F*ckCommunism

i'm just looking for clarification and maybe i should post this in the basic questions, but how does contextual differ from subjective? if something can be true in one context, yet not true in a new context, doesn't that mean that truth is subjective? i'm not trying to debate, but trying to build a foundation of 'proper' definitions so i can understand..

In which of Aristotle's writings do we find the theory of the immovable mover? I have searched it and found summaries of the theory, but mostly descriptions or explanations on aquinas' writings.

I'm showing my greenness here but how does contextual differ from subjective?

Gmail appears to be fantastic! So far my favorite benefitis the 'label' system, as opposed to the folder system, is a great improvement over traditional email providers.

it seems to me that the less voter turnout the more polarized our government leaders become... My opinion has always been its better to turn out and vote and spoil your ballot than to not vote at all. at least with a spoiled ballot the candidate that is voted in will know that his citizens are paying attention...

What is a floating Abstraction?

now if i was to generalize about 'business owners' like was done in the above statement, i would be shot down quickly and called lots of names! i thought i could come to these forums to dicuss what i am learning. should i go talk to the commies about objectivists? i was a mormon once, and always said 'if you want to know about mormons, ask a mormon, not an 'anti'... now that i'm done with that whole mess of nonsense, i am reading and learning about other things, other philosophies, and i enjoyed ayn's fictional books, if i thought they were a little extreme in their characterization. (apparently all 'creators and producers' are good and all government and common workers are bad) i must say, i do enjoy learning about the beliefs of others, as i don't know everything and don't think i do. it is that power to choose that causes the problems. take it away and we are less than men. but with it, we must choose between honesty and thievery, and in my opinion the worker who slacks off and demands his employer pay him more than the work he puts forth is worth, is the same as the employer who pays people less than their work is worth. so i am unwelcome with the commies as well as the capitalists...

if you have 0% certainty, then aren't you certain you are uncertain?

i must say that i do believe in the least amount of givernment interference possible... I've raised the issue of smoking by laws before, and i'll just quickly give my thoughts: Lately there has been a lot of talk about banning smoking from restaurants, bars, etc. The only place to smoke cigarettes would be outside or in your private home. I dislike tobacco, i think it a vile substance, yet i still believe the government has no business telling business owners whether or not their patrons can smoke. it is up to the business to choose. I think the reason the government is able to take such action is that people don't want to go thru the effort of using their own choices as influence on business. if you don't want to eat in a restaurant with smoking, go elsewhere. the business will suffer and maybe the owner will realize hhe will get more business if he bans smoking, and voila! no government interference. altho you'd be surprised that i received a similar answer twice at one of the call centers i guess my view boils down to the fact that i don't have faith that everyone would be honest, whether workers or employers. I think it beneficial to pay your workers a decent wage, which can then be used to buy more things, meaning more business, more jobs, etc etc etc... i see too many employees mooch and slacking, and too often my employers have tried to use fear of reprimand or dismissal to keep the boat from rocking...

whats the fuzzy end of a lollipop?

so, then, a wage is based not on the actual value of the effort but of the value the employer puts on that effort. or that the actual value is not the work put into it but reward given by the employer. ie. if the effort of a salesperson means that the company sold 25% more this year than last, they are still only entitled to whatever the original wage agreed upon. Next question: if an employer can afford to pay more without effecting his own life, should he? or should he pay the absolute lowest possible? am i wrong to think that Galt would say to take no concern for others, only worry about your own productivity and profits? I myself try not to support companies that i feel take advantage of their employees, as well as companies that move jobs overseas in order to pay signifigantly less than they would here. sometimes that means paying more for something than i would if i didn't have these beliefs.. (part of my personal philosophy is to use your purchasing power as a voice. i wouldn't give money to a political party or other organization i didn't agree with, so why give my money to a corporation or business who's business practices i don't agree with)

i don't think that wanting enough money to live on means i am stealing from my boss... nor do i think all bosses are evil bosses, heads of big corporations, out to step on the poor little worker... my thoughts stem from the feeling of inability to demand more, from wanting to stand up and say, hey, i work hard for you and help you further your company and your profits, there was a 35% rise in profits this year over last year, why don't i get a raise? since i am making it possible for the company to earn more profits, doesn't my value go up as well? i don't think companies would sell products at a loss. unless they don't do their research and come up with a product that isn't popular or wanted and therefore try to sell at a lower price. having worked in retail as a teen i can tell you that the clothes we sold for 50 or 100 dollars did not cost that much to make, and when the head office decided to put things on sale, they were still making profits. (on a side note, i loved working there, not because of the actual job, but because i was paid for my time and then bonuses based on my sales, which equaled lots of money for me, as i worked hard and sold lots). and if i will work for 4.50, and i generate profits of 100 dollars an hour, is it immoral to ask for a raise? I am demanding more than the original agreement entitles me to, so does that makes me a evil thief? I have a highly conditional acceptance of everything. (hehe) My nick comes from a trade paperback called 'preacher'... in the story John Wayne offers a lighter inscribed with f*ck communism to each soldier in a particular squad serving in vietnam... couldn't think of a good original nick when i was registering...

'slave wages' also means to me the mentality that workers are kept at. In my area, no one complains about the treatment to their superiors or else you are blacklisted from getting work at the other centers. yet too many people in my city are now considered below the poverty line, it is extremely prominent in the local news now. I don't believe in just handing out subsidies either, i think there is a tenuous balance needed. too little regulation and we are subject to unfair labor practices, wherein the fear and ignorance of workers is taken advantage of, too much regulation and we witness unfair union and collective agreement practices wherein companies are taken advantage of by the government and the worker's unions.

I think if you employ people they must be important to your business, or else you don't need to employ them, correct? If you didn't NEED the employee, you wouldn't hire them and pay them, am i correct? Well, i never worked making the calls, as i feel that soliciting sucks, and since i don't approve of being called at home, my 'sanctuary' to buy or sign up etc etc... All but one of the call centers in my city are INBOUND, and deal with customer service/sales and information storage, retrieval, national answering services, etc. I have always worked inbound and now have 7 years of customer service experience, along with a total of three years actual customer service training. As for millions of applicants, that may be true, but it appears that the industry is actually now finding it difficult to find people to work for them as they have employed so many of the 'unskilled labourers' in the city and surrounding area they have no more pool of resources to draw from. If people are WILLING to work in a sweat shop, is it moral to pay them slave wages? If you pay them slave wages and they generate excessive income for you, are they entiltled to some of the benefits of that income? No, if you are not performing then you are not earning your pay and in fact, you are stealing from the company. yet i have made many aqcuaintances at work who perform routinely well yet still consistantly receive warnings for behavior and stats... other aquaintances are able to find loopholes in the bonus system, and make their stats with short cuts and by stretching the truth of their productivity... 'burned' in my friends eyes ( and remember, my friends are all pinkos and so-called anarchists/punks) has to do with continual increase in wages for salaried employees, mostly management staff and head honchos flown in by the head office, whereas raises on the floor are few and far between. it creates unrest for workers, and then the good workers end up feeling guilty for wanting better treatment, whereas the lazier workers who slack off and saunter in as they please are happy to get paid whatever they can to do as little as possible. (i dislike dishonest workers as much as dishonest management) Again i ask, if a person is willing to work for slave wages, does that mean its moral for an employer to pay slave wages. slave wages meaning not enough to 'survive' on in relation to the amount of work put forth. (And i understand the tax-man takes a lot... but as an example, i don't pay taxes on my income until february when i actually do my tax return, and at one job, where i worked full time in the service industry (i was working as a cook) i still didn't have enough to pay for rent, lights and phone. forget about cable and extras.) without the 'unskilled' labour force doing menial jobs, the great minds of the world would be forced to do those same jobs, giving them less time for loftier pursuits. Doesn't that make it a symbiotic relationship? where the brains needs the brawns as much as the brawns need the brains?

I would believe in a freemarket with no government interference if i thought that the business owners would treat their employees fairly... It makes sense to me that in the quest to create and to earn money from your creations, the people who you employ should be given fair wages, decent benefits, and proper shares of the profits... Bythat i mean bonuses based on productivity, paid vacation and sick time, insurance and benefits subsidised by the company, all based on the profits and growth of the company... right now we have things like minimum wage and labour laws to ensure people are not taken advantage of... From my own experience, the jobs i was most productive at were not the ones i liked the most... they were the ones where i was treated the fairest... my most recent job in a call center (the modern equivalent to an industrial revolution factory in my opinion) was for a major vacation company, part of a bigger umbrella corporation. It appeared that even tho the company was making money, they weren't sharing it with their employees. now we were not the ones who started the company, we didn't invent anything, "all we did" was answer phones for 8 hours, book vacations and take all manner of abuse from our clients. the company depends on this division, however. yet if you missed too much time, you were fired. if you didn't take calls fast enough, you were fired. if you didn't sell enough, you were fired... there was no loyalty or understanding for individual needs and circumstances. my fellow workers felt taken advantage of and didn't give their all, effecting customer service and starting this vicious cycle again.. and that is why i think that most "workers" get scared when they begin to discuss capitalism, they've been burned by whatever company they work for... so these are my thought and here comes my question: how do you ensure that the common worker is not taken advantage of in a laissez-faire economy? i do not have faith that corporations will step upto the plate and up wages/benefits as soon as the government agress to step out of things. i worry that instead, working conditions will regress even more. i also do not think all business take advantage of workers. I am sick of companies in my area (i live in a call center city) using temp agencies so they won't have to give benefits, paying less than they are capable of paying for a job that deserves higher rates of pay and then posting record profits or growth, and revolving door hiring that preys on the fear of dismissal instead of the reward of hard work...

I never said it was for PRICE of oil, but meant that the war, started to save the iraq people from more death and destruction at the hands of the a tyrannical despot, to fight terrorism, to bring the light of democracy to the darkened corners of the middle east, is a cover... your american army is fighting for control of a very important bit of fossil fuel VITAL to the economy of the united states, vital to the wealth and economic well being of Bush's cronies (Bush Sr.'s friends)... Who cares how much the oil costs as long as they have the control over it. What Bush and his pals want most is POWER, And OIL=POWER. when i mentioned air, water and lumber, i meant because i live in New Brunswick, and those are our natural resources... i do not think the war is being fought for lumber or water, that would be silly... Since Bush declared war i have stood by my opinion that THIS war is wrong... I supported the attack on Afghanistan in answer to the 9/11 events... but the reasons for the iraq invasion were never fully honest, from the claims of weapons of mass destruction to the purpoted link of Saddam to Al Quaida (sp?). As for the banning, i give up... go ahead... i left one church that deified its founder and stumbled across another form of founder-worship... "true believers everywhere, whatever the object of their belief, are unwilling to criticize their deity." I had enjoyed discussing current events with more rational people than i am blessed to associate with (most of my friends are hippies, punks and socialists), so thanks to all!

i believe luck does not exist. It is merely people attributing some mythos to the level of preparedness or unpreparedness... most "lucky" people are proactive, and most 'unlucky' don't want to admit they are as much to blame for their situation then anyone... i give my mother as an example... she attributes all of the good things in her life as coming from God, whereas i attribute her good things to all thge hard work and integrity she fills each day with... she belittles the effort she gives and rewards the non-existant god with thanks for things she has rightfully earned... God and luck are equals in my eyes... non-existant...

if you think that is why W sent the troops over, maybe you should re-examine your premise... really, americans need oil... irag has the oil... if this was about weapons of mass destruction or the mistreatment and massacre of people, then wouldn't he also attack N. Korea, wouldn't he have sent the armies to stop the massacres in Africa, Tibet and China? There is injustice throughout the entire world, yet W seems occupied with solving it in the oil rich countries... The Iraqi rebels seem to be responding to an extreme situation with extreme answers... i don't condone beheading, but i tell you, were the us army to occupy my province because they had the right to take NB air, lumber, water or power, i'd be kind of upset as well...

I think we need to remember that we cannot change anyone but ourselves... If you go into a relationship hoping for the other person to change you will never be truly happy. Your partner will resent your constant disapproval and 'nagging', and it will create disharmony between what should be a successful partnership. Its not that you are trying to live up to your partner's expectations, its that they instill in you a desire to be the best you can be. My mate would be considered of 'lower intelligence' than i; and his family is of a lower working class than my upper middle class backgrounds... his family is generally uneducated and mine is mostly university graduates... he has different beliefs re: philosophy and the state of the world, but we do agree that we want to be honest, we want to work hard and we love each other... this is fantastic advice... please, i ask all men, do not be ambiguous with the women you date. i do think you can go on to be friends with a gal if she isn't interested in more or if you are not interested in more, but you should make sure that it is clear up front that this is a friendship...

Wouldn't you then send them home? If the iraqi army occupied america then wouldn't you be doing whatever you could to get them to leave? I thought galt said no violence unless violence has been visited upon you... and don't tell me 9/11 was the excuse, osama and sadam are two different people... the invasion of afghanistan was warranted. Yet american contracters in iraq? they wouldn't have gotten killed if they had not been where they don't belong... (turning iraq into another territory of the US) especially since the iraqi militants needed to react to the disgraceful treatment that the so called civilized US officers proffered to their prisoners.

but if we all went to vote, and voted for rational, intelligent, serious candidiates, it wouldn't be small scale... the whole point of voting is so that the candidate repesents our ideals, so our government isn't one of tyranny and oppression... No, i got it, i just disagreed... i read the whole thing, and then read it again... and i still think of it as a case of 'the emperor's new clothes'... Had someone who could see the transparency of the pull-pushers plans, the blatent corruption in the guise of humanity, had someone stood up and called attention to the fact that the whole US was 'naked', maybe the country wouldn't have had to fall in order to restore morality.

One of the probs i had with Atlas Shrugged is that Galt and the others allowed the country to collapse, instead of standing up and calling a spade a spade. Instead of demanding that justice be done and the pull pushers be over thrown, he stepped back and left them to their own devices... but he had the ability to teach the masses of america that they need to think for themselves, to think rationally... how are people to choose the correct way when the only options they have are the wrong ones? I think if we start speaking out against irrationality and corruption, then we have a chance of saving the freedoms we strive for. But by just ducking out and deciding the world is to far gone, there is no chance now, it seems to be like giving up... and giving up to me isthe greatest failure... That is why i get so angered at the low voter turn out in recent years... it seems everyone likes to complain about government, but never turn out to vote. the fact is we have to be responsible enough to voice our beliefs and use our vote to make sure that rational, capable people are ensuring our freedoms are not trampled...

i LOVE absolutely Fabulous... and are you being served, monty python... CHEF! i remember watching that one a few years back when i was working at a local restaurant... British TV also gave us Nigella Lawson (how to be a domestic goddess) and the original 'what not to wear' which is a guilty pleasure of mine...

Heh! Handing out A.S reminds me of when mormons give out books of mormon in an effort to bring light to the world.... on another note, i have had many deep discussion with my mormon mother about how i am much more moral now that i am no longer a member than when i was a practicing mormon... and i am kind or not based on the facts, not because some god expects me to be nice...

]   I  smoke marijuana for medical reasons... i risk health effects, legal issues and more everytime i 'light up'... other medications for pain have interacted negatively with other prescrips, and so after discussing it with my doctor she has agreed to this round of treatment. I now can eat with immediately throwing up and can sleep without being hungover from sleep medications in the morning... so is marijuana a disvalue? the positive effects outweigh the negatives in my life...