Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

CitizenX

Members
  • Content Count

    525
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About CitizenX

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Kelowna, B.C.
  1. Ohhhh my god Woman. :angry: YES THEY WERE FORCED to under take a rehabilitation programme They were not forced to quite or change. But as I've underlined previously it sounded like they wanted help, and wanted to change. I was the one who said that trying to force a person to change won't work they have to want it. You can force a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
  2. I think you should re-read your own article. It sounds like they wanted help.
  3. A person is a person under the law. A limited person???? "They do not enjoy a number of rights that actual persons enjoy." Such as? "serious misunderstanding on your part." Enlighten me.
  4. http://cables.mrkva.eu/cable.php?id=203598 sounds like she is asking to me.
  5. Off the top of my head I would say no. It does nothing to combat organized crime. Legalization is the only way.
  6. Corporations are considered persons under the law, unlike guns. A person can be evil. They are controlled by a group of people with only one motive, Profits. These people are not legally responsible for the acts of the Corporation. This creates an environment that rewards, and breeds sociopaths. Not unlike the Nazi's the less empathy a member has the higher they climb the ladder.
  7. Clement conspires with the US to get Canada placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list in order to get tough copyright law. And you don't see an issue?
  8. This is old news but I don't remember seeing thread. Why isn't this a scandal? Is this treason? http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1048993#article Canadian Government Sought U.S. Copyright Blacklisting Canada to U.S.: please blacklist us! Conservative government to debate revamping Canada's copyright law
  9. Now you talking about Nobility? Your example has nothing to do with "an evil act that does not relate to a lack of empathy" The original question. Bankers do not, not give loans because they are thinking it's the right thing morally to do for the people have insufficient income to pay back the loan. They don't give loans because it's bad for business. No the Plan was not noble. It was about money. Yes it had great benefits to society, but once again it has nothing to do with "an evil act that does not relate to a lack of empathy" The original question. Now you talk about semantics, but I thought this was about debating my definition of the word evil? You don't seem capable of proving my definition incorrect, and I don't hear you giving an alternate definition. I got my definition from a book I read - Science of Evil, The: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty and it made a great deal of sense. I did not claim that all conservatives lack empathy. It has been my observation through many discussions that yes many of the people that suspect as being conservative lack empathy. If I came across as representing this view then I apologize for any part I had in this misunderstanding. There are degree's of conservatism ideals just like there are degree's of liberal ideals. I've been through this argument way too many times. Please refer to my earlier responses.
  10. So you believe that bankers gave out easy loans because they empathized with people with "limited incomes"? Really? My definition for good was to have empathy. How does having a railroad relate to empathy? It relates to a convenience. Am I bigoted against persons that demonstrate a lack of empathy...well yes. You aren't? Do I have empathy for them?...yes of course I do. This thread started with if and how the word evil is connected with the concept of the Corporation.
  11. Show me an evil act that does not relate to a lack of empathy. Show me an act of good that did not originate from a sense of empathy. And Again how is my definition self-serving and highly prejudiced?
  12. You really should try and understand the definition of empathy. Just because I disagree with your conservative philosophy, doesn't mean I don't have empathy for you.
  13. My attitude towards conservative beliefs is one of disagreement, not a lack of empathy. Conservatives show a lack of empathy and compassion towards their fellow man. Read into this what you may. I have no doubt that Hitler suffered from a mental disorder so I would of had empathy for him. I just don't agree with him, and believe society must be protected from his type.
  14. Your response is rather simplistic. How is my definition self-serving, and simplistic? Maybe Hitler was nice to animals (other than humans), I don't know. What I do know is he had zero degree of empathy for people he thought of as being sub-human.
  15. You are correct I have had very experience when it comes to Unions. I appreciate you shedding some light on the subject. I will keep reading this thread to educate myself more on the topic.
×
×
  • Create New...