|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:35 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I know you see the shadows of your pet conspiracy everywhere you look, but you're looking to hard on this one. |
Is that a new phrasal verb? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| And who gets to decide what's desirable or not? The correct answer should be 'nobody'. |
I don't disagree, and from what I can see, neither does the article.
| visitorq wrote: |
| If it's a suggestion that's fine. |
Within the confines of the Guardian, that's all it is and all it can be. They have no legislative power.
| visitorq wrote: |
| This is NOT, I repeat NOT a conspiracy. |
What you describe is certainly a conspiracy. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, but you do assert that a conspiracy is taking place.
| visitorq wrote: |
| It was law! |
Perhaps you misinterpretted what I said. I meant "If the Guardian's suggestion were a law," not "If a law like this had ever existed." Newspapers regularly make good suggestions that none the less shouldn't be legislated. I read an article suggesting a healthier diet and the benefits it might bring me. It was a fine article. I'd be outraged if it's suggestions were made into law. None the less, I don't consider that a problem with the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization#United_States
| visitorq wrote: |
| Apparently you're not that familiar with it, since you brush it off as just a conspiracy... |
Why do you seem to believe conspiracy is synonymous with "untrue"? I'm not saying you're wrong about this, simply that, to be honest, I feel it's at best very remotely related to the topic of this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Hitler was a good little leftist
|
Right, that's why the entire international Left wing of all nations throughout 1920s and 1930s was practically defined by its opposition to Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, and all things fascist. And that's why his sympathizers and foreign spies were squarely on the Right.
The point that Hitler was not a market fundamentalist is a point that I already made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Hitler was a good little leftist
|
Right, that's why the entire international Left wing of all nations throughout 1920s and 1930s was practically defined by its opposition to Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, and all things fascist. And that's why his sympathizers and foreign spies were squarely on the Right.
The point that Hitler was not a market fundamentalist is a point that I already made. |
The ideological differences are merely ostensible... Basically it was just nation states competing against one another. But living under Hitler or Joe Stalin, you'd be hard pressed to find many real differences. The most important thing they all had in common was they were all financed by international bankers, who always fund both sides of wars to indebt these nation states to central banks and hook them onto the ponzi scheme which is still going on today. The only thing that's changed since then is the banks are even more consolidated, with the IMF and World Bank leading the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"But living under Hitler or Joe Stalin, you'd be hard pressed to find many real differences"
Actually, as long as you weren't Jewish or an enemy of the state it would have been much better to live under Hitler. Not only were Germans not starving by famine, the basic notion of civil society still existed under his regime, however damaged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
"But living under Hitler or Joe Stalin, you'd be hard pressed to find many real differences"
Actually, as long as you weren't Jewish or an enemy of the state it would have been much better to live under Hitler. Not only were Germans not starving by famine, the basic notion of civil society still existed under his regime, however damaged. |
Well, Germany and Russia are different countries with different cultures etc. But the ideologies were essentially the same; centralized government, state intervention, militarism, secret police, oppression, corruption etc. etc.
Also, much of the starvation in the Soviet Union was on the periphery (Ukraine). The Polish under Hitler didn't fare very well... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't agree with everything Sergio has said here,
but his central premise is correct. Babies have an intrinsic value that goes well beyond nebulous concerns for environmental sustainability.
I've advanced the theory here before that its far more important to have children, provided they are educated to a minimal standard, than it is to restrict population growth. A larger pool of individuals to choose scientists and researchers from is the best way to combat the rapid pace of climate change.
But Sergio is arguing something different. He's saying its wrong to see a baby as a carbon footprint. I think that's a pretty simple point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Hitler was a good little leftist
|
Right, that's why the entire international Left wing of all nations throughout 1920s and 1930s was practically defined by its opposition to Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, and all things fascist. And that's why his sympathizers and foreign spies were squarely on the Right. |
Can we just call all these guys Communofascists and move one to oppose totalitarianism in all its forms? Why bog down in labels?
| visitorq wrote: |
| The ideological differences are merely ostensible... Basically it was just nation states competing against one another. But living under Hitler or Joe Stalin, you'd be hard pressed to find many real differences. The most important thing they all had in common was they were all financed by international bankers, who always fund both sides of wars to indebt these nation states to central banks and hook them onto the ponzi scheme which is still going on today. The only thing that's changed since then is the banks are even more consolidated, with the IMF and World Bank leading the way. |
Visi, I am really impressed by how in-depth your understanding has become so quickly, and your ability to communicate it. Good show.
| Kuros wrote: |
| But Sergio is arguing something different. He's saying its wrong to see a baby as a carbon footprint. I think that's a pretty simple point. |
Right. Call it what it really is: an 18-year liability.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Babies have an intrinsic value that goes well beyond nebulous concerns for environmental sustainability. |
Why? He didn't have a solid answer for that. Do you?
| Kuros wrote: |
| But Sergio is arguing something different. He's saying its wrong to see a baby as a carbon footprint. I think that's a pretty simple point. |
Given nothing in that article describes babies as merely "a carbon footprint," I think his simple point is wasted. I've never heard anyone describe babies as merely "a carbon footprint." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Babies have an intrinsic value that goes well beyond nebulous concerns for environmental sustainability. |
Why? He didn't have a solid answer for that. Do you? |
Reproduction is the arena in which all else is possible. How about that?
Babies are cute - even better!
Anyway, babies having value independently of their carbon emissions is the important aspect here - babies' having intrinsic value is really outside my sphere of interest.
| Fox wrote: |
Given nothing in that article describes babies as merely "a carbon footprint," I think his simple point is wasted. I've never heard anyone describe babies as merely "a carbon footprint." |
If someone posted a picture of your son or daughter and, underneath, wrote "Another mouth to feed, another gas guzzler, long-distance traveller, consumer ... and future parent", I personally would deem doing so - at best - as profoundly unwise, and certainly rather morbid.
I agree the writer probably didn't mean to say babies have no value independently of their CO2 emissions, but it's this kind of sloppy dogma that seems to characterize the Guardianista these days and - in my view - asking a question - which I assume was a rhetorical question - such as "do you still intend to start a family?" (using the premise of the climate problem) is the sound of someone who's lost the plot and their moral compass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Can we just call all these guys Communofascists and move one to oppose totalitarianism in all its forms? Why bog down in labels? |
because distinctions matter?
I'd be interested to see if any reputable scholar of the period has endorsed the term "communofascists".
| visitorq wrote: |
Well, Germany and Russia are different countries with different cultures etc. But the ideologies were essentially the same; centralized government, state intervention, militarism, secret police, oppression, corruption etc. etc.
|
I wouldn't say their ideologies were truly the same, but their tactics were undeniably similar, as you describe.
The peril of reading history is that, when done shallowly, it can be as bad as remaining completely oblivious. If an obsession with Hitler's or Stalin's centralized method of government simply causes one to want to relapse on a position of market fundamentalism, one hasn't really benefitted or been enlightened by history at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Can we just call all these guys Communofascists and move one to oppose totalitarianism in all its forms? Why bog down in labels? |
because distinctions matter?
I'd be interested to see if any reputable scholar of the period has endorsed the term "communofascists".
| visitorq wrote: |
Well, Germany and Russia are different countries with different cultures etc. But the ideologies were essentially the same; centralized government, state intervention, militarism, secret police, oppression, corruption etc. etc.
|
I wouldn't say their ideologies were truly the same, but their tactics were undeniably similar, as you describe.
The peril of reading history is that, when done shallowly, it can be as bad as remaining completely oblivious. If an obsession with Hitler's or Stalin's centralized method of government simply causes one to want to relapse on a position of market fundamentalism, one hasn't really benefitted or been enlightened by history at all. |
I would say the distinction is irrelevant today, because it is now on a global, not national scale. Control is still centralized into the hands of a few (the bankers, that part hasn't changed), but the ritual of democratic elections is fed to the people so they can believe they have a say in things. The reality is that the same bankers who funded both sides of both world wars have now consolidated their power into new, higher central banks (like the EU, IMF, and World Bank), using the same fraudulent fractional-reserve fiat currency banking methods, except on an international scale. THis totally takes power from sovereign nations and places it in the hands of these international institutions. They operate behind the scene, but the power is centralized into their hands.
The way the US economy is being blown up, the dollar trashed (soon to be replaced as the world's reserve currency by a new international one issued by a world central bank, which already exists), and the borders broken down; combined with the fact that the Fed has always been the true power of the land, all support the agenda of the international bankers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Babies have an intrinsic value that goes well beyond nebulous concerns for environmental sustainability. |
Why? He didn't have a solid answer for that. Do you? |
Reproduction is the arena in which all else is possible. How about that? |
Many things are possible for me without reproducing. Reproducing wouldn't seriously increase the range of things possible to me; if anything, it's likely to reduce them due to my new obligation.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Babies are cute - even better! |
I actually think they're a bit ugly.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Anyway, babies having value independently of their carbon emissions is the important aspect here - babies' having intrinsic value is really outside my sphere of interest. |
Well, I never disagreed that babies have value outside their carbon emissions. Neither did the article you quoted.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Given nothing in that article describes babies as merely "a carbon footprint," I think his simple point is wasted. I've never heard anyone describe babies as merely "a carbon footprint." |
If someone posted a picture of your son or daughter and, underneath, wrote "Another mouth to feed, another gas guzzler, long-distance traveller, consumer ... and future parent", I personally would deem doing so - at best - as profoundly unwise, and certainly rather morbid. |
I don't feel it would be unwise or morbid. Any child I opt to have will be all those things, and honestly, that will factor into my consideration regarding reproduction (though it won't be all I consider, obviously).
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| I agree the writer probably didn't mean to say babies have no value independently of their CO2 emissions... |
Glad we can come to an agreement on that. I don't particularly care to defend the Guardian beyond this particular article; I don't generally read it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Population growth in the EU, UK, Canada, AUS and United States is almost entirely coming from immigration. These nations would contract without mass immigration (less maybe the USA). Yet the article makes no reference to this. Instead, the people already living there are to have fewer babies, though they're already doing that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cwflaneur wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Can we just call all these guys Communofascists and move one to oppose totalitarianism in all its forms? Why bog down in labels? |
because distinctions matter?
I'd be interested to see if any reputable scholar of the period has endorsed the term "communofascists".
|
How could they have? That's my neologism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
