Remember me
▼ Content

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



Page 1 of 212>
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.11-10-2016 01:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Discussion of the definitions of words is usually a tangent, or irrelevant to the topic at hand. This thread is for such discussions.

IB, there is a crucial difference between criminalization and demonization. Let's use cigarettes as an example.

Let's say that I think cigarettes should be banned in public spaces. There are two ways I could go about achieving this:

1. I could present a good argument for banning cigarettes in public spaces, including the detrimental health effects, and successfully defend against opposing arguments.

2. I could paint cigarette-users as evil people who hate life, and want to see everything cough and die.

Both could be effective, both could lead to banning cigarettes in public spaces, but only one is demonization.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 02:03
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Discussion of the definitions of words is usually a tangent, or irrelevant to the topic at hand. This thread is for such discussions.

IB, there is a crucial difference between criminalization and demonization. Let's use cigarettes as an example.

Let's say that I think cigarettes should be banned in public spaces. There are two ways I could go about achieving this:

1. I could present a good argument for banning cigarettes in public spaces, including the detrimental health effects, and successfully defend against opposing arguments.

2. I could paint cigarette-users as evil people who hate life, and want to see everything cough and die.

Both could be effective, both could lead to banning cigarettes in public spaces, but only one is demonization.

Irrelevant. You demonize people and their mutually beneficial intentions (for themselves and for society) just because an omnipotent government didn't control every aspect of everything involved.

You "demonize" people and seek to criminalize freedom.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 03:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Hmm, what's that smell?

Seems a bit like...

straw

Edit: And it's funny how the meaning of a word becomes irrelevant once I confront you on it.
Edited on 11-10-2016 03:08
11-10-2016 03:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Discussion of the definitions of words is usually a tangent, or irrelevant to the topic at hand. This thread is for such discussions.

IB, there is a crucial difference between criminalization and demonization. Let's use cigarettes as an example.

Let's say that I think cigarettes should be banned in public spaces. There are two ways I could go about achieving this:

1. I could present a good argument for banning cigarettes in public spaces, including the detrimental health effects, and successfully defend against opposing arguments.

2. I could paint cigarette-users as evil people who hate life, and want to see everything cough and die.

Both could be effective, both could lead to banning cigarettes in public spaces, but only one is demonization.


Both are demonizations. Both are making the smoker something that is harming society. Both paint the scarlet letter on the smoker. Both ignore public smoking parlors.

You demonize people and seek to force the end of smoking by criminalizing it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-10-2016 03:57
11-10-2016 04:29
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Oh, for ****'s sake. It was an example. Are you seriously claiming that all laws demonize those whose activities they control?

Saying that something harms society =/= saying that those who do it are evil. Addiction is a thing.
11-10-2016 11:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Oh, for ****'s sake. It was an example. Are you seriously claiming that all laws demonize those whose activities they control?

Saying that something harms society =/= saying that those who do it are evil. Addiction is a thing.


No, I am saying YOU demonize people just for being capitalists, then you try to criminalize it.

Your Utopia sounds more like hell on Earth then ever.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 12:25
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You're just spinning whatever I say the other way.

I want to prevent corruption and criminalize exploitation. Anything can be spun two ways - we can do this forever.
11-10-2016 15:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
jwoodward48 wrote:Edit: And it's funny how the meaning of a word becomes irrelevant once I confront you on it.


Correction: And it's funny how the meaning of a word becomes irrelevant once jwoodward48 uses it in an irrelevant manner.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 15:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Wait, what? You started the use of the word, I'm stating that you are misusing it.
11-10-2016 16:25
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
jwoodward48 wrote: Wait, what? You started the use of the word, I'm stating that you are misusing it.

I don't even know which word you are talking about. At one point I thought it might have been "falsifiability" but then you went into discussion other points so you have sufficiently convoluted the matter to preclude any clarity whatsoever.

Are we done or is there a point here?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 18:23
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.
11-10-2016 19:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
jwoodward48 wrote: Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.

So where were we?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-10-2016 21:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
You're just spinning whatever I say the other way.

I want to prevent corruption and criminalize exploitation. Anything can be spun two ways - we can do this forever.


Corruption is the inevitable result of cronyism, which is often the result of attempting a Utopia.

Exploitation is not a criminal act. I exploit my food when I eat it. I exploit my grocery store when I shop there.

I don't think you know what 'exploit' means either.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 21:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.


Are we? You've been attempting to redefine so many words lately, it's hard to keep up with the one you're complaining about at the moment!


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2016 23:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.

So where were we?


.


Scroll up.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 23:57
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
You're just spinning whatever I say the other way.

I want to prevent corruption and criminalize exploitation. Anything can be spun two ways - we can do this forever.


Corruption is the inevitable result of cronyism, which is often the result of attempting a Utopia.


Cronyism can result in corruption. That is not the only way to for corruption to arise.

Exploitation is not a criminal act. I exploit my food when I eat it. I exploit my grocery store when I shop there.

I don't think you know what 'exploit' means either.


1. make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
"500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology"
synonyms: utilize, harness, use, make use of, turn/put to good use, make the most of, capitalize on, benefit from; informalcash in on
"we should exploit this new technology"

2. use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way.
"the company was exploiting a legal loophole"
3. benefit unfairly from the work of (someone), typically by overworking or underpaying them.
"making money does not always mean exploiting others"
synonyms: take advantage of, abuse, impose on, treat unfairly, misuse, ill-treat; More


See? Multiple meanings. I am using the second definition.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
11-10-2016 23:58
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.


Are we? You've been attempting to redefine so many words lately, it's hard to keep up with the one you're complaining about at the moment!


It's the topic of this thread. Scroll up!



"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 00:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.


Are we? You've been attempting to redefine so many words lately, it's hard to keep up with the one you're complaining about at the moment!


It's the topic of this thread. Scroll up!


So? That doesn't change my statement.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 00:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
You're just spinning whatever I say the other way.

I want to prevent corruption and criminalize exploitation. Anything can be spun two ways - we can do this forever.


Corruption is the inevitable result of cronyism, which is often the result of attempting a Utopia.


Cronyism can result in corruption. That is not the only way to for corruption to arise.

Exploitation is not a criminal act. I exploit my food when I eat it. I exploit my grocery store when I shop there.

I don't think you know what 'exploit' means either.


1. make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
"500 companies sprang up to exploit this new technology"
synonyms: utilize, harness, use, make use of, turn/put to good use, make the most of, capitalize on, benefit from; informalcash in on
"we should exploit this new technology"

2. use (a situation or person) in an unfair or selfish way.
"the company was exploiting a legal loophole"
3. benefit unfairly from the work of (someone), typically by overworking or underpaying them.
"making money does not always mean exploiting others"
synonyms: take advantage of, abuse, impose on, treat unfairly, misuse, ill-treat; More


See? Multiple meanings. I am using the second definition.

Use of the 2nd definition is not a criminal act either.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 01:05
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I'm also using the 3rd sense, they're rather similar. The 3rd is sort of a special case of the 2nd.

If someone uses a person in an unfair way, say, keeping them in poverty so that they can take their work and pay them not enough, then that is exploitation. They can't easily leave, they can't rely on becoming manager - how do you get out? Many people can't.

And this is not okay.
12-10-2016 01:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.


Are we? You've been attempting to redefine so many words lately, it's hard to keep up with the one you're complaining about at the moment!


It's the topic of this thread. Scroll up!


So? That doesn't change my statement.


It changes its applicability. It is not a valid excuse for not scrolling up. It is not a valid excuse for not knowing what was being discussed in a thread dedicated to a single word.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 01:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.


Are we? You've been attempting to redefine so many words lately, it's hard to keep up with the one you're complaining about at the moment!


It's the topic of this thread. Scroll up!


So? That doesn't change my statement.


It changes its applicability. It is not a valid excuse for not scrolling up. It is not a valid excuse for not knowing what was being discussed in a thread dedicated to a single word.


No, it doesn't. My statement and its applicability still stands.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 02:40
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.


Are we? You've been attempting to redefine so many words lately, it's hard to keep up with the one you're complaining about at the moment!


It's the topic of this thread. Scroll up!


So? That doesn't change my statement.


It changes its applicability. It is not a valid excuse for not scrolling up. It is not a valid excuse for not knowing what was being discussed in a thread dedicated to a single word.


No, it doesn't. My statement and its applicability still stands.


Your statement is correct, but cannot be used to explain why you do not know what this thread is about - if the topic of discussion is readily available with little to no effort, you are expected to know what the topic is before joining the discussion.

If I am joining a discussion about dinosaurs, starting by talking about elephants is nonsensical. I cannot justify that with "well you talk about many animals," as I could clearly hear them saying "diplodocus" and "apatosaurus" and "pterosaur" (yes, I know that's not a dinosaur, but it's related). In real-life discussions, that might be okay, if most everyone agrees that elephants are more interesting to talk about at the moment. But in a forum, and within a thread which was started for a single topic, it's not okay.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 09:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Demonization! We are discussing demonization, oh ye of little attention span.


Are we? You've been attempting to redefine so many words lately, it's hard to keep up with the one you're complaining about at the moment!


It's the topic of this thread. Scroll up!


So? That doesn't change my statement.


It changes its applicability. It is not a valid excuse for not scrolling up. It is not a valid excuse for not knowing what was being discussed in a thread dedicated to a single word.


No, it doesn't. My statement and its applicability still stands.


Your statement is correct, but cannot be used to explain why you do not know what this thread is about - if the topic of discussion is readily available with little to no effort, you are expected to know what the topic is before joining the discussion.

If I am joining a discussion about dinosaurs, starting by talking about elephants is nonsensical. I cannot justify that with "well you talk about many animals," as I could clearly hear them saying "diplodocus" and "apatosaurus" and "pterosaur" (yes, I know that's not a dinosaur, but it's related). In real-life discussions, that might be okay, if most everyone agrees that elephants are more interesting to talk about at the moment. But in a forum, and within a thread which was started for a single topic, it's not okay.


Are you really going to sit there and argue this? My statement stands.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 10:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
It stands - it is true - but it is not useful. You are trying to use it to justify talking about other things in a thread specifically for on topic. Not the worst of offenses, so this is just quibbling, both of us.
12-10-2016 15:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm also using the 3rd sense, they're rather similar. The 3rd is sort of a special case of the 2nd.

If someone uses a person in an unfair way, say, keeping them in poverty so that they can take their work and pay them not enough, then that is exploitation. They can't easily leave, they can't rely on becoming manager - how do you get out? Many people can't.

And this is not okay.

As you notice, there are several usages, one being a neutral semantic about simply leveraging a resource (sans any connotation) and the connotation, hate-laden semantic you prefer.

Don't be surprised if you get picked apart every time you use "exploit" to dishonestly conceal your hate agenda.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2016 16:07
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm also using the 3rd sense, they're rather similar. The 3rd is sort of a special case of the 2nd.

If someone uses a person in an unfair way, say, keeping them in poverty so that they can take their work and pay them not enough, then that is exploitation. They can't easily leave, they can't rely on becoming manager - how do you get out? Many people can't.

And this is not okay.

As you notice, there are several usages, one being a neutral semantic about simply leveraging a resource (sans any connotation) and the connotation, hate-laden semantic you prefer.

Don't be surprised if you get picked apart every time you use "exploit" to dishonestly conceal your hate agenda.


.


What other word should I use then? I have a concept that I am speaking out against, and "exploit" is the best word I know for it.

You appear to have some difficulty with the concept of "multiple meanings." Let's be clear - the second is related to, but distinct from, the first. It now includes not just benefiting from an owner-worker relationship, but it is unfair - for instance, unpaid overtime (there are ways to do this), union-busting (ditto), setting up nerve-wracking political backstabbing situations (stacks), sweatshop labour (not in the US, but US companies not only profit, but use this in other countries), paying workers so little that they are practically forced to use food stamps (you know which company I'm talking about), 16- to 20-hour days, using child workers (same disclaimer as "sweatshop labour"), and torture (ditto).

Now, you might say "not all companies." That's true - many companies, maybe even most, don't exploit their workers. But on the other hand, most people in the South before the Civil War weren't slaveowners - does that make slavery ethical? (I am not comparing exploitation to slavery. I am noting another situation in which an argument could apply, and which would produce an unacceptable result.)


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
12-10-2016 19:21
jerrylh
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Hi everyone
I'm new and would like to add my input. Climate change is a theory just as the theory of evolution is and you can't prove either. However, the fingerprints supporting evolution are all over as are the fingerprints supporting global warming. Jwoodward listed several and there are more. For example the documented thickening of the polar ice caps are consistent and support global warming. The reason is this: With a general warming of the earth, there is more water evaporation and as a result more precipitation. The polar caps never thaw out and so the increased precipitation translates into a thickening of the polar ice caps. The rate of rise in the earth's temperature is unprecedented in the last 40-50 years. There are vanishing few legitimate climatologists remaining who doubt global warming and that we are contributing to that in a substantial way. But hey!! There are people that deny evolution as well
12-10-2016 19:23
jerrylh
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
Whoops, I think a posted on the wrong thread. sorry
12-10-2016 20:01
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
oops, nvm


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
Edited on 12-10-2016 20:01
12-10-2016 21:45
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
jwoodward48 wrote: What other word should I use then? I have a concept that I am speaking out against, and "exploit" is the best word I know for it.

"Mutual agreement." Speak out against "mutual agreements." In most cases you can substitute the word "individual freedom." You can speak out against that as well.

You do enjoy abusing the concept of "multiple meanings." Repeat after me: "The forcings trap the warmth in the climate."

jwoodward48 wrote:It now includes not just benefiting from an owner-worker relationship, but it is unfair

You consider mutual agreements to be "unfair" because it was decided freely by individuals and not mandated by an omnipotent government.

You consider the adding of value to society as "unfair" because the amount of happiness is increasing.

You consider the rewards of making the world a better place, i.e. nice things, to be "unfair" because you hate humanity and want everyone to be flat broke and miserable.

In short, I understand your position. I just don't agree that those things are unfair; I want more of them.

jwoodward48 wrote: - for instance, unpaid overtime (there are ways to do this),

This is already illegal. Are you going to campaign against theft and murder as well?

jwoodward48 wrote: union-busting (ditto),

Unions should be completely voluntary without the requirement for dues. No organization should have approval authority for someone to work.


jwoodward48 wrote:sweatshop labour

Be specific. Connotation and imagery are dismissed. Are you against people sewing as a job? What's your complaint?

In the end I'm going to ask you this: If I offer someone a job working under specified conditions for specified compensation, and after due consideration that person accepts, what business is that of yours? Who are you, someone completely outside any involvement, to claim "exploitation"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2016 22:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
It stands - it is true - but it is not useful. You are trying to use it to justify talking about other things in a thread specifically for on topic. Not the worst of offenses, so this is just quibbling, both of us.


Hey, dumbass...subthreads of all topics appear in any thread. Haven't you noticed that?

You should, you've done it often enough, including this very subthread.

You are not a thread cop. You have NO say in the matter. F**k you.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-10-2016 22:45
12-10-2016 22:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm also using the 3rd sense, they're rather similar. The 3rd is sort of a special case of the 2nd.

If someone uses a person in an unfair way, say, keeping them in poverty so that they can take their work and pay them not enough, then that is exploitation. They can't easily leave, they can't rely on becoming manager - how do you get out? Many people can't.

And this is not okay.

As you notice, there are several usages, one being a neutral semantic about simply leveraging a resource (sans any connotation) and the connotation, hate-laden semantic you prefer.

Don't be surprised if you get picked apart every time you use "exploit" to dishonestly conceal your hate agenda.


.


What other word should I use then? I have a concept that I am speaking out against, and "exploit" is the best word I know for it.

You appear to have some difficulty with the concept of "multiple meanings." Let's be clear - the second is related to, but distinct from, the first. It now includes not just benefiting from an owner-worker relationship, but it is unfair - for instance, unpaid overtime (there are ways to do this), union-busting (ditto), setting up nerve-wracking political backstabbing situations (stacks), sweatshop labour (not in the US, but US companies not only profit, but use this in other countries), paying workers so little that they are practically forced to use food stamps (you know which company I'm talking about), 16- to 20-hour days, using child workers (same disclaimer as "sweatshop labour"), and torture (ditto).

Now, you might say "not all companies." That's true - many companies, maybe even most, don't exploit their workers. But on the other hand, most people in the South before the Civil War weren't slaveowners - does that make slavery ethical? (I am not comparing exploitation to slavery. I am noting another situation in which an argument could apply, and which would produce an unacceptable result.)


You might try dropping your hate agenda. Then you don't need to get into nearly as many arguments when you attempt to redefine words.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2016 22:48
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: What other word should I use then? I have a concept that I am speaking out against, and "exploit" is the best word I know for it.

"Mutual agreement." Speak out against "mutual agreements." In most cases you can substitute the word "individual freedom." You can speak out against that as well.

Strawman or demonization. I'm not sure which, maybe both.

I am speaking out against exploitative mutual agreements.
You do enjoy abusing the concept of "multiple meanings." Repeat after me: "The forcings trap the warmth in the climate."

I'm not switching the definition at any point. I started with the second, ended with the second, and used the second the entire time. I did not equivocate.
jwoodward48 wrote:It now includes not just benefiting from an owner-worker relationship, but it is unfair

You consider mutual agreements to be "unfair" because it was decided freely by individuals and not mandated by an omnipotent government.

No, because it was not decided freely by the exploited worker. Do you think that all sweatshop workers chose freely to be in a sweatshop for dozens of hours on end?
You consider the adding of value to society as "unfair" because the amount of happiness is increasing.

No, I don't. Exploitation doesn't add any value to society. The good parts of the current system can be kept, mostly.
You consider the rewards of making the world a better place, i.e. nice things, to be "unfair" because you hate humanity and want everyone to be flat broke and miserable.

Blatant demonization.
In short, I understand your position. I just don't agree that those things are unfair; I want more of them.

More sweatshop labour? Definitely! I love myself some cheap labour!
jwoodward48 wrote: - for instance, unpaid overtime (there are ways to do this),

This is already illegal. Are you going to campaign against theft and murder as well?

If it happens, it needs to be dealt with - and unpaid overtime has many loopholes, for instance promoting to a "managerial" position that seems strangely identical to before.
jwoodward48 wrote: union-busting (ditto),

Unions should be completely voluntary without the requirement for dues. No organization should have approval authority for someone to work.

Union-busting, as in "Company X closed down the St. Paul store because they seemed like they were going to vote for a union."
jwoodward48 wrote:sweatshop labour

Be specific. Connotation and imagery are dismissed. Are you against people sewing as a job? What's your complaint?

Sure. A sweatshop is defined by the US Department of Labour as a factory that violates more than two labour laws. Some issues with sweatshops are poor working conditions, unfair wages, unreasonable hours, child labour, and a lack of benefits for workers.

"Sweatshop" is a well-defined term.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 19:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
jwoodward48 wrote: Strawman or demonization.

"Strawman" is your code word for "I can't go there, it puts my faith in jeopardy."

jwoodward48 wrote: I am speaking out against exploitative mutual agreements.

Right. You're weaseling. You want to hijack the word "exploitive" to mean "perfectly legitimate but runs against my desire to ruin the economy and to make people miserable."

jwoodward48 wrote: No, because it was not decided freely by the exploited worker.

The worker says otherwise, and you don't get to speak for the worker.

jwoodward48 wrote: Do you think that all sweatshop workers chose freely to be in a sweatshop for dozens of hours on end?

Absolutely. They show up for work every day. Do you think they aren't allowed to go home?

jwoodward48 wrote: No, I don't. Exploitation doesn't add any value to society.

It sure does. Every time a successful business expands and hires workers, society benefits in countless ways. If only you understood economics you would know this.

Wait, you want to pout that you are only talking about the "capitalist" employers who are hiring workers. I get it.

jwoodward48 wrote: - and unpaid overtime has many loopholes, for instance promoting to a "managerial" position that seems strangely identical to before.

Do you know what a loophole is? I'm guessing that you don't. This is probably going to be another embarrassing English comprehension issue.

jwoodward48 wrote: Sure. A sweatshop is defined by the US Department of Labour as a factory that violates more than two labour laws.

Great! You are already using the definition by which "sweatshop" is already defined as a law-breaking organization. What's left to discuss?

You want to stop law-breakers. Great. What do you think about the idea of the FBI just letting someone walk who essentially admitted to serious crimes and blatantly obstructed justice?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2016 20:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote: Strawman or demonization.

"Strawman" is your code word for "I can't go there, it puts my faith in jeopardy."

Strawman is my code word for "IB is being an arsehole and accusing me of being an evil freedom-hater Commie bastard".
jwoodward48 wrote: I am speaking out against exploitative mutual agreements.

Right. You're weaseling. You want to hijack the word "exploitive" to mean "perfectly legitimate but runs against my desire to ruin the economy and to make people miserable."

Legitimate: "conforming to the law or to rules." Hmm. I am trying to change the rules, so yes, companies are not currently breaking the law.

Stop demonizing.
jwoodward48 wrote: No, because it was not decided freely by the exploited worker.

The worker says otherwise, and you don't get to speak for the worker.

Whoa, whoa whoa whoa. Slow down.

Have you ever talked to a worker? Do you think that they would stay in sweatshops if they had an actual way of providing for themselves elsewhere?
jwoodward48 wrote: Do you think that all sweatshop workers chose freely to be in a sweatshop for dozens of hours on end?

Absolutely. They show up for work every day. Do you think they aren't allowed to go home?

That's no choice. They have no other option, save "scavenge in the streets" or "die". I've often discussed this with other people, it's fun philosophy.

Sartre is rather funny.
[quote]jwoodward48 wrote: No, I don't. Exploitation doesn't add any value to society.

It sure does. Every time a successful business expands and hires workers, society benefits in countless ways. If only you understood economics you would know this.

Wait, you want to pout that you are only talking about the "capitalist" employers who are hiring workers. I get it.

Okay, fine. It adds value to society by hurting part of society and helping other parts. Your point? How is that good?
jwoodward48 wrote: - and unpaid overtime has many loopholes, for instance promoting to a "managerial" position that seems strangely identical to before.

Do you know what a loophole is? I'm guessing that you don't. This is probably going to be another embarrassing English comprehension issue.

Overtime: "an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules."

It is against the law for wage workers to work unpaid overtime. By "promoting" workers to a low-pay "managerial" position, and then having them do the same job but longer, you can get around this.
jwoodward48 wrote: Sure. A sweatshop is defined by the US Department of Labour as a factory that violates more than two labour laws.

Great! You are already using the definition by which "sweatshop" is already defined as a law-breaking organization. What's left to discuss?

The fact that American companies can do this in other countries.
You want to stop law-breakers. Great. What do you think about the idea of the FBI just letting someone walk who essentially admitted to serious crimes and blatantly obstructed justice?


.


Depends on context. Which serious crime, which person, and how did they obstruct justice?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 20:49
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
It stands - it is true - but it is not useful. You are trying to use it to justify talking about other things in a thread specifically for on topic. Not the worst of offenses, so this is just quibbling, both of us.


Hey, dumbass...subthreads of all topics appear in any thread. Haven't you noticed that?

You should, you've done it often enough, including this very subthread.

You are not a thread cop. You have NO say in the matter. F**k you.


What I am saying is that talking about one word in a thread about another word, and then saying "well how am I suppose to tell what you're talking about now," is blaming me for a minor mistake.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 20:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
I'm also using the 3rd sense, they're rather similar. The 3rd is sort of a special case of the 2nd.

If someone uses a person in an unfair way, say, keeping them in poverty so that they can take their work and pay them not enough, then that is exploitation. They can't easily leave, they can't rely on becoming manager - how do you get out? Many people can't.

And this is not okay.

As you notice, there are several usages, one being a neutral semantic about simply leveraging a resource (sans any connotation) and the connotation, hate-laden semantic you prefer.

Don't be surprised if you get picked apart every time you use "exploit" to dishonestly conceal your hate agenda.


.


What other word should I use then? I have a concept that I am speaking out against, and "exploit" is the best word I know for it.

You appear to have some difficulty with the concept of "multiple meanings." Let's be clear - the second is related to, but distinct from, the first. It now includes not just benefiting from an owner-worker relationship, but it is unfair - for instance, unpaid overtime (there are ways to do this), union-busting (ditto), setting up nerve-wracking political backstabbing situations (stacks), sweatshop labour (not in the US, but US companies not only profit, but use this in other countries), paying workers so little that they are practically forced to use food stamps (you know which company I'm talking about), 16- to 20-hour days, using child workers (same disclaimer as "sweatshop labour"), and torture (ditto).

Now, you might say "not all companies." That's true - many companies, maybe even most, don't exploit their workers. But on the other hand, most people in the South before the Civil War weren't slaveowners - does that make slavery ethical? (I am not comparing exploitation to slavery. I am noting another situation in which an argument could apply, and which would produce an unacceptable result.)


You might try dropping your hate agenda. Then you don't need to get into nearly as many arguments when you attempt to redefine words.[/quote]

Ah, yes, the agenda. You conservatives love that word. Our secret plans that have SO MUCH EVULZ.

I'm not hating. I dislike when people are forced to choose between "awful, low-paying job" and "scavenge on the streets" and "die".


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
13-10-2016 20:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
jwoodward48 wrote: Have you ever talked to a worker?

I talk to workers all the time.

jwoodward48 wrote: Do you think that they would stay in sweatshops if they had an actual way of providing for themselves elsewhere?

Irrelevant. Do they voluntarily show up for work every day. They are completely free to stay home, or do you not understand that?

They are all free to choose, go to work under the given conditions or go do anything else they want. They choose to go to work.

Yet you demonize the employer. I can just imagine your utopia in which stormtroopers burst into businesses and force the employees to go home and the business to shut down for the benefit of the workers who are now liberated from their paychecks. And society benefits as well because of the now missing goods and services.

jwoodward48 wrote: That's no choice. They have no other option, save "scavenge in the streets" or "die".

So how is that the employer's fault? If the worker doesn't like the job s/he can leave. It's an entirely real choice despite your insistence that it is not.

I am trying to imagine your utopia of a ruined economy that leaves the people poor and starving ... and then going around closing the only businesses that remain for offering jobs. That's great. Don't blame the government that makes the people destitute; blame the businesses that are trying to keep the economy on life support.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Okay, fine. It adds value to society by hurting part of society and helping other parts.

You still need to show this. You need to show how merely offering someone a job and allowing said person the choice of freely accepting or not accepting the job, should be made a criminal act.

This is the bottom line.


jwoodward48 wrote: The fact that American companies can do this in other countries.

Wait, we now have a new problem. If those businesses are operating within the law in those countries then they aren't sweatshops. Part of your definition is that they are breaking laws.



jwoodward48 wrote: Depends on context. Which serious crime, which person, and how did they obstruct justice?

Thank you. In your mind it's OK if the FBI lets people walk as long as they are the right people. Can you imagine what I'm thinking of your Utopia at the moment?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2016 23:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
I also talk to workers. Every day. I hire them. I fire them. I expect them to do their jobs. I expect them to be competent in the jobs they do. For certain workers with no training at all, I will train them in that competency. If it takes, kumbayah, we can make money together. If not, too bad for the worker. They will have to try again with somebody else.

The 'workers' you see on the street are not workers. They are drug addicts, mentally ill that the State has abandoned illegally, and gang members. I will have none of them in my business. Other than the mentally ill, they chose the life they lead. The mentally ill is the State's problem. They are a good example of just how inhumane governments can be.

No one is forced into a low paying job. All have the choice of getting training for a better job. My company offers such training while you work. You can earn AND learn. I am not unique in offering such programs.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-10-2016 23:02
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Word Smithy3625-04-2019 18:57
'Emergency' is the right word for climate change, Kingston prof says209-03-2019 18:56
How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God1420-11-2017 22:54
Preferred word in lieu of "GW Denier"4020-09-2016 00:48
M2C2 - where all or nothing means nothing317-10-2015 05:22
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact