As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Wikileaks] The GI-Files: Now with a 2nd CIA and ~$125b in laundering a year

12346»

Posts

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Yes, I am aware of the various forms of slavery. Your opinion on what constitutes that is not one of them. Sorry, try again.

    Re: Wikileaks. I'm pretty sure they don't just funnel the documents out the second they get them.

    We will just have to agree to disagree then. If you are going to say that any form of slavery that we may find acceptable is not real slavery, then there is nothing to discuss.

    They don't just send them out without reviewing them, but they also don't have a representive sample of documents to review. If they got the August records for an insurer in Louisiana who did not sell flood insurance to anyone in that month, they might conclude that this insurer does not sell flood insurance, even though they might have sold such policies in July and September.

  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Wage slavery is in no way comparable to slavery due to political, racial, or religious reasons, which is what we were discussing. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

    Wage slavery isn't acceptable because the people who hold down three and four jobs just to meet ends meet (see: immigrants) work harder than anyone in the elite or middle class in America and will never enjoy even a fraction of the living standards.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Wage slavery is in no way comparable to slavery due to political, racial, or religious reasons, which is what we were discussing. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

    Wage slavery isn't acceptable because the people who hold down three and four jobs just to meet ends meet (see: immigrants) work harder than anyone in the elite or middle class in America and will never enjoy even a fraction of the living standards.

    This is a silly discussion, and is probably not worth continuing, but for what it's worth, the situation I laid out is not wage slavery. It is being blackmailed into working, with the threat of deportation being held over your head. Your choices are work of suffer a serious punishment, not work or starve.

  • Fallout2manFallout2man Vault Dweller Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    I'm not sure your logic follows or is really applicable with what we were talking about though.

    I think wage slavery and slavery are both pretty bad, obviously one is arguably worse than another.

    Signing up for the least awful choice doesn't make it okay, and I'm struggling to connect disability driven power of attorney with sweatshops in the developing world.

    The point is slavery is all about involuntarily removing a person's right to chose for themselves. This can happen with or without the person realizing it. In fact, they can even believe they're "free men" (Like the 1800s company mining towns, you were "free" but kept there through debt bondage created by company funny-money.) You can justify slavery if you're clever enough to make up excuses as to how it will be good for the slave that they are no longer allowed to decide. It's the exact logic used by factory owners and billionaires about why sweat shop labor is good. Because they say it will start a generational cascade where eventually the wage slaves will work their way up to western standards. It's all smoke and mirrors though because there are more direct methods we could use to do the same thing which would achieve the same (if not better) standards faster.

    But this is how people justify slavery and without first understanding how someone can consider a type of slavery good you're not going to be able to effectively argue against it. The most common and everyday form of "good" slavery no one recognizes is that of children to their parents. But we really don't consider it that way unless the parent(s) is/are abusive because in general for a number of reasons it's considered good that until someone reaches the age of majority they cannot consent for themselves. But if we don't recognize these things as forms of slavery then we're not going to be able to discern the difference between when conditions deteriorate into a recognizably abhorrent form of slavery (that we can call slavery) and when it may legitimately be necessary to remove someone's ability to chose for themselves. (As usually is the case with parents.)

    TL;dr: When it's good we don't normally call it slavery because we consider slavery an "always-bad" thing, but if you actually lump in any situation where people are forcibly removed of their ability to decide, there are many things we have which would be considered "good slavery" today.

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Anyone who was actually upset by the helicopter video(in the OMG WAR CRIME OMG way, not like just saw a bunch of people killed way), was way off their rockers.

    They shot a bunch of guys who "just happen" to be walking with people caring an AK-47 and an RPG.

    And they did misconstrue the video. They took extra care to slow down and zoom on the 2 guys caring cameras(as if only good people carry those), while not pointing out the guy caring an RPG. They don't note that 800m from the corner they are looking around(while caring guns and an RPG), there are a group of US soldiers.

    It's like a sports broadcaster arguing a goal should be counted because the player wasn't actually offsides, while ignoring the fact that he missed the net by a mile.

    tinwhiskers on
    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Yes, a lesser evil is still an evil, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and even the lesser evil of wage slavery, sweatshop labor, or illegal immigrants being forced to work may be better than the alternative.

    This "perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good" phase needs to die in a fire. The world isn't perfect, but saying society should settle for a bad act, rather than a worse one isn't an excuse that justifies every bad decision ever. Nor that a lesser bad decision wasn't still a bad decision. People generally prefer good decisions, more people are satisfied with the results.

    Also, the alternative isn't always a bad choice. It's the corporations who exploit these people for their own gain rather than actually do something good by treating their employees respectfully or trying to change said foreign nation's policies so it's easier for the workforces to thrive. It's them who are choosing to be the villains rather then being good people, not their employees.
    Sex slavery is a terrible, reprehensible practice, but I don't see what bearing it has on the possibility that there can be forms of slavery in modern society that may be preferable to the alternative.

    The fact that slavery has been outlawed in many nations and is considered persona non grata in polite society, as shown by many posters here debating you about it, shows otherwise.
    Noone is saying "yay slavery! Slavery in modern times in all it's forms is the best!" What FO2Man and I are saying is that as reprehensible as slavery is, there can be some rare cases where the outcome for everyone including the slave is better off with slavery than without it.

    Saying slavery is acceptable in any situation, no matter how dire the status quo is is supporting slavery. Of course it's better for everybody else in situations like that. Those parties either own the slave or are part of the politically superior class gaining from the slave's position in society. The slave is still a slave, so they're still fucked in the situation.
    This doesn't even neccessarily mean the slavery option is good, just less shitty than the nonslavery option, given the extremely limited options actually available. If even slavery can be preferable to freedom under the status quo in some situations, then I think that making categorical statements about morality makes little sense.

    Humanity needs its morality of we'll descend back into being barbarians. Ignoring it completely in any situation, especially bad ones, is starting down a slippery slope.
    Everything, even human freedom, has a price, if there are people who would knowingly barter it away.

    IIRC people can't do that in America. Bartering something away you can't give is meaningless. Otherwise the courts would be filled with various criminal organizations who use slave labor being able to justify their slaves with contracts. They would force those slaves to sign those contracts if they could get away with it.
    If this is true, then certainly we can accept that getting a job in a sweatshop is better than starving to death or living in abject poverty, even though this "good" is pretty bad by our standards.

    That's about survival. Of course they'd choose that. That doesn't excuse the fact that it's a bad practice. The first world prides itself on being enlightened. We're supposed to be above justifying this shit.
    We live in a gray world, so morally absolute positions seem inapplicable to reality.

    There are many morally absolute positions in reality. Living in gray situations isn't a license to justify every bad behavior under the sun. That's only for soulless criminals who want to justify their actions to clear their consciences.
    Bringing this back on topic, this gray morality is also the justification for the government taking actions which need to be secret, which is why our watch dog needs to be sensitive to the need for the government to take "bad" actions at some times, as long as on net, it is serving the good.

    Not all secrets are good. Just because some situations have gray areas doesn't mean every terrible act the government does is gray. Not to mention it's a tactic used by criminals to justify their reprehensible actions to avoid legal and moral consequences for their actions.

    Why are you quoting "bad actions"? Do you think the government can't do anything immoral or criminal?
    Wikileaks is more concrete and absolute, saying, without context, understanding or comprehension, that the government is evil because it did one bad thing. It is an unrealistic, and frankly childish view of the world and morality, and it is unacceptable for an organization that purports to be our watchdog.

    They're not saying all government is evil. They're there simply to point out evil acts committed by groups who have abused their positions with authority. How is that a bad thing? Why are you against them anyway? A few paragraphs up you were all for accepting slavery for people in bad situations. Why the sudden 180 for Wikileaks? Why are they not a gray area for you?


    Harry Dresden on
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Yes, a lesser evil is still an evil, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and even the lesser evil of wage slavery, sweatshop labor, or illegal immigrants being forced to work may be better than the alternative.

    This "perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good" phase needs to die in a fire. The world isn't perfect, but saying society should settle for a bad act, rather than a worse one isn't a button that justifies every bad decision ever. Nor that a lesser bad decision wasn't still a bad decision. People generally prefer good decisions, more people are satisfied with the results.

    It's a perfectly good aphorism, as aphorisms go, but I believe that this is the first time I've seen it misappropriated to suggest that the ethically reprehensible is the enemy of the ethically unthinkable. It's certainly not how I read Voltaire, who quickly goes on after positing that idea to confirm that no fulfilled person is incapable of growing in prudence, kindness, talent and intellect, and that we should nurture this growth because this is where we are at our best. I certainly don't think that a casual acceptance of slavery or anything of that nature the in the world is compatible with a maturing sense of prudence or kindness. He draws the limits of the aphorism around the idea that there is no such thing as perfect happiness, so we should not subvert whatever current happiness we have in our personal lives with the pursuit of the unattainable. But happiness is a precondition in his moral poem; no where does he suggest that if there should be misery either in our personal lives or in the world, we should resign ourselves to the acceptance of it.

  • peterdevorepeterdevore Registered User regular
    Detharin wrote: »
    First there is "nothing to get away with." People engage in legal, immoral activities all the time. Morality is completely subjective, and can vary per individual.
    Just because people disagree about morality does not make it impossible to act morally.
    Detharin wrote: »
    Why should companies care that the market should work "fairly". Neither life, or business is fair. You are attempting to apply nebulous concepts to a business environment. We have laws to try and ensure health competition (anti-monopoly laws for example). That does not mean corporations should be burdened trying to figure out which concept of "fair" they need to work within while sticking to making money.

    So you agree that the way business often works is not fair. I'd think we could list endless examples of business practices where we would agree that they are not fair.
    Detharin wrote: »
    Again you are throwing out nebulous concepts and trying to make something stick. A customer unhappy with a companies product can cease using that product and potentially hurt that companies bottom line by telling others of their negative experience. We have seen multiple times what happens when a company says, or does something that offends the customers, usually there is a drop in stock price followed by groveling. If you do not like the company, support their competition. Do not start hang wringing about "how their should be a law."
    I'm not talking about laws here. For some immoral acts, like misdirection (basically lying without stating falsehoods) it is just impossible to make a good law about. I also dislike the idea that government should decide through law what is moral or not, like there is some way to be absolute about it.

    My point is that you will never get to anything approaching an ideal free market without the market actors at least trying to act morally. I want an end to the belief that capitalism is a free pass to act like a dick.

    I agree that a lot of the responsibility lies with the consumer, but I disagree that business thus get a free pass. Don't you see any danger in business pushing to make markets less fair? Consumers often do not have the power or ability to protect themselves from something like predatory loans.
    Detharin wrote: »
    Corporations exist in a state of amorality. Consumers can protect themselves via researching products, or choosing to spend their money wisely. Giving people a quality product, for a reasonable cost is neither moral not immoral. It is good business. Sometimes you cant make a quality product, or sell for a reasonable cost. That does not mean you should close your business down, and give the competition an monopoly on the market.

    This is straightforward market theory. A fair market is a market that approaches the qualities of an ideal free market. Any practice that diminishes the capacity to have a free market is not fair by this definition, and anyone calling themselves capitalist should call it immoral. I would be okay with businesses just using capitalism as a moral framework (with free markets, not maximized profits as the ideal) since that already covers a lot of ground. The law can take care of the more humanist concerns and consumer backlash for the rest of it.
    Detharin wrote: »
    If you cant get people to do it, why do you think corporations should have to do it? Yes imposing unwritten nebulous restrictions on business is harmful. I can start a corporation that has no desire to be environmentally friendly, or green. Beyond the legal requirements I have to maintain all my company vehicles could be humvees, and my mission statement could be "Be Evil". The reality is corporations "go green" or become "environmentally friendly" in order to attract customers who are concerned with those things. It is marketing. It is a ploy. If it did not make them money, they would not engage in it.
    So you don't think people in positions of power should act morally? Or is it just businesses that get to be exempt here?

    You seem to have the idea that a corporation is just like a computer program that goes 1.Find a need 2. Sell a product 3. Profit!, and see no place for a moral decision there. I'm sure there are corporations founded and lead on good morals out there, how can you be so definite about the amorality of corporations? Are you just talking about the concept of a corporation here?

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    Just because people disagree about morality does not make it impossible to act morally.
    We do not even have a definition of morally that fits all. Hell pretty much any action taken someone is going to have a "moral" problem with. You have not, and cannot effectively establish what "morally" is. Again something can be moral and illegal, or legal and immoral. You keep throwing that word out as if morals are universally recognized, and not something that varies by individual, culture, or region. Which morals should a Chinese company with a branch office in the UK exporting products to America use?

    So you agree that the way business often works is not fair. I'd think we could list endless examples of business practices where we would agree that they are not fair.

    There is also no requirement that business be "fair".
    I'm not talking about laws here. For some immoral acts, like misdirection (basically lying without stating falsehoods) it is just impossible to make a good law about. I also dislike the idea that government should decide through law what is moral or not, like there is some way to be absolute about it.

    My point is that you will never get to anything approaching an ideal free market without the market actors at least trying to act morally. I want an end to the belief that capitalism is a free pass to act like a dick.

    Except the market actors have no reason to act "morally", in fact per your example it is not in their best interests to do so. If something is not illegal, and will make them money why should they avoid doing it?
    I agree that a lot of the responsibility lies with the consumer, but I disagree that business thus get a free pass. Don't you see any danger in business pushing to make markets less fair? Consumers often do not have the power or ability to protect themselves from something like predatory loans.

    Businesses exist to make money. That is it, that is all. They are amoral entities. They do not exist to play "fairly" or cooperate. In fact we actively oppose letting companys "cooperate" to fix prices because that is "not fair." Consumers being idiots and making bad decisions is not a problem with Corporations, it is a problem with the consumers.

    This is straightforward market theory. A fair market is a market that approaches the qualities of an ideal free market. Any practice that diminishes the capacity to have a free market is not fair by this definition, and anyone calling themselves capitalist should call it immoral. I would be okay with businesses just using capitalism as a moral framework (with free markets, not maximized profits as the ideal) since that already covers a lot of ground. The law can take care of the more humanist concerns and consumer backlash for the rest of it.
    Define "Humanist concerns" and why there should be a law mandating it.
    So you don't think people in positions of power should act morally? Or is it just businesses that get to be exempt here?
    Which set of morals are they supposed to follow? Should they follow their own? What if their own disagree with other peoples? No one is required to act morally. If I am investing in a corporation i want them to make money. If they are not making money or leaving money on the table I could argue they are acting immorally because as a stockholder I am investing in them with the understanding they wil try and maximize my return.
    You seem to have the idea that a corporation is just like a computer program that goes 1.Find a need 2. Sell a product 3. Profit!, and see no place for a moral decision there. I'm sure there are corporations founded and lead on good morals out there, how can you be so definite about the amorality of corporations? Are you just talking about the concept of a corporation here?

    Because that is what a corporation is. Anything else besides make money is extraneous fluff or a marketing ploy. Companies exist to fill a need, and profit from doing so. You want to talk morals, you need to define what those morals are going to be in a global market place. When you can do that we can start talking about "morality" in business.

Sign In or Register to comment.