Premier Rock Forum

man sorry to get back to something that happened three pages back but to get to specific examples of labor abuses within free markets.

Older: (may not be relevant enough for you)

The events leading up to the Supreme Court cases of
Lochner v. New York
Muller v. Oregon
Adkins v. Childrens Hospital
The cases explain the specific labor violations. (I see them as violations anyway.)

Newer:
Forced overtime and low pay in Maquiladoras (You can debate the extent to which Mexico's economy is "free")

The housing and pay situations of migrant workers who work at a produce growing and packing facility five miles from my house.
-They live in cinder block "dormitories" that lack basic utilities.
-They are paid far less for comparable work than whites.

I don't know you might think they have no rights because they are citizens but to hell with laws for a minute could we just be decent human beings to each other for five minutes? Not because its the law, but because its the right thing to do?

I think that last statement might be too "Kantian" for some on here. heh heh

Language doesn't influence thought.

Like I said, you're stupid.

jlamour wrote:

The property owner can sell or abandon his property and walk away. Damage done to the environment is permanent. There used to be mountains in West Virginia where now there are mineral flats. Mountains gone forever, because somebody "owned" them for a little while.

And used the these resources to build your guitars and studio, your livelihood, your past, present, and future.

While false, trivial even if true. My guitar? I'll trade that for a mountain, or I'll get a guitar that doesn't require mountain removal. It is not the case that all guitars require mountain removal, even if mountain removal generates some guitars. There are other ways to get guitars, and that's what environmentalists would suggest -- have your guitar, just don't remove a mountain to get it.

bigc wrote:

Language doesn't influence thought.

Like I said, you're stupid.

He's had some doozies here, but that one was particularly good.

bigc wrote:

jlamour wrote:Language doesn't influence thought.

Like I said, you're stupid.

I think there is more room for debate here than the "stupid" response would allow.

The relationship between thought and language seems to be exceedingly complex. The scientific accounts for each each individually are very weak and mostly incomplete. A theory concerning their relationship would be no stronger.

My speculation is that what jlamour says here literally is unlikely. The other extreme, that thought is constrained by language, is much more popular but to my way of thinking equally unlikely. If it were true how in world could we as a species get beyond a caveman sort of existence?

But this discussion will quickly lead off-topic...

(My apologies to the Geico cavemen...I like you guys. I really do.)

galanter wrote:

bigc wrote:

jlamour wrote:Language doesn't influence thought.

Like I said, you're stupid.

I think there is more room for debate here than the "stupid" response would allow.

The relationship between thought and language seems to be exceedingly complex. The scientific accounts for each each individually are very weak and mostly incomplete. A theory concerning their relationship would be no stronger.

My speculation is that what jlamour says here literally is unlikely. The other extreme, that thought is constrained by language, is much more popular but to my way of thinking equally unlikely. If it were true how in world could we as a species get beyond a caveman sort of existence?

But this discussion will quickly lead off-topic...

(My apologies to the Geico cavemen...I like you guys. I really do.)

There was plenty of room for debate a few pages back when I thought that jlamour was actually interesting in such a thing. As it stands, he's pleased to make unsupported claims, state obvious flashoods (language doesn't influence thought?) and meander through the whole catalog of fallacies.

Sorry, I just get tired of that shit.

I explained why language doesn't influence thought. Refute it, don't just call me stupid.

Steve, the mountain was a metaphor for the exploitation of all natural resources. Peace out, everyone.

galanter wrote:

bigc wrote:

jlamour wrote:Language doesn't influence thought.

Like I said, you're stupid.

I think there is more room for debate here than the "stupid" response would allow.

The relationship between thought and language seems to be exceedingly complex. The scientific accounts for each each individually are very weak and mostly incomplete. A theory concerning their relationship would be no stronger.

My speculation is that what jlamour says here literally is unlikely. The other extreme, that thought is constrained by language, is much more popular but to my way of thinking equally unlikely. If it were true how in world could we as a species get beyond a caveman sort of existence?

But this discussion will quickly lead off-topic...

(My apologies to the Geico cavemen...I like you guys. I really do.)

I'd say it's pretty obvious that language and thought influence each other. I only had the most basic brush with semiotics in college and and i can tell that much. Just look at FOX News' attempts to co-opt the language to push their agenda. If language didn't shape thought, then why would we have "homicide bombers" and a constitution-stomping "Patriot" act? jlamour, have you not even read any Orwell?

jlamour wrote:I explained why language doesn't influence thought. Refute it, don't just call me stupid.

If your goal is to be an actual thinkin man, as opposed to a guy who thinks up absurd things to say so that he might "troll", then you have failed miserably.

Miserably.

galanter

thank you for your well reasoned response.

that being said, this thread has come a long way from a discussion on celebrities and their silly decisions to a discourse on language and thought.