Rock the Vote

[BST]

Folks,

There's nothing wrong with having Off-Topic conversations. The only requirement is that mutual respect is maintained.

(Just consider it a slow news day on the BSG front.)

Originally Posted by Darth Marley

Come on now, we can all use the standard index of logical fallacies to obfuscate a point.

Yes, but you create such points by using my not perfect command of the english language. I do not if that is intentional or not, but I find it difficult to use exactly the right concept in all circumstances. Here is a typical example:

First you claim
Quote:
You can not argue that "that`s just the way it is",


but later claim
Quote:
I do like Jeremy Benthan use the existing society as a template


or are you just claiming that it is ok for you to use existing societal values, but not for those with differing viewpoints?

This is my poor use of english concepts. I have explained this earlier in the thread, so I won`t repeat it. I feel that a honest debatant should at least attempt to answer what the other debatant was actually meaning.

To make is short, libertarians means that society should be a certain way forever. Utilitarians hovewer use the existing society as a starting point, but when society is changed, the changed society becomes a starting point. I also struggle to write english and have limited time, so i don`t have time to rethink every formulation or use of concept.

Logic is logic (oh my, a tautology!) whether you like its style or not. Failure to respond with a reasoned reply loses a debate by default. If you spell out a different decision making paradigm, I'll indulge you on those terms.

Logic gives the right conclusions when every premise is known. When it comes to society, there are extremly few situations where every premise is known.

[ernie90125]

Dear BST,

No disrespect was intended. It is of course fine to have OT threads. I was just wondering why it was happening in a room called 'Battlestar Galactica Discussion' ????? And not the Galactica cafe etc ?

Originally Posted by BST

antelope,

What would you consider "high-wage" to be?

I happen to work in the customer service telecommunications industry and take incredible offense at your remarks. I will attribute it to coming from someone who has read all that there is to read about it but, otherwise has NO personal experience.

As far as the grammatically correct English, they might do that but, it's hard to tell because they speak so DAMNED fast. I have had conversations with my counterparts in Delhi, Bangalore, etc and have purposely stopped them and requested that they SLOW DOWN the velocity at which the words come flying out of their mouth!

Oh, and by the way, I didn't just fall off the apple cart yesterday. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Management and have worked for my current employer for nearly 20 years so, I am somewhat educated about the topics of which I speak!

Don't mean to offend. I am sure there are highly educated and paid customer service jobs in the telecommunication industry. You sound like a fine example of it.

From what I read the vast majority of the telecommunications jobs relocating to India involve routine customer service in areas not involving technical knowledge, although I am aware some of those jobs are moving also. The vast majority of Americans effected do not have a university education and are not "high wage" workers. Most however does not mean ALL.

Anyone who has answered the phone and talked to a telemarketer knows that the majority of these folks are not rocket scientist. I get calls from American telemarketing centers and Indian telemarketing centers. On average the Indian ones have better speaking people.

This trend would not be continuing if it wasn't cost efficient. Maybe some segments of your industry will always stay "American" because the quality demands it. Large parts however are equally or better served by a cheaper Indian work force. In many cases telecommunications jobs have been moving from Mexico and the Phillipines to India because of the very quality issues you mention.

Again I apologize if I offended you! My comments I believe are a true general statement although individual positions and situations obviously vary.

[BST]

ernie,

No problem. Actually, you make a good point about the forum location. I'll move this over to the Cafe.

Attention passengers, please return seats to their upright position and fasten seat belts. Course changed plotted, speed set at '1/4 light', destination Galactica Cafe. ETA - blink of an eye.

Okay Antelope.

I must state one thing clearly, I do not have the capacity to debate more than one person at a time, so if both Marley and Antelope take a swing at me, I don`t really have the time to answer both.

I do not want a return to a tribal society, but I find them interesting because of one very important aspect. They are the "natural state". They are a state in which human beings lived for over 20.000 years. I do take into conserideration that before that time, the human race apperas to have lacked some abilities of "modern man". The point about this society is that it is somewhat natural, and the society you had with no form of governent intervention whatsoever. I also like one aspect of the hunter gatherer society, that you can go out an make a living, hunt for food or gather roots to eat, without having to ask anyone for permission! You don`t have to get someone else to hire you, to permit you to use his land or buy your services to live. I therefore regard that society as the only truly free society that has ever existed. As soon as you get a society with a division of labour, you put your fate partially in the hands of others!

I therefore think that government should guarantee everyone the basic needs, as a form of compensation for the loss of independence as a result of the division of labour. I don`t believe that government should regulate everything, but I do believe that noone should starve because of the decisions of other people. The power that any form of civilization gives, doesn`t matter if it is capitalist, fuedal or socialists, make me regard civilization as partly imoral. Actually, every form of government is a form of socialdarwinism, as it implies that evolution is partly governed by the state, majority or the most powerful.

But now I have to leave, even if I an mot finished.

To make a long story short, I am a supporter of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mills, and belive in some income transfers. I also partly agree with John Rawls, but I agree with Benthams rationale for income transfers rather than Rawls. I also think that the nordic welfare state redistribute to much wealth, and that the east asian tigers do it "behind the curtains" in a to indirect and clumsy way.

[BST]

antelope,

Thanks. Sorry for losing my composure back there, it just struck a nerve.

You're right when you mentioned the issue being one of 'cost-effectiveness'. I've been having the same conversation with some of my co-workers. Myself and many others have seen the 'writing on the wall' and know that eventually the jobs will be exported to an overseas locale.

I've been saying, all along, that if my overseas counterpart makes 50% of my wage, as long as they generate 50% of the revenue that I do, the company is no worse off, based on revenue / unit cost. If they generate revenue > 50% of mine, the company is better off.

It is rather amusing, though, that with many calls that I receive, the first thing the customer says is "thank God, an American, someone I can understand". Their remarks about the other non-American reps are less than flattering.

Norwegian:
Thanks for your reply. I was not taking swipes. I now understand where you were going. Although we do not agree on the majority of things I do think we may have SOME common ground. I am willing to bet that you may think like me that society has an interest in educating our youth to the best of its ability regardless of what cards they were delt in life. That is why I want to help those up to 18 years old. At that point I hope we gave them the tools to earn a living. Those that show they are willing to excel I want to help through college. I don't however want to help people party for 4 years or sit on their ass at home. I am willing to bet we probably agree in the areas of hereditarial privledge. This takes the form in many cases where those who own property inherited not earned the property. Thank for your thoughts.

BST:
Things always sound harsher in writing since you can't read facial expressions or change your tone to the audience. Over time I assume most of us aren't as mean as we can sometimes sound (Me included)!

[bsg1fan1975]

all I know is that come november I am voting my conscience and will hope for the best!

Originally Posted by bsg1fan1975

all I know is that come november I am voting my conscience and will hope for the best!

That's what I do everytime!

When my guy or gal wins they seldom do as much good as I hope.

When the other guy or gal wins they seldom do as much damage as I fear.

Overtime I come to expect less and less from all politicians. In general I think we are like a ship going down a river. We may steer to the right or to the left but it's always downstream. I just hope down the river is an ocean not a waterfall.

[bsg1fan1975]

we just have to wait and see!

[Darth Marley]

Having been a libertarian for some 20 years now, I am genuinely puzzled by many of your statments about libertarian beliefs.

Logic forces me to conclude that either you do not know what libertarians believe, or you have been misinformed about what libertarians believe.

Libertarians do not believe society should be frozen in a static model in perputuity. Quite the opposite. The belief in the utility of freedom means that diverse groups will persue different goals, or similar goals by different methods. Decentralization works against such stagnation.

Libertarians believe in the law of unintended consequences, which give us a healthy skepticism of "designer ideologies."

Libertarianism does not discount the fact that people are different in needs and abilities.

If these strange and inaccurate statments are a result of your observations, I understand, and encourage you to look closer, re-examine.

If these statments are a result of what "academics" have told you, you should be furious that you have been misinformed by those that should know better, or perhaps are being deliberately dishonest.