I apologize for my nonsense, you're right, though I have not seen any of those type of drive-in yet. I know what you mean, but people don't salivate over lentils the same, and it beats me why.
Printable View
I apologize for my nonsense, you're right, though I have not seen any of those type of drive-in yet. I know what you mean, but people don't salivate over lentils the same, and it beats me why.
It's funny isn't it? But maybe the partial answer is that, as was demonstrated in Supersize Me, McDonald's food is actually more like an addictive drug than actual nourishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by jackyyyy
Humanity has a will that only humans will. I just this minute took a drive to my local flogger and was muttering to myself what it would be like to cart an oven, microwave and chip pan around with me. I would still need a napkin and some plastics. We do it to ourselves, falacy of the educated to presuppose common blank. It is funny to conceptualize a lentil drive-in; not very macho for the guy behind the wheel of his ferrari, nor the mother raised to understand good wholesome lentils dressed up with a drop of ketchup, a piddle of peas, and that side of apple is actually not bad either.
Although I do not really understand what you meant by "make absolutes", I can find where you might have contradicted yourself: "Morals do not enter into economics." I don't know about you, but this sounds kind of "absolute" to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Jack
I did not "make absolute" in the sense that economics is only about morality; I said that it does involve morality. In fact I mentioned politics, legal systems, and social behaviour, and also that morality is a "fundamental element" (not the only element) belonging to these concepts. That's four different branches of social science for you- so, no, I did not make absolute.
And "usually always"?
Could you please point me to my statement that contradicts this case. I cannot seem to find an absolute statement I have made suggesting that there are no immoral business practises. Perhaps you meant this one: "there is no economics without morals." Unless you missed the explanation that comes immediately before this statement, you would understand that it means: without morality, the science of economics would not exist, or at least not be what we know it. Furthermore, do not confuse business with economics; there are a lot more to economics than business practices and their good and evil. And do not confuse moral with good and nice. Here's some help for you from my dictionary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Jack
Economics: the branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth/ The branch of social science that deals with the production and distribution and consumption of goods and services and their management.
Moral -Origin Latin, from mos 'custom': standard of behaviour, or principles of right and wrong.
If you made your statement: "Morals do not enter into economics" with these definitions in mind, then I hope you have realised clearly why you are wrong. If you did not have these in mind, then you did not have any scientific intentions at all; because both concepts "moral" and "economics" have a great deal of science behind them.
Yes, Enron was a business with many illegal practices. But those CEOs were also prosecuted, weren't they? Does not the fact that they were punished show that the legal, political, and economic systems to which they belong do not tolerate their behaviour? Yes, that means that there are imperfections within an economic system; but it does not mean that morals "do not enter into economics."Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Jack
Because "moral" is the key concept to major branches of philosophy, many of which involve fundamental mathematics and economic ideologies. Without the reasoning on morality of Plato, Descartes, Kant, Marx, etc, the science of economics would not be like it is today. Thus, they teach it in school(University) because if you do not study it, you do not know it. And if you do not know it, you cannot help developing it; and you would also make fundamental mistakes when you choose to employ such science to support your arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Jack
We agree on this point. Moreover, I did not ask to be corrected; I asked for an explanation of this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Jack
To which you have avoided replying for a while. But if you wish not to comment further, I will respect it and will not ask you further questions regarding this statement. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Jack
The absolute I referred to was when you said there is no economics without morals. I will clarify my meaning, I am not aurguing that economics occur completely esoteric of morality, no. I am aurguing that there are immoral economics, however "immorality" is subjective and varies from person to person. Example, drug trade is economic, but is it moral? Morality is a subjective term, and you apply to it an objective practice (economics) whether a practice is "right or wrong" is entirely opinion based.Quote:
Originally Posted by Regit
And AGAIN I reiterate, when I said "morals do not enter into economics" I was merely throwing an idea out there, I have heard some people voice this thought. I am not aurguing that the statement is true, rather I was hoping for reactions which either disproved or proved it, I do not support it in any way. So yes, you did what I wanted someone to do, that is express an opinion of the statement. And you managed to disporve it as absolute, thank you. However the statement itself is not an aurgument, and certainly not my aurgument.
So I do believe that companies can carry out their economics immoraly (such as by invading foreign markets, and possibly damaging the local culture) but this immorality is subjective, and the "rightness" or "wrongness" of an action cannot be standardised.
That is my aurgument.
Must...obey...must...obey...
You are repeating bits of my post and bits of your old argument. Did you even read what I wrote? The statement I made was my statement, thus I explained it to you. You don't have to explain it back to me. I believe that all the problems you just raised I have already attempted to answer. "Right" or "wrong" is entirely opinion based, correct. But the term "moral" means the principles of right and wrong. It does not mean either right or wrong. Why don't you look it up yourself if you don't believe me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Jack
Again, economics is not a practice, it's a name of a branch of social science or a branch of knowledge. And I really really do not understand this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Jack
Right. So you are saying that the statement you made was soundly disproved, but it was not your statement. Great. How did you clarify that it was not your own opinion? It's hard for me to know without being notified; because in a dicussion, when someone contributes I assume that the argument they express is the argument that they are willing to support. But I should have anticipated this response. Anyway, there might be others who expressed what you meant to say; but no other who expressed it using terminologies as loosely and as incorrectly as you did. You don't want to be responsible for the idea put forth? Sure; but you are solely responsible for the way it was expressed in your statement, which was wrong regardless of whether you believe in its meanings or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Jack
Companies cannot carry out their economics! They can carry out their business, their business plans, their business campaign, their economic duties, but not their economics. Economics is a branch of social science. You can't fit a word into your sentence and hope that its new context would make up for the inaccuracies of your previous statements. Forgive me, but I have to assume that you either have not read my post at all, did not understand it, or have forgotten it by the time you were making this reply. Why did you quote my post in your reply if you have no intention of actually considering its content whatsoever?Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Jack
Be careful now. You have made another "absolute" statement; and this time you have clarified that it is YOUR argument. Are you sure that it is your argument? I would like to comment on this statement also. Perhaps tomorrow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Jack
And please, with all due respect, the word is ARGUE.
I was wondering, since America has been strongly influenced by immagration, and many cultures have "crossbred" to form an "Americain" culture, is this a microcosm of the possible future of our world given the trend of globalisation?
Oh and Regit, AURGUE, AURGUE, AURGUE, lol lighten up man.
Union Jack,Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Jack
Please don't mistake the content of my reasoning for my anger. I am not arguing because I am determined to bring you down, I just want to express my understanding of the matter and, through it, my opinions. I really did mean it when I said I like how you approach economics and sociology problems; and I certainly do not hold any grudges against you. Though you would understand if evidence is always more persuasive than just thinking. I'm light as air :)
Well hats of Regit, I concede the aUrgument, you win and all that. You proved my point wrong, and my aurgument weak and points ridiuclous. *Waves White Flag* Lets move on to other discussions, good job, you deserve it. :)
It won't happen in our life time regardless. In order for complete change it would require generations of interracial marriages to create a species that all looks the same.
Not likely.
Not likely in our lifetime.
Not likely ever because we will naturally regionalize unless travel becomes so simple as taking the super-shuttle-plane to the supermarket in Africa.
I am very happy that we slowly are emerging globally forgetting that we have eclectic cultures.
I want that cultures are slowly getting lost.
One culture should remain and the rest must disappear into the thin air.
For the most part, I dislike the major anti-utopians like Orwell and Huxley, and this dislike translates into an inability to believe that *corporacy* models, to paraphase a word from David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas will lead to a worldwide homogeneous society. Humans are exceedingly provincial at heart, and the space earth orbits and occupies is fragile. It would not take much for technologies to fail, (aerospace, Internet, nuclear) to throw our species back to localized regions where evolution would continue what it started before our feet got the better of the process.
Take China as an example. I will not make a fool of myself by spelling out the names of the ethnic minorities who the Hu'an Chinese (I think) dominate--but this is a homogeneous society which isn't all that homogeneous underneath the state controlled market of today, if one really takes a close look at modern China.
And, our species is pushing the limit in terms of sustainable population. Either massive die-offs or a drastic drop in birth rates will toss the notion of "one global culture" out of the window.
Cultural homogenization is something I can not subscribe to in point of fact. I do not think it is possible that we can live in perfect harmony with one another if we stick to our cultures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Union Jack
Some aspects of cultures are not bad but most are corrupting. Today we live in a world rampant with cultural conflicts.
My opinion is that globalization elevates cultural/ethnic conflicts by bringing different peoples physically closer together. While it eventually may bring them together in a harmonizing way (or maybe it is a pipe dream), I doubt it will be any time soon. One culture is impossible. In fact a global culture would not be a culture at all. And while different cultures feud and wars/crusades/jihads and what not result, if there were no separate cultures and ethnicity, then we would not have amazing pieces of literature like the Odyssey or Shakespeare.
If there were no Greeks or Trojans, and no Latin and Germanic language mixing to make English, then these pieces of literature would not exist. American literature continues to be American, Arabic literature continues to be influenced by Islam, etc, etc. I do not see anything wrong with being different and maintaining that difference. That is real multiculturalism.