Capitalism:A Love Story

[BonosSaint]

Most people cherrypick to suit their ideology. On the whole, I'm fonder of those who cherrypick in favor of the vulnerable. As far as I'm concerned, any religion that doesn't flatout command protection of the vulnerable isn't worth the scrolls it is written on.

Maybe it's only personal duty to care for those who need. (It's not like early Christian writers were in any position to be telling Rome how to run its empire). But we don't need a religious reason to involve the government. A humane one will suffice. And if a secular, humane reasoning is kinder than religious interpretation of Christian text, then the lamb's blood was a waste.

 

[JanuaryStar]

Did I say an attack was a simple insult? That's not what I meant if it was implied.
Self defense to me is flinching and blocking someone from hitting me in the moment, a reflex. Yes, there is nothing wrong with the reflex of defending yourself, your life and your family.

Where I am coming from is the WAR is the answer to everything mantra. I understand the rage and the need to lash out, I have been there, but in doing so ( on a large scale such as a planned invasion of a country, large scale bombing which inadvertanly kills more innocent people) this planed retaliation does nothing more than perpertuate the violence and you play right in to the provokers hand. They want you to react, they want you to hit them back so they can justify hitting you...and it never ENDS!

Even though I don't agree with a lot of christian views, I have to agree with this point here. Jeannieco, what you said earlier about some people just not getting a certain point because it may take years (and for others it will never come), I agree with that. It seems like it's difficult for, oh, let's say 90% of our world's population to think outside a certain box.

This whole war thing I never ever understood before. Sure, for a lot of the rationals and pragmatic-thinking people out there it's difficult to realise that it's just not the answer, because other countries/groups use violence as a way of provoking and sitting there doing nothing is unthinkable! But it's about the concept of action/reaction here. If all would just think the same way about this whole war-thing, then these 'revenges' or whatever they could be called weren't necessary at all. Idealist? Yes. Not possible? Probably. But if there weren't any idealists out there anymore and only people who see things or only one way, or only the other, then this world would be lost. Only seeing things 'the way they are' is understandable from many point of views, but even only as much as trying to see them in a way they're not at this point but could be in the future is necessary to keep this world sane and from drowning into a major depression. And to prevent it from a never-ending circle of provokings and negative consequences.

I've been following this thread for a while now and this is just something what I wanted to say. Carry on.

 

[Jeannieco]

Well, we agreed to disagree. Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but just to make it clear, we did not agree, and I will never agree with your position. Rather that engage in a circular debate with no chance of either of us changing positions, I politely ended it.

Geez, easy there skippy. Agreeing to disagree is not sarcasm. I was trying to be nice.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Did I say an attack was a simple insult? That's not what I meant if it was implied.
Self defense to me is flinching and blocking someone from hitting me in the moment, a reflex. Yes, there is nothing wrong with the reflex of defending yourself, your life and your family.

Where I am coming from is the WAR is the answer to everything mantra. I understand the rage and the need to lash out, I have been there, but in doing so ( on a large scale such as a planned invasion of a country, large scale bombing which inadvertanly kills more innocent people) this planed retaliation does nothing more than perpertuate the violence and you play right in to the provokers hand. They want you to react, they want you to hit them back so they can justify hitting you...and it never ENDS!

You quoted and put in bold a definition that said it was the reaction towards an insult.
You can narrow down the definition of self-defense to where it is only the case when it's a reflex. On a personal level, that's surely the case. That's why you, as a person, are only allowed to take action in the moment. After that, you need to rely upon the police and the court system. But that's not analogous to what a state is to do when being attacked.

You are answering the mantra of war, or responses that also include violence, is the answer to everything (which no one of us even remotely claimed, so it's distracting from the actual discussion) with the mantra of war is never right. I'm just pointing out that the whole issue isn't as black and white, and even though we all wish sometimes we won't achieve our goals, or safety, just by "turning the other cheek".

In general I agree with you. I would love to see e.g. Israel just once not answering a suicidal bombing the way they do, or vice versa. And of course such a response also plays into the hands of your enemies. On the other hand, not going about such an attack like 9/11 wouldn't make the Taliban or al Quaeda disappear as well. Turning the other cheek wouldn't work. And there are some other historical examples.

 

[Jeannieco]

Even though I don't agree with a lot of christian views, I have to agree with this point here. Jeannieco, what you said earlier about some people just not getting a certain point because it may take years (and for others it will never come), I agree with that. It seems like it's difficult for, oh, let's say 90% of our world's population to think outside a certain box.

This whole war thing I never ever understood before. Sure, for a lot of the rationals and pragmatic-thinking people out there it's difficult to realise that it's just not the answer, because other countries/groups use violence as a way of provoking and sitting there doing nothing is unthinkable! But it's about the concept of action/reaction here. If all would just think the same way about this whole war-thing, then these 'revenges' or whatever they could be called weren't necessary at all. Idealist? Yes. Not possible? Probably. But if there weren't any idealists out there anymore and only people who see things or only one way, or only the other, then this world would be lost. Only seeing things 'the way they are' is understandable from many point of views, but even only as much as trying to see them in a way they're not at this point but could be in the future is necessary to keep this world sane and from drowning into a major depression. And to prevent it from a never-ending circle of provokings and negative consequences.

I've been following this thread for a while now and this is just something what I wanted to say. Carry on.

 

[yolland]

And there are some other historical examples.

Gandhi's surreal 1938 letter to Martin Buber recommending a satyagraha campaign by German Jews comes to mind. Though that's not per se a case of a nation being attacked, either.

 

[Jeannieco]

So anyway... back to the MOVIE

I discovered some nasty facts in the film about the practices of some larger corporations one of which is my employer. I was shocked!
Yes, I did my research after the movie to see if this was true, and sure enough there it was.....
The good news I discovered doing the research for me anyway is that my state Governor Christine Gregoire made this practice ILLEGAL in our state! Thank God.

This nasty little secret is called DEAD PEASANT insurance. You are a peasant you know that right? Companies can take out life insurance policies on their employees WITHOUT the employee ever knowing about it and if they die suddenly the CORP. is the beneficiary, not the employee's family.
Oh. My. Gawd. Sick.
Check it out people...it can't hurt. Go see the movie and judge for yourself and do your own research... and I am not talking about the Huffington Post or the Drudge Report....

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Most people cherrypick to suit their ideology. On the whole, I'm fonder of those who cherrypick in favor of the vulnerable. As far as I'm concerned, any religion that doesn't flatout command protection of the vulnerable isn't worth the scrolls it is written on.

Maybe it's only personal duty to care for those who need. (It's not like early Christian writers were in any position to be telling Rome how to run its empire). But we don't need a religious reason to involve the government. A humane one will suffice. And if a secular, humane reasoning is kinder than religious interpretation of Christian text, then the lamb's blood was a waste.

I think that's an excellent post. And I especially don't care for the idea that we can try to tell other people how to live with our "Christian nation" but not be a "Christian nation" when it comes to putting food in their mouths and all of that. There's a disconnect there, for me. A hypocritical one.

I saw the movie-as a movie it follows the same formula that his other ones do but for me it certainly made the point. Capitalism sure works very well for some, no doubt about that. I had no idea about the "peasant" insurance. I'd love to see Congress put a stop to that. Oh yeah, they're in bed with the companies that are doing it. You really have to wonder how they have done that for so long without people knowing about it. Maybe some people here knew, I had no idea. For that alone this movie was worth making.

 

[BonosSaint]

There were some articles a few years back about a Texas Walmart doing that. I found it particularly distasteful and ghoulish, even if legal.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but will probably get it when it comes out on DVD--mostly because I only get out to two or three movies a year.

 

[Jeannieco]

I think that's an excellent post. And I especially don't care for the idea that we can try to tell other people how to live with our "Christian nation" but not be a "Christian nation" when it comes to putting food in their mouths and all of that. There's a disconnect there, for me. A hypocritical one.

I saw the movie-as a movie it follows the same formula that his other ones do but for me it certainly made the point. Capitalism sure works very well for some, no doubt about that. I had no idea about the "peasant" insurance. I'd love to see Congress put a stop to that. Oh yeah, they're in bed with the companies that are doing it. You really have to wonder how they have done that for so long without people knowing about it. Maybe some people here knew, I had no idea. For that alone this movie was worth making.

Yep, it's very eye opening even if you don't like MM.

I was totally floored during the movie when I saw that part... mostly because my company was listed as one of the offenders. But like I said the good governor of our state here in Washington signed a law making it illegal.
Thank God.

 

[INDY500]

Michael Moore was on Hannity Tues night. Reminded me what's wrong with cable news. Issues such as war, healthcare and capitalism vs socialism are complex issues and thus may require answers lasting longer than 10 seconds but damned if Hannity didn't interrupt Mr Moore 5 seconds into his every response to challenge him with another question, interject his own talking point or, I guess, just remind viewers whose show it is.

In competent hands could have been an interesting and informative show.

 

[Irvine511]

Michael Moore was on Hannity Tues night. Reminded me what's wrong with cable news. Issues such as war, healthcare and capitalism vs socialism are complex issues and thus may require answers lasting longer than 10 seconds but damned if Hannity didn't interrupt Mr Moore 5 seconds into his every response to challenge him with another question, interject his own talking point or, I guess, just remind viewers whose show it is.

In competent hands could have been an interesting and informative show.

i have excised cable news out of my life, and i feel much better for it.

 

[yolland]

I do find myself increasingly impatient when people whine about how sensationalistic or biased something they just watched on ANY of those networks was. Just stop watching the damn stuff if you're actually sincere about wanting reasonably thoughtful, sober analysis, because there's not a one of them that reliably delivers.

 

[BVS]

Michael Moore was on Hannity Tues night. Reminded me what's wrong with cable news. Issues such as war, healthcare and capitalism vs socialism are complex issues and thus may require answers lasting longer than 10 seconds but damned if Hannity didn't interrupt Mr Moore 5 seconds into his every response to challenge him with another question, interject his own talking point or, I guess, just remind viewers whose show it is.

In competent hands could have been an interesting and informative show.

It's good to hear this from you

That's why NPR is so great. Every once in awhile you get the cut off, but it's between guests never the hosts, but for the most part it's equal stage.

 

[Irvine511]

That's why NPR is so great. Every once in awhile you get the cut off, but it's between guests never the hosts, but for the most part it's equal stage.

i get 75% of my news from NPR. i adore it.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

YouTube - Michael Moore Confronted By Hannity About "Capitalism"