Shichiman comments

Posted in: Iran lurks in background of Gaza fight See in context

And what's the beef with Iran?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Iran lurks in background of Gaza fight See in context

At least the Muslim extremists are honest about their intentions, unlike the US!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Aso says world religions can learn from Japan See in context

To realist - If you had been born to Islamic parents would you still be Christian?

You don't need to read the bible, qur'an, torah or any "prophetic" book to see the correlation between religious popularity, war and poverty.

I wish Aso had pointed out that Japan's atheism has been a major factor in its people's unity. Religion causes division, not just between faiths but between individuals. Atheists are united in their scientifically accurate and open-minded view of the world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Aso says world religions can learn from Japan See in context

I don't think Aso is right on this occasion, however, there is a correlation between faith and productivity (ie. human development) - Islamic and Arabic states are generally less developed than the rest of the world (excluding central Africa). This could perhaps be down to "moral" rejections of technology, "holy" war, climate etc.

Before I read the article I was grinning from ear to ear: "Aso says world religions can learn from Japan". That statement, in the contexts of morality, human rights and international relations is absolutely accurate.

Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, is one of the most developed and is one of the safest places to live. This culture that facilitated such post-war economic growth is atheist and contrasts the restrictive and violent nature of religous government.

There is no evidence for god on Earth. Religion seeks only to suppress world understanding ("there's no explaination, it must be god!") and enforce its twisted morality through fear. All the goods things it encourages, charity etc., exist inherently in human nature without god or religion. In that sense, Aso is correct.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Iran lurks in background of Gaza fight See in context

Molenir: "And Libertas, despite what you have to say, Iran is Lurking in the background, providing money and arms to both Hez and Hamas. If you think otherwise, then you are at best completely naive, at worst a willing schill for Iran."

HA! The most hypocritical statement you've made yet! Think about it!

"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion" - Arthur C. Clark

EVERY party in this war has blood on its hands and has done for centuries. Religious bias, backed by a disreputable moral superiority is the greatest evil in this world.

You wouldn't catch a nation of atheist "heathens" acting this abhorrently stupid and bigoted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Israeli forces bisect Gaza, surround biggest city See in context

Molenir, I really don't see how you can sympathise with Israel? This is an atrocity. It's a moral disgrace. If Iehovah actually existed surely this would be punishable with eternal damnation.

The Palestinians are just as bad. They have mercilessly maimed and killed thousands of innocent Jews AND Muslims over the years. They're still using dirty tactics to cause as much damage as possible. If Allah actually existed surely this would be punishable with eternal damnation.

How anyone can think their sympathetic comments are valid and without bias on this topic is beyond belief. Christians and Jews ("the West") will GENERALLY sympathise with Israel, Muslims will generally sympathise with the Palestines.

I would love to hear comments from a Muslim who sympathises with Israel and vice-versa.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Israel says incursion will continue until Hamas rocket fire ceases See in context

I posted this on another page but it's all relevant:

They're all mental. Someone drops a bomb, someone retaliates, someone retaliates, someone retaliates.... It's a never-ending cycle. I know I'm MASSIVELY generalising but so many atrocities have been committed by both sides over the years that it's impossible to place the blame on either.

Palestinians have done horrific, immoral, murderous things to innocents. Israelis have done horrific, immoral, murderous things to innocents. They're both as bad as each other. It's a conflict that's been going on for 1500 years.

I don't think this is a situation that will be resolved by fighting or talking. If they stop the fighting for a generation or two the hatred between them would be eventually neutralised.

Every post argues one way or the other. I'm sat here thinking "Palestinian sympathy, must be a Muslim/ Isreali sympathy, must be a Jew". This whole conflict is the only proof you need of the damaging power of religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Israel rejects 48-hour halt to Gaza assault See in context

I posted this on another page but it's all relevant:

They're all mental. Someone drops a bomb, someone retaliates, someone retaliates, someone retaliates.... It's a never-ending cycle. I know I'm MASSIVELY generalising but so many atrocities have been committed by both sides over the years that it's impossible to place the blame on either.

Palestinians have done horrific, immoral, murderous things to innocents. Israelis have done horrific, immoral, murderous things to innocents. They're both as bad as each other.

I don't think this is a situation that will be resolved by fighting or talking. If they can hold back on the fighting for a generation or two the hatred between them would be lessened and neutralised.

Every post argues one way or the other. I'm sat here thinking "Palestinian sympathy, must be a Muslim/ Isreali sympathy, must be a Jew". This whole conflict is the only proof you need of the damaging power of religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Israeli forces bisect Gaza, surround biggest city See in context

They're all mental. Someone drops a bomb, someone retaliates, someone retaliates, someone retaliates.... It's a never-ending cycle. I know I'm MASSIVELY generalising but so many atrocities have been committed by both sides over the years that it's impossible to place the blame on either. They're both as bad as each other.

I don't think this is a situation that will be resolved by fighting or talking. If they can hold back on the fighting for a generation or two the hatred between them would be lessened and neutralised.

Every post argues one way or the other. I'm sat here thinking "Palestinian sympathy, must be a Muslim/ Isreali sympathy, must be a Jew". This whole conflict is the only proof you need of the damaging power of religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Union workers protest massive wave of job cuts See in context

Capitalism 0: Common Sense 1

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Union workers protest massive wave of job cuts See in context

EDIT: Line 2 - "it wasn't just TEMPORARY workers". Silly goose!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Union workers protest massive wave of job cuts See in context

This is so incredibly petty but great fun so I'll carry on tearing you to shreds:

Article - "Most of the job cuts have targeted temporary contract workers, but lately they have included full-time salaried workers," so it wasn't just salary workers.

Of course a company is free to offload excess staff but in times like these, when there is excess money elsewhere in the company, SHOULD they? You agreed with Angelo that "eliminating customers = eliminating your own job" so SHOULD companies consider redistribution of profits instead of mass-redundancy to keep themselves afloat?

"Nobody forced these people to work for this "immoral" company that "diminished" worker's "basic needs". (By the way, who are you to define what somebody else's basic needs are.)" - People aren't forced into bad jobs, however people need money. A lot of people can't work in their desired profession for a number of social and economic reasons. Business isn't inherently evil of course, but the legislation that supports a capitalist society naturally creates huge contrasts in wealth and living standard. My question was not whether business DOES work in this ruthless way, rather SHOULD it?

Of course I have the right to state basic human needs, they're not subjective. Try lasting a week without money, food or shelter and tell me I'm wrong! What would you define?

Bill Gates: I didn't tell people how they should spend their money, I suggested that the super-rich shouldn't have that much money in the first place. I said that Bill Gates, amongst thousands of others, has unbelievable amounts of money literally doing nothing. It's a waste. SHOULD this useless money be used to help worthy people in difficult financial predicaments?

I didn't define Bill Gates' happiness but I will now. If you read it properly I again asked you if Bill's money makes him 100 million times happier than Joe the Plumber (on, say, $50k PA). How ridiculous is that?! Does having $56 billion mean that there is 100 million times more dopamine floating around his brain?

Bill is obviously bored of having that useless $55.9 billion sat in his account. The fact it simply exists obviously doesn't make him happy. Spending his cash on other people does make Bill happy, otherwise he wouldn't do it. SHOULD more super-rich tycoons spend their surplus money on providing BASIC income for those at risk of redundancy?

We agree on how the world works; some people work hard and make a lot of money, other don't work quite as hard (on a sliding scale), make less and are now finding themselves expendable to employers. You are of the stance that "what's mine is mine", a principle which, when we're talking about huge sums of dormant money, becomes selfish, petty, impracticle and unfeasable. I think, in a world so removed from our natural instincts, that demonstrating altruism in ensuring a decent standard of living is met by all is not just moral but common sense.

All through this "discussion" I've tried to get you to question not HOW this works but SHOULD it work like this. You haven't answered any of my questions, rather you've dogmatically repeated HOW, which we seem to agree on. When not repeating that you either "give up" (quote) or tell us we're "in la la land".

SHOULD those with a massive excess of money suffer a slight reduction in income to afford those in the unfortunate position of redundancy a chance at survival or do we let them suffer? It's pretty much a yes or no question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Union workers protest massive wave of job cuts See in context

I'm quite sure that the needs of society are blanket globally; food, shelter and improving quality of life. The disagreement comes when we consider the protocols necessary to achieving this:

You don't think a company owes its workers any favours? How about job security for the SALARY WORKERS that have been let go? A more altruistic redistribution of excess salaries would have kept more people in work meaning more expendable income to the consumer meaning a less damaging knock-on effect to other manufacturers and service providers. That way the impact of the "credit crunch" could have been considerably dampened.

As you said, temporary workers are always the first sandbag dropped. That is the way business works. I'm questioning the morality of diminishing a worker's access to basic needs when such unecessary excess is prevelant in other areas of the company. Business DOES work that way but, in the 21st century, SHOULD it?

Bill Gates is a bad example because of his growing reputation as a philathropist, however he is famous example of wealth and clearly demonstrates my point: Money is a human invention that regulates consumption. Could Bill Gates possibly consume goods and services proportional to his wealth? Would it make him proportionally happier than those on a $100k salary?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Union workers protest massive wave of job cuts See in context

You're right. All people are different. Some people in this life work hard and go on to achieve great things. Others do nothing and have to be dragged through life, having everything subsidised for them. Those hard workers should not have to pay for the wasters miserable existences.

We're not talking about wasters. We are talking about ordinary working people.

What REASONABLE luxuries could a corporate exec on a million-dollar salary buy that he couldn't on a fifty-thousand-dollar salary. That kind of expenditure I excessive and unecessary. Sure, they worked for it but is their excess salary proportional to their workload? Has their work ethic been proportionally stronger to the redundant workers' to justify that excess?

You really are living in medieval times. Do you think that the current climate, which is in such terrible disarray due to banking greed, is the final step in human development? Evolve! Or are you creationist too?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Union workers protest massive wave of job cuts See in context

Right to peaceful protest says they've done nothing wrong. Angelo's right about CEOs; how many workers' wages could a reduction in the salaries and bonuses of management subsidize? That, of course, is the last place a budget-cut touches.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Surely, in the 21st century people can see that. We're not feudal any more.

"No wonder they can't get hired doing anything better. They're idiots"; is this possibly the stupidest, most ignorant post anyone could write?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.