Our forebearers fought for that right during the Industrial Revolution and beyond. Workers' rights to fair wages, reasonable hours, and child labor laws to name a few.
It might not be the government's job to provide work for everyone, but when the government and businesses are so entangled, how can you tell the difference? Kickbacks, regulatory capture, campaign endorsements, revolving-door lobbyists. Industry insiders who hold civilian jobs one year, and federal oversight jobs the next.
You are correct that it is in the government's best interest that businesses that operate within its borders do what they can to help support the communities within. It's a long-term solution that must be continually maintained.
Not just judicial advocates, but a political arena that hasn't been dominated by campaign funds supplied by those who can afford to push an agenda. In a time of economic recession when individuals can barely afford to donate $10, the two major parties are hosting fund raising dinners that cost thousands to tens-of-thousands of dollars per person. The media keeps a tally of which campaigner has raised so much money in the same way that sports commentators report on the previous night's big game.
How about the right to work a well paying job?
With the Citizen's United decision, corporations are now free to unlimited campaign spending. Those with money can push their personal views ahead of the rest of us with company funds. They are now allowed to spend millions in corporate finances which could go towards employee paychecks, safety measures, medical insurance, or better product materials for goods and services. And while the top CEOs are getting bonuses in the millions of dollars, their companies are reducing their local workforce by thousands.
Maybe they're entitled to equal representation under the law?
Those with vast amounts of money to spend lobby local and national governments to pass laws which benefit their businesses at the expense of the citizenry. Everything from local water rights to health care has been skewed in legality towards larger corporate benefit. Companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co. have been accused of tapping into reserves and locking up fresh water, keeping it from the those living downstream and raising costs to the people. And has been discussed on this very site, issues in intellectual property from patents to copyright have stifled innovation in several areas of medicine and technology. With regulatory capture and large financial donations, companies are allowed to make their own laws that the rest of us are bound to to follow.
What do we have left with which to fight? Townships can pass local ordnance to counter land grabs by large businesses, or declare "free" zones which can only serve local communities (and bring expensive lawsuits in retaliation), and we can protest in hopes to bring about a change that restores some sort of equilibrium between those with means, and those without.
And here I thought I was addressing the points you brought up. Each point of discussion brings us further and further from the original topic. Now we're entering the round-about phase of repetition. So in essence, the 'debate' between us had already ended.
With this in mind, I think I'll bow out and leave the now-dated post with a relevant XKCD frame. http://xkcd.com/386/
I'm afraid I haven't witnessed any sort of philosophical debate over ice cream flavors, so I'll leave that one to you.
If you're so involved in picking furniture that it invokes such an emotional response akin to a spiritual awakening, then you have larger, more concerning personal issues than deciding on home decor.
As for EMTs? I'm told that they are trained for triage, but the determination can be different. The premise is "Save the ones that you can." There are a multitude of situations an EMT could find themselves in from a car wreck to a building fire, to a plane crash to...whatever!
If you're an EMT and are deferring a choice on who to save based on popular opinion, then you could be as bad as the two who let Brandon Teena die after being assaulted.
What you suggest sounds more like an "Us vs Them" prospect of culturalism. You describe a fan base of electronics due to an established culture behind them that already existed. Marketers like to call it "Brand Loyalty."
Ask someone that isn't a gamer to pick which console is better. They might use a whole other set of standards. Things like the number of titles available on each system, or the hardware specs, the uses each console has beyond just playing video games, maybe the physical look of each appliance, or more likely the over all financial cost associated with each product. The same thing goes for the iPhone and it's "Cult of Mac." Jacob vs. Edward was a huge marketing success because it developed a neat division of "Us vs. Them." They created a culture based on a work of fiction. However beyond that fan base, does anyone really care that much?
Even then, we'll probably see similar results as the chair experiment because it's a consumer product. The non-gamer may defer their decision to a group who actually owns the item in question.
How often has someone resigned their decision making with a simple phrase, "I don't care. You pick." And as monkyyy so humorously put it, the decision process could have been left to chance. If it happened, would a random result really be a determining factor in which product is superior? "The coin landed on Heads, so that chair is best."
Besides, the mind CAN exist with unresolved conflict once a person learns that a viable answer is an undisclosed third option. There are almost always alternate options not presented. Someone could have chosen both chairs. Or disregarded either as being atrocious. Or simply gone with the answer, "I don't know."
A whole other world is opened up once we break binary thinking. However that's another subject.
The difference between picking a chair and a philosophical belief is the difference between the short and long term investment. How much of a personal stake are you willing to put into an aesthetic design as opposed to your own core beliefs? Is it worth more to you to hold your views over the look of a chair or is there more value in discussing the merits and pitfalls of a Vegan lifestyle?
I didn't intend to dismiss the study outright. It does provide insight into an aspect of the human mind. You can learn how to understand other people by the way most would react to a given set of choices.
Picking a piece of furniture is not the same as a more deeply held belief such as religion or politics. There's no deep philosophical "truths" involved (at least for most people) when it comes to fashion sense and taste in decorative design.
When a bunch of people tell you, "Hey, that chair is pretty ugly," then it's easier to change your mind and go with the consensus. It's a fairly new and recent viewpoint that's more easily changed. It seems from this study that when there's larger opposition, then we get to a sense of individualism. "I don't want to be another drone like everyone else." In the greater view of things though, it doesn't really matter in the end.
When it comes to more ingrained beliefs that actually reflect our self-value like religion and politics, or even our own moralities, then people are much more likely to dig in their heels and stick to their beliefs. You see this a LOT with arguments like liberal vs. conservative, Republican vs. Democrat, atheist vs. theistic faith, science vs. religion. Or a whole host of other cultural clashes.
To change someone's mind based on an issue that hits at their core beliefs can become a traumatic experience. It shakes someone right down to their sense of self. Their core beliefs become challenged and psychologically many people will react in a similar manner that someone would if they were being physically violated. People feel a need to strongly defend such a position because it is a part of who they are as a person.
"These are my beliefs. My values. This is who I am. If what *I* believe is wrong, then *I* and everything I've been taught is a lie."
We don't want to feel betrayed by those who we've entrusted in positions of authority. Educators, religious leaders, community heads, even our own family. Those people who shape our society are the same people who shape our lives and help us grow as individuals. This is where the trauma comes in when challenged on personally held beliefs. People can have a crisis of faith, or doubt themselves, or feel betrayed by people who taught them, or even distance themselves from family and friends. The former social bonds can be shattered leaving a person feeling alone and lost.
So, picking between two chairs? That's easy. It generally doesn't personally effect you on a grand scale. But arguing against your core beliefs is an entirely different matter.
On the post: Monsanto Wins Patent Dispute Against Farmer Who Bought Legal Seeds
On the post: Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?
Re: Re: Re: Re: nonsense
It might not be the government's job to provide work for everyone, but when the government and businesses are so entangled, how can you tell the difference? Kickbacks, regulatory capture, campaign endorsements, revolving-door lobbyists. Industry insiders who hold civilian jobs one year, and federal oversight jobs the next.
You are correct that it is in the government's best interest that businesses that operate within its borders do what they can to help support the communities within. It's a long-term solution that must be continually maintained.
On the post: Who Do You Believe? NYPD? Or Video Evidence Concerning Cop Pepper Spraying Women?
Re: Re: nonsense
How about equal representation within the law?
Not just judicial advocates, but a political arena that hasn't been dominated by campaign funds supplied by those who can afford to push an agenda. In a time of economic recession when individuals can barely afford to donate $10, the two major parties are hosting fund raising dinners that cost thousands to tens-of-thousands of dollars per person. The media keeps a tally of which campaigner has raised so much money in the same way that sports commentators report on the previous night's big game.
How about the right to work a well paying job?
With the Citizen's United decision, corporations are now free to unlimited campaign spending. Those with money can push their personal views ahead of the rest of us with company funds. They are now allowed to spend millions in corporate finances which could go towards employee paychecks, safety measures, medical insurance, or better product materials for goods and services. And while the top CEOs are getting bonuses in the millions of dollars, their companies are reducing their local workforce by thousands.
Maybe they're entitled to equal representation under the law?
Those with vast amounts of money to spend lobby local and national governments to pass laws which benefit their businesses at the expense of the citizenry. Everything from local water rights to health care has been skewed in legality towards larger corporate benefit. Companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co. have been accused of tapping into reserves and locking up fresh water, keeping it from the those living downstream and raising costs to the people. And has been discussed on this very site, issues in intellectual property from patents to copyright have stifled innovation in several areas of medicine and technology. With regulatory capture and large financial donations, companies are allowed to make their own laws that the rest of us are bound to to follow.
What do we have left with which to fight? Townships can pass local ordnance to counter land grabs by large businesses, or declare "free" zones which can only serve local communities (and bring expensive lawsuits in retaliation), and we can protest in hopes to bring about a change that restores some sort of equilibrium between those with means, and those without.
On the post: Conan O'Brien Has The Inside Scoop On More Netflix Changes
On the post: Are You More Or Less Likely To Change Your Mind When The Majority Disagrees With You?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With this in mind, I think I'll bow out and leave the now-dated post with a relevant XKCD frame.
http://xkcd.com/386/
On the post: Are You More Or Less Likely To Change Your Mind When The Majority Disagrees With You?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're so involved in picking furniture that it invokes such an emotional response akin to a spiritual awakening, then you have larger, more concerning personal issues than deciding on home decor.
As for EMTs? I'm told that they are trained for triage, but the determination can be different. The premise is "Save the ones that you can." There are a multitude of situations an EMT could find themselves in from a car wreck to a building fire, to a plane crash to...whatever!
If you're an EMT and are deferring a choice on who to save based on popular opinion, then you could be as bad as the two who let Brandon Teena die after being assaulted.
On the post: Are You More Or Less Likely To Change Your Mind When The Majority Disagrees With You?
Re: Re:
Ask someone that isn't a gamer to pick which console is better. They might use a whole other set of standards. Things like the number of titles available on each system, or the hardware specs, the uses each console has beyond just playing video games, maybe the physical look of each appliance, or more likely the over all financial cost associated with each product. The same thing goes for the iPhone and it's "Cult of Mac." Jacob vs. Edward was a huge marketing success because it developed a neat division of "Us vs. Them." They created a culture based on a work of fiction. However beyond that fan base, does anyone really care that much?
Even then, we'll probably see similar results as the chair experiment because it's a consumer product. The non-gamer may defer their decision to a group who actually owns the item in question.
How often has someone resigned their decision making with a simple phrase, "I don't care. You pick." And as monkyyy so humorously put it, the decision process could have been left to chance. If it happened, would a random result really be a determining factor in which product is superior? "The coin landed on Heads, so that chair is best."
Besides, the mind CAN exist with unresolved conflict once a person learns that a viable answer is an undisclosed third option. There are almost always alternate options not presented. Someone could have chosen both chairs. Or disregarded either as being atrocious. Or simply gone with the answer, "I don't know."
A whole other world is opened up once we break binary thinking. However that's another subject.
The difference between picking a chair and a philosophical belief is the difference between the short and long term investment. How much of a personal stake are you willing to put into an aesthetic design as opposed to your own core beliefs? Is it worth more to you to hold your views over the look of a chair or is there more value in discussing the merits and pitfalls of a Vegan lifestyle?
I didn't intend to dismiss the study outright. It does provide insight into an aspect of the human mind. You can learn how to understand other people by the way most would react to a given set of choices.
On the post: Are You More Or Less Likely To Change Your Mind When The Majority Disagrees With You?
When a bunch of people tell you, "Hey, that chair is pretty ugly," then it's easier to change your mind and go with the consensus. It's a fairly new and recent viewpoint that's more easily changed. It seems from this study that when there's larger opposition, then we get to a sense of individualism. "I don't want to be another drone like everyone else." In the greater view of things though, it doesn't really matter in the end.
When it comes to more ingrained beliefs that actually reflect our self-value like religion and politics, or even our own moralities, then people are much more likely to dig in their heels and stick to their beliefs. You see this a LOT with arguments like liberal vs. conservative, Republican vs. Democrat, atheist vs. theistic faith, science vs. religion. Or a whole host of other cultural clashes.
To change someone's mind based on an issue that hits at their core beliefs can become a traumatic experience. It shakes someone right down to their sense of self. Their core beliefs become challenged and psychologically many people will react in a similar manner that someone would if they were being physically violated. People feel a need to strongly defend such a position because it is a part of who they are as a person.
"These are my beliefs. My values. This is who I am. If what *I* believe is wrong, then *I* and everything I've been taught is a lie."
We don't want to feel betrayed by those who we've entrusted in positions of authority. Educators, religious leaders, community heads, even our own family. Those people who shape our society are the same people who shape our lives and help us grow as individuals. This is where the trauma comes in when challenged on personally held beliefs. People can have a crisis of faith, or doubt themselves, or feel betrayed by people who taught them, or even distance themselves from family and friends. The former social bonds can be shattered leaving a person feeling alone and lost.
So, picking between two chairs? That's easy. It generally doesn't personally effect you on a grand scale. But arguing against your core beliefs is an entirely different matter.
Next >>