Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>>dear sabine,
>>
>>are you OK? are the riots anywhere near you? wow, you really walked
>>into a big story this time. hope you are fine.
>>
>>peace, k
heh-heh. I'll let everyone know how Sabine is doing when I hear back. k
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>>dear sabine,
>>>
>>>are you OK? are the riots anywhere near you? wow, you really walked
>>>into a big story this time. hope you are fine.
>>>
>>>peace, k
>
> heh-heh. I'll let everyone know how Sabine is doing when I hear back. k
Sabine sounds french... are you referring to what's going on in the
suburbs of Paris ? I just watched the news on (french) TV and it seems that
the foreign press has literally blown a fuse, speaking of the "muslim
revolution", or riots that are going to "spread all around the country", or
what not. All of this is largely exagerated.
--
Didier Verna, ······@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 ······@xemacs.org
Just who did you expect the French to vote for last time? As I recall,
the runoff in the Presidential election was between a crook (Chirac)
and a far right racist nut (Le Pen).
Given that choice, I'll take the crook. I'm very glad that the French
people were of that opinon too.
Barry.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> Is not far right (he's slightly on the left actually, just read his
> economical program). He's not racist.
Are you talking about Le Pen? The guy who - among other horrible
statements - once said that the nazi concentration camps were a just a
detail in the history of WWII?
--
(espen)
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
/TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> writes:
>
>> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
>> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
>> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
>> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
>
> /TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
magnitude.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Kilometers and Celsius, for instance, annoy more than they inform.
--Deroy Murdock, on French units
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> writes:
> >
> >> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> >> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> >> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> >> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
> >
> > /TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
>
> Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> magnitude.
Do you recall your source? I'd be interested in a comparative study of
death tolls by economic system; I'm not aware of many sources
describing capitalist death tolls, for example.
It sounds like an impressive undertaking, as I doubt that the US being
a republic/capitalist nation really killed the earlier inhabitants, the
"Native Americans." I'd think this would've occurred even if we'd been
feudalists, as we were revolutionizing the continent to one which
suited our European systems.
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Robert Uhl wrote:
> > Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> writes:
> > >
> > >> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> > >> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> > >> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> > >> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
> > >
> > > /TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
> >
> > Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> > murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> > Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> > magnitude.
>
> Do you recall your source?
I don't know about Nazis - they set off WW2 which claimed the lives of
50 million, but liber^W communists are in fact responsible for 100
million victims worldwide.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html
Yet, we still have them here, in this very newsgroup, urging more class
war.
P.S. "liberal" has very different meanings (opposite almost) depending
on where you live. I'm using it in the American sense of the word.
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>
>>Robert Uhl wrote:
>>
>>>Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>>Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
>>>>>International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
>>>>>magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
>>>>>WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
>>>>
>>>>/TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
>>>
>>>Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
>>>murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
>>>Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
>>>magnitude.
>>
>>Do you recall your source?
>
>
> I don't know about Nazis - they set off WW2 which claimed the lives of
> 50 million, but liber^W communists are in fact responsible for 100
> million victims worldwide.
>
> http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html
>
> Yet, we still have them here, in this very newsgroup, urging more class
> war.
>
> P.S. "liberal" has very different meanings (opposite almost) depending
> on where you live. I'm using it in the American sense of the word.
>
Right. All those fucking anti-capitalists, killing off the Native
American population. All those "liberals", enslaving Africa and every
where else they could make a buck off the backs of others. All those
capitalists and conservatives, sacrificing their very livelihoods from
the days of child labor right through the 20th century, preventing war,
famine, and pestilence, by bravely refusing to exploit humans for the
sake of the almighty pieces of silver.
P.S. The phrase "you're a complete idiot, in this very newsgroup, and
no doubt in all other venues" has very similar meanings regardless of
where you live.
I'm using it in the sense that it fits you, perfectly.
Chachie wrote: [ profanity snipped ]
Well, I'll be damn! After a long hiatus, the puppet strikes again!
Second thread ever on USENET, same pattern. Do you have other interests
in life besides trying to amuse me personally, puppet?
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> Chachie wrote: [ profanity snipped ]
>
> Well, I'll be damn! After a long hiatus, the puppet strikes again!
> Second thread ever on USENET, same pattern. Do you have other interests
> in life besides trying to amuse me personally, puppet?
>
<another-inane-thread-attracting-alex.gman>
Well, I'll be damn[ed]! Despite a long hiatus, Little Alex *still*
doesn't quite understand how the big scary world of Usenet and posting,
and little things like headers and dynamic addresses actually work.
Do you have other interests in life besides trying to amuse us all with
your um, vast knowledge of...scheme....and usenet...and, um, history, idiot?
</end fish-in-barrel-shooting>
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
> Do you recall your source? I'd be interested in a comparative study of
> death tolls by economic system; I'm not aware of many sources
> describing capitalist death tolls, for example.
R.J. Rummel has a serious site dedicated to death tolls:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html
A bit depressing, of course.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
"It's becoming popular? It must be in decline." -- Isaiah Berlin
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> It sounds like an impressive undertaking, as I doubt that the US being
> a republic/capitalist nation really killed the earlier inhabitants, the
> "Native Americans." I'd think this would've occurred even if we'd been
That was hardly Capitalist behavior, not respecting the Natives' use of
the land and stealing their property, killing their people etc...
But it perfectly agrees with one-dimensional mainstream usage of the
word capitalism.
> feudalists, as we were revolutionizing the continent to one which
> suited our European systems.
It was imperialism, just like today's US foreign policy (and that of
most other countries).
(going back to listen to NMA's Another Imperial Day now...)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> writes:
> >
> >> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> >> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> >> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> >> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
> >
> > /TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
>
> Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> magnitude.
Welcome to OpenMCL Version 1.0 (DarwinPPC32)!
? (- (log 100 10) (log (+ 6 2) 10))
1.09691
? (nth-value 0 (round *))
1
Hah! That's irrefutable! And, it's in Lisp! We've solved a problem
AND nearly stumbled back on topic... :-)
Justin Dubs
P.S. You can claim it's three orders of magnitude, if you'd like. When
pressed, just explain that you work in base e.
Time for a Russian to step in :)
> the latest estimates of those killed under
> Communist regimes runs over 100 million;
Facts, please, not rumors. The total population of the entire Soviet
Union by 1990s was approximately 200 million people. Do you seriously
believe that 100 million people could be murdered THAT easily during
the Soviet era?
Nazis killed 8-10 million people in concentration camps and the
evidence of those camps was everywhere in Europe - this is *huge*
infrastructure. You have to deliver prisoners, feed them, cloth them,
kill them - this requires paperwork, trains, supplies, trucks, firing
squads - you name it.
However, everyone seems to be talking about hundreds of millions in the
USSR alone and there is simply no infrastructure visible to support
such claims. "Siberia", some say. *Before* you build a conc. camp in
Siberia, there need to be roads, railways and what-nots to the place of
the camp. You simply *cannot* easily deliver millions of people to a
remote place in Siberia - there are no roads, there are no railways.
And 100 million people? Jeez. A number like that would have left the
nation crippled forever. *Every* family in the USSR would have at least
one member killed in those camps. This would have been talked about for
generations. The Nazis killed off the larger part of Belarus's
population and it is still being talked about (see the movie "Come and
See"). How do you seriously expect somebody to kill 100 million and get
away with it?
On 4 Nov 2005 22:29:00 -0800, "Mamut" <········@gmail.com> tried to
confuse everyone with this message:
>Time for a Russian to step in :)
You are not the only one here...
>> the latest estimates of those killed under
>> Communist regimes runs over 100 million;
>
>Facts, please, not rumors. The total population of the entire Soviet
>Union by 1990s was approximately 200 million people. Do you seriously
>believe that 100 million people could be murdered THAT easily during
>the Soviet era?
>
I think that includes China, North Korea, Cambodia and other similar
countries. And it WAS very easy to murder people during the Soviet era.
Most died from famine and ilnesses though.
--
|a\o/r|,-------------.,---------- Timofei Shatrov aka Grue ------------.
| m"a ||FC AMKAR PERM|| mail: grue at mail.ru http://grue3.tripod.com |
| k || PWNZ J00 || Kingdom of Loathing: Grue3 lvl 18 Seal Clubber |
`-----'`-------------'`-------------------------------------------[4*72]
Revzala Haelmic <··@fck.org> writes:
> Timofei Shatrov wrote:
> > And it WAS very easy to murder people during the Soviet era.
> Has it become harder nowadays?
No, but the documentation is protected by DRM and EULA, so
verification is more difficult.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Time for a Russian to step in :)
> You are not the only one here...
:)
>>> the latest estimates of those killed under
>>> Communist regimes runs over 100 million;
>>Facts, please, not rumors. The total population of the entire Soviet
>>Union by 1990s was approximately 200 million people. Do you seriously
>>believe that 100 million people could be murdered THAT easily during
>>the Soviet era?
> I think that includes China, North Korea, Cambodia and other similar
> countries. And it WAS very easy to murder people during the Soviet era.
> Most died from famine and ilnesses though.
Worldwide - yes, undoubtedly.
"Mamut" <········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> the latest estimates of those killed under Communist regimes runs
>> over 100 million;
>
> Facts, please, not rumors. The total population of the entire Soviet
> Union by 1990s was approximately 200 million people. Do you seriously
> believe that 100 million people could be murdered THAT easily during
> the Soviet era?
Nowhere did I refer solely to the Soviets--Mao killed even more people
than Stalin.
> However, everyone seems to be talking about hundreds of millions in
> the USSR alone and there is simply no infrastructure visible to
> support such claims.
I've never heard anyone talk about 'hundreds of millions in the USSR
alone,' although given that it's a large world no doubt some believe
this. Some folks also believe that an alien named Xenu or Xemu ferried
bajillions of folks into a volcano which he then set off with A-bombs...
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
However low a man sinks he never reaches the level of the police.
--Quentin Crisp
>>> the latest estimates of those killed under Communist regimes runs
>>> over 100 million;
>> Facts, please, not rumors. The total population of the entire Soviet
>> Union by 1990s was approximately 200 million people. Do you seriously
>> believe that 100 million people could be murdered THAT easily during
>> the Soviet era?
> Nowhere did I refer solely to the Soviets--Mao killed even more people
than Stalin.
Sorry, I just got off a huge thread on the same issue over at a Russian
site. There are some pseudo-historians who claim these numbers for the
USSR, so I got a little confused :) Worldwide - yes, the death toll
could be even larger than those numbers (especially in South-East Asia,
where populations are huge)
On 2005-11-05 00:18:46 +0000, Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> said:
> Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> magnitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude
Your definition of "order of magnitude" is a bit ... out of magnitude!
And I would have ended-up the last sentence with a :-) rather than a ! if
the underlying subject wasn't so serious.
It's worse than very sad.
--
JFB (defun is more fun than define is fine)
Robert Uhl <·········@NOSPAMgmail.com> writes:
> Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> magnitude.
No, that's roughly /one/ order of magnitude. Besides, the communist
death toll (only some estimates exceed 100 mill., I'd say 80 million
is more probable) includes a large numbers of deaths that were caused
by the famine during Mao's "great leap forward". It's highly debatable
whether you can count all those as "killed under Communist regimes"
(the victims of the ucranian famine may be a different matter, since
many think that this actually was mass murder through famine by
Stalin, a planned famine, so to say).
--
(espen)
Robert Uhl wrote:
> Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> writes:
>
>>>Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
>>>International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
>>>magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
>>>WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
>>
>>/TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
>
> Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> magnitude.
Those numbers don't mean anything, they just help people to discuss the
topic at a very abstract level.
Killing _one_ person is killing far too many people!
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Closer to MOP & ContextL:
http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
> Those numbers don't mean anything, they just help people to discuss
> the topic at a very abstract level.
>
> Killing _one_ person is killing far too many people!
Well said, Pascal! I was trying to write something like this
yesterday, but didn't find the right words.
--
(espen)
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Those numbers don't mean anything, they just help people to discuss the
> topic at a very abstract level.
>
> Killing _one_ person is killing far too many people!
"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." -- Joseph Stalin
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
> > Those numbers don't mean anything, they just help people to discuss
> > the topic at a very abstract level.
> > Killing _one_ person is killing far too many people!
>
> "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." -- Joseph Stalin
"On Usenet, erroneously attributed quotes flourish." -- John McCarthy
Bj�rn
·····@runa.se (Bj�rn Lindberg) writes:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>
> > Pascal Costanza wrote:
> > > Those numbers don't mean anything, they just help people to discuss
> > > the topic at a very abstract level.
> > > Killing _one_ person is killing far too many people!
> >
> > "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." -- Joseph Stalin
>
> "On Usenet, erroneously attributed quotes flourish." -- John McCarthy
"On Usenet, erroneously attributed quotations flourish." -- John McCarthy,
I meant to say.
Bj�rn
·····@runa.se (Bjorn Lindberg) writes:
> ·····@runa.se (Bjorn Lindberg) writes:
>
> > Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> >
> > > Pascal Costanza wrote:
> > > > Those numbers don't mean anything, they just help people to discuss
> > > > the topic at a very abstract level.
> > > > Killing _one_ person is killing far too many people!
> > >
> > > "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." -- Joseph Stalin
> >
> > "On Usenet, erroneously attributed quotes flourish." -- John McCarthy
>
> "On Usenet, erroneously attributed quotations flourish." -- John McCarthy,
"McCarthy! How many divisions has he got?" -- Stalin
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
"It's becoming popular? It must be in decline." -- Isaiah Berlin
Bj�rn Lindberg wrote:
>
> "On Usenet, erroneously attributed quotations flourish." -- John McCarthy,
"The 'Fun with usenet' manifesto"
Very little happens on Usenet without some sort of response from
some other reader. Fun With Usenet postings are no exception. Since
there are some who might question the rationale of some of the
excerpts included therein, I have written up a list of guidelines that
sum up the philosophy behind these postings.
One. I never cut out words in the middle of a quote without a VERY
good reason, and I never cut them out without including ellipses. For
instance, "I am not a goob" might become "I am ... a goob", but that's
too mundane to bother with. "I'm flame proof" might (and has) become
"I'm ...a... p...oof" but that's REALLY stretching it.
Two. If I cut words off the beginning or end of a quote, I don't put
ellipses, but neither do I capitalize something that wasn't
capitalized before the cut. "I don't think that the Church of Ubizmo
is a wonderful place" would turn into "the Church of Ubizmo is a
wonderful place". Imagine the posting as a tape-recording of the
poster's thoughts. If I can set up the quote via fast-forwarding and
stopping the tape, and without splicing, I don't put ellipses in. And
by the way, I love using this mechanism for turning things around. If
you think something stinks, say so - don't say you don't think it's
wonderful.
D. J. McCarthy
--
Jens Axel S�gaard
Bj�rn Lindberg wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>
>> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>> Those numbers don't mean anything, they just help people to discuss
>>> the topic at a very abstract level.
>>> Killing _one_ person is killing far too many people!
>> "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." -- Joseph Stalin
>
> "On Usenet, erroneously attributed quotes flourish." -- John McCarthy
Hm, googling didn't turn up anybody else. Who said it then?
(not that it matters, but the quote fitted well with Pascal's statement)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Pascal Costanza <··@p-cos.net> writes:
> Robert Uhl wrote:
> > Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> writes:
> >
> >>>Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> >>>International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> >>>magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> >>>WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
> >>
> >>/TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
> > Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> > murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> > Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> > magnitude.
>
> Those numbers don't mean anything, they just help people to discuss
> the topic at a very abstract level.
>
> Killing _one_ person is killing far too many people!
>
Pascal, thanks for a breath of sanity!
I was having trouble grasping a thread which was seemingly degenerating into an
argument over which was the worst evil by comparing which killed more
millions than the other - wtf! and to think it was started by a
rediculous statement that Le Penn's comments were more acceptable because
the Nazis killed less people than the communists of the USSR and
China.
Its rediculous to try and make comparisons like these.
Its even more rediculous when you compare something which lasted for
only a few years to something which lasted closer to 3/4 of a century
(and still lasting in China). anyone want to guess at the number of
people killed in the US and south America since the arrival of
Europeans? What about the numbers killed to hold back the flood of
communism? Lets toss in the numbers killed in the name of
christianity, or Islam or .....
Ultimately, comparisons like this are prety meaningless, but if you
have to make them, then consider other issues, such as intent - many
of the deaths in the USSR and China can be attributed to misguided
ideological factors and poor administration, such as famine caused by
misguided scientific research affecting farm production or the side
effects of policies designed to reduce the rate of population growth.
I think I might just go and clean up my bak yard and make sure there
are no stones lying around near my glasshouse!
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> writes:
>
>>Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Is not far right (he's slightly on the left actually, just read his
>>>economical program). He's not racist.
>>
>>Are you talking about Le Pen? The guy who - among other horrible
>>statements - once said that the nazi concentration camps were a just a
>>detail in the history of WWII?
>
>
> Yes. And indeed the concentration camps managed by the Nazional Sozialists
> were only a details in the history of WWII.
Ah, I always wondered where "the devil is in the details" came from.
>
> For one thing, their existance not known by most of the people
> worldwide. So they could hardly have any impact on the events of the
> WWII.
>
> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
How does the slaughter of humans (six or six million or eight million)
look in this perspective?
The bigger question is, if mentioning Hitler ends a flamewar, when does
a flamewar end if it /begins/ with Hitler?
--
Kenny
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL_Highlight_Film
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state
I finally won out over it."
Elwood P. Dowd, "Harvey", 1950
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> The bigger question is, if mentioning Hitler ends a flamewar, when does
> a flamewar end if it /begins/ with Hitler?
>
Actually this begun with Chirac and Le Pen. Hence, since Hitler was
mentioned after that, it should have died already :)
Cheers
--
Marco
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
>
>
> Kenny Tilton wrote:
>
>> The bigger question is, if mentioning Hitler ends a flamewar, when
>> does a flamewar end if it /begins/ with Hitler?
>>
>
> Actually this begun with Chirac and Le Pen. Hence, since Hitler was
> mentioned after that, it should have died already :)
>
Since we are at it :) I would also wager that citing "The Black Book of
Communism" should be considered equivalent to mentioning Hitler when it
comes to ending a Usenet thread :)
Cheers
--
Marco
PS. Unless, of course you are a fan of Mr. Berlusconi and received said
book directly from the "source" :)
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> >
> >
> > Kenny Tilton wrote:
> >
> >> The bigger question is, if mentioning Hitler ends a flamewar, when
> >> does a flamewar end if it /begins/ with Hitler?
> >>
> >
> > Actually this begun with Chirac and Le Pen. Hence, since Hitler was
> > mentioned after that, it should have died already :)
> >
>
> Since we are at it :) I would also wager that citing "The Black Book of
> Communism" should be considered equivalent to mentioning Hitler when it
> comes to ending a Usenet thread :)
>
> Cheers
> --
> Marco
>
> PS. Unless, of course you are a fan of Mr. Berlusconi and received said
> book directly from the "source" :)
What do the fans of Berlusconi have to do with Harvard?
Anyhow, if libs/commies don't like anyone mentioning the 100 million
dead, perhaps they shouldn't have killed all those people? As simple as
that.
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> Marco Antoniotti wrote:
>
>>Marco Antoniotti wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Kenny Tilton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The bigger question is, if mentioning Hitler ends a flamewar, when
>>>>does a flamewar end if it /begins/ with Hitler?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Actually this begun with Chirac and Le Pen. Hence, since Hitler was
>>>mentioned after that, it should have died already :)
>>>
>>
>>Since we are at it :) I would also wager that citing "The Black Book of
>>Communism" should be considered equivalent to mentioning Hitler when it
>>comes to ending a Usenet thread :)
>>
>>Cheers
>>--
>>Marco
>>
>>PS. Unless, of course you are a fan of Mr. Berlusconi and received said
>>book directly from the "source" :)
>
>
> What do the fans of Berlusconi have to do with Harvard?
The BBOC is a essentially a French enterprise. It appeared in Europe
much earlier than in the US. Mr. Berlusconi gave a copy to each of the
participants to the congress of his political party (Forza Italia) and
to each elected official on the party tickets in Italy.
>
> Anyhow, if libs/commies don't like anyone mentioning the 100 million
> dead, perhaps they shouldn't have killed all those people? As simple as
> that.
>
Well, the problem is not liberals and commies not wanting to hear
numbers of dead people. The problem is more prosaic these days. It is
not wanting right wingers talk about bad effects of their laws making it
ok to to false accounting and to reduce the statutes of limitations in
order to get out of embarrasing trials (without even starting to talk
about tax cuts for the rich). It always funny in 2005 to hear
dialogues like the following:
Liberal/Commie/Dean/Prodi/Antoniotti/Franken:
"There were no WMDs in Iraq."
Coulter/Limbaugh/Right Winger du Jour/Ferrara/O'Reilly/Le Pen:
"Just shut up! The BBOC says you personally killed 100 million people."
Which is exactly why, the mention of the BBOC should be made equivalent
to the mention Hitler in Usenet discussions.
Hence I stop here (this being C.L.L.) by adding as many smileys as
necessary. :)
Cheers
--
Marco
>>>>> "MA" == Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
[...]
MA> Which is exactly why, the mention of the BBOC should be made
MA> equivalent to the mention Hitler in Usenet discussions. [...]
That obviously did not work. For the purposes of CLL may I suggest
an ascii rendering of Dr. Barski's alien in a headscarf instead?
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:
>>>>>> "MA" == Marco Antoniotti <·······@cs.nyu.edu> writes:
> [...]
> MA> Which is exactly why, the mention of the BBOC should be made
> MA> equivalent to the mention Hitler in Usenet discussions. [...]
>
> That obviously did not work. For the purposes of CLL may I suggest
> an ascii rendering of Dr. Barski's alien in a headscarf instead?
With the message "please do feed the troll^Wcute alien with code!"
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> It always funny in 2005 to hear
> dialogues like the following:
>
> Liberal/Commie/Dean/Prodi/Antoniotti/Franken:
> "There were no WMDs in Iraq."
>
> Coulter/Limbaugh/Right Winger du Jour/Ferrara/O'Reilly/Le Pen:
> "Just shut up! The BBOC says you personally killed 100 million people."
Wrong. My version:
alex.gman and cool people like him:
"There were no WMD in Iraq. Hilter killed 50 million, Commies killed
100 million, libs/commies want to kill some more in their blood-thirsty
lust for class struggle"
libs/commies:
"Shut up. No free speech for you (except re. WMD). Don't mention 100m!
Besides, as a commie I'm offended to be equated to a liberal, and as a
liberal, I'm offended to be called a commie. Idiot! You personally
killed those indians from the plains. Berluconi wrote BBoC, not
Harvard" (is there any logic in this at all?!)
Coulter/Limbaugh/...
... <- whatever, I don't listen or care. I was commies/libs who killed
100 million, not Coulter.
P.S. Why is it that when you see profanity in every sentence, the
poster is always a lib?
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
There are too many ways to count who were most brutal:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm
No matter how you count though, I'd say a president should have enough
political insight to avoid calling the best know system for murdering
a huge number of people "a detail".
--
-asbjxrn
Asbjørn Bjørnstad wrote:
> ... the best know system for murdering
That would be abortion. Murdering a life that is totally innocent and
unable to fight back or advocate for itself in any way. And more lives
have been lost due to this silent genocide than all other conventional
genocides combined. :-(
SDG,
Zach
On 2005-11-06 01:32:04 -0500, "Zach" <······@gmail.com> said:
> Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad wrote:
>> ... the best know system for murdering
>
> That would be abortion. Murdering a life that is totally innocent and
> unable to fight back or advocate for itself in any way. And more lives
> have been lost due to this silent genocide than all other conventional
> genocides combined. :-(
>
> SDG,
> Zach
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Florynce R. Kennedy
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
> "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Only if they share such a cavalier attitude about murder. But do keep
it an abstraction as that is the first step in justifying an immoral
act.
Zach
On 2005-11-06 03:59:27 -0500, "Zach" <······@gmail.com> said:
> But do keep
> it an abstraction as that is the first step in justifying an immoral
> act.
That's exactly what you are doing. You are turning your egoistic
insistence that *you* get to decide what is or is not a morally correct
choice about the most private aspect of a woman's life into a virtue by
grossly mischaracterizing abortion as "murder." Hang that abusurd
abstract label on it, and now you can justify imposing *your* views on
real, individual women whom you have never met, and the circumstances
of whose lives you know absolutely nothing about. In short, why don't
you just make moral choices for your life and leave women to make
reproductive decisions for themselves without your morally superior
interference.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> That's exactly what you are doing. You are turning your egoistic
> insistence that *you* get to decide what is or is not a morally correct
> choice about the most private aspect of a woman's life into a virtue by
> grossly mischaracterizing abortion as "murder." Hang that abusurd
> abstract label on it, and now you can justify imposing *your* views on
> real, individual women whom you have never met, and the circumstances of
> whose lives you know absolutely nothing about. In short, why don't you
> just make moral choices for your life and leave women to make
> reproductive decisions for themselves without your morally superior
> interference.
While there are reasons where it's justified, IMHO, your point here
could also be used to kill your own (post-natal) children. The others
don't know nothing about your life and circumstances after all. And
what's much different between a child in the 6th month, and one in the
6th year, except that the latter one can usually articulate herself?
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> > That's exactly what you are doing. You are turning your egoistic
> > insistence that *you* get to decide what is or is not a morally
> > correct choice about the most private aspect of a woman's life into a
> > virtue by grossly mischaracterizing abortion as "murder." Hang that
> > abusurd abstract label on it, and now you can justify imposing *your*
> > views on real, individual women whom you have never met, and the
> > circumstances of whose lives you know absolutely nothing about. In
> > short, why don't you just make moral choices for your life and leave
> > women to make reproductive decisions for themselves without your
> > morally superior interference.
>
> While there are reasons where it's justified, IMHO, your point here
> could also be used to kill your own (post-natal) children. The others
> don't know nothing about your life and circumstances after all. And
> what's much different between a child in the 6th month, and one in the
> 6th year, except that the latter one can usually articulate herself?
>
OTOH the usual arguments about the welfare of children being of interest
to the state apply. The state certainly has more invested in children
than it does embryos, if from nothing more than social services
benefits, so thats where the focus should be; post-natal. Its probably
reasonable for abortion to be regulated to some arbitrary degree because
there are ethical aspects to abortion not to mention health consequences
for the mother but the rabid moral & spiritual outrage over abortion is
certainly misplaced when it is imposed upon society by those obsessed
with the topic.
Gregm
On 2005-11-07 01:28:38 -0500, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> said:
> While there are reasons where it's justified, IMHO, your point here
> could also be used to kill your own (post-natal) children.
Again, this argument falls into the trap of accepting the absurd claim
of anti-abortion forces that abortion is the same as killing a child
after birth. It most certainly is not. Quite simply, if a bunch of
cells cannot survive without a woman, then they are not an independent
human life. Does this mean that advances in incubation may push back
the legal limits of abortion? Quite possibly. None of this makes
abortion of a fetus which cannot survive outside the mother's uterus
murder.
Note also in this context that anti-abortionists also usually oppose
means that would prevent implantation such as taking birth control
pills immediately after accidental or unwanted insemination (broken
condoms, rape, etc.) Yet we know that a majority of fetilized ova do
not implant even if such means are not taken. Since anti-abortionists
believe that life begins when egg and sperm join women should logically
be required to track these unimplanted fertized ova and capture them
for implantation. Failure to do so ought to at least be manslaughter or
wreckless endangerment of a child if abortion is murder.
These are the sorts of absurdities one arrives at when one accepts an
abstract definition of terms that ignore the details and nuances of
reality. Abortion differs from infanticide and child murder in many
ways. Anti-abortionits want others to unthinkingly accept their
characterization of the two as identical so that they can impose a
minority religious view on others (a substantial majority of americans
for example believe abortion should be legal). This is a civil rights
issue which the minority is trying to recast as a criminal issue in
order to gain support for their by definition unthinking position.
Unthinking because they are required to hold that view regardless of
any possible evidence or arguments to the contrary in order to be
members in good standing of their religions. There is no room for laws
based on the unthinking dogma of any religious group in a multi-ethnic
society. The laws that govern us must be based on facts that any
rational person can verify not on the articles of unthinking belief of
this or that religious sect.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2005-11-07 01:28:38 -0500, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> said:
>
>> While there are reasons where it's justified, IMHO, your point here
>> could also be used to kill your own (post-natal) children.
>
> Again, this argument falls into the trap of accepting the absurd claim
> of anti-abortion forces that abortion is the same as killing a child
> after birth. It most certainly is not. Quite simply, if a bunch of cells
> cannot survive without a woman, then they are not an independent human
> life. Does this mean that advances in incubation may push back the legal
> limits of abortion? Quite possibly. None of this makes abortion of a
> fetus which cannot survive outside the mother's uterus murder.
Even *born* babies can't survive on their own... While I agree that
there's a point where it's not as bad (first two months?), after a while
what you have is a growing human organism.
> Note also in this context that anti-abortionists also usually oppose
> means that would prevent implantation such as taking birth control pills
> immediately after accidental or unwanted insemination (broken condoms,
> rape, etc.) Yet we know that a majority of fetilized ova do not implant
> even if such means are not taken. Since anti-abortionists believe that
> life begins when egg and sperm join women should logically be required
> to track these unimplanted fertized ova and capture them for
> implantation. Failure to do so ought to at least be manslaughter or
> wreckless endangerment of a child if abortion is murder.
Hehe, yes, I was wondering about that too :D
(Maybe that's why the Pope doesn't permit contraception?)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
On 2005-11-07 13:24:46 -0500, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> said:
> (Maybe that's why the Pope doesn't permit contraception?)
Yes, and also explains in part why Onanism is considered a sin.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On 2005-11-07 13:24:46 -0500, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> said:
>
>> (Maybe that's why the Pope doesn't permit contraception?)
>
>
> Yes, and also explains in part why Onanism is considered a sin.
One wouldn't know it from the length of this thread.
On 2005-11-07 15:18:13 -0500, Cameron MacKinnon
<··········@clearspot.net> said:
> One wouldn't know it from the length of this thread.
Oh come now - oops, I mean, look here, you're perfectly free to not
participate in this political circle jerk. ;^)
Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> > On 2005-11-07 13:24:46 -0500, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> said:
> >
> >> (Maybe that's why the Pope doesn't permit contraception?)
> > Yes, and also explains in part why Onanism is considered a sin.
>
> One wouldn't know it from the length of this thread.
Brilliant! LOL
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Zach wrote:
> Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad wrote:
>> ... the best know system for murdering
>
> That would be abortion. Murdering a life that is totally innocent and
> unable to fight back or advocate for itself in any way. And more lives
> have been lost due to this silent genocide than all other conventional
> genocides combined. :-(
So we touched both Hitler and abortion issues in this thread now, cool :)
Let me just say that there are rare cases when abortion might be
"justified" (or rather, where it might make sense), such as rape, or a
child with a severe disease that would have real trouble living anyway.
You're probably right that it killed more lives than other genocides,
but I wouldn't file those deaths under abortion, but under stupidity and
lack of responsibility (because those people wouldn't use contraception,
because they didn't take responsibility and maybe give the child free to
adoption...).
In some rare cases abortion is a choice women take, and I don't know any
countries that stopped it by simply prohibiting it.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"Zach" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> Asbj�rn Bj�rnstad wrote:
> > ... the best know system for murdering
>
> That would be abortion. Murdering a life that is totally innocent and
> unable to fight back or advocate for itself in any way. And more lives
> have been lost due to this silent genocide than all other conventional
> genocides combined. :-(
So which national, racial, political or ethnic group is targeted by
abortion? Or do you just use "genocide" because it's a nice
emotionally laden word? (I guess the whole totally innocent and
defenceless part wasn't emotional enough.)
BTW, nice way to respond to a post I started with "There are too many
ways to count". With that in mind, I'll point out that far more
lives have been prevented by fake headaches and blanket refusal to
have sex. Now there's a case worth fighting for.
--
-asbjxrn, "Life is the whim of several billion
cells to be you for a while" - unknown
"Zach" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> Asbjørn Bjørnstad wrote:
> > ... the best know system for murdering
>
> That would be abortion. Murdering a life that is totally innocent and
> unable to fight back or advocate for itself in any way. And more lives
> have been lost due to this silent genocide than all other conventional
> genocides combined. :-(
>
> SDG,
> Zach
>
Aha - here you go Kenny, the answer to your question.
The way you stop a flamewar started by a reference to Hitler - throw
in a totally irrelevant anti-abortion reference with a totally bogus
claim on numbers by someone who will never actually have to face the
extremely difficult choice or actually bear the consequences of
whichever choice they make.
IMO While men have the right to an opinion in this area, we should keep
it to ourselves - for us, ultimately, it is just an academic question. For a
pregnant woman, it is a lot more than an academic debate over when
life begins.
(feeling warmer after adding some oxygen to the flames, I now retreat
to loftier pursuits involving the seldom discussed language called
lisp!)
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Yes. And indeed the concentration camps managed by the Nazional Sozialists
> were only a details in the history of WWII.
>
> For one thing, their existance not known by most of the people
> worldwide. So they could hardly have any impact on the events of the
> WWII.
>
> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> magnitudes!
That's it. If mass murdering simply reduces to a question of numbers
or statistics for you, then I'm not surprised anymore that you voted for Le
Pen. Even just one murder for a question of religious belief or skin color is
not a detail at all.
--
Didier Verna, ······@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 ······@xemacs.org
Didier Verna <······@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> That's it. If mass murdering simply reduces to a question of numbers
> or statistics for you, then I'm not surprised anymore that you voted for Le
> Pen. Even just one murder for a question of religious belief or skin color is
> not a detail at all.
Albert Camus shocked the french intellectual establishment in the 50s
when he compared nazism and communism in "The Rebel". But Camus of
course wasn't interested in a body count comparision, but instead
tried to find out how a justified rebellion can turn into a murderous
system. Roughly, Camus says that the moment the rebel argues that
murders may be justfied by his political cause, he has become a
nihilist.
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre wrote:
> Didier Verna <······@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
>
> > That's it. If mass murdering simply reduces to a question of numbers
> > or statistics for you, then I'm not surprised anymore that you voted for Le
> > Pen. Even just one murder for a question of religious belief or skin color is
> > not a detail at all.
>
> Albert Camus shocked the french intellectual establishment in the 50s
> when he compared nazism and communism in "The Rebel". But Camus of
> course wasn't interested in a body count comparision, but instead
> tried to find out how a justified rebellion can turn into a murderous
> system. Roughly, Camus says that the moment the rebel argues that
> murders may be justfied by his political cause, he has become a
> nihilist.
That's just wrong. Nihilists don't believe in any "political causes",
that's why they are called "nihilist".
Vee huh ni-yelists! Vee beh-leef in nuh-thing!
Here's a picture: http://ernieputto.de/lebowski/lebowski08.jpg
·········@gmail.com writes:
> That's just wrong. Nihilists don't believe in any "political causes",
> that's why they are called "nihilist".
Camus is not talking about self-proclaimed nihilists.
Anyway, I think I'll refrain from trying to clarify this here, but
rather recommend reading The Rebel by Camus,
--
(espen)
Espen Vestre wrote:
> Didier Verna <······@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> > That's it. If mass murdering simply reduces to a question of numbers
> > or statistics for you, then I'm not surprised anymore that you voted for Le
> > Pen. Even just one murder for a question of religious belief or skin color is
> > not a detail at all.
>
> Albert Camus shocked the french intellectual establishment in the 50s
> when he compared nazism and communism in "The Rebel". But Camus of
> course wasn't interested in a body count comparision, but instead
> tried to find out how a justified rebellion can turn into a murderous
> system. Roughly, Camus says that the moment the rebel argues that
> murders may be justfied by his political cause, he has become a
> nihilist.
I don't know if anyone's interested, but Michael Albert gave a humorous
talk on "New Left Lessons," pointing out that people who commit acts of
violence in such a rebellion, like Stalin or Che, should be thanked and
given a nice farm somewhere, rather than run the country. (This of
course should be made clear beforehand.) Because whatever violence
tends to sacrifice their humanity.
················································@kbfr.org/748-1-20041112-albert_new_left_lessons.mp3
(To not be hypocritical, I'm sure this also applies to the Christopher
Columbuses and Jeffrey Amhersts.)
His fellow leftist Chomsky explained in Hungary that it takes constant
attention to keep centralized control and authority from creeping into
one's groups. Some people naturally have more time or interest to take
on more responsibilities than others, and it can be easy for
bureaucratic, authoritarian decisionmaking control to develop.
http://www.lehetmasavilag.hu/chomsky.html
(The 4th video, "Contradictions.")
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> His fellow leftist Chomsky explained in Hungary that it takes constant
> attention to keep centralized control and authority from creeping into
> one's groups. Some people naturally have more time or interest to take
> on more responsibilities than others, and it can be easy for
> bureaucratic, authoritarian decisionmaking control to develop.
And that's exactly why all centralized control is per se wrong. At some
point somebody *will* not pay attention and then BAMM you have a big
central authority that can't be stopped anymore.
It doesn't matter at all if the centralized interventions and controls
benefit workers, poor people, women, Jews, Nazis, space aliens or some
other group. If the majority of society wants change, they can have it:
form a nice organization, plan, build, help.
At least I am happy that Lisp doesn't have a however-benevolent dictator
that works to improve things for whatever noble person. Individual
efforts work quite well, and all that without resorting to aggressive
force. The end result is much more general purpose.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> Espen Vestre <·····@vestre.net> writes:
> > Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> >
> >> Is not far right (he's slightly on the left actually, just read his
> >> economical program). He's not racist.
> >
> > Are you talking about Le Pen? The guy who - among other horrible
> > statements - once said that the nazi concentration camps were a just a
> > detail in the history of WWII?
>
> Yes. And indeed the concentration camps managed by the Nazional Sozialists
> were only a details in the history of WWII.
>
> For one thing, their existance not known by most of the people
> worldwide. So they could hardly have any impact on the events of the
> WWII.
>
> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
>
Idiot.
Andras
I've discovered something I suppose. I've discovered that your
ignorance of Lisp is surpassed by your political naivety. Thankfully,
the vast majority of the French people don't think like you.
Barry.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Is not far right (he's slightly on the left actually, just read his
> economical program).
Wow. You actually believe he has an "economical program" ?? If it
wasn't that sad, I would be ROTFL right now.
> He's not racist. Much less than Sarkozy who wants to 'clean the clean the
> “scum” out of the rundown estates' as th translated it, and much less than
> Chirac who says things Hitler wouldn't have dared say, only not in front of
> the TV cameras.
Whatever. These days, Le Pen is not as dangerous as Sarkozy or De
Villiers, but not for the reasons you think. He is in a bad political shape
because he is too dumb to disguise his political views under the mandatory
layer of correctness and respectability that would make it acceptable to the
majority of people. His constant use of bad language (too honest to be
politically correct) made people, even from his own camp, take some distance.
Today, Sarkozy is beginning to make the same mistakes.
But Le Pen notoriously *is* a racist and I just don't want a guy like
that for president. Although racism is not the real problem in that case. The
real problem is "national preference"[1].
Le Pen advocates national preference, simply because he wants black people,
muslims and jewish out. He tries to hide this under fallacious arguments, but
fails most of the time because he is a bad politician.
The current government is in the process of actually implementing national
preference, but for different reasons: to gain the rightmost voters, to make
their own voters think they are taking strong and effective (??) political
measures... well, let's just be realistic: to stay in charge. You don't have
to be racist to do that.
What's truely disgusting with this national preference thing is that the
actual solution to the problem is not to solve the problem, but merely to
throw it oustide (outside being either out of the country, or in jail) and let
the "outside" deal with it. Sure, if you throw your garbage out of the window,
your kitchen will be clean. But so much for the street. When this comes to
deal with people living in misery, this is just not acceptable.
Le Pen is a racist, Sarkozy probably not. But that's not the point. They share
the same disgusting view on what should be done with *people*, only Sarkozy's
view looks more respectable; and that's what makes him dangerous. However, he
knows he can't go as far as Le Pen would go. Otherwise, he would loose
electorate and he's too smart for that.
Le Pen for president ? Like HELL. Between two PITAs, choose the least painful.
Better crooks than real racists. What's even more sad is I don't see anybody
on the left capable of being a good president either :-(
> He's no nut, since as a good politician he foresaw the problems we have
And you think the others did not ? It's amazing how one can be so
naive. They just were smart enough not to speak in the open, that's all.
> and proposed simple and effective solutions that unfortunately he hasn't be
> allowed to enact.
Simple and effective, yeah. Throw the garbage outta the window. Thanks
a lot. The very fact of believing that an economical or political measure can
be "simple" and "effective" demonstrates an amazing level of naivety.
>> Given that choice, I'll take the crook. I'm very glad that the French
>> people were of that opinon too.
>
> Because you let yourself be disinformed as easily as most French.
Ah yes, the famous conspiracy theory. Everybody's wrong but me. Total
paranoia. Exactly the irrational fears on which Le Pen plays to attract weak
souls.
Footnotes:
[1] I don't know how well it translates into english. This roughly means
"French first, if there's something left, that's for the others".
--
Didier Verna, ······@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 ······@xemacs.org
Didier Verna <······@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> Simple and effective, yeah. Throw the garbage outta the window. Thanks
> a lot.
Oh, I see, you guys are talking about some garbage and not some poor people.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
,----
| "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
| -- Orwell, Animal Farm, 1945
`----
Surendra Singhi wrote:
> Didier Verna <······@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
>
> > Simple and effective, yeah. Throw the garbage outta the window. Thanks
> > a lot.
>
> Oh, I see, you guys are talking about some garbage and not some poor people.
I think the ``garbage'' here is the injustices France inflicts on its
immigrants and minorities, not people. In this interpretation, Verna
has a valid point: The plan of xenophobic right-wingers in Europe and
the US is not to create a more just global system, it is to oppress
people in other countries where the effects are (mostly) invisible in
the ``West.''
^L
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> I see. And the way to get more justice is to make more injustice,
> burning cars and other private property of honest people.
Not to mention burning people themselves.
France is paying for its own naivete and carelessness, if you ask me.
As the Godfather said, women and children can be careless, but not men.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> "Louis Theran" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> > Surendra Singhi wrote:
> >> Didier Verna <······@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> >>
> >> > Simple and effective, yeah. Throw the garbage outta the window. Thanks
> >> > a lot.
> >>
> >> Oh, I see, you guys are talking about some garbage and not some poor people.
> >
> > I think the ``garbage'' here is the injustices France inflicts on its
> > immigrants and minorities, not people.
>
> I see. And the way to get more justice is to make more injustice,
> burning cars and other private property of honest people.
Some active citizens discuss and debate this issue in some depth, using
the Seattle WTO protests as a case study:
http://www.zmag.org/trashing.htm
Tayssir
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> What strikes me, is that they know what they do is wrong, for they
> mask their faces!
I haven't read this thread, but I don't have to to make this little
comment.
Although all violence against people is always wrong (not a popular
opinion these days, but cf Jesus Christ), and violence against
property is rarely justified (because it often harms actual people,
for example financially), it doesn't follow that wearing masks is a
sign that the rioters "knew" they were doing wrong. It simply means
they knew it was illegal and would be punished if identified. All you
can say with any certainty is that they wished to avoid punishment for
what they did. That may not seem very brave to you, but it is a
separate issue from knowing right from wrong.
It is also terrible to think that second only to the horror of actual
violence is the fact that violence never achieves its ostensible aims
(which are, however, in the case of large scale, state-sponsored
violence, never its real aims, but merely a device to deceive the
gullible).
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
All these men who were going to murder or to torture the famishing and
defenseless creatures who provide them their sustenance had the air of
men who knew very well that they were doing their duty, and some were
even proud, were "glorying" in what they were doing.
-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> I see. And the way to get more justice is to make more injustice,
> burning cars and other private property of honest people.
A standard problem with trying to engage the racist right is that its
members are typically illiterate morons. That's why my post wasn't
addressed to you.
What exactly was the point of this non-sequitur?
^L
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> What is the point to ask questions to morons?
I forgot that the average Stormfront reader can't be expected to
recognize a rhetorical question.
^L
"Louis Theran" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> Surendra Singhi wrote:
>> Didier Verna <······@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
>>
>> > Simple and effective, yeah. Throw the garbage outta the window. Thanks
>> > a lot.
>>
>> Oh, I see, you guys are talking about some garbage and not some poor people.
>
> I think the ``garbage'' here is the injustices France inflicts on its
> immigrants and minorities, not people.
True, I agree with you. But from what 'Verna' wrote, he was drawing an analogy
between 'garbage' and 'people', which to me is not acceptable.
To quote him:
,----
| What's truely disgusting with this national preference thing is that the
| actual solution to the problem is not to solve the problem, but merely to
| throw it oustide (outside being either out of the country, or in jail) and let
| the "outside" deal with it. Sure, if you throw your garbage out of the window,
| your kitchen will be clean. But so much for the street. When this comes to
| deal with people living in misery, this is just not acceptable.
`----
You cannot expect to solve some problem, by thinking of the oppressed people
as some poor wretch's. It is not material or physical benefits which people
carve most, rather it is respect, and right to be treated as equals.
>In this interpretation, Verna
> has a valid point: The plan of xenophobic right-wingers in Europe and
> the US is not to create a more just global system, it is to oppress
> people in other countries where the effects are (mostly) invisible in
> the ``West.''
>
> ^L
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
,----
| Great wits are sure to madness near allied,
| And thin partitions do their bounds divide.
|
| (John Dryden, Absalom and Achitophel, 1681)
`----
Surendra Singhi wrote:
> You cannot expect to solve some problem, by thinking of the oppressed people
> as some poor wretch's. It is not material or physical benefits which people
> carve most, rather it is respect, and right to be treated as equals.
I agree completely. In practice, though, people stuck in a situation
where they cannot avoid being exploited economically aren't going to
feel treated as equals.
^L
Louis Theran wrote:
> Surendra Singhi wrote:
>
>> You cannot expect to solve some problem, by thinking of the oppressed people
>> as some poor wretch's. It is not material or physical benefits which people
>> carve most, rather it is respect, and right to be treated as equals.
>
> I agree completely. In practice, though, people stuck in a situation
> where they cannot avoid being exploited economically aren't going to
> feel treated as equals.
In most Western countries, nobody *forces* you to be exploited, so you
could form your own anarchist collective and live happily ever after.
Oh well, there's still some oppression and tax collectors, but that
might be a minor annoyance.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Louis Theran wrote:
>> Surendra Singhi wrote:
>>
>>> You cannot expect to solve some problem, by thinking of the oppressed people
>>> as some poor wretch's. It is not material or physical benefits which people
>>> carve most, rather it is respect, and right to be treated as equals.
>> I agree completely. In practice, though, people stuck in a situation
>> where they cannot avoid being exploited economically aren't going to
>> feel treated as equals.
>
> In most Western countries, nobody *forces* you to be exploited, so you
> could form your own anarchist collective and live happily ever
> after. Oh well, there's still some oppression and tax collectors, but
> that might be a minor annoyance.
To live happily ever after in Western countries, people need money, and
unfortunately not every one is lucky enough to have lisp coding abilities like
most people in this newsgroup do.
There may not be _overt_ social exploitation or racism, but there are indirect
ways in which people are social exploited, ex. denial of opportunities,
stereotyping, harassment, government not paying attention to their problems or
doing anything to help them, etc.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
,----
| "War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!"
| -- Orwell, 1984, 1948
`----
Surendra Singhi wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> > In most Western countries, nobody *forces* you to be exploited, so you
> > could form your own anarchist collective and live happily ever
> > after. Oh well, there's still some oppression and tax collectors, but
> > that might be a minor annoyance.
>
> To live happily ever after in Western countries, people need money, and
> unfortunately not every one is lucky enough to have lisp coding abilities like
> most people in this newsgroup do.
>
> There may not be _overt_ social exploitation or racism, but there are indirect
> ways in which people are social exploited, ex. denial of opportunities,
> stereotyping, harassment, government not paying attention to their problems or
> doing anything to help them, etc.
And the thing that keeps this from "whining" is that the governments
are extremely interventionist economically. (These are not tiny federal
governments merely in charge of post offices.) However, they seem to
ignore certain citizens while lavishing aid and market distortions on
others.
"If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly
winning."
-- Warren Buffett
Tayssir
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Sabine is fine but in the middle of the action. I gather "neuf trois" says
> it all for anyone French?
93***: zip code for a department named � Seine Saint-Denis �, located
at the north of Paris. Notoriously � Hot �. High rate of unemployment and the
like.
--
Didier Verna, ······@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bic�tre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 ······@xemacs.org
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> In most Western countries, nobody *forces* you to be exploited, [...]
man 'wage slavery'
--
Nils M Holm <n m h @ t 3 x . o r g> -- http://www.t3x.org/nmh/
Nils M Holm wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
>> In most Western countries, nobody *forces* you to be exploited, [...]
>
> man 'wage slavery'
Quoting Wikipedia: "In terms used by critics of capitalism, wage slavery
is the condition where a person must sell his or her labor-power,
submitting to the authority of an employer, in order to merely subsist."
If you buy into that definition, then you seem to believe in a worldwide
conspiracy against workers, i.e. that nearly 100% of employers try to
push everybody down to $4/h wages. If only one employer doesn't, he'll
surely attract the best employees and his business will prosper... But
no, in all of the Western world, everybody who owns business is
absolutely evil, while everybody who doesn't is by definition a worker
and therefore pure good. Ah, the beauty of black-n-white TV...
(In a society with people with brains, such as 1900 Europe, workers
developed the concept of strike, i.e. resistance, to simply refuse to
work under poor conditions. It worked. And decades later, Western
Germany and other industralized countries had wages rising along with
increased productivity, for decades. Yeah, conspiracy...)
Of course there are benefits to things like the minimum wage, and even
WalMart supports it now. That's because their profit margins allow them
to pay maybe $8 on average, while their uprising competitors can't, yet.
Minimum wage rocks because it keeps the little pests out of the
market. Anyway, it's a really cool idea; if you don't want people to
work for a certain wage (because it's "slavery"), simply forbid them to,
so they can't even do that and will have to sit on the street and beg
for money... Now *that*'s an alternative.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Quoting Wikipedia: "In terms used by critics of capitalism, wage slavery
> is the condition where a person must sell his or her labor-power,
> submitting to the authority of an employer, in order to merely subsist."
You omitted the first and most interesting part:
From Wikipedia:
| Wage slavery is a condition in which a person is legally (de jure)
| voluntarily employed but practically (de facto) a slave. It is used
| to express disapproval of a condition where a person feels compelled
| to work in return for payment of a wage.
Aah, the freedom of choice in capitalism: starve to death, be imprisoned,
or be exploited.
BTW, I am not talking about some kind of dark "conspirary", but about
the very visible consequences of an inhumane system.
--
Nils M Holm <n m h @ t 3 x . o r g> -- http://www.t3x.org/nmh/
Nils M Holm wrote:
> You omitted the first and most interesting part:
>
> From Wikipedia:
> | Wage slavery is a condition in which a person is legally (de jure)
> | voluntarily employed but practically (de facto) a slave. It is used
> | to express disapproval of a condition where a person feels compelled
> | to work in return for payment of a wage.
>
> Aah, the freedom of choice in capitalism: starve to death, be imprisoned,
> or be exploited.
I think you didn't read my post.
> BTW, I am not talking about some kind of dark "conspirary", but about
> the very visible consequences of an inhumane system.
Oh yes, because there soo much capitalism in the world... (and not
dictatorship, skewed markets, discriminating laws ...)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> I think you didn't read my post.
I did. I just thought it is not worth mentioning that if you think
that working conditions are good in Europe, you are either rich or
misinformed.
Hint: good working conditions means more than just getting enough
money to make a living.
Working conditions will not improve as long as there are millions
of desparate, unemployed people who are ready to work under bad
conditions. A system that exploits this fact exploits people, even
if wages are paid. This was my entire point.
--
Nils M Holm <n m h @ t 3 x . o r g> -- http://www.t3x.org/nmh/
Nils M Holm wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
>> I think you didn't read my post.
>
> I did. I just thought it is not worth mentioning that if you think
> that working conditions are good in Europe, you are either rich or
> misinformed.
Hm, maybe I'm not well enough informed. But at least the German social
system seems to work quite well, while our work politics don't.
> Hint: good working conditions means more than just getting enough
> money to make a living.
Depends. Some jobs are just enough, but that's because there's tons of
supply and little demand. People have strong incentives to get a good
education in capitalism. If they choose not to (the vast majority that
doesn't have mental disabilities), that's their issue.
> Working conditions will not improve as long as there are millions
> of desparate, unemployed people who are ready to work under bad
> conditions. A system that exploits this fact exploits people, even
> if wages are paid. This was my entire point.
But without posing an alternative that's pretty pointless. You can give
everybody, no matter what job, a good wage, but then the goverment would
be even more bankrupt than it is already, and nobody would have an
incentive to get an education to do something that society/the market
actually finds *useful*.
Hint: there is a reason why some jobs pay more than others. You don't
like it; even I don't like it in many cases. But at some point
everybody has to accept reality and make their choice. I chose to get
an education; I hope it'll help.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> wrote:
> Hm, maybe I'm not well enough informed. But at least the German social
> system seems to work quite well, while our work politics don't.
Oh. Must be a different system than the german social system I know.
The one I know is dismantled rather quickly and efficiently. Workers
pay more and more for health insurance and get fewer benefits than
ever before, unemployed people get criminalized and treated without
respect by officials. I know quite a few people who had to sue to get
welfare (and those were people who /really/ needed it). Nice social
system, indeed.
> But without posing an alternative that's pretty pointless. [...]
There are alternatives. Lots of them. They all share one flaw, though:
they make people free, and free people can decide whether they want
to work under bad conditions. Good for the people, bad for the WTO.
> Hint: there is a reason why some jobs pay more than others. [...]
Erm, I just told you that there is /more/ to a decent job than payment.
Payment may be OK (but still not fair) in wide parts of Europe, but
most jobs are not.
> I chose to get
> an education; I hope it'll help.
This is certainly a good start on the way to a decent job. Good luck!
--
Nils M Holm <n m h @ t 3 x . o r g> -- http://www.t3x.org/nmh/
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> In most Western countries, nobody *forces* you to be exploited, so you
> could form your own anarchist collective and live happily ever after.
It's like a clown car. First the fascists pop out. Then when you
think you're done, along comes the dual construction of libertarianism.
Apparently all those people who didn't like riding on the back of the
bus and being forced to live in ghettos either: (1) really wanted to
live in an anarchist collective; (2) lacked the imagination to start
their own bus company.
Granted this is all demonstrably false, but it doesn't stop the endless
repetition.
^L
Louis Theran wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>
>> In most Western countries, nobody *forces* you to be exploited, so you
>> could form your own anarchist collective and live happily ever after.
>
> It's like a clown car. First the fascists pop out. Then when you
> think you're done, along comes the dual construction of libertarianism.
Well, the dual to fascism can't be too bad...
> Apparently all those people who didn't like riding on the back of the
> bus and being forced to live in ghettos either: (1) really wanted to
> live in an anarchist collective; (2) lacked the imagination to start
> their own bus company.
ad (1): exactly, the state shouldn't prevent people from doing that. In
fact, that might be understood as fascist intervention.
ad (2): at some point there are enough bus companies, so starting
another one doesn't yield any ROI.
Riding on the bus is of course free to anyone, and I actually like it,
in all countries I've been to so far. Most people prefer cars, but
that's because they feel free to spend more for their own transportation
and convenience. I prefer cheap, so far.
> Granted this is all demonstrably false, but it doesn't stop the endless
> repetition.
Yes, this is usenet, and OT threads pop up periodically. Live with it.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Well, the dual to fascism can't be too bad...
You should probably think about this a little more. ``Dual'' doesn't
mean what you think it means (in English, at least).
(Here's a hint: ``The relationship between fascism and libertarianism
is like the relationship between convex hulls of points and envelopes
of line arrangements.'')
^L
Louis Theran wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>
>> Well, the dual to fascism can't be too bad...
>
> You should probably think about this a little more. ``Dual'' doesn't
> mean what you think it means (in English, at least).
From Wikipedia (duality in maths): "Using a duality of this type, every
statement in the first theory can be translated into a "dual" statement
in the second theory, where the direction of all arrows has to be reversed."
Since fascism is what you get when you walk the long way to intervention
and centralized control over everything (just as Communism, but with
different political agendas), and libertarianism is what you get when
you only allow each person to choose over themselves and whatever they
own, I think that's pretty appropriate.
> (Here's a hint: ``The relationship between fascism and libertarianism
> is like the relationship between convex hulls of points and envelopes
> of line arrangements.'')
Libertarians I know are pretty much *opposed* against any fascist
tendencies and indeed most centralized control-assuming (and godlike
knowledge-assuming) tendencies, whatever your envelopes of lines mean...
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> > (Here's a hint: ``The relationship between fascism and libertarianism
> > is like the relationship between convex hulls of points and envelopes
> > of line arrangements.'')
>
> Libertarians I know are pretty much *opposed* against any fascist
> tendencies and indeed most centralized control-assuming (and godlike
> knowledge-assuming) tendencies,
They just like the same result. It really is a dual construction of
the same thing.
^L
Louis Theran wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>>>> (Here's a hint: ``The relationship between fascism and libertarianism
>>> is like the relationship between convex hulls of points and envelopes
>>> of line arrangements.'')
>> Libertarians I know are pretty much *opposed* against any fascist
>> tendencies and indeed most centralized control-assuming (and godlike
>> knowledge-assuming) tendencies,
>
> They just like the same result. It really is a dual construction of
> the same thing.
Sorry if I can't see how *opposite* views are the same as liking "the
same result".
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Surendra Singhi <·········@netscape.net> writes:
>
>>You cannot expect to solve some problem, by thinking of the oppressed people
>>as some poor wretch's. It is not material or physical benefits which people
>>carve most, rather it is respect, and right to be treated as equals.
>
>
> Remember, in France, as in most free countries, the only oppressed
> people are the enterprizing people from which the state robs "taxes",
> to distribute the the "oppressed" people.
>
> Or perhaps you're calling welfare oppression? I'd agree, if this would
> lead to stopping distributing it.
>
I have shared your opinion for some time, but recently I have come to an
enlightenment based on the economic principles on which at least the
scandinavian unions were based.
It goes like this: You should never accept low wages. The reason for
this is that if you do, you also accept inefficiencies in the industry.
By forcing high wages you ensure that no inefficient business will
survive. An inefficient business will have to offshore their production
to a cheaper country, while their competitor who restructure by
investing in modern machinery and robots will have no reason to offshore.
By refusing to lower wages you ensure a higher standards of living for
the whole population by forcing creation of high-value jobs.
The other point is: You should never protect jobs! If a company sais
that it will shut your company down unless you reduce your wage, let
them. The fact that they have to compete using wages means that their
efficiency is too low. If they can not restructure to increase their
competitiveness, their business is not worth having in our society.
Another competitor with a smarter way of working who will need fewer
workers in order to get the same productivity will come along and
outcompete the old-fashioned labour-intensive method.
What you need in order to get the above to work is a strong educational
system, and a good welfare system. People must not be too afraid to be
laid off. They have to be sure that they will survive having their
company shut down. They must be given the opportunity to "restructure"
themselves - by getting more education etc. This is why having a
welfare system is a good thing.
Don't blame welfare, taxes or high wages. It is the inability to
change, the inability to restructure and create real value that is
usually the clupit.
In Norway, Telenor who is the state-owned phone company has repeatedly
laid off people while at the same time having huge profits. To me, this
indicates something very valuable. That even though the company is
state-owned, they are allowed to be efficient. People who are laid off
are protected by welfare. You should not protect jobs. Protect profit,
wages, efficiency, education and welfare. Taxation is a necessary part
of all this.
Another example. California has strong employee protection and
relatively high taxes (adjusted for the cost of health-care and
insurance). You can quit your job on short notice, and be fired on
short notice (do not protect jobs). Non-competition agreements are
basically forbidden (protect wages by giving employees freedom of
choice). Wages are high and there is fierce competition between
employers.
To sum it up. Don't attack taxes and welfare - they are a necessary
foundation for a capitalistic society! Attack laws and regulations that
remove incentives for higher efficiency.
astor
Alexander Kjeldaas wrote:
> It goes like this: You should never accept low wages. The reason for
Sure, that's your choice, and a very valid one.
> this is that if you do, you also accept inefficiencies in the industry.
> By forcing high wages you ensure that no inefficient business will
> survive. An inefficient business will have to offshore their production
Now that doesn't sound good to me. Some are just starting out, and they
can't afford high wages. Some suffer temporal trouble. Forcing them to
die is economic murder ;)
If nobody signs up (or nobody worth the low wage), then the company will
fold on its own.
> to a cheaper country, while their competitor who restructure by
> investing in modern machinery and robots will have no reason to offshore.
>
> By refusing to lower wages you ensure a higher standards of living for
> the whole population by forcing creation of high-value jobs.
That's what competition does. Companies pay above average wages to
attract good workers. But small competitors sometimes don't. Do you
want a world where only the Wal Marts survive?
> The other point is: You should never protect jobs! If a company sais
> that it will shut your company down unless you reduce your wage, let
> them. The fact that they have to compete using wages means that their
Right.
> efficiency is too low. If they can not restructure to increase their
> competitiveness, their business is not worth having in our society.
Well, everyone chooses. If they don't offer good deals, the answer is no.
> Another competitor with a smarter way of working who will need fewer
> workers in order to get the same productivity will come along and
> outcompete the old-fashioned labour-intensive method.
Yes. (but isn't than job killing? ;) )
> What you need in order to get the above to work is a strong educational
> system, and a good welfare system. People must not be too afraid to be
If education is free/libre, it will adapt to society's needs. Since
people have incentives to get education, to get the jobs in demand, to
take part in society, they will get the education.
> laid off. They have to be sure that they will survive having their
> company shut down. They must be given the opportunity to "restructure"
> themselves - by getting more education etc. This is why having a
> welfare system is a good thing.
Welfare makes sense, but it should be limited, so people have reason to
work.
> Don't blame welfare, taxes or high wages. It is the inability to
> change, the inability to restructure and create real value that is
> usually the clupit.
Yes, but that's often caused by excessive regulations. High wages also
mean that fewer jobs will be created, product prices for the consumer
rise, cutting even harder on the purse.
> In Norway, Telenor who is the state-owned phone company has repeatedly
> laid off people while at the same time having huge profits. To me, this
> indicates something very valuable. That even though the company is
> state-owned, they are allowed to be efficient. People who are laid off
> are protected by welfare. You should not protect jobs. Protect profit,
> wages, efficiency, education and welfare. Taxation is a necessary part
> of all this.
But jobs, even if the state has to subsidize people so they have enough
to live, are MUCH better than welfare without work! They cost less
welfare, and they do useful things to the economy. That's why you
should not protect (minimum) wages. Just give money to the people who
don't have enough after work (negative income tax).
> Another example. California has strong employee protection and
> relatively high taxes (adjusted for the cost of health-care and
> insurance). You can quit your job on short notice, and be fired on
> short notice (do not protect jobs). Non-competition agreements are
That's NOT employee protection, but it's good because employers aren't
afraid to hire if they could fire at need.
> basically forbidden (protect wages by giving employees freedom of
> choice). Wages are high and there is fierce competition between employers.
Because there's much technology there. That's why people should get an
education instead of rusting away in ghettos.
> To sum it up. Don't attack taxes and welfare - they are a necessary
> foundation for a capitalistic society! Attack laws and regulations that
> remove incentives for higher efficiency.
They are a good thing in a semi-capitalism, which would be much better
than the current system, and much easier to sell to people than pure
capitalism.
Regulations and "artificial" laws (those that aren't valid in virtually
every society) are almost all bad, because they serve the special
interests of small groups, not 100% of society.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Alexander Kjeldaas wrote:
>
>> It goes like this: You should never accept low wages. The reason for
>
>
> Sure, that's your choice, and a very valid one.
>
>> this is that if you do, you also accept inefficiencies in the
>> industry. By forcing high wages you ensure that no inefficient
>> business will survive. An inefficient business will have to offshore
>> their production
>
>
> Now that doesn't sound good to me. Some are just starting out, and they
> can't afford high wages. Some suffer temporal trouble. Forcing them to
> die is economic murder ;)
>
> If nobody signs up (or nobody worth the low wage), then the company will
> fold on its own.
>
If the company has a good idea, it should be able to finance wages
during startup. If it can not do that, it starts on very fragile ground.
Realistically, a company either starts with little capital and owners
who work for nothing the first few years, or it starts with a decent
amount of capital and will be able to pay its employees. If you have
none of these options, any advisor will tell you to reconsider your
finances and/or business plan.
A company that suffers temporal trouble should be able to finance its
wages. If no investor is willing to finance its wages, its troubles are
not temporary, if the "market is correct".
>> to a cheaper country, while their competitor who restructure by
>> investing in modern machinery and robots will have no reason to offshore.
>>
>> By refusing to lower wages you ensure a higher standards of living for
>> the whole population by forcing creation of high-value jobs.
>
>
> That's what competition does. Companies pay above average wages to
> attract good workers. But small competitors sometimes don't. Do you
> want a world where only the Wal Marts survive?
>
Small competitors can give incentives that large companies sometimes can
not. For example, experience from small start-ups is very valuable in
the IT-industry. A good small company can be a gold mine that within a
larger organization would pay lower wages than as an independent company.
Sometimes larger companies are more efficient, so they should be allowed
to "rule the world". On the other hand, necessary regulations should be
put in place to limit the power and influence of these large companies,
but not their efficiency.
>> The other point is: You should never protect jobs! If a company sais
>> that it will shut your company down unless you reduce your wage, let
>> them. The fact that they have to compete using wages means that their
>
>
> Right.
>
>> efficiency is too low. If they can not restructure to increase their
>> competitiveness, their business is not worth having in our society.
>
>
> Well, everyone chooses. If they don't offer good deals, the answer is no.
>
My point is that the effect of the minimum wage, education and a welfare
system are all linked to each other. If there is no minimum wage and
little welfare, people will not have the ability to effectively increase
their own value/productivity to a level where their net contribution to
society is "worth it". Society as a whole should not accept low wages -
they have a net negative effect.
>> Another competitor with a smarter way of working who will need fewer
>> workers in order to get the same productivity will come along and
>> outcompete the old-fashioned labour-intensive method.
>
>
> Yes. (but isn't than job killing? ;) )
>
Yes, but who cares about useless jobs? The smarter competitor is
freeing up resources that can be better spent elsewhere.
>> What you need in order to get the above to work is a strong
>> educational system, and a good welfare system. People must not be too
>> afraid to be
>
>
> If education is free/libre, it will adapt to society's needs. Since
> people have incentives to get education, to get the jobs in demand, to
> take part in society, they will get the education.
>
>> laid off. They have to be sure that they will survive having their
>> company shut down. They must be given the opportunity to
>> "restructure" themselves - by getting more education etc. This is why
>> having a welfare system is a good thing.
>
>
> Welfare makes sense, but it should be limited, so people have reason to
> work.
>
I agree. On the other hand, welfare should not be so low as to make
people desperate to hold on to their jobs, or so low as to make the risk
of getting more education or changing jobs, high.
There is a "sweet-spot", and the sweet-spot is where people do not
become risk-averse, but choose to invest in their own education, risk
changing jobs etc, but at the same time do not get passified by welfare.
I believe that the "passification" by welfare often is a structural
problem, not an inherent property that humans have. People want to live
interesting lives.
>> Don't blame welfare, taxes or high wages. It is the inability to
>> change, the inability to restructure and create real value that is
>> usually the clupit.
>
>
> Yes, but that's often caused by excessive regulations. High wages also
> mean that fewer jobs will be created, product prices for the consumer
> rise, cutting even harder on the purse.
>
High wages might mean loosing a few jobs, but jobs is not the goal.
High living standards and prosperity is the goal. You do not get that
through jobs, you get it through efficiency.
Higher wages does not mean higher prices! By not focusing on low wages,
companies are forced to be more efficient in order to produce attractive
goods. Cars are better and cheaper today than before. The major reason
is better production methods, not lower wages (although it has happened
that trade unions have given in and accepted wage cuts in europe).
>> In Norway, Telenor who is the state-owned phone company has repeatedly
>> laid off people while at the same time having huge profits. To me,
>> this indicates something very valuable. That even though the company
>> is state-owned, they are allowed to be efficient. People who are laid
>> off are protected by welfare. You should not protect jobs. Protect
>> profit, wages, efficiency, education and welfare. Taxation is a
>> necessary part of all this.
>
>
> But jobs, even if the state has to subsidize people so they have enough
> to live, are MUCH better than welfare without work! They cost less
> welfare, and they do useful things to the economy. That's why you
> should not protect (minimum) wages. Just give money to the people who
> don't have enough after work (negative income tax).
>
No, you should put them on welfare AND give them the tools to change
their worth in the marketplace. This usually means giving them
education. Subsidizing inefficient industries is not effective. The
people who earn less than the minimum wage have incredible potential at
increasing their value by getting just a little more education. Putting
these people into an educational situation where they can improve their
skills is a much better investment than locking them into a life where I
as a high-tax paying citizen will have to subsidize them forever.
I think in modern society the economics will favor welfare and education
over subsidizing people with low wages more than ever. The efficiency
gap between people with high education over people with low education is
getting bigger (I think, I have no facts on this). Thus putting people
on welfare and giving them education is smarter than ever.
>> Another example. California has strong employee protection and
>> relatively high taxes (adjusted for the cost of health-care and
>> insurance). You can quit your job on short notice, and be fired on
>> short notice (do not protect jobs). Non-competition agreements are
>
>
> That's NOT employee protection, but it's good because employers aren't
> afraid to hire if they could fire at need.
>
What is employee protection? In this setting, I think you mean job
protection when you say employee protection. Jobs should not be
protected. Employers should not be afraid to hire. They should be able
to fire people at will, but they should not be able to give people low
wages.
Below a certain wage level, it is better for society that people spend
all of their time educating themselves, instead of them wasting their
lives working for inefficient subsidized businesses.
>> To sum it up. Don't attack taxes and welfare - they are a necessary
>> foundation for a capitalistic society! Attack laws and regulations
>> that remove incentives for higher efficiency.
>
>
> They are a good thing in a semi-capitalism, which would be much better
> than the current system, and much easier to sell to people than pure
> capitalism.
>
> Regulations and "artificial" laws (those that aren't valid in virtually
> every society) are almost all bad, because they serve the special
> interests of small groups, not 100% of society.
>
The important regulations that we have in society (the right to
property, human rights, welfare, unions, stock market regulation etc.)
are all necessary and improves the efficiency of society. We need
regulation to provide a framework to reduce risk. Risk is what makes
people and businesses fear change, and fear of change is a major problem
for progress and improved efficiency.
Reducing risk by protecting property and laying down rules for conduct
in the business world and stock markets is relatively straight forward
for capital markets, but is a bit more tricky for labor markets. Labor
movement, labor risk-taking, employee competition are all important for
a functioning economy, and frameworks and regulations need to be in
place to reduce risk. Welfare and a minimum wage helps to reduce the
risk, improve the efficiency of the economy, and it increases the
quality of life for people in general.
astor
Alexander Kjeldaas wrote:
> There is a "sweet-spot", and the sweet-spot is where people do not
> become risk-averse, but choose to invest in their own education, risk
> changing jobs etc, but at the same time do not get passified by welfare.
> I believe that the "passification" by welfare often is a structural
> problem, not an inherent property that humans have. People want to live
> interesting lives.
There is a curse. They say "may you live in interesting times."
But sure, I like interesting.
> Below a certain wage level, it is better for society that people spend
> all of their time educating themselves, instead of them wasting their
> lives working for inefficient subsidized businesses.
That's an interesting POV. I'd say you're right in that a society
should support that way of life.
> The important regulations that we have in society (the right to
> property, human rights, welfare, unions, stock market regulation etc.)
> are all necessary and improves the efficiency of society. We need
> regulation to provide a framework to reduce risk. Risk is what makes
> people and businesses fear change, and fear of change is a major problem
> for progress and improved efficiency.
For risk there are insurances. But yes, there are some basic insurances
that it makes sense for society to agree on.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> The problem with state or syndicate imposed minimal wages is that they
> prevent higher wages.
How that? Intuition tells me they prevent lower wages ;)
(At the upper end of the labor market, nobody cares for minimum wage
laws; they are as good as invisible.)
>> What you need in order to get the above to work is a strong
>> educational system, and a good welfare system. People must not be too
>> afraid to be laid off. They have to be sure that they will survive
>> having their company shut down. They must be given the opportunity to
>> "restructure" themselves - by getting more education etc. This is why
>> having a welfare system is a good thing.
>
> Which is not too difficult to archive, when you remove taxes, and laws
You mean "achieve" I suppose. (sorry to nitpick...)
(or archive in the sense of storing money as backup :D)
> that prevent enterprises to lay off at their discretion.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Louis Theran wrote:
> Surendra Singhi wrote:
> > Didier Verna <······@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> >
> > > Simple and effective, yeah. Throw the garbage outta the window. Thanks
> > > a lot.
> >
> > Oh, I see, you guys are talking about some garbage and not some poor people.
>
> I think the ``garbage'' here is the injustices France inflicts on its
> immigrants and minorities,
>From what I've heard, France is a very pro-immigrant, Islamophilic
state. How else would Muslims reach 8% of its population? In light of
this, saying that France inflicts injustices on its immigrants and
minorities sounds suspect to me. Are you repeating something someone
else said, or speaking from first-hand experience of administering or
suffering from these injustices?
·········@gmail.com writes:
> From what I've heard, France is a very pro-immigrant, Islamophilic
> state.
You heard wrong, then.
> How else would Muslims reach 8% of its population?
By having a tradition of colonies in moslem countries, like in North
Africa.
',mr
--
[Emacs] is written in Lisp, which is the only computer language that is
beautiful. -- Neal Stephenson, _In the Beginning was the Command Line_
rydis (Martin Rydstr|m) @CD.Chalmers.SE writes:
> ·········@gmail.com writes:
>> From what I've heard, France is a very pro-immigrant, Islamophilic
>> state.
>
> You heard wrong, then.
>
>> How else would Muslims reach 8% of its population?
>
> By having a tradition of colonies in moslem countries, like in North
> Africa.
No, really, please explain us, since the muslims in these countries
threw us out of their countries, and since you say France is
anti-immigrant and Islamophobic, how comes there's so many muslims in France?
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Litter box not here.
You must have moved it again.
I'll poop in the sink.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> rydis (Martin Rydstr|m) @CD.Chalmers.SE writes:
> > ·········@gmail.com writes:
> >> From what I've heard, France is a very pro-immigrant, Islamophilic
> >> state.
> >
> > You heard wrong, then.
> >
> >> How else would Muslims reach 8% of its population?
> >
> > By having a tradition of colonies in moslem countries, like in North
> > Africa.
> No, really, please explain us, since the muslims in these countries
> threw us out of their countries,
That doesn't matter much for those countries to keep seeing France as
a viable option for a country to move to, where they might even speak
the language, already.
> and since you say France is anti-immigrant and Islamophobic,
I don't say that.
> how comes there's so many muslims in France?
I don't think it's that great a number. Sweden has a bit less than
half, it seems, and we don't have the proximity, nor the historic
connection.
',mr
--
[Emacs] is written in Lisp, which is the only computer language that is
beautiful. -- Neal Stephenson, _In the Beginning was the Command Line_
rydis (Martin Rydstr|m) @CD.Chalmers.SE writes:
>> how comes there's so many muslims in France?
>
> I don't think it's that great a number. Sweden has a bit less than
> half, it seems, and we don't have the proximity, nor the historic
> connection.
According to http://www.islamawareness.net/Europe/ only Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Russia, and Turkey have a greater percentage
of Muslims than France (in Europe).
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ ······@knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <······@knm.org.pl> writes:
> According to http://www.islamawareness.net/Europe/ only Bosnia and
> Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Russia, and Turkey have a greater percentage
> of Muslims than France (in Europe).
Turkey is not in Europe, at least not more than Spain is in Africa.
--
"By filing this bug report you have challenged the honor of my
family. Prepare to die!"
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <······@knm.org.pl> writes:
>> According to http://www.islamawareness.net/Europe/ only Bosnia and
>> Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Russia, and Turkey have a greater percentage
>> of Muslims than France (in Europe).
>
> Turkey is not in Europe, at least not more than Spain is in Africa.
>
You cannot change geography.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
,----
| Great wits are sure to madness near allied,
| And thin partitions do their bounds divide.
|
| (John Dryden, Absalom and Achitophel, 1681)
`----
Surendra Singhi wrote:
>>Turkey is not in Europe, at least not more than Spain is in Africa.
> You cannot change geography.
Indeed, and the geographic definition of Europe says that it
ends at the Bosphorus, at least that's what I did learn
in school (ok, you can argue that Turkey has some bits west
of the Bosphorus where it borders Bulgaria and Greece).
Now, the political definition is a different matter entirely,
and it can be changed at will.
By the way, something I noticed when I moved to USA, is that
the definition of Europe is quite different over here; I mean,
when I was in school in Europe what we did learn about geography
ended pretty much at the Iron Curtain; I mean we never really
learned much about what was on the other side (even if historically,
or culturally we might have had more in common than with the folks
westward); so it is always a bit of a surprise when I hear the
locals here (USA) refer to countries of the ex- Eastern block
as being in Europe (even though they are technically correct);
ain't usenet neat? how did we get from Lisp to geopolitical
discussions? :-)
--Sylvain
>>>>> "S" == Sylvain <····@att.net> writes:
[...]
S> Indeed, and the geographic definition of Europe says that it
S> ends at the Bosphorus, at least that's what I did learn in
S> school (ok, you can argue that Turkey has some bits west of the
S> Bosphorus where it borders Bulgaria and Greece).
Heh yeah. Last I checked it still said 'welcome to Asia' around the
midpoints of the bridges over the Bosphorus. On the other hand,
Ural mountains are way to the east of here, and it is rather odd
for 5 out of 8 of our neighbors -- including hree to our east -- to
be in Europe and us in some other place.
S> ... Now, the
S> political definition is a different matter entirely, and it can
S> be changed at will. ...
Indeed. It is subject to horse trading too.
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu <··@acm.org> writes:
>>>>>> "S" == Sylvain <····@att.net> writes:
> [...]
> S> Indeed, and the geographic definition of Europe says that it
> S> ends at the Bosphorus, at least that's what I did learn in
> S> school (ok, you can argue that Turkey has some bits west of the
> S> Bosphorus where it borders Bulgaria and Greece).
>
> Heh yeah. Last I checked it still said 'welcome to Asia' around the
> midpoints of the bridges over the Bosphorus. On the other hand,
> Ural mountains are way to the east of here, and it is rather odd
> for 5 out of 8 of our neighbors -- including hree to our east -- to
> be in Europe and us in some other place.
Well, now that one of your neighbor is in the USA, you could as well
ask to be incorporated to the OAS (Organization of America States).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
You're always typing.
Well, let's see you ignore my
sitting on your hands.
Sylvain wrote:
> ain't usenet neat? how did we get from Lisp to geopolitical
> discussions? :-)
I read mail and news with the same app. If while perusing c.l.l I have
an impulse to check up on a hot babe in Paris and hit the "compose"
button, unless I notice that it did not ask me for an email address I
can write and send to c.l.l a message meant for my friend.
"Riots?" was my third such epistolary triumph. After that, the usual
Usenet phenomenon takes over: people with too much time on their hands
and waaaaay too much love for the sound of their own voice.
--
Kenny
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL_Highlight_Film
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state
I finally won out over it."
Elwood P. Dowd, "Harvey", 1950
>>>>> "PB" == Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
[...]
PB> Turkey is not in Europe, at least not more than Spain is in
PB> Africa.
Cheers to you too my fellow continent-mate. It's been signed and
sealed by the most esteemed authorities who decide such things.
Perhaps the papers didn't get to the most advanced parts of our
continent due to the curfews or somesuch?
hugs,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:
>>>>>> "PB" == Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> [...]
> PB> Turkey is not in Europe, at least not more than Spain is in
> PB> Africa.
>
> Cheers to you too my fellow continent-mate. It's been signed and
> sealed by the most esteemed authorities who decide such things.
> Perhaps the papers didn't get to the most advanced parts of our
> continent due to the curfews or somesuch?
I don't think that Pascal has anything against Turkish people, nor do I,
but it feels weird that a country that's usually considered Persian or
Near-Asian is to be considered European, just because The Man says so.
No really, we have many very nice Turkish in Germany, and the one time I
was down there it was great too, but that doesn't mean your country has
to be Europe. (Neither would I consider Russia Europe actually, but
maybe even though most of my life happened after '90, I still have the
iron curtain in my head and don't pay much attention to ex-Soviet
countries; if Russia is representative, it seems to be all poverty and
corruption over there anyway...)
Again, that I wouldn't call it Europe, because IMHO it just isn't
doesn't mean that we can't have all kinds of nice relations and
partnerships. The whole integration thing just feels a bit forced.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> I don't think that Pascal has anything against Turkish people, nor do I,
> but it feels weird that a country that's usually considered Persian or
> Near-Asian is to be considered European, just because The Man says so.
Ah, but what's 'European'? The whole idea of a European identity is one
that's been forged in the last sixty years. Your grandparents, and
Pascal's, probably thought that a union between France and Germany was
just as contrived. But the Union has been so successful that people born
in it are now talking about what Turkey means for a European identity,
and nobody's arguing that such a thing doesn't exist.
> Again, that I wouldn't call it Europe, because IMHO it just isn't
> doesn't mean that we can't have all kinds of nice relations and
> partnerships. The whole integration thing just feels a bit forced.
Is Istanbul really so much more different from Naples than Naples is
from Frankfurt?
Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> Ah, but what's 'European'? The whole idea of a European identity is one
> that's been forged in the last sixty years. Your grandparents, and
> Pascal's, probably thought that a union between France and Germany was
> just as contrived. But the Union has been so successful that people born
> in it are now talking about what Turkey means for a European identity,
> and nobody's arguing that such a thing doesn't exist.
Maybe. I'm simply wondering why they so desperately want that name
"Europe" attached (and many politicians so desperately want to give it
to them), when traditionally they weren't considered Europe. As I said
before, partnerships of all kinds (actually with ANY country on earth)
are most welcome to me.
>> Again, that I wouldn't call it Europe, because IMHO it just isn't
>> doesn't mean that we can't have all kinds of nice relations and
>> partnerships. The whole integration thing just feels a bit forced.
>
> Is Istanbul really so much more different from Naples than Naples is
> from Frankfurt?
Probably not, but rural Eastern Turkey is probably very different from
rural Germany/England/France, not to mention the problems with the Kurds.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:01:56 +0100, Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de>
wrote:
> Maybe. I'm simply wondering why they so desperately want that name
> "Europe" attached (and many politicians so desperately want to give it
> to them), when traditionally they weren't considered Europe.
reminds me of "Build once, run anywhere": buzzzzzword complianccce.
Secure your job by riding the hype(rboles).
Hyperboles are like tigers ... once you grabbed them by their tails,
you can't let go of them anymore, lest you be eaten alive.
You can tell I've read a Gaiman book in the last days .-)
s.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Probably not, but rural Eastern Turkey is probably very different from
> rural Germany/England/France, not to mention the problems with the
> Kurds.
The problem is not with the Kurds or the Cretans,
it's with the Turks who kill and invade them.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
This is a signature virus. Add me to your signature and help me to live
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> > Probably not, but rural Eastern Turkey is probably very different from
> > rural Germany/England/France, not to mention the problems with the
> > Kurds.
>
> The problem is not with the Kurds or the Cretans,
> it's with the Turks who kill and invade them.
Remember, it's pillage *then* burn.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:
>>>>>>> "PB" == Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>> [...]
>> PB> Turkey is not in Europe, at least not more than Spain is in
>> PB> Africa.
>> Cheers to you too my fellow continent-mate. It's been signed and
>> sealed by the most esteemed authorities who decide such things.
>> Perhaps the papers didn't get to the most advanced parts of our
>> continent due to the curfews or somesuch?
>
> I don't think that Pascal has anything against Turkish people, nor do
> I, but it feels weird that a country that's usually considered Persian
> or Near-Asian is to be considered European, just because The Man says
> so.
>
> No really, we have many very nice Turkish in Germany, and the one time
> I was down there it was great too, but that doesn't mean your country
> has to be Europe. (Neither would I consider Russia Europe actually,
> but maybe even though most of my life happened after '90, I still have
> the iron curtain in my head and don't pay much attention to ex-Soviet
> countries; if Russia is representative, it seems to be all poverty and
> corruption over there anyway...)
>
> Again, that I wouldn't call it Europe, because IMHO it just isn't
> doesn't mean that we can't have all kinds of nice relations and
> partnerships. The whole integration thing just feels a bit forced.
Actually, Russia is physically in Europe, and culturally totally in
Europe, contrarily to Turkia. Europe wouldn't be Europe without
Russia. Europe wouldn't be Europe with Turkia.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
You're always typing.
Well, let's see you ignore my
sitting on your hands.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> Actually, Russia is physically in Europe, and culturally totally in
> Europe, contrarily to Turkia.
Actually only 23% of Russian area is in Europe (but 74% of population).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcontinental_country
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ ······@knm.org.pl
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
>>>>> "PB" == Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
[...]
PB> Actually, Russia is physically in Europe, and culturally
PB> totally in Europe, contrarily to Turkia. Europe wouldn't be
PB> Europe without Russia. Europe wouldn't be Europe with Turkia.
[...]
I might even agree with you if you came right out and said it
is having a Christian past that defines the concept you abuse
geographic terms to name. So up till the 17th century, Europe
included Siberia but excluded points east of Vienna? It is not your
fault since the politicians also resort to this euphemism, but this
has problems similar to those of overloading (<- there, remotely on
topic now).
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:
> I might even agree with you if you came right out and said it
> is having a Christian past that defines the concept you abuse
> geographic terms to name. So up till the 17th century, Europe
> included Siberia but excluded points east of Vienna? It is not your
> fault since the politicians also resort to this euphemism, but this
> has problems similar to those of overloading (<- there, remotely on
> topic now).
Hm, AFAIK most western countries used to be called Occident, and Turkey,
Arabia, but also other Muslim and Russian-Orthodox countries were called
Orient (or "morning land" in German). I don't think anybody would have
considered them European.
Well, it's just a name, so whatever...
(I guess the EUROPE packages we use differ in their exported symbols.)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:
>> I might even agree with you if you came right out and said it
>> is having a Christian past that defines the concept you abuse
>> geographic terms to name. So up till the 17th century, Europe
>> included Siberia but excluded points east of Vienna? It is not your
>> fault since the politicians also resort to this euphemism, but this
>> has problems similar to those of overloading (<- there, remotely on
>> topic now).
>
> Hm, AFAIK most western countries used to be called Occident, and
> Turkey, Arabia, but also other Muslim and Russian-Orthodox countries
> were called Orient (or "morning land" in German). I don't think
> anybody would have considered them European.
>
> Well, it's just a name, so whatever...
> (I guess the EUROPE packages we use differ in their exported symbols.)
>
Unhh, you learn something new everyday. I used to think that European Union
was formed by neighboring countries in the same continent, grouping up
together. I didn't knew it was formed on the basis of division of 'religion'
and some 'imagined racial identity'.
Aren't the *Aryans* some descendants of Indo-Persian tribes?
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
,----
| "War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!"
| -- Orwell, 1984, 1948
`----
Surendra Singhi wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>
>> Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:
>>> I might even agree with you if you came right out and said it
>>> is having a Christian past that defines the concept you abuse
>>> geographic terms to name. So up till the 17th century, Europe
>>> included Siberia but excluded points east of Vienna? It is not your
>>> fault since the politicians also resort to this euphemism, but this
>>> has problems similar to those of overloading (<- there, remotely on
>>> topic now).
>> Hm, AFAIK most western countries used to be called Occident, and
>> Turkey, Arabia, but also other Muslim and Russian-Orthodox countries
>> were called Orient (or "morning land" in German). I don't think
>> anybody would have considered them European.
>>
>> Well, it's just a name, so whatever...
>> (I guess the EUROPE packages we use differ in their exported symbols.)
>>
> Unhh, you learn something new everyday. I used to think that European Union
> was formed by neighboring countries in the same continent, grouping up
> together. I didn't knew it was formed on the basis of division of 'religion'
> and some 'imagined racial identity'.
Division of religion: I don't think so, but there are people that think
Europe is inherently based on Christianity, as is, they say, Germany.
Racial identity, definitely not, since Europe has been very multiracial
for huuuuge amounts of time I presume.
What I meant above was culture in some very loose sense that sprung to
life from my world-view grown in the limited cultural context I happen
to live in.
> Aren't the *Aryans* some descendants of Indo-Persian tribes?
I think the word or the race derives from somewhere in India, but I'm
not sure. Anyway, today we're all getting mixed up, which is a good
thing :)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Bulent Murtezaoglu wrote:
>>>>>>> "PB" == Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>> [...]
>> PB> Turkey is not in Europe, at least not more than Spain is in
>> PB> Africa.
>> Cheers to you too my fellow continent-mate. It's been signed and
>> sealed by the most esteemed authorities who decide such things.
>> Perhaps the papers didn't get to the most advanced parts of our
>> continent due to the curfews or somesuch?
>
> I don't think that Pascal has anything against Turkish people, nor do
> I, but it feels weird that a country that's usually considered Persian
> or Near-Asian is to be considered European, just because The Man says
> so.
Can you please elaborate how is Turkey considered Persian or Near-Asian?
If culturally, then culture mixes and meshes and changes over time, and as far
as I know continent boundaries should be decided by geographical barriers and
nor cultural ones. From what I have learned it is Urals which separate Asia
from Europe, and anything to its east is Asia, and west is Europe.
And even if geographically Turkey is close to Iran, and by this argument if
Turkey is in Asia, then by induction so should be the rest of Europe and Africa,
all belong to one continent.
If I were Turkish, I won't give a damn to what some *Western European* thinks
about my country or its location.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
,----
| "War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!"
| -- Orwell, 1984, 1948
`----
Surendra Singhi wrote:
> Can you please elaborate how is Turkey considered Persian or Near-Asian?
I don't know what I should elaborate... Traditionally I'd say that
Turkey was more of a Persian/Near-Asian-like culture than like a
European one. That's all IMHO, so don't take it to serious. We all
have our backgrounds and experiences and are prejudiced in some way.
Modern Turkey, at least the bigger cities, is very Western-Europe-like
in many ways, culturally (the whole 20th century already? I don't know).
> If culturally, then culture mixes and meshes and changes over time, and as far
> as I know continent boundaries should be decided by geographical barriers and
> nor cultural ones. From what I have learned it is Urals which separate Asia
> from Europe, and anything to its east is Asia, and west is Europe.
That was one geographical definition, and it the future it might make
sense again. In my biased view that depends on how well the ex-Soviet
nations adapt to more liberal values, fight corruption, and modernize
their economy. To a large degree I'm sure that's already happening in
many places.
> If I were Turkish, I won't give a damn to what some *Western European* thinks
> about my country or its location.
Just like I don't give a damn if Turkey wants to be "Europe" or not ;)
Aaaah, time to stop this useless thread.
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Surendra Singhi <·········@netscape.net> writes:
> ...continent boundaries should be decided by geographical barriers
> and nor cultural ones. From what I have learned it is Urals which
> separate Asia from Europe, and anything to its east is Asia, and
> west is Europe.
We live in a modern world where plate tectonics and continental drift
are fairly well known. Continents should be definied by which plates
they sit on. Subduction be damned!
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
>>>>> "UH" == Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
[...]
UH> I don't think that Pascal has anything against Turkish people,
UH> nor do I, but it feels weird that a country that's usually
UH> considered Persian or Near-Asian is to be considered European,
UH> just because The Man says so.
Persian? This is a new one. In any event The Man has been saying it
for a long time.
UH> No really, we have many very nice Turkish in Germany, and the
UH> one time I was down there it was great too, but that doesn't
UH> mean your country has to be Europe.
It has nothing to do with niceness. For all you know we might be very
nasty and concealing it. Many people here _do_ think Western European
governments are nasty and shifty. It isn't like there's deep love for
some Eastern European nations either (but there it is mutual probably).
None of this matters though, given the past of the process stopping it
would have been very costly and risky. There's been a 40+ year
process leading to last October, during those years the trading pact
idea got transformed into something that involves the people's
'feelings' of Europeanness. This now causes discomfort in
enlargement. What people fail to understand, I think, is that "you're
not sufficiently like us" argument against a background of things like
the customs union and modifying our laws (and keeping the public
opinion here in check about extreme leftist murderers and such that
W. Europe still shields from extradition) would have been disasterous
both for internal dynamics here and perhaps in the long run for at
least Eastern Europe. Wisdom and statesmanship has prevailed so far,
I'd say.
It does seem though that the reverse is also true, much the same way
an outright rejection would have played into the hands of darker
forces here, acceptance against the popular unease (in Western Europe,
since our neighbors seem to have no objections) might feed the darker
forces there.
[...]
UH> Again, that I wouldn't call it Europe, because IMHO it just
UH> isn't doesn't mean that we can't have all kinds of nice
UH> relations and partnerships. The whole integration thing just
UH> feels a bit forced. [...]
Personally, I'd probably agitate against political union if that
blessed time ever came. I can barely tolerate the bureaucrats in
Ankara, let alone the snooty and overbearing ones with 'European
Ideals' in Brussels. But I do think the process has been immensely
useful so far for civil and some economic liberties here and that's
why I like it. You are right, I think, that some kind of EEC-style
economic integration might have been preferable. Blame The Man for
not managing the expectations and the treaties and such accordingly.
In any event, actual accession in any form is at least a decade away
so we'll see how things shape up.
I blame Kenny for all this, BTW. I think he should be forced to
produce documentation as punishment.
cheers,
BM
Louis Theran wrote:
> The plan of xenophobic right-wingers in Europe and
> the US is not to create a more just global system, it is to oppress
> people in other countries where the effects are (mostly) invisible in
> the ``West.''
Like using local farm subsidies and tariffs to drive 3rd-world farmers
out of business (who can't really compete in non-food markets yet, such
as the IT market)?
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Louis Theran wrote:
>> The plan of xenophobic right-wingers in Europe and
>> the US is not to create a more just global system, it is to oppress
>> people in other countries where the effects are (mostly) invisible in
>> the ``West.''
>
> Like using local farm subsidies and tariffs to drive 3rd-world farmers
> out of business (who can't really compete in non-food markets yet,
> such as the IT market)?
>
When you want access to their markets to sell your stuff, or you still
want to be able to purchase that 'plasma TV' or latest 'mac' you have to bear
with some competition.
The Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, Mexican, eastern European and other Asian
nations have helped you *improve* your standard of living, and made the
workforce efficient and productive, so you should rather thank them.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
The best-laid plans of mice and men go oft astray.
Surendra Singhi wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>
>> Louis Theran wrote:
>>> The plan of xenophobic right-wingers in Europe and
>>> the US is not to create a more just global system, it is to oppress
>>> people in other countries where the effects are (mostly) invisible in
>>> the ``West.''
>> Like using local farm subsidies and tariffs to drive 3rd-world farmers
>> out of business (who can't really compete in non-food markets yet,
>> such as the IT market)?
>>
> When you want access to their markets to sell your stuff, or you still
> want to be able to purchase that 'plasma TV' or latest 'mac' you have to bear
> with some competition.
>
> The Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, Mexican, eastern European and other Asian
> nations have helped you *improve* your standard of living, and made the
> workforce efficient and productive, so you should rather thank them.
I never said the contrary, did I? In fact I stated the opposite: that
while we gladly accept cheap technology from developing countries, we
don't allow third-world the opportunity to also trade with us. China
sells their TVs to us, but other countries can't sell us grain etc.
because our governments subsidize our farmers and charge import tariffs
so that third-world products are more expensive when they really aren't.
It's selective free-markets, and they greatly hurt poor countries. Of
course if some countries (Argentina today) don't want free markets at
all, that's their choice. Simply don't partake in the separation of
labor and its advantages, if they can produce all their required goods
themselves... (and yes, I fully support refusing to join a free-trade
agreement as long as the US have the mentioned subsidies and tariffs to
prevent fair competition)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Surendra Singhi wrote:
>> Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
>>
>>> Louis Theran wrote:
>>>> The plan of xenophobic right-wingers in Europe and
>>>> the US is not to create a more just global system, it is to oppress
>>>> people in other countries where the effects are (mostly) invisible in
>>>> the ``West.''
>>> Like using local farm subsidies and tariffs to drive 3rd-world farmers
>>> out of business (who can't really compete in non-food markets yet,
>>> such as the IT market)?
>>>
>> When you want access to their markets to sell your stuff, or you still
>> want to be able to purchase that 'plasma TV' or latest 'mac' you have to bear
>> with some competition. The Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, Mexican,
>> eastern European and other Asian
>> nations have helped you *improve* your standard of living, and made the
>> workforce efficient and productive, so you should rather thank them.
>
> I never said the contrary, did I?
Sorry, I took your comment sarcastically. I should stop reading Usenet
messages late in the night and misconstruing them.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
,----
| Great wits are sure to madness near allied,
| And thin partitions do their bounds divide.
|
| (John Dryden, Absalom and Achitophel, 1681)
`----
Didier Verna wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> >> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>dear sabine,
> >>>
> >>>are you OK? are the riots anywhere near you? wow, you really walked
> >>>into a big story this time. hope you are fine.
> >>>
> >>>peace, k
> >
> > heh-heh. I'll let everyone know how Sabine is doing when I hear back. k
>
>
> Sabine sounds french... are you referring to what's going on in the
> suburbs of Paris ? I just watched the news on (french) TV and it seems that
> the foreign press has literally blown a fuse, speaking of the "muslim
> revolution", or riots that are going to "spread all around the country", or
> what not. All of this is largely exagerated.
Indeed, in the US, riots are commonplace. I think the big news is that
they are happening in France. The US media didn't pick up the news
until about a week into the riots though.
·········@gmail.com writes:
>
> Indeed, in the US, riots are commonplace.
What US do you live in? There were the LA riots 15 years ago, but those
are the last major riots I recall. Was I asleep for too long or
something?
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
> > Is "wrongest" an actual word?
> It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Which, when used, embiggens us all.
--Jeff Ramsey, Steed and D. Joseph Creighton in ASR
Robert Uhl wrote:
> ·········@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > Indeed, in the US, riots are commonplace.
>
> What US do you live in? There were the LA riots 15 years ago, but those
> are the last major riots I recall. Was I asleep for too long or
> something?
>
Depends on what you call "major", I guess.
Armed gangs roving around New Orleans, looting and raping is what I'd
call a riot. Toledo, Ohio "riots" (media usage, not mine) made the news
recently too. And who knows what the media never mentions.
·········@gmail.com wrote:
> Robert Uhl wrote:
>
>>·········@gmail.com writes:
>>
>>>Indeed, in the US, riots are commonplace.
>>
>>What US do you live in? There were the LA riots 15 years ago, but those
>>are the last major riots I recall. Was I asleep for too long or
>>something?
>>
>
>
> Depends on what you call "major", I guess.
>
> Armed gangs roving around New Orleans, looting and raping is what I'd
> call a riot. Toledo, Ohio "riots" (media usage, not mine) made the news
> recently too. And who knows what the media never mentions.
>
Monthly LispNYK meetings spring to mind.
--
Kenny
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL_Highlight_Film
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state
I finally won out over it."
Elwood P. Dowd, "Harvey", 1950
<·········@gmail.com> wrote in message
····························@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Robert Uhl wrote:
>> ·········@gmail.com writes:
>> >
>> > Indeed, in the US, riots are commonplace.
>>
>> What US do you live in? There were the LA riots 15 years ago, but those
>> are the last major riots I recall. Was I asleep for too long or
>> something?
>>
>
> Depends on what you call "major", I guess.
>
> Armed gangs roving around New Orleans, looting and raping is what I'd
> call a riot. Toledo, Ohio "riots" (media usage, not mine) made the news
> recently too. And who knows what the media never mentions.
That never happened. Apparently it was just unsubstantiated rumour
amplified by the main stream media megaphone and little or nothing more. No
murder victims found in the Super Dome, no eye witnesses of the reports of
children being raped, no rape victims come forward, no rescuers backing the
claims of rescuees shooting at them.
"''We don't have any substantiated rapes," the New Orleans Police
superintendent Edwin Compass told the British newspaper The Guardian,
speaking of the situation at the Superdome. Nor have any bodies of victims
of foul play turned up there. The Federal Aviation Administration and
military officials have cast doubt on the story of the rescue helicopter
that came under fire outside Kenner Memorial Hospital on Aug. 31"
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/09/11/up_for_grabs/
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Coby Beck wrote:
> "''We don't have any substantiated rapes," the New Orleans Police
> superintendent Edwin Compass told the British newspaper The Guardian,
In other news, "I didn't order Trotsky killed", The Great Leader Stalin
told Pravda newspaper.
Didier Verna wrote:
> Sabine sounds french... are you referring to what's going on in the
> suburbs of Paris ? I just watched the news on (french) TV and it seems that
> the foreign press has literally blown a fuse, speaking of the "muslim
> revolution", or riots that are going to "spread all around the country", or
> what not. All of this is largely exagerated.
I have a French military issue rifle for sale.
Condition: Never fired. Dropped once.
J McKitrick
Jobin Yvon Inc (French company)
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> I have a French military issue rifle for sale.
> Condition: Never fired. Dropped once.
That's the oldest joke on rec.guns. I'm surprised Magnum let you post
it. Oh. Wait. This is CLL.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
The lowest click through rate in Google's AdSense program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didier Verna wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>>
>>>Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dear sabine,
>>>>
>>>>are you OK? are the riots anywhere near you? wow, you really walked
>>>>into a big story this time. hope you are fine.
>>>>
>>>>peace, k
>>
>>heh-heh. I'll let everyone know how Sabine is doing when I hear back. k
>
>
>
> Sabine sounds french...
Maybe, but she is German, studying in Paris.
> are you referring to what's going on in the
> suburbs of Paris ? I just watched the news on (french) TV and it seems that
> the foreign press has literally blown a fuse, speaking of the "muslim
> revolution", or riots that are going to "spread all around the country", or
> what not. All of this is largely exagerated.
CNN has "Fiery riots spread beyond Paris":
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/04/france.riots/index.html
Aside from my concern, Sabine happens to be a fine correspondent, surely
destined for journalism. I'll let everyone know her take.
I just hope this is not related to headscarves.*
* Regrettably long OT thread here on c.l.l.
--
Kenny
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL_Highlight_Film
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state
I finally won out over it."
Elwood P. Dowd, "Harvey", 1950
Does anyone recall what the longest off-topic thread in c.l.l is?
Matt
--
"You do not really understand something unless you can
explain it to your grandmother." — Albert Einstein.
Matthew D Swank wrote:
> Does anyone recall what the longest off-topic thread in c.l.l is?
You do not even need to think about matching that for another month. :)
--
Kenny
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL_Highlight_Film
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state
I finally won out over it."
Elwood P. Dowd, "Harvey", 1950