Britain/UK to get its 56th prime minister

[B0ycey]

I'm looking at your proposal from a human and humanitarian point of view.

I am not convinced most of the world doesn't want our standards — governments may not, but people don't always have their say.

"YOU CANNOT MISS SOMETHING YOU NEVER HAD!"

I'm not really proposing anything. The issue we have... certainly in the West... is we wouldn't be able to survive without technology. Societies that don't rely on technology, mainly in the third world, may well desire it, some may even inspire to migrate for it, but that doesn't mean they will be happy with it or better for it. Self reliance and skills especially in survival is something you cannot really appreciate until it is lost.

Nonetheless stating that doesn't address the issue we were discussing that people in the third world would use their labor at their expense for our benefit and to enhance our society and in return they are able to afford to eat. We are in essence selling the fish rather than handing over the rod and trying to make out we are doing them the favor.

[patman post]

There was something about Untied Colours of Benetton donkeys years ago similar but can't remember what it was now.

Reminds me of a slogan I once saw sprayed on a rail arch — "Bad Spellers of the World Untie" — but in your case the livestock would likely be wandering off...

[patman post]

The problem is you are looking at this Western centric. Most of the world doesn't have our standards so what makes you think there is a tradeoff for them given it is them not the western preferences I am speaking of? Besides, I am not against technological development especially in medicine but it shouldn't be handed to anyone for a profit margin against your nations working class and perhaps given to someone as a gift if at all. You cannot stop advancement in its entirety anyway so every nations left alone would progress at its own rate whether we intervened or not.

I'm looking at your proposal from a human and humanitarian point of view.

I am not convinced most of the world doesn't want our standards — governments may not, but people don't always have their say.

Don't you think your ideas would have been more at home with the now largely discredited Schweitzer and Mother Theresa organisations, as could possibly have been promoted by the Arts & Crafts movement...?

[Nick]

I'm not sure who said what now but surely these ideals are impossible to achieve? The uneducated struggling to make a living in third world countries are not where they are by our choice. We try to give them work to make lives easier but surely we cannot discount two problems. The accusations of imperialism and the corruption within their own countries.

It seems that whichever way the West tries to help it is frowned on or pilfered.

There was something about Untied Colours of Benetton donkeys years ago similar but can't remember what it was now. 

[B0ycey]

Depends what's traded for your preferred ideal.

My bet is that most people in the developed world prefer their longer healthier lives to large families, with which to provide for their future, and earlier deaths.

So why should that be denied others if it's available and what they want...?

The problem is you are looking at this Western centric. Most of the world doesn't have our standards so what makes you think there is a tradeoff for them given it is them not the western preferences I am speaking of? Besides, I am not against technological development especially in medicine but it shouldn't be handed to anyone for a profit margin against your nations working class and perhaps given to someone as a gift if at all. You cannot stop advancement in its entirety anyway so every nations left alone would progress at its own rate whether we intervened or not.

[patman post]

Honestly, I think they would be better off if they lived in an ararian society than in a society where they are losing their ancestry skills by spending most of their time in a factory for our benefit. I think most people would be happier without ever knowing technology advancement actually but I think the West on the whole couldn't cope without it now given we have now lost our skills to do basic survival.

Depends what's traded for your preferred ideal.

My bet is that most people in the developed world prefer their longer healthier lives to large families, with which to provide for their future, and earlier deaths. 

So why should that be denied others if it's available and what they want...?

[B0ycey]

So are you saying that they should just be left to make their own way with no Western intervention?

Honestly, I think they would be better off if they lived in an ararian society than in a society where they are losing their ancestry skills by spending most of their time in a factory for our benefit. I think most people would be happier without ever knowing technology advancement actually but I think the West on the whole couldn't cope without it now given we have now lost our skills to do basic survival.

[T00ts]

The third world was fine before we sent in the gunboats T00ts. They weren't advanced but they were functioning just fine. And you could make the argument that technology has weakened our standards of living, we certainly are less skilled than we were in any case. Perhaps a big f**k off solar flair might not be the worse thing in the world.

So are you saying that they should just be left to make their own way with no Western intervention?

[B0ycey]

I'm not sure who said what now but surely these ideals are impossible to achieve? The uneducated struggling to make a living in third world countries are not where they are by our choice. We try to give them work to make lives easier but surely we cannot discount two problems. The accusations of imperialism and the corruption within their own countries.

It seems that whichever way the West tries to help it is frowned on or pilfered.

The third world was fine before we sent in the gunboats T00ts. They weren't advanced but they were functioning just fine. And you could make the argument that technology has weakened our standards of living, we certainly are less skilled than we were in any case. Perhaps a big F@@@ off solar flair might not be the worse thing in the world.

[Good old]

Same as a great many abominable things are done in the name of religion, doesn't make them religious acts.

That doesn't excuse either . Any more than saying a political murder is not a murder. 
If a capitalist system allows or makes profit from such acts of obvious exploitation, then it has to share the condemnation for doing so.

[B0ycey]

Again, who mentioned working to death, you're using the word sweatshop not me.

But you are replying to me on why Capitalism isn't fair and I have to explain in very simple word terms that there are people out there whose whole existence is working long hours just to survive so who fucking cares what terms I use. And no, you need to read up on surplus Labor.

[T00ts]

I'm not sure who said what now but surely these ideals are impossible to achieve? The uneducated struggling to make a living in third world countries are not where they are by our choice. We try to give them work to make lives easier but surely we cannot discount two problems. The accusations of imperialism and the corruption within their own countries.

It seems that whichever way the West tries to help it is frowned on or pilfered. 

[Nick]

India is a funny country given it is an emerging market and there are nations in Africa that of course work for significantly less than people in India, so perhaps there are nations better at explaining there are people out there whose choice is work to death or starving to death.

Nonetheless whether you wrote those words is irrelevant given that is what you implied. The point I was making is that you are saying "the woke" closed down sweatshops and because the poor now can't afford to eat they should have been happy they were being worked to death. No they f**king shouldn't. They should demand the same standards their equalivant in the West gets given they are doing the same f**king work. If that means the West pays more for products they make then that is what we should do. That is the FAIR SYSTEM. Anything else is UNFAIR. Capitalism in its very nature is an unfair system. There are more people on the planet who lose then there are who win given the objective of the system is to profit which defacto means for someone to profit, someone else must lose. That is just a fact. 

You get paid for what you achieve, if you achieve less you get paid less, this isn't losing, it's fair. 

Again, who mentioned working to death, you're using the word sweatshop not me. 

[Nick]

Then it's a great shame exploitation is so often practised in the name of capitalism ,and the promotion of capitalism then isn't it.

Same as a great many abominable things are done in the name of religion, doesn't make them religious acts. 

[Good old]

Capitalism has nothing to do with exploitation, it's a totally different word with a totally different meaning.

Then it's a great shame exploitation is so often practised in the name of capitalism ,and the promotion of capitalism then isn't it.