Originally posted by Falcon Horus
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Political Discussion Thread
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Falcon Horus View PostThat's what the advancement in technology is for. And the reason the newer models break faster is because someone has to make money of these things.
And you don't view that as morally wrong? I do.
Consider watching this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1j0XDGIsUgGo home aliens, go home!!!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Coco Pops View PostAnd you don't view that as morally wrong? I do.
Consider watching this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1j0XDGIsUg
Yes and No. Planned obsolescence is a function of Capitalism, and for good or bad, that is the current state of the world. While the profit motive drives invention, weather it is morally ambiguous is simply a moot point. Example, is it moral to put people out of work because a lightbulb can last 100+ years? In the currently accepted system, the moral answer is no, it's not, manufacturing would stall as it's only dictate would be direct need, and you would destroy the manufacturing base of every nation on the planet.
IF the system were changed, where the profit motive was -not- the driving force of either invention or the "economy", then sure, it would be immoral to do so. For example, you live here, do you buy everything that has the "made in Australia" tag? Your computer, your clothes, your car? Is it -immoral- for you to get 20 dollar jeans rather than 100 dollar ones made here? Of course not, it is simply the reality of the system we live within.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostMorally wrong?
Yes and No. Planned obsolescence is a function of Capitalism, and for good or bad, that is the current state of the world. While the profit motive drives invention, weather it is morally ambiguous is simply a moot point. Example, is it moral to put people out of work because a lightbulb can last 100+ years? In the currently accepted system, the moral answer is no, it's not, manufacturing would stall as it's only dictate would be direct need, and you would destroy the manufacturing base of every nation on the planet.
IF the system were changed, where the profit motive was -not- the driving force of either invention or the "economy", then sure, it would be immoral to do so. For example, you live here, do you buy everything that has the "made in Australia" tag? Your computer, your clothes, your car? Is it -immoral- for you to get 20 dollar jeans rather than 100 dollar ones made here? Of course not, it is simply the reality of the system we live within.
First off you'd have to actually find computer parts made in Australia, which is zero to 1 chance of ever happening. As for clothes they are very hard to find but food items are the only thing I buy that are locally made, and even then the only part that is local is usually the packaging.Go home aliens, go home!!!!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostPlanned obsolescence is a function of Capitalism, and for good or bad, that is the current state of the world. While the profit motive drives invention, weather it is morally ambiguous is simply a moot point. Example, is it moral to put people out of work because a lightbulb can last 100+ years? In the currently accepted system, the moral answer is no
also depends what sort of planned obsolescence you're talking about - active or passive?
Comment
-
Originally posted by garhkal View PostLets segment the country up by counties.. Hillary 487 counties nationwide, compared with 2,626 for trump.. THat's over a 6 to 1 ratio.. The ONLY reason she got so many 'popular' votes is cause all those counties SHE won were a lot more populus than the other ones that Trump acquired wins in.
SO are YOU saying that the 2600+ Counties he won, should just 'suck it up and accept' the new results'?
When you have to jump through mental hoops to try to make it look like most Americans are Pro-Trump, then any rat with half a brain would be able to smell something cheesy going on.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SoulReaver View Postprob is once you go down that road employment can be a justification for many worse things
also depends what sort of planned obsolescence you're talking about - active or passive?sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by aretood2 View PostThis is total BS. Democracy isn't run by counties, it's run by voters. Considering that there are towns with more people living in them than in many of those 2,626 counties and also considering that many of those counties barely gave their vote to Trump, you're making it out to be like if everyone in a red county voted for Trump. What about the Democrat/Libertarian votes? How about all of those counties in say Utah where Trump barely got 1/3 of the vote but only won thanks to a viable 3 way contest?
When you have to jump through mental hoops to try to make it look like most Americans are Pro-Trump, then any rat with half a brain would be able to smell something cheesy going on.sigpicALL THANKS TO THE WONDERFUL CREATOR OF THIS SIG GO TO R.I.G.A lie is just a truth that hasn't gone through conversion therapy yetThe truth isn't the truth
Comment
-
Originally posted by Falcon Horus View PostActually yes, you will run out of drinking water if you keep wanting to waste it as much as you want to. A natural system simply does not have the capability to replenish itself at the rate humankind is taking from it.
You won't have to worry about that now, but future generations will.
I know, I know, you don't care about things that don't effect you so I'm not going to bother any further.
I have to go deal with my anxiety for the Star Wars weekend. I don't have time for this bullsh*t.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostSB-1070 was unconstitutional as the states do not have the right to pre-empt or overturn federal law (supremacy clause).
As for sanctuary cities, by law they should not exist, however sanctuary cities don't stop federal agents from doing their job -directly-, so it is a little legally murky. For example, if they never ask a person if they are "legal", they are not failing to pass on information that they do not have.
And isn't what these states who are OUTRIGHT declaring themselves to be sanctuary cities/states being even MORE so 'pre-empting/overturning federal law?
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostAs for the IRS, What they did was flat out wrong, 3 people lost their jobs over it, it was investigated by the FBI and it was concluded that no further action was to be taken, and the DOJ went along with it. Personally speaking, I think they should have gone ahead with a legal investigation to settle the question once and for all.
[QUOTE=Gatefan1976;14537565]
It's jackbooted for the exact same reason the actions of the IRS were jackbooted, it's using the law as a political weapon and a violation of public trust. As I have said to you before, I may be "lefty" socially, but there are several occasions where I would side with the right because what they are saying is correct. Wrong is wrong, no matter who pushing it.[/quote\]
What the IRS did was illegal/against the law. What these states are doing is BREAKING The law. SO how is having people go in to ENFORCE the law, making them INTO the IRS??
THAT'S what i am not understanding in your argument GF. Its almost like you are saying "Let these states break the law/ignore the law, cause to go in would make Trump as bad as Obama in having the IRS be politicized...
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostWhich kills your SB 1070 argument (and is exactly what the DOJ used to break it). What is Interesting (to me at least) is that while the supremacy clause allows the fed to create the laws, it is a little more unclear on who's responsibility it is to -enforce- the law. Is it the state's responsibility to pay for the enforcement, or the Fed?
THE SAME applies to the federal law on immigration imo. A state can enforce those Federal laws MORE STRICTLY, without 'stepping over the toes of the feds/supremacy clause. BUT THEY CAN'T be more lenient than the feds...
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostThere is literally mountains of laws that spring from that one line, that's what you need to dig through.
What's your take on so called anchor babies for example?
IMO To be a US citizen, a kid born in the states should have at LEAST ONE PARENT be a US citizen themselves..
Originally posted by Falcon Horus View PostThat's what the advancement in technology is for. And the reason the newer models break faster is because someone has to make money of these things.
Originally posted by Gatefan1976 View PostAnnoyed, what do you think of the EC ditching Trump?
Would you be happy if they did that?
Comment
Comment