This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
A few months ago, people were going mental about Francis Maude's suggestion that public sector workers about to lose their pensions protest with a
15 minute walk-out
instead of striking. Now that someone has
suggested interrupting their sports
, it seems most of the public have become Tory back benchers, calling for him to be fired, arrested and executed.
Indeed it seems people would rather put on a rubber smile for the Olympics than let anyone outside the country know how &*!@ty things really are.
I think that people have every right to strike if they feel that their compensation is lacking. Having an organized workforce is a good way to provide checks and balances in a free market economy. If they want to keep their labor force, they have to provide adequate compensation. It's the same thing as needing to provide a decent product and a reasonable price for said product- if they aren't competitive, people will take their money and themselves elsewhere. A company, and even the government, will do everything it can to minimize costs and maximize returns. The only way to keep wages competitive is if, below a certain level, the workforce will refuse to work.
I understand that it will be a major embarrassment if there's a strike during the Olympics, but that's their point. They are driving home the fact that they are important in keeping the country running, and they need to be compensated as such. If you are pro-free market, you have to take the benefits AND the disadvantages. You have to realize that if you want your company to be able to make as much money as your ingenuity and hard work will allow, that each individual person is also allowed to work for the company that will pay them the most, and if you fall too far behind the curve they won't work for you at all.
Post by
gamerunknown
Having an organized workforce is a good way to provide checks and balances in a free market economy.
I don't think unionisation is really an aspect of the free market. Unless one holds that anything arising as a result of economic or "natural" forces is part of a free market, in which case government regulation is part of the free market. Here's the obligatory
Chomsky
. Suppression of strikes by hiring strike-breakers is capital's response to the labour movement. As are abolishing things like minimum wage laws, maximum work hours, welfare legislation, monopoly legislation... The only thing that the "free" market appreciates are laws against counterfeiting and perhaps advertising regulation, because they hold "property" as the highest virtue, as do boards of directors.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Opinions?
Synopsis- A federal mandate was put into effect that required cigarette companies to not only put warnings on their products, but images of people with cancer, people with tracheotomies, etc. on their packaging on advertising. They required that the image cover 50% of a pack of cigarettes, and 20% of any piece of advertising. A judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional, and violated the company's right to free speech. The reasoning was that these warnings were not more informative than the written ones, or designed to combat deception, but were designed to create an emotional response to discourage use of the product, and as such are not something that can be legally enforced.
Personal opinions on smoking aside, what do you think? Is something like this a violation of free speech? Should the government be allowed to require more and more shocking negative advertising to be paid for by tobacco companies until everyone stops smoking? Should they be able to extend that to other industries- a.k.a. make fast food restaurants plaster their menu and food packaging with photos of open heart surgery and funerals, make alcohol companies devote half their label to photos of major car crashes and diseased livers? Or should they require that just the information be on the label, and not try to force people into a decision with shock-advertising that they want the company who makes the product to pay for themselves?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Azazel
I don't care if people smoke. I just don't want them to do it near non-smokers. I believe there should be restrictions where you can and can't smoke and that pregnant women shouldn't be allowed to smoke either.
Smoke if you want to, just don't let it hurt others.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Doctor- LOL. I like all of those suggestions.
Post by
gamerunknown
I do think it's unfair in that they're the only products that carry this sort of thing.
If drowning due to water bottles or lacunae from ocular puncturing were the largest causes of death in the industrial world, I'm sure they'd consider it.
Anyway, I don't consider this an impingement on free speech any more than any other advertising regulation. You won't see adverts showing victims of nuclear devastation then an image of Coca Cola products, or even a reproduction of Fanta's appeals to Nazi Germany. Precisely because visual advertising is "not more informative than the written ones, or designed to combat deception, but... designed to create an emotional response to
dis
en
courage use of the product".
Of course, the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
Post by
Squishalot
<snip>
We have had that taken to the next degree in Australia, with the Federal Government requiring all tobacco companies to package their products in white boxes, removing all logos and allowing the only point of difference to be the name, in a pre-set font / size / etc.
The idea is that differentiation is what makes brand 'cooler' than another, and this encourages people to buy. I'm not sure in the US, but in Australia, there are bans on cigarette advertising. This 'plain packaging' is simply removing another form of advertising, being the branding on the package.
Now, in relation to the case in the US, I wouldn't say that it breaches 'free speech' any more than insisting that food companies have dietary requirements (e.g. calories, grams of fat, serving size, etc.) on their packaging does.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
So this bill...
...is being proposed in WI. Currently, the Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Board (CANPB)
conducts various activities relating to the prevention of child abuse and neglect. These activities include distributing funds to abuse education and prevention programs, organizing statewide projects to combat child abuse, and creating ad campaigns to create awareness about child abuse and how to prevent it.
This bill, would make it a law that all of the information disseminated by this organization, and all the programs that they fund, would need to emphasize that non-marital parenthood is a cause of child abuse and neglect.
Opinions?
Post by
Adamsm
That's...I have no words for how offensive that is.....
Post by
Squishalot
Well, it already emphasises that single mothers are a cause of child abuse and neglect, so let's see how much lower they can go, yeah? </sarcasm>
On an interestingly serious note, I'd like to see what you guys think about this:
Researches justify 'after-birth' abortion
as there is still no self-awareness as a newborn, so an infant bears no special new 'human' characteristics above and beyond that of a foetus, of which abortion is legalised (in certain jurisdictions).
Now, without getting involved in the 'is abortion right' question, how do people think about the extension of the argument in this way?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Disgusting, and inevitable. When you start looking for scientific criteria to measure the value of human life, humanity gets lost in translation.
Post by
Squishalot
Disgusting, and inevitable. When you start looking for scientific criteria to measure the value of human life, humanity gets lost in translation.
How is it different from current abortion definitions though? Isn't your argument against newborn 'abortion' equivalent to MyTie's argument against abortion full stop?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
pezz
Relinking something I put into the abortion thread in response to that article.
Because seriously, everyone at all interested in abortion should read this article.
You can't simply wring your cat's neck just because you're sick of cleaning its poop, and the fact that it can't conceptualize its own life doesn't change that. It seems pretty clear that the same argument applies to babies regardless of their mental states.
Post by
MyTie
Disgusting, and inevitable. When you start looking for scientific criteria to measure the value of human life, humanity gets lost in translation.
How is it different from current abortion definitions though? Isn't your argument against newborn 'abortion' equivalent to MyTie's argument against abortion full stop?
To clairfy, you are saying that my views on abortion are in favor of a complete stopping of all abortions, correct? Because that would accurately reflect my views. I don't want my name attributed to the approval of any abortion, or choice to have an abortion, which I find reprehensible
Relinking something I put into the abortion thread in response to that article.
Because seriously, everyone at all interested in abortion should read this article.
The violinist is dying of kidney failure. To disconnect you from the violinist would not be murdering the violinist, but would be letting the violinist naturally die. Therefore, the comparison doesn't hold true. Further, it supposes that our value for life doesn't also transfer to violinists. As if, for some reason, our convenience outweighs the life of others, when it doesn't.
The mother's body is not saving the child, but is serving its natural function as the carrier and caretaker for the child. The comparison is false, and much much more egregious than actual pregnancy. This, makes it biased pro-choice. I could make a similar pro-life slanted example: You must hold the hospital door open for someone in order for them to make it to life saving care, but this is an inconvenience. Pro-choicers suppose that your freedom to do what you want with your body trumps your responsibility to humanity so much so that letting someone die to save a little time is an acceptable choice. Reductio ad absurdum. Anyone who is pro choice would see my example as a misrepresentation, and further, as irresponsible. The article you linked does the same.
Post by
Squishalot
To clairfy, you are saying that my views on abortion are in favor of a complete stopping of all abortions, correct? Because that would accurately reflect my views. I don't want my name attributed to the approval of any abortion, or choice to have an abortion, which I find reprehensible
Yes. I thought I was clear enough, no? I thought that "MyTie's argument against abortion full stop" would have been clear enough to show that you don't approve any abortion.
Relinking something I put into the abortion thread in response to that article.
Because seriously, everyone at all interested in abortion should read this article.
You can't simply wring your cat's neck just because you're sick of cleaning its poop, and the fact that it can't conceptualize its own life doesn't change that. It seems pretty clear that the same argument applies to babies regardless of their mental states.
That applies if you conceptualise a fetus as a human. Not everybody does that. Also, see the last line:
At this place, however, it should be remembered that we have only been pretending throughout that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. A very early abortion is surely not the killing of a person, and so is not dealt with by anything I have said here.
Anyway, sorry, I didn't realise that this had been linked in the abortion thread already.
Post by
pezz
That applies if you conceptualise a fetus as a human. Not everybody does that. Also, see the last line:
At this place, however, it should be remembered that we have only been pretending throughout that the fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. A very early abortion is surely not the killing of a person, and so is not dealt with by anything I have said here.
Anyway, sorry, I didn't realise that this had been linked in the abortion thread already.
My cat example only applies if you conceptualize a fetus as a human? Or the article?
Post by
Squishalot
My cat example only applies if you conceptualize a fetus as a human? Or the article?
The article.
Turning the article around another way though, if we had test tube babies, would it be okay to terminate them at any point in time, considering that they weren't hooked up to another person?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.