A question to Communists:

Status
Not open for further replies.
...Assuming your article is true, that means that there is more than zero because a small number is > 0...

Regardless, I've already cited an article (one that actually contains citations for its statement, unlike the one at hand) that give an estimate of 37.5 million working and housed Americans suffering food insecurity (defined by the study as 'the inability to provide food consistently that meets standard nutritional requirements')... Ergo, this article's statement, which has no subsequent citation, that, of the 35 million poor, very few suffer from hunger, is not true... ...Unless, of course, anyone wants to find some counter-citation for mine, which no one has yet.
 
Unemployed does, disability checks fall well below the average living cost (which implies hunger), and I've already statistically proven that 1/5 is. If you'd like to cite some counter examples, rather than just delving into worthless denial, feel free. However, if you're just going to say things and back them up with nothing, you may want to keep your trap shut, lest you hurt your own argument... Or just look like a fool.

I already replied... The only considerable denial in that article is over the crowding issue... ...Frankly, that article, in light of some citations I've made and seen previous, seems quite bias and very, very unconvincing.

If someone doesn't comprehend simple logic it really isn't worth arguing with them.

I'll try one more time. Being unemployed does not imply hunger. You can be unemployed and still have food and even if you don't there are usually various welfare programs and charities to help out. Disabilities don't imply hunger. Getting a disability does not magically make food disappear from your pantry. In this country we have these disabled parking spots so disabled people can park closer to commercial buildings including places that sell food! So obviously people who are disabled can own cars, buy food at grocery stores or restaurants.
 
Regardless, I've already cited an article (one that actually contains citations for its statement, unlike the one at hand) that give an estimate of 37.5 million working and housed Americans suffering food insecurity (defined by the study as 'the inability to provide food consistently that meets standard nutritional requirements')... Ergo, this article's statement, which has no subsequent citation, that, of the 35 million poor, very few suffer from hunger, is not true... ...Unless, of course, anyone wants to find some counter-citation for mine, which no one has yet.
The exact same principle still applies, no matter how many people are in poverty. In fact, even if nobody was in poverty the concept can still be applied because the main problem is that people have to work against their will providing something other than the essentials to remain out of poverty (either that or starve and die).
 
The exact same principle still applies, no matter how many people are in poverty. In fact, even if nobody was in poverty the concept can still be applied because the main problem is that people have to work against their will providing something other than the essentials to remain out of poverty (either that or starve and die).

Yes, I understand... I was merely discrediting the site in question. Moreover, the specific claim that few in poverty are hungry or suffer food insecurity. In fact, it seems as though not only is nearly every person in poverty suffering from said issues, but about 2.5 million that are technically middle-class are.
 
I'll try one more time. Being unemployed does not imply hunger. You can be unemployed and still have food and even if you don't there are usually various welfare programs and charities to help out. Disabilities don't imply hunger. Getting a disability does not magically make food disappear from your pantry. In this country we have these disabled parking spots so disabled people can park closer to commercial buildings including places that sell food! So obviously people who are disabled can own cars, buy food at grocery stores or restaurants.

Yes, I heard you the first time. I was asking for some evidence to suggest what you're saying makes any sense.Unemployment usually goes hand-in-hand with poverty status, and you're more likely to become unemployed if you're working a poverty status job. Ergo, unemployment increases your chances of food insecurity. Also, disability income is based on a certain percentage of what you've earned, and you're more likely to become disabled in a low-income job (most 'unsafe' jobs are low-income; i.e. construction work and farming have a much higher incident of disability than receptionists, for instance). So, once again, it stands to reason that, if you're more likely to become disable if you're poor, and will therefore remain below the poverty line, then you're more likely to have food insecurity or hunger issues... ...I could look up citations for long-term unemployment causing poverty and low-income jobs generally being more dangerous, but I think they're kinda' self-evident.

http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html

"According to the results of the Census Bureau survey, those at greatest risk of being hungry or on the edge of hunger (i.e., food insecure) live in households that are: headed by a single woman; Hispanic or Black; or with incomes below the poverty line. Overall, households with children experience food insecurity at almost double the rate for households without children."
 
Why pay 50 million bucks for a CEO when the shareholders could pocket all that cash themselves? The obvious answer: because that CEO is worth more than 50 million bucks.
If I have been able to see further than other people, it is because I stood on the shoulders of.....well.......me. :king:

My own previous idea made me think up a new one.

Each of you want more than you currently have. No, you'll never admit it--certainly not in here--but you're all thinking it, and I'm no different. I work in tech support; most of the clients I dispatch techs to provide service for, are the sysads of great big server farms. We're talking losses of thousands of dollars a minute when a machine fails. I save people hundreds of thousands of dollars a day in lost business, and I see how much of it? X number of dollars an hour. And believe me, X isn't very high, either.

The rest of you are the same way. You're a fireman who just saved some guy's house from burning to the ground, and you get Y number of dollars an hour, without even a "thank you" from the guy whose house you saved. Or you work at a hospital, saving lives, and make about as much as a waiter. Or you make hamburgers for people so they don't starve to death--and you get minimum wage.

Corporate executives are no different. They, too, are out of necessity paid less than they're worth. A lot less. That CEO up top, who gets $50 million a year? He produces a lot more than $50 million a year--he has to, or the shareholders have no reason to hire him.

Naturally, this will immediately prime one of you to post the following: "but that CEO doesn't need so much money!" Well, guess what--I've been in this kind of argument a million times, and already have a canned reply ready.
 
My own previous idea made me think up a new one.
But you haven't refuted the many counterarguements against your first one, oh well.
Each of you want more than you currently have. No, you'll never admit it--certainly not in here--but you're all thinking it, and I'm no different.
I'm not ashamed of it; so your right I'm not admitting it, I'm saying it :) .
I work in tech support; most of the clients I dispatch techs to provide service for, are the sysads of great big server farms. We're talking losses of thousands of dollars a minute when a machine fails. I save people hundreds of thousands of dollars a day in lost business, and I see how much of it? X number of dollars an hour. And believe me, X isn't very high, either.

The rest of you are the same way. You're a fireman who just saved some guy's house from burning to the ground, and you get Y number of dollars an hour, without even a "thank you" from the guy whose house you saved. Or you work at a hospital, saving lives, and make about as much as a waiter. Or you make hamburgers for people so they don't starve to death--and you get minimum wage.
Corporate executives are no different. They, too, are out of necessity paid less than they're worth. A lot less. That CEO up top, who gets $50 million a year? He produces a lot more than $50 million a year--he has to, or the shareholders have no reason to hire him.

Naturally, this will immediately prime one of you to post the following: "but that CEO doesn't need so much money!" Well, guess what--I've been in this kind of argument a million times, and already have a canned reply ready.
No thats not my arguement. My arguement is that none of those people should be offered incentments in the first place (well, as we've gone over a million times, except to not do harm). How much that incentment happens to be is irrelevent (well except on an emotional level of course).
But go on, tell me what your canned response is.
 
Naturally, this will immediately prime one of you to post the following: "but that CEO doesn't need so much money!" Well, guess what--I've been in this kind of argument a million times, and already have a canned reply ready.
Well, go ahead. Dazzle us with your logic. :rolleyes:
 
basketcase said:
Yes I have.[refuted your counter-arguements]
click the arrow
edit: why not counter the arguments I already gave you as well (to the post you made that comment on).
edit: I linked it wrong, click again.
edit: Also, in the post you basically ignored, I already stated that the amount of incentment a CEO gets is irrelevant (so I'm not going to make the comment you are telling me to make). Also, please don't misinterpret the post I linked you to, which stated that the CEO position was unneccesary not that CEO positions are bad because they are unfair.
 
I'll ask you this, why must there be a hierarchal structure?
Because the shareholders want one for their company.

Beautiful, isn't it? Your own system shoots itself in the ass AGAIN. Your own rules say it: if people shouldn't be telling each other what to do, then Greenpeace has no right to tell corporate shareholders what to do--by your own system, it's their money and they can spend it however they please as long as they don't break your "do no harm" rule.

If you can't even get your own system to work in an imaginary forum, it has no chance out in the real world.
 
BasketCase said:
Naturally, this will immediately prime one of you to post the following: "but that CEO doesn't need so much money!" Well, guess what--I've been in this kind of argument a million times, and already have a canned reply ready.
But go on, tell me what your canned response is.
Here it is: you, Greenpeace, don't need your gigantic salary either.

You have a lot more than you need right now. You don't need that computer you're using to read this post, for example.

Either you agree with me, or you are a hypocrite. There's no way out.


Edit: If any of you are wondering why I haven't bothered to reply to each and every empty counterargument in here, there are two reasons: number one, I'm getting dangerously bored with this thread (having hammered mercilessly away at it and just getting the same old arguments I've seen a million times), and number two, I finally got my replacement Guitar Hero 3 controller......errrrrr, I think that's like the 17th time I've mentioned that game in here........ahhh, forget it. I'm off to go do some shredding, Raining Blood on Hard difficulty is kicking my ASS.
 
"Comrades, let me lead you far from the Imperialist hole with which we have fallen and onto the path to communsim. I will not promise you a Utopia, but I shall promise you a better future away from the damnation of Mercantalism and the crimes of the Imperialists before us..."

- Burldon S. Blavonovich​

"A Democatic Nation is forged of Sticks. A Facist Empire is founded on Straw. A truly pure Community is built up upon the bricks."

- Burldon S. Blavonovich​

There is no Utopia and never shall be. Perhaps I am a 'Realist' Communist who doesn't seek a false hope but rather a comrade seeking the true hope, not that of building a Utopia but rather building a community where my people are happy. I might be called mad but these are my ideals and I will follow them.
 
Because the shareholders want one for their company.

Beautiful, isn't it? Your own system shoots itself in the ass AGAIN. Your own rules say it: if people shouldn't be telling each other what to do, then Greenpeace has no right to tell corporate shareholders what to do--by your own system, it's their money and they can spend it however they please as long as they don't break your "do no harm" rule.

If you can't even get your own system to work in an imaginary forum, it has no chance out in the real world.
First, it didn't shoot itself at all in the first place. Second, is this serious? Do you really think that this doesn't violate the rules? Don't you recall that
1. No authority is allowed except the decentralized consensus democracy (except in obvious scenarios like a mother preventing her son from walking into traffic) I described. That position has an alternative authority.
2. This hierarchy relies on harm (mainly incentment) and harm is not allowed.

Either you agree with me, or you are a hypocrite. There's no way out
I am a huge hypocrite and disobey many of the laws I desire for a society, but that doesn't mean the society doesn't work/ isn't desirable/ etc.
 
1. No authority is allowed except the decentralized consensus democracy (except in obvious scenarios like a mother preventing her son from walking into traffic) I described. That position has an alternative authority.
God dammit, are you EVER going to LISTEN to me???

I already proved that authority is inevitable. It doesn't matter if authority is allowed, there's nothing you can do to prevent it.
 
How about you listen to me? I never said there is no authority, I in fact described the authority I said should exist.
Also I edited my post, so you may want to go back and witness myself calling myself a hypocrit.
 
How about you listen to me? I never said there is no authority, I in fact described the authority I said should exist.
Also I edited my post, so you may want to go back and witness myself calling myself a hypocrit.

Ah...

You see I was confused by the part you said No Authority is Allowed... Then how is there an Alt. Authority if no Authority is allowed bacause basically it would be a form of Authority and thusly not allowed.
 
Writing this without bothering to read previous posts, now that the left side of my brain has kicked in again.

Oh, I stand by my previous post. Greenpeace, you are just not listening to a damn thing I say, and here's a spot where you did it again:

greenpeace said:
2. This hierarchy relies on harm (mainly incentment) and harm is not allowed.
I already said a few pages ago that incentive is not harm. Rather, incentive is a positive alternative to harm.


Now, back to the grist. Authority is not allowed. Fine. Then I'll do a little dictionary-rewriting of my own: a CEO is not a form of authority because nobody (in the United States, anyway) is required to work at that company. In fact, in the modern world, very few people stay at one company for more than five years. So don't give me that crap about "people are forced to work for the company", because people do change jobs all the time.

CEO does not equal authority, CEO's presence does not equal harm. The shareholders do no harm and create no new authority by hiring a CEO at $50 million a year, therefore they have the right to do it.


greenpeace said:
Also I edited my post, so you may want to go back and witness myself calling myself a hypocrit.
There's a shoe that certainly fits. ZINNNNNGGG! :lol:


How about you listen to me? I never said there is no authority, I in fact described the authority I said should exist.
And how about YOU listen to ME: I already said your authority system is self-contradictory.

Letsee, I think that's three times this particular ball has been passed. Back to you, your turn.
 
Writing this without bothering to read previous posts, now that the left side of my brain has kicked in again.

Oh, I stand by my previous post. Greenpeace, you are just not listening to a damn thing I say, and here's a spot where you did it again:


I already said a few pages ago that incentive is not harm. Rather, incentive is a positive alternative to harm.
First of all I define it as harm therefore for the CEO question, it is. Still I stand by it being harm because it gets people to work against their direct will. If your working at a factory, sure the money is enough to make you not quite your job, but it doesn't neccesarily make the work desirable.

Now, back to the grist. Authority is not allowed. Fine. Then I'll do a little dictionary-rewriting of my own: a CEO is not a form of authority because nobody (in the United States, anyway) is required to work at that company. In fact, in the modern world, very few people stay at one company for more than five years. So don't give me that crap about "people are forced to work for the company", because people do change jobs all the time.

CEO does not equal authority, CEO's presence does not equal harm. The shareholders do no harm and create no new authority by hiring a CEO at $50 million a year, therefore they have the right to do it.
Your fired! Your salary is X, you will follow such in such rules, you will please me, you will do etc. Corporations have authority. They can offer positive incentment therefore they also do harm.
edit: Well, actualy the COO is more likly to do those things, but whatever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom