Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Questions about Political Compass questions

Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:45:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
From the other thread in the Debate.org section, some side conversation/debating has gone on, so I decided to make another thread for it here. Lets see if this actually goes anywhere.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:47:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yo badger come at me bro. ;)
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Andromeda_Z
Posts: 4,151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:54:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Good idea, OreEle.

At 9/7/2011 4:38:20 PM, el-badgero wrote:
well how did you answer, for example, the very first question, the question about government penalising corporations that mislead the public,

They shouldn't do that. If the customer catch on, then they won't shop there and the corporation will go bankrupt. Problem solved, no government necessary.
and the question about multinational corporations sucking developing countries dry?

They should be allowed to do that. Of course they would have to pay (or the developing country wouldn't allow it), and the developing country could use that money to develop, or whatever else they want to use it for.
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 4:58:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
.....I'm going to bed.

I'll be back though!
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:06:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 4:54:30 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
Good idea, OreEle.

At 9/7/2011 4:38:20 PM, el-badgero wrote:
well how did you answer, for example, the very first question, the question about government penalising corporations that mislead the public,

They shouldn't do that. If the customer catch on, then they won't shop there and the corporation will go bankrupt. Problem solved, no government necessary.

hmmm.... can a large company, with hundreds of millions of dollars, trick an average citizen?

Here's a question. If drug companies were not required to list side effects, do you think they would?

and the question about multinational corporations sucking developing countries dry?

They should be allowed to do that. Of course they would have to pay (or the developing country wouldn't allow it), and the developing country could use that money to develop, or whatever else they want to use it for.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:10:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:06:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:54:30 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
Good idea, OreEle.

At 9/7/2011 4:38:20 PM, el-badgero wrote:
well how did you answer, for example, the very first question, the question about government penalising corporations that mislead the public,

They shouldn't do that. If the customer catch on, then they won't shop there and the corporation will go bankrupt. Problem solved, no government necessary.

hmmm.... can a large company, with hundreds of millions of dollars, trick an average citizen?

Here's a question. If drug companies were not required to list side effects, do you think they would?

and the question about multinational corporations sucking developing countries dry?

They should be allowed to do that. Of course they would have to pay (or the developing country wouldn't allow it), and the developing country could use that money to develop, or whatever else they want to use it for.

I think companies would list side effects for the same reason companies de-marketize some products during certain social eras like gas shortages and global warming hysteria. The goal being to increase Corporate trust and loyalty at the expense of product loyalty.
Andromeda_Z
Posts: 4,151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:18:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:06:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
hmmm.... can a large company, with hundreds of millions of dollars, trick an average citizen?

Yes, and they probably would at first. Then some bored person with nothing better to do will start messing around and find something out that exposes the company (or whatever scenario you want, the point is they get exposed as liars). If you go to any news site, there's always something about "What X Doesn't Want You To Know" or "Secrets of X" or something. People prey on exposed lies, news companies will pay for that stuff. From then on, customers would get paranoid (what if there's BPA in the water bottles?!) and demand transparency. Either they get it, or the companies won't make hundreds of millions of dollars.

Here's a question. If drug companies were not required to list side effects, do you think they would?

If the customers want to know, yes. It's the same thing as I posted above, the customers have to be happy or the companies don't get their money.
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:24:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 4:54:30 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:

They shouldn't do that. If the customer catch on, then they won't shop there and the corporation will go bankrupt. Problem solved, no government necessary.

sounds fine and dandy but things are not that simple. we have to look at what is happening around us to gauge the potential outcomes of an economic policy.

again. walmart is making money off of their employees deaths. would most people be enraged to hear that? yes. is wal-mart going bankrupt for that? no.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:28:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:10:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I think companies would list side effects for the same reason companies de-marketize some products during certain social eras like gas shortages and global warming hysteria. The goal being to increase Corporate trust and loyalty at the expense of product loyalty.

Cigarette packs never had a warning on them (that using their products highly increases the chance of death and health complications) until it was required by law to.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:30:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:28:00 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:10:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I think companies would list side effects for the same reason companies de-marketize some products during certain social eras like gas shortages and global warming hysteria. The goal being to increase Corporate trust and loyalty at the expense of product loyalty.

Cigarette packs never had a warning on them (that using their products highly increases the chance of death and health complications) until it was required by law to.

People are still not socially outraged enough to ban cigarette sales as a hazardous schedule one drug. Why should the companies care?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:31:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:10:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

I think companies would list side effects for the same reason companies de-marketize some products during certain social eras like gas shortages and global warming hysteria. The goal being to increase Corporate trust and loyalty at the expense of product loyalty.

Do you know that companies neglect to put expiration dates on their products in some countries simply because there is no law forcing them to do so. Do you realize that companies in some foreign markets do not have nutritional facts on their products? Loyalty and trust are not values of the corporate world, deception, greed and expedience are.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:34:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:30:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

People are still not socially outraged enough to ban cigarette sales as a hazardous schedule one drug. Why should the companies care?

i find this question disheartening. "why should people care for others?" is essentially what it boils down to... and if you have no answer for that, then maybe you just dont get it.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:35:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:31:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:10:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

I think companies would list side effects for the same reason companies de-marketize some products during certain social eras like gas shortages and global warming hysteria. The goal being to increase Corporate trust and loyalty at the expense of product loyalty.

Do you know that companies neglect to put expiration dates on their products in some countries simply because there is no law forcing them to do so. Do you realize that companies in some foreign markets do not have nutritional facts on their products? Loyalty and trust are not values of the corporate world, deception, greed and expedience are.

Consumers in America are more informed than the 60's when Companies could make outrageous claims with no consumer backlash to worry about.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:36:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:34:03 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:30:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

People are still not socially outraged enough to ban cigarette sales as a hazardous schedule one drug. Why should the companies care?

i find this question disheartening. "why should people care for others?" is essentially what it boils down to... and if you have no answer for that, then maybe you just dont get it.

I do get it.
The consumers are responsible for the ethical practices of all corporations.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:38:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:34:03 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:30:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

People are still not socially outraged enough to ban cigarette sales as a hazardous schedule one drug. Why should the companies care?

i find this question disheartening. "why should people care for others?" is essentially what it boils down to... and if you have no answer for that, then maybe you just dont get it.

This is almost the same as saying "Why doesn't Obama care about creating jobs?"

the answer is: "Why should he care? People need to make it an issue."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:38:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:24:38 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:54:30 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:

They shouldn't do that. If the customer catch on, then they won't shop there and the corporation will go bankrupt. Problem solved, no government necessary.

sounds fine and dandy but things are not that simple. we have to look at what is happening around us to gauge the potential outcomes of an economic policy.

again. walmart is making money off of their employees deaths. would most people be enraged to hear that? yes. is wal-mart going bankrupt for that? no.

Is Walmart killing off their employees?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:40:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:36:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

I do get it.
The consumers are responsible for the ethical practices of all corporations.

the consumer is responsible for the ethics of a company.

so if a company makes an unethical decision, it is the consumers fault?

ahh yes that makes perfect sense.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:40:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:10:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:06:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/7/2011 4:54:30 PM, Andromeda_Z wrote:
Good idea, OreEle.

At 9/7/2011 4:38:20 PM, el-badgero wrote:
well how did you answer, for example, the very first question, the question about government penalising corporations that mislead the public,

They shouldn't do that. If the customer catch on, then they won't shop there and the corporation will go bankrupt. Problem solved, no government necessary.

hmmm.... can a large company, with hundreds of millions of dollars, trick an average citizen?

Here's a question. If drug companies were not required to list side effects, do you think they would?

and the question about multinational corporations sucking developing countries dry?

They should be allowed to do that. Of course they would have to pay (or the developing country wouldn't allow it), and the developing country could use that money to develop, or whatever else they want to use it for.


I think companies would list side effects for the same reason companies de-marketize some products during certain social eras like gas shortages and global warming hysteria. The goal being to increase Corporate trust and loyalty at the expense of product loyalty.

Funny thing is, they didn't until they were required to. Same applies to the ingredients on food, companies did not provide that data until required. Fast food chains didn't provide it until required (obviously if the majority of the population passes a bill requiring it, there was demand for the company to do it, but the companies still didn't do it).

You also see those "what X doesn't want you to know" on the news, how many people actually take those seriously? You can google "what ________ doesn't want you to know" and file in nearly any company and you'll find something.

From Walmart - http://www.associatedcontent.com...

From Mircosoft - http://www.ericsink.com...

To Apple - http://www.mainstreet.com...

To Verizon - http://ls1tech.com...

To McDonalds - http://voices.washingtonpost.com...

To anything. The web is sooooo filled with "dirty laundry" of nearly every company, that it is not possible for an individual to personally dig through it all to see what is legit and what is not.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:42:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:38:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:

Is Walmart killing off their employees?

who knows? maybe. most likely not. either way, they're exploiting a trusted employee to gain that extra million that they need. making money off of anothers misfortune.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:43:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:40:32 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:36:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

I do get it.
The consumers are responsible for the ethical practices of all corporations.

the consumer is responsible for the ethics of a company.

so if a company makes an unethical decision, it is the consumers fault?

ahh yes that makes perfect sense.

His point is that it is the consumers who do business with the corporation and keep it going. If people start to value transparency over lower costing products, then corporations won't be able to do the things you're talking about.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:44:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:42:56 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:38:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:

Is Walmart killing off their employees?

who knows? maybe. most likely not. either way, they're exploiting a trusted employee to gain that extra million that they need. making money off of anothers misfortune.

Ah yes, I remember the first time I saw "Capitalism: A Love Story".
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:44:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:35:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:31:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:10:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

I think companies would list side effects for the same reason companies de-marketize some products during certain social eras like gas shortages and global warming hysteria. The goal being to increase Corporate trust and loyalty at the expense of product loyalty.

Do you know that companies neglect to put expiration dates on their products in some countries simply because there is no law forcing them to do so. Do you realize that companies in some foreign markets do not have nutritional facts on their products? Loyalty and trust are not values of the corporate world, deception, greed and expedience are.

Consumers in America are more informed than the 60's when Companies could make outrageous claims with no consumer backlash to worry about.

And we are informed because of the regulations that forced the companies to inform us. Take those regulations away and it will only take a few years to fall back into that level of un-informedness (made up word, but it works).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:46:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:43:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:40:32 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:36:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

I do get it.
The consumers are responsible for the ethical practices of all corporations.

the consumer is responsible for the ethics of a company.

so if a company makes an unethical decision, it is the consumers fault?

ahh yes that makes perfect sense.

His point is that it is the consumers who do business with the corporation and keep it going. If people start to value transparency over lower costing products, then corporations won't be able to do the things you're talking about.

and all people will magically change to adopt this view? no. thats where regulations come in.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:49:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:46:46 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:43:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:40:32 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:36:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

I do get it.
The consumers are responsible for the ethical practices of all corporations.

the consumer is responsible for the ethics of a company.

so if a company makes an unethical decision, it is the consumers fault?

ahh yes that makes perfect sense.

His point is that it is the consumers who do business with the corporation and keep it going. If people start to value transparency over lower costing products, then corporations won't be able to do the things you're talking about.

and all people will magically change to adopt this view? no. thats where regulations come in.

You are right, consumers must be protected from their own greed... for their own "good."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:49:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:43:06 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:40:32 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:36:25 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

I do get it.
The consumers are responsible for the ethical practices of all corporations.

the consumer is responsible for the ethics of a company.

so if a company makes an unethical decision, it is the consumers fault?

ahh yes that makes perfect sense.

His point is that it is the consumers who do business with the corporation and keep it going. If people start to value transparency over lower costing products, then corporations won't be able to do the things you're talking about.

Yes they will. Since the only way for customers to actually voice their opinion in the free market is by buying from a company that they like better, but if no company is offering better, they are SOL.

Basically, lets look at the transpanancy example. If consumers want transparancy, they will buy from the transparent company, but they can only do that if there is a transparent company to choose from. This is often the case, especially when you have fewer large companies as opposed to many small companies.

People wanted fast food stores to place nutritional facts, so much so that a majority of people voted for it. That proves that there was demand from the people for it, but until forced to by law, the companies were not providing it, knowing that so long as no one gave into the consumers' demand, then the rest wouldn't have to either.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:51:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:49:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

You are right, consumers must be protected from their own greed... for their own "good."

no. it's not simply greed on the consumers part that is the issue. its naivity/ lack of knowledge/ apathy/ from the consumers and greed/exploitation/lack of empathy from the corporations.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:55:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:51:57 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:49:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

You are right, consumers must be protected from their own greed... for their own "good."

no. it's not simply greed on the consumers part that is the issue. its naivity/ lack of knowledge/ apathy/ from the consumers and greed/exploitation/lack of empathy from the corporations.

That surprised me that you would admit that.
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:57:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:49:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
You are right, consumers must be protected from their own greed... for their own "good."

Well we could educate consumers to think more critically, for their own "good."

Or I suppose we do nothing for the consumers, but I have a strong feeling that would result in a caveat emptor style situation, which I am sure would let a lot of dishonest folks get rich fast.

Aside from those who will gain from people making bad decisions, who else might feel that it is in the best interests of the nation to keep consumers from thinking too much about what they are buying?
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 5:58:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 5:55:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:51:57 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 9/7/2011 5:49:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

You are right, consumers must be protected from their own greed... for their own "good."

no. it's not simply greed on the consumers part that is the issue. its naivity/ lack of knowledge/ apathy/ from the consumers and greed/exploitation/lack of empathy from the corporations.

That surprised me that you would admit that.

everyone is greedy in some sense. not something hard to admit..
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...