My Socialist leaning Sherbro's, help me understand this one?

HomerThompson said:
LOL.

Hurtful. Rude.
Click to expand...

One of my guilty pleasures on here is seeing your butthurt, after you eject yourself from an exchange to just "like" anything anyone responds with to my posts. You're such a weak, sad, little ankle biter. If you weren't verifiably a parasite and a drain on society, I might actually have a clinician's sympathy for you.
 
HomerThompson said:
Is it a good read?
Click to expand...

It's great. Beyond the argument, which is interesting, there's a pretty deep and fascinating look at life at various points in American history. It's illustrating how truly significant the changes from 1870 to around 1970 (actually earlier) were, and how comparatively minor the changes since are.
 
Last edited:
Greoric said:
"Yes" is not an answer to the question posited. With respect, you're not at the requisite level to be discussing anything with me. You're welcome back when you are.
Click to expand...
you asked if Ferrari's quality control is regulated by government or from the business. Well the safety standards are government, as are emissions. if you fancy a read you can google "EU car safety regulations". They go into great detail.

Also the other cars you mentioned may not use as luxurious materials which is why Ferrari will always be better than a Ford. I meant to highlight the part I was responding to.... eat a dick simpleton you are nowhere near my level. You dont even understand why your nation has a trade deficit with the entire planet. Its because your regulations are a joke
 
Greoric said:
One of my guilty pleasures on here is seeing your butthurt, after you eject yourself from an exchange to just "like" anything anyone responds with to my posts. You're such a weak, sad, little ankle biter. If you weren't verifiably a parasite and a drain on society, I might actually have a clinician's sympathy for you.
Click to expand...
f7d.gif
 
MayhemMonkey said:
you asked if Ferrari's quality control is regulated by government or from the business. Well the safety standards are government, as are emissions. if you fancy a read you can google "EU car safety regulations". They go into great detail.

Also the other cars you mentioned may not use as luxurious materials which is why Ferrari will always be better than a Ford. I meant to highlight the part I was responding to.... eat a dick simpleton you are nowhere near my level. You dont even understand why your nation has a trade deficit with the entire planet. Its because your regulations are a joke
Click to expand...

Yeah with honest to god respect, you're to ignorant to have this conversation with me. We're to far apart for this to be worth my time.
 
Greoric said:
Yeah with honest to god respect, you're to ignorant to have this conversation with me. We're to far apart for this to be worth my time.
Click to expand...
what because Ive proved your inane bullshit wrong? that regulations are the reason our car manufacturers shit all over yours? why our food products are a much higher quality, better for us and we actually get proper labels so we know what we are putting in our bodies.

You are evidence of why libertarians will never be taken seriously by rational minded people..... you have no idea how the modern world works!
 
MayhemMonkey said:
what because Ive proved your inane bullshit wrong? that regulations are the reason our car manufacturers shit all over yours? why our food products are a much higher quality, better for us and we actually get proper labels so we know what we are putting in our bodies.

You are evidence of why libertarians will never be taken seriously by rational minded people..... you have no idea how the modern world works!
Click to expand...

My last post is duly confirmed considering you don't even appreciate what standards of proof actually are.
 
Greoric said:
Yeah, again you're guilty precisely of what you're projecting on to me. This discussion, if you hadn't noticed has moved past the squabbling bullshit about semantics and classification, and you're not addressing my points, intentionally or otherwise.

For the sake of argument and moving this forward, I granted that we isolate safety out of the totality of quality (even though that's just a factor in it's total grade).

All you're doing now is just introducing asymmetry of knowledge. So what? Gov't doesn't mitigate that, and you're not addressing how gov't would mitigate that better than a decentralized service. If you didn't catch one of my first posts on the issue. I love regulation. This isn't a discussion of whether companies need to have oversight from third parties. I want mountains of it from the businesses I frequent. I just don't want a compulsory funded monopoly to provide it.
Click to expand...
A discussion does not 'move past' an issue just because you claim the point is irrelevant or wrong, especially when you are the one wrong. So take that arrogant shit elsewhere.

Private governance of quality issues such as aesthetics (taste, texture and smell) work well as consumers get instant feed back and can suitably punish a restaurant that exhibits poor quality by taking their business elsewhere.

When it comes to items of safety like cross contamination or hygiene and handling consumers have little to no knowledge of it until a big enough incident that they can definitely correlate the cause was that specific restaurant. However it is possible that for weeks, months, years a restaurant was causing illnesses and no one was ever able to isolate it as the cause. That creates a scenario where restaurants can weigh the chance of getting caught and their belief they are even doing any thing risky versus what we might (had we the information) demand or want in terms of food handling and care. That also means that restaurants would have no incentive to create or conform to a self policing body on these things as long as they could put out food that was aesthetically pleasing and was selling well.

A direct example was when Toronto first instituted the new inspection program I identified above and actually hired a large number of inspectors hit the street and the large number of restaurants that got cited for rodent infestation problems. they either got closed down or got a conditional pass identifying the rodent issue (which is as good as closing them) and the problem was quickly dealt with. Now years later such failures are very rare as most restaurants know the risk and employ 24/7 pest control measures to control them. Prior, since rodents are naturally elusive and try to never expose themselves they could 'sweep the problem under the rug' and hope no one noticed and hope a true food borne incident never happened. The perceived quality of what is being eaten does not drop with a hidden rodent infestation problem if the consumer does not know about it.

You may be content in that if a major problem happened the restaurant could be punished and put out of business after the fact but for most of us that is not enough. We do not want the exposure UNTIL someone is caught.
 
MikeMcMann said:
A discussion does not 'move past' an issue just because you claim the point is irrelevant or wrong, especially when you are the one wrong. So take that arrogant shit elsewhere.

Private governance of quality issues such as aesthetics (taste, texture and smell) work well as consumers get instant feed back and can suitably punish a restaurant that exhibits poor quality by taking their business elsewhere.

When it comes to items of safety like cross contamination or hygiene and handling consumers have little to no knowledge of it until a big enough incident that they can definitely correlate the cause was that specific restaurant. However it is possible that for weeks, months, years a restaurant was causing illnesses and no one was ever able to isolate it as the cause. That creates a scenario where restaurants can weigh the chance of getting caught and their belief they are even doing any thing risky versus what we might (had we the information) demand or want in terms of food handling and care. That also means that restaurants would have no incentive to create or conform to a self policing body on these things as long as they could put out food that was aesthetically pleasing and was selling well.

A direct example was when Toronto first instituted the new inspection program I identified above and actually hired a large number of inspectors hit the street and the large number of restaurants that got cited for rodent infestation problems. they either got closed down or got a conditional pass identifying the rodent issue (which is as good as closing them) and the problem was quickly dealt with. Now years later such failures are very rare as most restaurants know the risk and employ 24/7 pest control measures to control them. Prior, since rodents are naturally elusive and try to never expose themselves they could 'sweep the problem under the rug' and hope no one noticed and hope a true food borne incident never happened. The perceived quality of what is being eaten does not drop with a hidden rodent infestation problem if the consumer does not know about it.

You may be content in that if a major problem happened the restaurant could be punished and put out of business after the fact but for most of us that is not enough. We do not want the exposure UNTIL someone is caught.
Click to expand...

You're the only one on here, that I was hoping would respond. Thank you for the lengthy and thought out rebuttal. I'm a little tired of this discussion now honestly, and I hope to get back to you later.
 
ocfightfan said:
If you believe that women will be happier with a career that maximizes earnings rather than family that will love her for a lifetime then I can see how they would characterize it as a penalty.
Click to expand...
It is a very deliberately and purposely created fallacy by the activist left much like the general ''gender wage' issue.

If you characterize a woman or man's choice to accept a life where they choose balance between time at work, family and other considerations over being a workaholic focuses only on money as a positive (better quality of life and longer life) then it makes it hard to try and pressure to get them more money.

They want both. They want the work/life balance and the positive aspects but also to shame and guilt corporations to level their pay up so they make us much as the workaholic.

We are seeing the effects of it in the gender wage discussions where very large and public companies like Google and Apple are being shamed into wage leveling and ignoring the reasons behind WHY the wage disparity might exist.
 
Greoric said:
You're the only one on here, that I was hoping would respond. Thank you for the lengthy and thought out rebuttal. I'm a little tired of this discussion now honestly, and I hope to get back to you later.
Click to expand...
Well as I said 'fuck you' for putting me on a side that seems to include Homer, Mayhem and likely Jack. Jack is lumped in there despite being informed because he is so partisan and 'left' that he cannot express his views without that enormous bias dominating.

I guess if I am generally offside the extreme left and a libertarian like you I am where I belong which is somewhere near the centre (centre right to be exact).

I do believe in limiting gov't scope and function to core areas only such as major infrastructure, security health care (insurance, not delivery) and over arching regulations but think they should stay out of almost all other areas. I also recognize that gov't will always, by default, strive to be inefficient as their operating paradigm is the exact opposite of a for profit business which strives for efficiency and profit. Inefficiency in gov't means more people are required, equals bigger budgets, equals more voters (as people employed by gov't vote for more gov't). And i recognize the inevitable slippery slope jeopardy each and every time we empower gov't due to what I identified just prior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,699
Messages
55,435,697
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top