believe. |
You're somewhat right about that, but the whole conversation started with the question if the unions are more coercive then companies.
So far I'd say yes.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
josephpalazzo
Illusion Master
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 8036
Local time: 7:46 PM
Location: D-brane
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: | | josephpalazzo wrote: |
It's not a hasty generalization when your posts are awashed with these generalizations |
THAT was a hasty generalization too. You did it again!
| Quote: | and the labelling of people instead of providing counter-claims.
Second, what's wrong with Ivan? He can't defend himself? |
I'm sure he would if he thought it important. I slapped you because I felt like it. You deserved it, so I don't feel bad.
| Quote: | Since when are you his lawyer? Do you have a lawyer's licence to practice? Even if you did, with your single digit IQ, one would be foolish to hire you or let you speak in his/her name.
Note, that my post was addressed to Moloth, not to you. But Ivan still corrected what was happening -- a derailment of the thread -- and promptly splitted the thread, to his credit. But you, fucking moron, had to jump on this occasion to throw mud in my direction. Guess what? That is a two-way street. |
Well you suck at driving down the street then. Or are you throwing mud down the street? Even your metaphors are mixed up.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Munky's analogy was false. Do you know what a false analogy is? Are you reading the word "false" and getting it's usage confused? |
An analogy can be badly constructed or irrelevant to a discussion, or may have other attributes, BUT NOT A FALSE ATTRIBUTE. |
LOL! You DID! Jeeeezuz christ! Joe, you have got to be kidding. I can't believe that you could be so fucken confused. BTW, inserting the word "attribute" in after the fact is a rather dishonest thing to do.
| Quote: | IN LOGIC, ONLY FACTIVE STATEMENTS HAVE TRUE/FALSE VALUES.
How many times do you need to be told that in order for you to understand this elementary concept? Analogy may contain a series of statements. Some of them may be factive. But T/F values would apply only to those factive statements. The analogy, as a whole, CANNOT be false. Get it, fucking moron... |
Uhu... I ALMOST feel sorry for you as I post this link.
|
Only a fucking moron like you would take wikipedia as an authority. But if you had taken the trouble to read your own source, even they have it partly right, ...not an error in the logical structure of the argument, which is what I claimed. Read my post again, the part I wrote: IN LOGIC, ONLY FACTIVE STATEMENTS HAVE TRUE/FALSE VALUES.
Saying an analogy is false is like saying an opinion is false, a totally absurd concept But your own source gets it right in the second paragraph, an analogy can be INVALID, which is not the same as a true/false attribute. And basically, what this author in your source is talking about are badly constructed analogies, which I clearly pointed out in a previous post. Again, a badly constructed analogy is a totally different concept than assigning a true/false value to a statement, which can only be assigned to a FACTIVE statement.
Read the rest of your source, you will see that in the examples put there,
The universe is like an intricate watch.
A watch must have been designed by a watchmaker.
Therefore, the universe must have been designed by some kind of creator.
This can be represented as
The last statement is an INVALID conclusion, not an example of what the author of your source claims. The author of your source is less than a qualified person to talk about that subject. Again, Wikipedia is NOT a competent source.
Last edited by josephpalazzo on Wed Mar 12, 2008 8:13 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 7:46 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: |
Especially with that "I'm a union man" excuse. |
Not an excuse. An explanation, and an obvious one at that.
| Quote: | | So painting it as a voluntary agreement between the workers and employers was quite dishonest. |
How you figure? First off, I never used those terms, I simply stated the law does not mandate union shop, it must be agreed to. But it is "voluntary" in the sense that an employer does have a choice. All bargaining/negotiations, in any sphere, is about "what can I give you and what can you give me?". The employer has all the bargaining chips-- pay, benefits, working conditions, hours, etc. The workers collectively have one-- withholding their labor power. You can call leveraging such agreements coercion if you like, but how else is a union supposed to get a favorable agreement from an employer? Persausive arguments and hoping the boss will "see the light" and "do the right thing"? Labor peace is the only bargaining chip avaliable to the union at the shop floor-level at least.
| Quote: | Ah the classic "socialism cures the problems it itself causes".
Unions are given the legal privilege to besiege the employer's property, so they can graciously offer to not to use it. |
Wrong...we have the legal right to picket, but the employer can legally hire replacements, and if we attempt to obstruct the entrances/exits of the building, we will be arrested or beaten by the cops. And bargaining for labor peace has always been the tactic unions used, long before the NLRA.
| Quote: | Again, while I certainly don't like the idea of the government interfering in private contracts, it's an obvious example of one intervention leading to the next.
Was it not for union privileges, this regulation would never happen. |
Some privileges.
| Quote: | | Anecdotal evidence doesn't fly, sorry. |
Then don't think of it as anecdotal evidence, think of it as a potential example-- surely you're not asserting NO Beck objectors or agency fee payers ever use the union when they get in trouble?
| Quote: | | So in order to operate in a sane manner, the employer has to assume all workers are not trustworthy allocate his resources to collect evidence "just in case", rather then to... oh I don't know, actually produce something? |
Nope, just means you use progressive discipline to correct the work performance/behavior of an employee you've identified as a problem. First verbal warning, then written, then suspension, then discharge. For more serious offenses/willful misconduct, you can jump straight to suspension or discharge. It's not that difficult, but some managers are iether arrogant and figure they don't need to do it, or too stupid to know better, that's when I get to beat on them in greivance hearings. Smart managers don't give me much room to operate.
| Quote: | | Like I said, fuck me if I'm going to read the whole act, but in a summary I've read it says the law granted unions exemption from vicarious responsibility. |
The Act is shorter than that summary (or if it is longer, not much more so).
| Quote: | | No, I can't point you to any examples, nor do I see the need to. The difference is scale, not principle. |
Scale and principle can be intertwined. Don't you feel differently about the character of a person who murders once in an act of passion then a cold-blooded serial killer? Do you really think a ridiculously wealthy man sitting miles away coldly ordering the massacre of unarmed strikers and ther families is morally equivalent to a desperate, hungry miner murdering a traitor? Yes, they're both murderers, but I think the circumstances and the scale of the respective murders does have bearing on the moral character of the people involved.
| Quote: | | Again, it's just an anecdote. |
Yes, just as what I was responding to was just your speculation. If I had statistics I'd give em to ya, but I can only tell you what has been my personal experience on the matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmisho
Stochastic
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4658
Local time: 10:46 AM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | kmisho wrote: | 3. Individual coercion
4. Voluntary government |
1. Immoral.
2. Impossible. |
prove it.
no, thats not me just being snarky to KnoB... i would really like for him to explain WHY. |
In knight's style...
1. Irrelevant.
2. False.
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998
Poetry, Art, Music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hillbillyatheist
Administrator
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 15983
Local time: 7:46 PM
Location: Denver Colorado.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
red scum.
I am very torn on this union stuff. on one hand I am with you. I know if it was me fighting for decent pay and for the boss to stop penny pinching even at the expense of safety, I'd probably bust some scabs heads in too. if its a fight for survival, its totally understandable that folks will do whatever it takes to survive.
I am working class, and I know first hand how those with power can abuse it. in fact, I'm pretty sure I've gotten canned for bringing up the idea of starting a union.
this one job I had in tulsa, a factory that made rubber molds and they had no air conditioning. the fellow employees was telling me about people passing out from the heat in the summer. hell it was hot in the winter in that building. I thought that we needed an air conditioner and out-loud I asked about forming a union.
that afternoon, I got called in the office and was fired. they never really gave me any reason. some flimsy exscuse about not really needing me or somthing, I don't know, but I bet'cha they haerd my union talk.
however here's a thought that came to my mind and its hard to ignore.
there is a person named jack who needs to see a barber and there happens to be a new guy in town who does cheaper hair cuts. as jack approaches the building, he sees the old barber beating the shit out of the new guy for "stealing his customers.
would you condone the old barber?
if you want to hire a plumber to fix your drain and you saw one guy charged cheaper, so you hire him and as he approaches your house, he gets beaten up by the other plumber who charges more, would you condone this?
so the question is, if there are people willing to take a job for less pay, then what right do you have to that job over them?
if the boss wants to fire you and hire them, why can't he, the same as you can start seeing the new barber who charges less for hair cuts, or the cheaper plumber?
how do you feel about the idea that immigrants are "taking our jobs"? do you think that americans do not have aright to those jobs if immigrants are willing to do it for less pay? if yes, then how are they different from scabs?
if no, then we go back to the above about why you have a right to those jobs over the other people? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 6:46 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kmisho wrote: | | In knight's style... |
Which you aren't using.
You know, things would go much easier on you if you actually knew what you were talking about, rather than pretending you do and tryng to cover for it. One thing I can't stand is a fucking poseur. So just admit that you don't know what you're talking about, ask questions, and STOP FUCKING PRETENDING THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
