(July 29, 2011 at 7:40 am)theVOID Wrote:

(July 29, 2011 at 7:26 am)bozo Wrote:

(July 28, 2011 at 1:51 am)theVOID Wrote: And an inflow of capital to resurrect a business in liquidation is a bad thing how? Who cares if it's Koreans who own it?

Well, a prospective employee might care. He/she would be interested in terms and conditions of employment, for example and whether the business will recognise a trade union. He/she might also want to look at the ethics of the business and how much profit is made and if it is shared with employees in any meaningful way.

Oh, the prospective employees might care? Sure, they might, then again they're probably more happy about having jobs. You want to stop the Koreans buying the business that is currently in liquidation and creating jobs? Fine, you go tell the unemployed meat workers that they have to stay on benefits, I'm sure they'll love some busy body like you sticking your nose into what is none of your business.

Where does all your anger come from? Calm down why don't you? Can you not debate in a civil way?
I haven't stated I want to stop anyone buying this business. I simply answer your question as to " who cares " about the ownership and why they may care..
And if I'm a busybody, I don't know what that makes you.

I'd be a bit less apathetic about jobs if I spent some time on the unemployment line, and even more so if I didn't have so much to begin with. Most people don't have what I do to start with... and many of these people get to enjoy the possibility of having no income.

Really... what isn't there to be angry with? Money is stockpiled largely by the people who were born into rich families to begin with, who had many profitable job connections, and who often had less to offer in the way of skills than the competition when we cut ahead of it... and we're a minority of the populace. To confound this further... there are people out there who wish for equality for everyone (what socialism often ends up being) and make a quota for hiring blacks, and women, and hispanics, and asians... and these people get to cut in ahead of the others on that basis. And the nonsense does not stop there... minimum wages gut small businesses to the point where they sometimes cannot hire enough help, and the big businesses are taxed more for their excellence. And that is not the end of it!

I can see why people would be angry. I can see why people should be angry. I don't quite see why people haven't all gotten together all revolution style and brutally slaughtered those at the top for their money... but you know: they are poor people. We can't be giving them any ideas now (This is a joke, seriously: don't kill me. I'm poor, I swearz! I liez! But you love me so don't kill me or I'ma call youz french!)

Void isn't a busybody: he's a stoner

Quote:I think the "racist" thing that theVOID was pertaining to was the implication by Minimalist that all Korean's eat dog,

What part of "South Korea Dog Meat Festival was giving you the most trouble, Adrian? As with the Pat Condell thing I do not feel that I have to exempt by name every Korean who does not eat dog meat. The fact that they have a DOG MEAT FESTIVAL is pretty much all I need to run with.

And VOID, I told you: Some of us like dogs and if you want protect the rights of Koreans to eat dog then fuck them and fuck you.

Is that simple enough guys? Maybe you have plans for your republicolibertarianazi pals to open a dog ranch in Iowa?

(July 30, 2011 at 2:33 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I think the "racist" thing that theVOID was pertaining to was the implication by Minimalist that all Korean's eat dog,

What part of "South Korea Dog Meat Festival was giving you the most trouble, Adrian? As with the Pat Condell thing I do not feel that I have to exempt by name every Korean who does not eat dog meat. The fact that they have a DOG MEAT FESTIVAL is pretty much all I need to run with.

And VOID, I told you: Some of us like dogs and if you want protect the rights of Koreans to eat dog then fuck them and fuck you.

Is that simple enough guys? Maybe you have plans for your republicolibertarianazi pals to open a dog ranch in Iowa?

1. You haven't even attempted to show that eating Dog meat is any worse than eating pork or beef, yet you assert that the very notion of it is morally wrong - this is nothing more than you imposing your values without justification. While I likewise agree not to consume Dog meat because of my own values, my love for dogs, I do not presuppose myself to be some righteous objective valuer who's ideals are the basis of other people's decisions. My cultural affinity for Dogs is no more objective than an Indian cultural affinity for cattle which leads them to condemning hamburgers.

2. The vast majority of Koreans are against the practice, as was the entire point of the article you posted, yet despite this fact you are against a Korean company operating a chicken factory because SOME Koreans eat dog meat! That's compete bullshit! The Korean people at large managed to make the continuation of a practice they dislike non-viable economically by threatening not to do business with those who support it - This is the moral way to do it, using persuasion to change the values of others - What you have done amounts to little more than blind bigotry!

Mmmm...dogs...

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

(July 29, 2011 at 7:26 am)bozo Wrote: Do you by chance know how Google arrives at its definition? Just curious.

No, unless you can tell from the page I got it from: http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A...32&bih=620

It sounded like a good and valid definition. Racism isn't always about people thinking they are superior to others; it's often used in the way Min used it; to imply that all people of a particular country or race have a characteristic, based on the fact that some or all of their fellow countrymen / race have that characteristic.

Minimalist Wrote:What part of "South Korea Dog Meat Festival was giving you the most trouble, Adrian? As with the Pat Condell thing I do not feel that I have to exempt by name every Korean who does not eat dog meat. The fact that they have a DOG MEAT FESTIVAL is pretty much all I need to run with.

So, the fact that the UK has gun festivals, or fox hunting festivals, or the fact that some of us celebrate the Queen's birthday, means that everyone in the UK is a gun-toting, fox hunting, monarchist? Sorry to disappoint, but that is exactly the point I was making. You can't just apply the characteristics of one group of people to the whole population. People are diverse. What you implied; that all South Koreans eat dog, was racist.

As theVOID pointed out, the article which you linked to (and probably did not read) was about the protests BY SOUTH KOREANS to try and shut down the dog festival (NEWSFLASH: THEY SUCCEEDED!). Doesn't the fact that a bunch of South Koreans protested a dog festival, and managed to shut it down, mean that maybe, just maybe, not everyone in South Korea likes eating dog? Hmmm...I think it does!

Quote:Maybe you have plans for your republicolibertarianazi pals to open a dog ranch in Iowa?

*sigh* again with the Nazi remarks. Try and act your age in future.

No, I don't have plans to open dog ranches; I happen to like dogs. I don't have any moral objections with people eating them if they want, since they are animals, and people seem to like eating animals. I don't see any reason why we should feel differently about certain types of animal being eaten, even if we have domesticated them. As long as they are killed in a humane way, I don't see why dogs shouldn't be eaten.

That said, I wouldn't want to eat any myself. I'd probably have thoughts in my head of all my previous dogs, and wouldn't be able to go through with it...or maybe I would.; I haven't had the experience of being offered yet. The point is, you don't have to be for or against eating dogs in order to defend the rights of people in other countries, and also defend them from racists like you who want to imply that there is some link between a South Korean chicken company and eating dogs.

(July 28, 2011 at 7:16 pm)bozo Wrote:

(July 28, 2011 at 2:33 pm)Napoleon Wrote: Fucking koreans. We kicked their asses in the vietnam war.

Is this a joke post or just ignorance and racist? The Korean war was not the war in Vietnam and America got its arse kicked there.

J.O.K.E.

I'd of hoped the stature of my other posts would not lead people to believe that I truly was this bloody stupid

Might I add that South Korea in general is a shining example of what a modern nation should be, much more so than the USA. They have good freedoms both socially and economically extending all the way to LGBT rights, exemplary education, low taxes, rapidly rising living standards, trade surpluses, a strong tech sector and many FTA's - They are very much an example of a nation that is "right wing" and exceeds the USA in almost every metric.

(July 30, 2011 at 7:47 am)theVOID Wrote: Might I add that South Korea in general is a shining example of what a modern nation should be, much more so than the USA. They have good freedoms both socially and economically extending all the way to LGBT rights, exemplary education, low taxes, rapidly rising living standards, trade surpluses, a strong tech sector and many FTA's - They are very much an example of a nation that is "right wing" and exceeds the USA in almost every metric.

Too far.

Last I checked, right wing means both social and economic decisions. Here, let's take a look at definitions, using Google as Adrian has:

Define:
right wing
Noun: The conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system.
Adjective: Conservative or reactionary: "a right-wing Republican".

By your statement Void, it looks like socially, they are not "right wing".

Look at the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_South_Korea

Hmm, it appears that they are moving away from being conservative with regards to such. That's not right wing, that's defined as left wing. Or progressive.

Let's look at the libertarian wankfest topic -- drug freedom. Oops, there isn't. In fact, Korean laws regarding personal usage of drugs are quite strict, a model more strict than the US (they based their policy on the DEA's policies and decided to dial it to 11).

Yep, that is soo right wing.

Pro-tip: don't call it right wing, list topics where a) it is tangential or b) directly contradicting against and then think that makes it superior.

A casual glance around only convinced me, that in attempting to beat up Minimalist for his bigotry, you made a fool of yourself.


Finally, with money, comes the ability to subvert existing laws. So this "right wing" paradise has managed to ban things for the little people, but there is little doubt that the richer folks can get whatever they want.

Congratu-fucking-lations, you outlined my idea of a hell -- a place where things are backwards enough to restrict your personal liberty and ability to buy/gain protection restricted to whatever sexual orientation you profess but forward enough to gain money!

Did it ever occur to you that money is justice-agnostic? It will flow into a hell hole or paradise, depending only if demand and supply can be met (with the usual dependent variables of quality, quantity et al).

(July 30, 2011 at 2:20 am)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: I'd be a bit less apathetic about jobs if I spent some time on the unemployment line, and even more so if I didn't have so much to begin with. Most people don't have what I do to start with... and many of these people get to enjoy the possibility of having no income.

Really... what isn't there to be angry with? Money is stockpiled largely by the people who were born into rich families to begin with, who had many profitable job connections, and who often had less to offer in the way of skills than the competition when we cut ahead of it... and we're a minority of the populace. To confound this further... there are people out there who wish for equality for everyone (what socialism often ends up being) and make a quota for hiring blacks, and women, and hispanics, and asians... and these people get to cut in ahead of the others on that basis. And the nonsense does not stop there... minimum wages gut small businesses to the point where they sometimes cannot hire enough help, and the big businesses are taxed more for their excellence. And that is not the end of it!

I can see why people would be angry. I can see why people should be angry. I don't quite see why people haven't all gotten together all revolution style and brutally slaughtered those at the top for their money... but you know: they are poor people. We can't be giving them any ideas now (This is a joke, seriously: don't kill me. I'm poor, I swearz! I liez! But you love me so don't kill me or I'ma call youz french!)

Void isn't a busybody: he's a stoner

Interesting take on the matter in hand, A.
My opinion is that employment matters, therefore being apathetic about jobs when you have one or don't need one strikes me as an " I'm alright Jack, stuff the rest of you " attitude which I wouldn't expect from you. Maybe you don't mean it that way.
Next I would need a lot of convincing evidence to prove that many people ENJOY having no income. I presume here you are referring to the jobless getting by on welfare. I do not accept that all such people are simply lazy scroungers, a few may be, but not the vast majority. The problem is the lack of jobs carrying a reasonable wage. I would not take a horrible job on low money and poor conditions of employment if welfare kept me on the same level. Either welfare is too generous or employers don't pay enough......you can guess which I think is true.
Socialism is an alternative to capitalism, under which the few have all the wealth and power and the many do not ( at differing levels ) and seeks to redistribute the wealth of the world more evenly and I support that ideal.
Affirmative action is seen as a way of countering employment practices that discriminate against different groups of people, based on their ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation etc.etc. I know many people resent it and see it as unfair, but in the absence of something else, how is " fairness " to be assured in the workplace and elsewhere?
In the UK a minimum wage was established fairly recently despite howls of protest from employers, both large and small, all predicting the calamitous effect it would have on the economy.
It hasn't, of course, and it has probably worked against the very people it was suposed to be going to help, because it was set at such a low figure. Employers now advertise for staff, ofering " minimum wage " as if it were a good wage, which it isn't.
A maximium wage would make more sense from my perspective.
I too see why people should be angry and rebellious, but I'm not sure they're the people you are talking about!

On a lighter note, what's a " stoner "?

---

(July 28, 2011 at 7:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: My definition came from Google.

Ah yes, I've googled it myself and see multiple choices are offered for the word. I can see why you like this one.
I prefer my Chambers because where you have racism you have discrimination , and your definition doesn't mention it.