Is God trying to tell me somthing?

[True_Blue]

You do realize that the topic of children working originally came up in this thread in terms of forced labor, don't you?

Also, why didn't you ignore me in this thread like you have in that other thread?

I'm not entirely sure which post you're referring to, but if it's the one where you say that you have been a bisexual for eight years and are still a virgin, how am I supposed to respond?

 

[stan1980]

ColdDonut, there are two tests to use to determine whether you should quit this firm. The first is your conscience, and the second is what I call the "primary purpose" test. Your conscience is clearly bothering you by working for this company. I would quit on that basis alone. Life is too short to work for companies like this one. I also apply something I call the "primary purpose" test to determine whether a person should work for a given company. Something is wrong with every company, company I went to the website, and it's clear the company is PRIMARILY money by marketing evil. I work for the US Air Force. While individual members of the Air Force have done evil things from time to time, the primary purpose of the Air Force is to defend the United States and protect against evil. Since my conscience doesn't bother me, and because I feel God has called me to the military, I am very confident that I am doing the right thing in my current employment.

The toys this company sells are twisted, so I would quit post haste. There are jobs out there you will absolutely love--you just need to find them.

Strange you felt the need to legitimise your job. Which is worse... the millions of people worldwide who are willing to work for the armed forces of their respective countries... or this doll? No contest in my book.

 

[cantata]

A product designed to arouse prurient thoughts, like the pole dancer toy, is malum in se--inherently wrong. Evil is evil--one form of evil is not worse than another form of evil in the eyes of God.

Ahh. A model of a pole-dancer is as bad as genocide. I get you.

On the other hand, it's not inherently wrong to hire children to work as long as (1) the employment is not coerced, and (2) the working conditions are reasonable under the circumstances.

They are frequently not reasonable.

It's also not inherently wrong for businesses to play low wages. In fact, workers have an affirmative duty to their families to demand the highest possible wages from their employer,

All well and good, if you have the option of working for a company which doesn't immediately fire or "dispose of" anyone who attempts to form a union to lobby for better pay.

and companies have an affirmative duty to their owners to pay the lowest possible wages to their employees.

That is indeed the nature of the modern corporation. It is despicable.

The salary actually paid out reflects a compromise between those competing interests.

It does not. If people have a choice between a job being paid about a third of what they need to live, and no job at all, they will take the former option. That is not balance. That is exploitation. These people have no means of lobbying for better pay. They cannot go elsewhere or threaten their employer with their resignation, because there are thousands of people desperate for work, and any dissenters can be replaced within a day.

The fact that an employee may be "desperate" for a salary in no way makes it immoral for a company to pay what we would consider a low wage.

It makes it utterly reprehensible.

Or, as I asked before, do you think it's okay to pay desperate people for sex and kidneys because the responsibility rests with the person accepting the money?

 

[HannahBanana]

I'm not entirely sure which post you're referring to, but if it's the one where you say that you have been a bisexual for eight years and are still a virgin, how am I supposed to respond?

You're supposed to respond in the same way that you respond to any other post: by actually answering the questions that were asked of you.

 

[True_Blue]

That is indeed the nature of the modern corporation. It is despicable.

Or, as I asked before, do you think it's okay to pay desperate people for sex and kidneys because the responsibility rests with the person accepting the money?

I think we're very far apart when it comes to economics. It sounds like you are a socialist/communist. I am an Adam Smith free market economist. I also have a corporation. I formed the corporation to earn money. If I had to pay my employees whatever they want, I wouldn't form the corporation in the first place. I pay my employees enough to keep them strongly motivated to do good work and have them want to continue to work for my company. Ultimately, I hire someone because I expect them to provide more value for me than what I pay them. So if a person is providing me $10 an hour in value, I can only afford to pay them something less than $10 an hour. Otherwise, it would make no sense to hire them. Society wants people like me to form corporations because by doing so, I create wealth through technology and all of society is better off as a result.

It's ok to pay a person for their kidneys. A friend of mine has three kidneys, so she could certainly provide substantial value to someone else by selling one of her kidneys. Selling sex is a different matter. Sex was intended by God to be a holy and sacred thing. To be sacred means to be set apart. Sex is intended to be reserved for our mate, not for the general population.

 

[cantata]

I think we're very far apart when it comes to economics. It sounds like you are a socialist/communist. I am an Adam Smith free market economist. I also have a corporation. I formed the corporation to earn money. If I had to pay my employees whatever they want, I wouldn't form the corporation in the first place. I pay my employees enough to keep them strongly motivated to do good work and have them want to continue to work for my company.

That's fine in a situation where people are able to choose for whom they work. You have to pay your workers a certain amount because if you don't they'll go elsewhere. Your workers are able to form unions and are able to lobby for better working conditions and better pay if they believe they need it.

The situation is completely different when there is only one place people can go for jobs, and where there are literally thousands of people starving and desperate for work. It is especially different when the people who own the factories in which these people are working are able to either fire or quietly dispose of people who attempt to form unions to lobby for improved working conditions and better pay. And they have good reason to demand those things:

• They are usually paid much less than what they need to live and support their families. Many have infants and elderly relatives to support. Because money is so tight, often eight or nine people must live in a single room, in buildings with an extremely high risk of fire.
• Children under ten years old often have to work in dangerous factories so that they and their families do not starve.
• Factories are frequently unsafe by any reasonable standard, and there is no insurance or compensation for employees who are injured while working. Injury is virtually a death sentence, as treatment is expensive, infection is rife, and no one will employ a disabled person.
• Employees frequently work shifts of 16 hours at a time. Forced overtime is the norm.
• Women are instantly made redundant when they fall pregnant.
• There are scheduled toilet breaks, and in some factories, menstruating women are labelled with a red armband so that the foremen know to allow them more toilet breaks.
• Sometimes people are forced to continue working through debt bondage.

It is disgusting that human beings are treated this way.

Ultimately, I hire someone because I expect them to provide more value for me than what I pay them. So if a person is providing me $10 an hour in value, I can only afford to pay them something less than $10 an hour. Otherwise, it would make no sense to hire them.

Very true. You do need to make a profit. But I'm sure you're aware of the profit margins on a designer jacket made in a sweatshop in a developing country; they are astronomical. It is not a case of not being able to afford to pay more.

Society wants people like me to form corporations because by doing so, I create wealth through technology and all of society is better off as a result.

Yep, that's just fine in America. But I can assure you that it is not the people who need it most who benefit in developing countries when multinational corporations outsource their manufacturing there. Desperate for the business, the governments of these countries create tax havens for the corporations in order to compete for their custom. The corporations bleed the local area dry, and then move on. People who have travelled there specifically to work in those factories are left destitute and often can't afford to travel back to their families.

It's ok to pay a person for their kidneys. A friend of mine has three kidneys, so she could certainly provide substantial value to someone else by selling one of her kidneys.

Again, we disagree. I do not think it is okay, especially given that the ways in which kidneys are removed are frequently unsafe. There can be all sorts of post-operative complications because of infection or poor practice. It is exploitation of the desperate to offer money (usually much less than is reasonable) for the risk of their health.

Selling sex is a different matter. Sex was intended by God to be a holy and sacred thing. To be sacred means to be set apart. Sex is intended to be reserved for our mate, not for the general population.

So you can't sell sex, but selling parts of your God-given body is just fine?

The mind boggles.

 

[True_Blue]

The situation is completely different when there is only one place people can go for jobs, and where there are literally thousands of people starving and desperate for work. It is especially different when the people who own the factories in which these people are working are able to either fire or quietly dispose of people who attempt to form unions to lobby for improved working conditions and better pay. And they have good reason to demand those things:

Again, we disagree. I do not think it is okay, especially given that the ways in which kidneys are removed are frequently unsafe. There can be all sorts of post-operative complications because of infection or poor practice. It is exploitation of the desperate to offer money (usually much less than is reasonable) for the risk of their health.

So you can't sell sex, but selling parts of your God-given body is just fine?

The mind boggles.

Cantata, absent a communist or totalitarian government, there is never only one source of employment. People can always look to themselves for employment. Unless the government prevents them, people can invent things, perform useful services for others, farm, hunt, etc. Ultimately, everyone is self-employed. People in "third world countries" may work in a factory making designer clothing because they've made the decision that it's more lucrative to earn $2 an hour in the factory than it is to farm. As long as the government is not forcing them to work in the factory, it's fine. Very recently, the average human being lived on $1 a day. So $2 per hour, for example, is perhaps 16 times the average wage, even if it is far below the average American wage. I would not be too quick to judge multinational corporations. The entire world is undergoing an absolutely unprecedented rise in prosperity--I recommend getting a subscription to the Economist to get an excellent education on global current events. The Economist and I attribute the enormous increases in prosperity to good government and globalization.

It's not immoral for a person to have the individual liberty and freedom of choice to sell a body part if they so choose, as long as they are adequately appraised of the risk. A liberal would allow a person to sell their body for sex, but not let them sell their kidney for profit. A libertarian would allow them to sell both their kidney and their sexual body for profit. A conservative would allow a person to sell their kidney for profit, but not sell their body for sex. I gather you are a liberal. Based on this definition, I am a conservative.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

I forgot, when did sexuality become evil? When did killing people over selfish pride and paranoia become okay and even God blessed and the beauty of the human body become an evil thing?

I had an idea once where I would create a modeling magazine solely for the purpose of displaying the human body in a way that wasn't sexual or provoking. Then I realised that the Christians would hate it because obviously sex is horribly evil and should only be used to make children. God took time to make your body. And everyone appreciates it in their own way. Just because some people are tempted by it doesn't mean we turn it off. The only reason those things HAVE been perverted is BECAUSE we've treated it like it's something bad. Things don't spur evil because you ignore the evil. Things spur evil because your TREAT it like it's evil.

If we all respected the human body and weren't constantly trying to keep our children from seeing any sort of skin, you wanna bet that people would be less risque and more respectful of their temple?

 

[cantata]

Cantata, absent a communist or totalitarian government, there is never only one source of employment. People can always look to themselves for employment. Unless the government prevents them, people can invent things, perform useful services for others, farm, hunt, etc. Ultimately, everyone is self-employed. People in "third world countries" may work in a factory making designer clothing because they've made the decision that it's more lucrative to earn $2 an hour in the factory than it is to farm. As long as the government is not forcing them to work in the factory, it's fine.

Mm, I wonder. Do you think children have a choice, or do they work at the behest of their families?

Where do you propose that someone with nothing should go to find the means to farm, invent things, provide useful services, &c.? Have you ever been to a slum in a major city of a developing country? Do you know how many people offer to polish your shoes or carry your bags for you? We are talking about thousands of people with virtually nothing to offer. Forgive me for wishing someone showed them enough compassion to pay them enough to feed themselves.

Very recently, the average human being lived on $1 a day. So $2 per hour, for example, is perhaps 16 times the average wage, even if it is far below the average American wage.

I don't mind how many dollars it is. What I mind about is whether it is enough to live on. When it is not, people die.

I would not be too quick to judge multinational corporations. The entire world is undergoing an absolutely unprecedented rise in prosperity--I recommend getting a subscription to the Economist to get an excellent education on global current events. The Economist and I attribute the enormous increases in prosperity to good government and globalization.

I frequently read the Economist. I also read other, more sceptical publications. A rise in prosperity is all well and good, but I'm afraid it means little to the people who are still being treated in the way I described in my previous post (which I notice you've quietly ignored).

It's not immoral for a person to have the individual liberty and freedom of choice to sell a body part if they so choose, as long as they are adequately appraised of the risk.

It is, however, a pretty unpleasant thing to do to pay a desperate person for their organs for far less than they deserve, just as it is unpleasant to pay a desperate person to work in extremely dangerous and unpleasant conditions without offering a fair wage.

A liberal would allow a person to sell their body for sex, but not let them sell their kidney for profit. A libertarian would allow them to sell both their kidney and their sexual body for profit. A conservative would allow a person to sell their kidney for profit, but not sell their body for sex. I gather you are a liberal. Based on this definition, I am a conservative.

I would allow people to sell whatever they like. I think it is reprehensible, however, to buy organs or sex from desperate people.

Buying sex may be more acceptable if the prostitute is paid well and works in reasonable conditions. If someone were properly paid, extremely safely treated, and received proper post-operative care in exchange for their kidney, that would be just dandy.

 

[True_Blue]

Mm, I wonder. Do you think children have a choice, or do they work at the behest of their families?

Where do you propose that someone with nothing should go to find the means to farm, invent things, provide useful services, &c.? Have you ever been to a slum in a major city of a developing country? Do you know how many people offer to polish your shoes or carry your bags for you? We are talking about thousands of people with virtually nothing to offer. Forgive me for wishing someone showed them enough compassion to pay them enough to feed themselves.

Buying sex may be more acceptable if the prostitute is paid well and works in reasonable conditions. If someone were properly paid, extremely safely treated, and received proper post-operative care in exchange for their kidney, that would be just dandy.

I have been to Bolivia, and I was frequently mobbed by poor children trying to sell me paper clips and single pieces of gum. I saw unspeakable poverty in that country--it's the second-poorest country in the Western Hemisphere after Haiti. I also know precisely what Bolivia needs to do to become a prosperous country. I would love to work as an economics adviser for third-world governments. Perhaps in a few years... In short, they have had 200 years of dictatorships, military juntas, and socialist regimes, except for a few years in the 1990s, followed by the present socialist regime. They need to:

-reduce marginal tax rates to no more than 10%
-stop expropriating the property of citizens and foreigners
-restore full diplomatic relations with Bolivia's neighbors, especially Chile
-eradicate the drug crop
-prosecute corrupt government officials
-eliminate barriers to trade and business formation
-stop redistributing wealth from Santa Cruz to the favored native class
-build a road network to link Bolivia's cities and connect Bolivia with ports in Chile and other neighboring countries, allowing Bolivia's farmers to transport their crops to market
-allow foreign corporations to harvest Bolivia's plentiful natural resources and hire Bolivia's people, while making huge capital investments in this capital-poor country
-install clean drinking water and sewer systems

This is basically a capitalist prescription. In essence, capitalism as a 100% win-loss record compared to communism/socialism/protectionism/liberalism. Few things in life are more unambiguous. The fact that hoards of journalists, college professors, and politicians remain die-hard socialists is a reflection of the fact that the debate over economics has underlying spiritual issues that cannot be resolved with mere data, reason, and the experience of nations. After communism collapsed across the world in the 1990s, there should be no more communists anywhere. And yet we're still locked in the same old debate. Ultimately, Bolivia's children are dirty and starving because their parents can't stop looking to the government to take care of themselves.

 

[cantata]

But True_Blue, while your proposed solution may be extremely effective, it is not in the hands of the poorest to make the decision to change it, and to be honest, given the lack of provision of education to those people, even if it were in their hands I am not sure that they would be able to make an informed decision about it. In the meantime, I still regard it as unacceptable to ruthlessly exploit those people.

 

[True_Blue]

But True_Blue, while your proposed solution may be extremely effective, it is not in the hands of the poorest to make the decision to change it, and to be honest, given the lack of provision of education to those people, even if it were in their hands I am not sure that they would be able to make an informed decision about it. In the meantime, I still regard it as unacceptable to ruthlessly exploit those people.

Cantata, I understand what you're saying and where you're coming from. You care about people, and you want our government and economist system to reflect care and compassion. I likewise don't like it when people are ruthlessly exploited. I have a family member that was ruthlessly exploited by an insurance company. The problem is a practical problem of how a government would go about enforcing and applying a ban against "ruthless exploitation." You would have to define what ruthless exploitation is, and a judge or political leader would have to apply the law to a given fact pattern. When judges and politicians try to practically apply such a sentiment, they themselves always end up being more ruthlessly exploitative than the activities they are trying to remedy. Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales are in the process of dismembering their respective countries, and they were elected by people who wanted them to make equitable determinations as to which evil corporations were exploiting the people, then seize their property. As a natural part of that process, their socialist economic model is causing terrible hardship for their people.

I agree that this is a counterintuitive result. Most people are socialist by nature, and I can only disagree with socialist because of the heavy weight of human experience against socialist models. We want it to work, but it never does.

The Biblical example of why capitalism works is Joseph's example in Genesis 47. Had he given out food equitably, all the food would have been consumed years before the end of the famine because people would not have considered the food the absolutely precious commodity that it was. The only way the food would have lasted was by paying for it. My mother pointed this out to me many years ago, and it took me a long time before I finally understood.

For hundreds of years, there has been a long struggle against law and equity. I am a firm believer in the rule of law, not despotism of equity. Law is harsh, but it's fair when applied to every human being equally, and by experience and conservative economic theory, law is the way to economic prosperity, not equity and socialism.

 

[The Gregorian]

I ripped my pants in the crotch, is god telling me not to wear pants and go about as adam and eve did?

yes.

No, but they are ruthlessly exploited because they are desperate.

Or do you think paying destitute women for sex (or their organs, or to be drug mules) is okay because, after all, they're taking the money?

Again, the focus is on the wrong part. "Ruthless slave labor for almost no pay" is a problem.

The "ruthless" part is bad. Mistreatment is wrong whether you're getting paid a dollar a day or $30 an hour.

If they were treated with general respect, and not asked to do dangerous things or mistreated... then I wouldn't have a problem with only paying kids whatever they're being paid... it's better than nothing. They choose to work. You could say "but they can't afford food otherwise." To which I would respond "Then it's a good thing someone's giving them a job, unlike in america... Here, if you're under 16 and you can't feed yourself... too bad, you can't work... period... slave labor or not.

Of course, here, there are other options... but I hope you see my point... the low wages aren't the problem... it's the mistreatment that's the problem. Higher wages are better... but I'd rather be paid $8.50/hour for a safe/easy/fun job than $16/hour for a job handling carcinogenic material, where I can easily be dismembered or kill someone if I make a single mistake...

Which is why I'm not working as an A&P mechanic at the moment... I get paid MUCH less working at Office Max... but it's a more laid back job. Eventually I'll go back... but I'd rather be poor and have fun than have money, but work in an unsafe environment.

A product designed to arouse prurient thoughts, like the pole dancer toy, is malum in se--inherently wrong. Evil is evil--one form of evil is not worse than another form of evil in the eyes of God.

I disagree. A lot. Commercials often use pretty girls to sell things. Companies OFTEN surround their product with pretty things (such as girls) in order for their product to be related to such pleasant ideas. Technically, there's at least some aspect of lust involved. This is NOT as bad as certain movies on the internet of women doing horrible things into a cup.

Yes... a sin is a sin... God will freely forgive sin no matter it's degree if you are HONESTLY repentant. To that extent all are equal because all are equally forgivable. But if your kid draws you a picture and asks if you like it, it IS less of a sin to lie to them and tell them it's beautiful, than to beat them to death for his or her sub-par shading skills.

Yes... lying and murder are both sins... But do you honestly think God WANTS you to perpetually be blatantly honest? Because if we started playing by those rules, women would never talk to anyone ever again... especially each other....

.... just imagine a world where women didn't lie to each other... :o

 

[Bombila]

Oh, Gregorian! I was content with your post right up to the end, when you had to add that little 'woman joke'. It's such a stereotype, and it's so untrue of women in general, who are mostly very honest with each other - certainly in my long experience.

 

[Bombila]

I was using somthing from a compony that sells immoral products and i stepped on a nail while using it i also got dust in my eyes while using it and some of it also broke is God trying to tell me not to use or buy from thie compony any more?

And...

ColdDonut, I find it hard to believe you are serious, but if you are, you need to get over being so self-centred as to think God would throw dust in your eyes over such a minor thing while allowing serial killers and tyrants and despots and rapists et al to live happy healthy long lives. If your version of god exists (which I doubt), it seems highly unlikely he'd be disciplining people individually for silly infractions such as this. Your fears express pure superstition.

 

[The Gregorian]

How could a child not be coerced into employment? Most children don't even know what a job is, beyond the fact that Mommy and Daddy have one (or, in some cases, only Daddy has a job or only Mommy has a job). Seriously, you think that a child (by which I mean a 3-9 year old...that's what I think of as "a child" anyways) could consensually agree to work for someone? Sure, an older child might be able to, but a younger child? Heck no.

Plus, aren't children supposed to be all innocent and naive? Why are you okay with taking a child's innocence and naivete away from them? Why shouldn't every child be allowed to just "be a kid"?

Well... in some areas of the world... not all children are in households where they get enough food. Even an extra dollar a day may make the difference between being able to eat or not. And I don't think they have many 3 year olds in sweat shops.

... of course.. my nephew's 6 and he knows full well what working is. When he hangs out with his grandpa at the office, he always calls him boss and asks what he can do to help out. Usually, it's just "oh, I don't have enough pictures on the wall, so I need you to help by drawing me something." ... but sometimes he's asked to take out the garbage or put some papers in a box or help out with some simple task. He gets paid with ice cream.

Which shows: A- kids can have jobs... and B: It's better for people to pay kids with enough for food... or directly in food... than for the kids to starve.

 

[The Gregorian]

No, I didn't say that.

If you spend too much time looking at scantily clad pole dancers, eventually you will no longer be aroused, and you'll have to look at completely naked women. Pornography is much like a crack addiction in this respect, Waltersmoon.

... no... the human body... is not comparable to crack.

Yes... like EVERYTHING... looking at the human body TOO MUCH or in the wrong way can be bad... but that's because you're doing it wrong. Under the right circumstances, it's not only acceptable, but GOOD to appreciate the human body.

A married couple should be attracted to each other... they should lust for each other. The bible specifically says that each person's body does NOT belong to themselves, but to their spouse, and each person is NOT to go withholding themselves from the others for too long... and if they must, only for a short time when agreed upon.

Sexuality is supposed to be, by default, a good thing. It's misuse and abuse is the ONLY time it's sinful... unfortunately that's more common than it's intended use... which is NOT just reproduction. Sex is supposed to be enjoyable... but again... not misused.

 

[The Gregorian]

Oh, Gregorian! I was content with your post right up to the end, when you had to add that little 'woman joke'. It's such a stereotype, and it's so untrue of women in general, who are mostly very honest with each other - certainly in my long experience.

... have you ever seen a woman before? You know how to tell when they're lying? When they say something.

(I know, I know... it's not that bad. But I'm still angry at women as a whole... for certain reasons. Certain very good reasons.)

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I was using somthing from a compony that sells immoral products and i stepped on a nail while using it i also got dust in my eyes while using it and some of it also broke is God trying to tell me not to use or buy from thie compony any more?

I think you're a klutz...

 

[Bombila]

... have you ever seen a woman before? You know how to tell when they're lying? When they say something.

(I know, I know... it's not that bad. But I'm still angry at women as a whole... for certain reasons. Certain very good reasons.)

You're angry with half the human species?

Y'know, over the course of my life, various men have been unfaithful to me, lied to me, prevented me getting employment because of their ignorance or bigotry, deliberately paid me less than a male colleague doing the same job, physically attacked me and frequently insulted my intelligence and/or my person.

I still manage to avoid being angry with the entire gender, since only a small percentage of men have been responsible for all that grief.

I can't think of any good reason to be angry with all men or all women.

And I am not a particularly forgiving person.