Page 4 of 4 [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

17 Oct 2013, 4:23 pm

thomas81 wrote:
You're asking the wrong question. Pharmaceutical companies shouldn't be privately owned.

I'm asking exactly the question I want to ask. Why should I, or anyone else, be forced to be responsible for someone else?



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

17 Oct 2013, 4:31 pm

adb wrote:
I'm asking exactly the question I want to ask.

No. It seems like you're playing word games to satisfy a libertarian agenda.
adb wrote:
Why should I, or anyone else, be forced to be responsible for someone else?

Put down your copy of Atlas Shrugged for a moment.

No-one is saying that you, or anyone else should be responsible. The problem here is that these companies have come into possession of the only life preserving means that millions of dying people depend on.

The point is that someone ought to relieve them of these means and the responsibility that these means implicate.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


adb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 532

17 Oct 2013, 4:53 pm

thomas81 wrote:
adb wrote:
I'm asking exactly the question I want to ask.

No. It seems like you're playing word games to satisfy a libertarian agenda.

I'm trying to get you to admit that you are willing to force other people to have social responsibilities.

Quote:
adb wrote:
Why should I, or anyone else, be forced to be responsible for someone else?

Put down your copy of Atlas Shrugged for a moment.

This attitude isn't necessary. Don't be a twat.

Quote:
No-one is saying that you, or anyone else should be responsible. The problem here is that these companies have come into possession of the only life preserving means that millions of dying people depend on.

The point is that someone ought to relieve them of these means and the responsibility that these means implicate.

People do not have a right to what other people produce. Someone in Africa doesn't have a right to the products of the pharmaceutical companies. They only have a right to what they produce for themselves.

Do you think it's reasonable to force the people who own and work at the pharmaceutical company to sacrifice their property in order to satisfy an obligation that aligns with your morality? Don't they have a right to believe what they want to believe? How would you respond to them forcing you to sacrifice your labor for the good of someone else?



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

17 Oct 2013, 5:22 pm

adb wrote:
I'm trying to get you to admit that you are willing to force other people to have social responsibilities.

We're at an impasse in that case. My standpoint is that some people shouldn't have access to the power to grant life or death or even have certain social responsibilities in the first place if they lack the will to fulfill need at point of demand. Make of that what you will.

When it comes to life saving services, the profit motive should not be a factor.

adb wrote:

This attitude isn't necessary. Don't be a twat.

Au contraire. Its wholly necessary.

You clearly want to trip me up to score political points.


adb wrote:

Do you think it's reasonable to force the people who own and work at the pharmaceutical company to sacrifice their property in order to satisfy an obligation that aligns with your morality? Don't they have a right to believe what they want to believe? How would you respond to them forcing you to sacrifice your labor for the good of someone else?


Ive said it before and I'll say it again in no uncertain terms. Do try to keep up.

My stance is that privatised pharmaceutical companies, private hospitals and private medical research companies should not exist. That they should all, without exception be under public ownership,Do you understand yet?

I am not a subscriber to the concept of nations so the point about South Africans only having the rights to South African production doesn't wash with me.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

17 Oct 2013, 5:58 pm

The dismissal of collective social responsibility taken to its logical conclusion.

V

[img][800:582]http://www.thomhartmann.com/sites/default/files/Atlas%20Shrugged%20Farce.jpg[/img]

:lol:

Image


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Arran
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 375

19 Oct 2013, 4:39 am

The problem with discussing Islam on WP is the almost complete absence of any Muslims in which to discuss it with. All that happens is that non-Muslims end up arguing endlessly with other non-Muslims. You really need to discuss Islam related issues with knowledgeable individuals - and I don't mean merchants of Zionism like Tequila or merchants of US foreign policy like Raptor and Fnord.

The cold war on Islam was almost certainly planned by the west decades ago, with roots going back to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, but it was delayed until after Soviet communism was defeated.

naturalplastic wrote:
Islamism is a recent phenom that appeared with the Iranian Revolution of the Seventies, and the Afgan resistence to the Soviets in the Eighties. And it is now comparable to what communism had been during the cold war.


That's complete nonsense and the sort of material expected from an American with a poor knowledge of Islam or foreign affairs except whatever scraps have been obtained from biased and misleading American media sources.

The political aspect of Islam is an integral feature of the religion that his existed since its inception. It is not something that has been tacked on by its religious or political leaders at a later date. Political leaders and intelligence officers in the west have known this since the 19th century and earlier but it was under the radar of the average citizen until after 911 because the media and the mainstream education system did not report it.

Islamism and Islamist are colloquial terms coined by the media and used in a derogatory way which lack clear definitions.

puddingmouse wrote:
All that stuff about Islam being an ideology that wants to dominate the globe and force a lifestyle change on everyone could be said about communism as it existed back then


You could also argue the same with western capitalism, liberalism, and Zionism. Washington and Westminster backed up by their pals in Wall Street and the City strive to dominate the globe with their ideologies.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

19 Oct 2013, 5:24 pm

^I'd love to talk about Islam with a knowledgeable individual, but I'd prefer them to be impartial, so not a believer themselves. I've talked about Islam with a lot of Muslims (some very knowledgeable and broad-minded) but it is a very different sort of learning experience from discussing the religion with someone who has studied it extensively from a purely academic point of view.

What we need here is a Religious Studies professor who isn't nominalist (no offence but his agenda is apparent.) :lol:

And I totally agree with you about 'Islamism' and the political nature of Islam.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,874
Location: temperate zone

19 Oct 2013, 6:18 pm

IIts true that Islam started out as a caliphate. But not all modern predominately muslim countries have Islamist governements.

And I agree that its tiresome to watch the passionate exchange of ingnorance between non muslims about Islam here.

Occasionally Boo, a non muslim Lebanese who actually lives in the middle east weighs in about the middle east. But you rarely see any other actual middle easterners (muslim or not) turn up here.

But you're claiming that the west conspired against muslim countires decades ago?
And that this conspiracy has it roots in the treaty of Westphalia ( that ended the 30 years war)?

I think the rise (or revival if you prefer) of Islamism is a response to European colonialism of the 19th Centurey, and the fall of the Ottoman Empire in world war one..

The Islamic world, like the rest of the non european world, fell under european domination. Islamic central Asia became part of the empire of Czarist Russia (and remained part of the soviet union), The Middle East and north africa got divied up between England, and France, the subcontinent of India was part of the British empire. And the east Indies were divied up between Britian, and the Netherlands. So Islamism is a logical rallying point for nationalism, and resisting lingering western domination.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

19 Oct 2013, 6:52 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
IIts true that Islam started out as a caliphate. But not all modern predominately muslim countries have Islamist governements.

And I agree that its tiresome to watch the passionate exchange of ingnorance between non muslims about Islam here.

Occasionally Boo, a non muslim Lebanese who actually lives in the middle east weighs in about the middle east. But you rarely see any other actual middle easterners (muslim or not) turn up here.

But you're claiming that the west conspired against muslim countires decades ago?
And that this conspiracy has it roots in the treaty of Westphalia ( that ended the 30 years war)?

I think the rise (or revival if you prefer) of Islamism is a response to European colonialism of the 19th Centurey, and the fall of the Ottoman Empire in world war one..

The Islamic world, like the rest of the non european world, fell under european domination. Islamic central Asia became part of the empire of Czarist Russia (and remained part of the soviet union), The Middle East and north africa got divied up between England, and France, the subcontinent of India was part of the British empire. And the east Indies were divied up between Britian, and the Netherlands. So Islamism is a logical rallying point for nationalism, and resisting lingering western domination.


That's a very interesting theory and I believe it explains much of current popularity of 'Islamism' (insofar as it can be called a distinct ideology.)

However, I think the roots of 'Islamism' lie squarely in Islam. I know that sounds extremely obvious (given the etymology, even,) but it's worth saying when people go to such pains to disassociate the two.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


Arran
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 375

20 Oct 2013, 4:00 am

naturalplastic wrote:
But you're claiming that the west conspired against muslim countires decades ago?
And that this conspiracy has it roots in the treaty of Westphalia ( that ended the 30 years war)?


Yes, it's true. Some historians claim that the conflict between Europe and the Islamic world go back to the time of the Crusades and has existed continuously since then.

Quote:
I think the rise (or revival if you prefer) of Islamism is a response to European colonialism of the 19th Centurey, and the fall of the Ottoman Empire in world war one..

The Islamic world, like the rest of the non european world, fell under european domination. Islamic central Asia became part of the empire of Czarist Russia (and remained part of the soviet union), The Middle East and north africa got divied up between England, and France, the subcontinent of India was part of the British empire. And the east Indies were divied up between Britian, and the Netherlands. So Islamism is a logical rallying point for nationalism, and resisting lingering western domination.


Again, I state that Islamism lacks a precise definition and is used in a derogatory manner. You never find any members of the Taliban, Hizb-ut-Tahrir etc. using the term to describe themselves.

I have doubts about whether the revival you mention really exists in the way you like to think it has, or are you using it as a catch all term for a variety of largely separate political campaigns that have taken place in Muslim majority countries since the 19th century? What can be ruled out is a revival being a recent phenomenon of the past 40 or so years, although the demise of communism was a game changer in that it provided opportunities for Muslim majority countries to form stronger ties with other Muslim majority countries. During the cold war a situation had arisen where some Muslim majority countries allied themselves with the US and the west, and others allied themselves with the Soviet Union effectively prohibiting unity.

The Iranian Revolution was about Nationalism much more than Islam contrary to how the western media portrayed it. Many Islamic scholars and non-Muslim political analysts consider the Islamic aspect of the Iranian revolution thwarted by the fact that Iran is Shia whereas most Muslim majority countries are Sunni. Strong animosity exists between the Iranian leaders and Sunni political groups in other countries supporting the revival of Islamic government and the Caliphate. Afghan resistance in the 1980s (that was backed up by the US) was first and foremost about sovereignty and resisting communist expansion. The objective of the Soviets was to later conquer Pakistan and establish a naval base on the Indian Ocean.