Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just because whenever shumagorath gets into a debate people feel the need to come in and attack him, I'm gonna say that I think his points are reasonable, but that comments like "You don't have any idea what you're talking about. You never know what you're talking about. Stop posting. Forever." should be left out entirely- they add nothing to the argument, they're offensive, and they turn people off.

Da Boss wrote:Just because whenever shumagorath gets into a debate people feel the need to come in and attack him, I'm gonna say that I think his points are reasonable, but that comments like "You don't have any idea what you're talking about. You never know what you're talking about. Stop posting. Forever." should be left out entirely- they add nothing to the argument, they're offensive, and they turn people off.

Your right. I might have insulted someone enough so that they would stop posting! I apologize.

LunaHound wrote:Correction Manchu , that is exactly what i was talking about. But shuma was talking about different thing.
Thats why there is argument later. And now as well.

That 1 sentence is interpreted into 2 completely different things , hence you see yourself.

I have no sensitivity about this issue or any other reason to read into your posts something that is not there--certainly not some kind of sympathy for Shuma, who can certainly take care of himself--but I still read your posts in a way that you say is totally different from your intent. I think the first miscommunication therefore can be laid at your door. (This doesn't justify any flaming that followed, of course.) TBH, I still don't see how "sustainability" has anything to do with the specter of slave labor. I thought Shuma's point was that the one child policy is not currently averting any kind of population crisis.

Yes and they moved into neighbouring flats and played loud music until four in the morning. Bloody poles!

Just noticed you live in Fareham, Jack. Small world!

Haha, i work around the portsmouth and southampton area alot, doing one of my jobs (im a plumber by trade) i got sent to a polish chaps house.
Got a good laugh when i found out he had been fired and another polish chap hired for less money
He missed the part about a worker being fired and him taken on for less money

Yea, tiny little town of fareham, with a gakky growing population due to pubs / clubs being closed and more flats being built.

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Correction Manchu , that is exactly what i was talking about. But shuma was talking about different thing.
Thats why there is argument later. And now as well.

That 1 sentence is interpreted into 2 completely different things , hence you see yourself.

I have no sensitivity about this issue or any other reason to read into your posts something that is not there--certainly not some kind of sympathy for Shuma, who can certainly take care of himself--but I still read your posts in a way that you say is totally different from your intent. I think the first miscommunication therefore can be laid at your door. (This doesn't justify any flaming that followed, of course.) TBH, I still don't see how "sustainability" has anything to do with the specter of slave labor. I thought Shuma's point was that the one child policy is not currently averting any kind of population crisis.

Then it depend what you view china as.

In my view China is split into 3 parts.

1) The government , the elites of the populace.

2) The above average populace , content with how the system works , able to express their opinion of the great government and system.

3) The majority , the rural populace of china. Born and raised with propaganda that doesnt know better.
Maybe with few governed radio and tv channels , not much connection with the rest of the world. Aka , what i referred earlier as still 3rd world country.

LunaHound wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Luna wrote:Not related manchu? i think they 100% are.

I don't.

Do you really think people here who are opposed to China's birth control policy (of which I am one), are taking that position because we simply can't get enough cheap, poorly made Chinese consumer goods? Do you seriously believe that would be the case?

If so, put the bong down.

Nope thats not what i meant at all. I think you and shuma are misunderstanding it due to some sensitivity about the issue.
But if you will read on.

Wanting cheaper items does 2 things.
It creates opportunity , and it creates work force , and with China been a strong one , its a very common choice of country to pick from.

I emphasize slave labor for 2 reasons.

reason 1 as written not long ago. They are in bad condition not because they lack the work force to finish a work load.
They are in bad condition because everyone is expected to over work.

This is then linked to :

reason 2. They are expected to over work because if 7 people can finish the work load of 10 people , thats only 7 workers they have to feed instead of 10.

Hence reason 3:
An population increase will not effect the work condition because the original concept in reason 2 . Hence China implement to keep population in check.

Am I the only one having difficulty deciphering this? Sorry, not (really) trying to be rude here, but I'm not sure what your argument is - I get the impression it's one (or more) of these:

-People oppose China's birth-control policy because they are (indirectly, at least) in support of wage-slavery.
-Population growth is responsible for wage-slavery in China. (Not related to the OP)
-Wage-slavery benefits China's economy. (Not related to the OP)
-China's government wants to halt wage slavery by slowing population growth.
-China's Gov't wants to improve working conditions for industrial workers. By sterilising people.

...is that about right?

Albatross wrote:
Am I the only one having difficulty deciphering this? Sorry, not (really) trying to be rude here, but I'm not sure what your argument is - I get the impression it's one (or more) of these:

-People oppose China's birth-control policy because they are (indirectly, at least) in support of wage-slavery.

No , its 2 different issues. In the last 2 pages i have explained why i believe Birth control was implemented related to work force.

-Population growth is responsible for wage-slavery in China. (Not related to the OP)

No i mentioned many many times its not

-Wage-slavery benefits China's economy. (Not related to the OP)

Never said that either

-China's government wants to halt wage slavery by slowing population growth.

Easiest quote i can give you that i have written was the 7ppl working for 10 paragraph.

-China's Gov't wants to improve working conditions for industrial workers. By sterilising people.

China Govt dont want the condition of the work force to deteriorate if they can feed 7 instead of 10 of future

And forgot to include the important one that kept poping up "slavery wages"

I have never blamed foreign consumer and investors in wanting to contract chinese companies. As i said over and over again.
We naturally want things done for cheap.

I emphasize again, the one to blame are the chinese companies themselves for setting the work condition this way.

Chinese govt will welcome job creating opportunities given by foreign companies. But even the law are one eye open one eye shut.
And we dont even need to get the obvious government corruptions.

Shuma: You don't get to say who can and can't post. Ignore is there if people posting upsets you that much.

@Lunahound - So what the feth IS your point?

So you were advocating none of those positions . . . or some of them . . . am still confused. :\

Da Boss wrote:Shuma: You don't get to say who can and can't post. Ignore is there if people posting upsets you that much.

But ignore doesn't stop them from posting!

@Lunahound - So what the feth IS your point?

You have to ask if there is one.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Shuma: You don't get to say who can and can't post. Ignore is there if people posting upsets you that much.

But ignore doesn't stop them from posting!
.

Come now Shuma,you would be bored out of your mind if you agreed with everyone who posted.

My points?

-Keep the old populace that is born into the unfair system , they'll keep working contently till they expire without problem because all their lives thats all they know to do.

-New populace in new world brings new idea. Which will rise against the system. However , the content / above average populace
will never be against the system because they have it nicely from it.

-Companies that want things done cheaply will be involved with China .
Things done cheap = things done with very fast pace = worse condition for workers.

-Communist rural china have one simple policy regarding work. Everyone work the hardest they can for the main country. Who ever doesnt share the same
drive or ethics are encouraged to be snitched for bonus. Without this type of raised mentality who on earth will willingly work like slaves.

-Current China population have enough work populace to get production done.

-Having more population growth will not effect work condition positively because the doctrine of how hard they should work is to be enforced because communism is supposed to be equal.
If one is allowed to slack off , others will follow.

- Having more population will effect the condition in a negative way because spreading the wealth of what 7 had into 10 = less for everyone.

Its awful how it works , but it works because thats how their society works.
Its easy to dismiss how others handle it. But can you guys guarantee what works in USA will work in China?
with the same effect? without additional consequences?

So China needs to sterilise people because they just can't get it together enough to create a workable internal economy? I don't buy that for one iota of a second.

TEMPERS people, TEMPERS!

Thread Generating Mod Alerts: Check
Posters Starting (!) To Get Rude: Check
Posters Baiting Other Posters: Check

LANCE THREAD FROM HIGH ORBIT: ...

...

In other words, public warning to debate the points, and only the points, now issued!

Albatross wrote:So China needs to sterilise people because they just can't get it together enough to create a workable internal economy? I don't buy that for one iota of a second.

Sorry what does internal economy mean T-T

Alpharius wrote:TEMPERS people, TEMPERS!

Thread Generating Mod Alerts: Check
Posters Starting (!) To Get Rude: Check
Posters Baiting Other Posters: Check

LANCE THREAD FROM HIGH ORBIT: ...

...

In other words, public warning to debate the points, and only the points, now issued!

Note to self, do not pick out controversial news story and post in off topic next weekend. Stick to giving in the painting and modelling forum and offering friendly What ho!s in Introductions

LunaHound wrote:

Albatross wrote:So China needs to sterilise people because they just can't get it together enough to create a workable internal economy? I don't buy that for one iota of a second.

Sorry what does internal economy mean T-T

What does that mean?

I think it refers to China's domestic labor market.

Manchu wrote:I think it refers to China's domestic labor market.

I thought he was asking about the emoticon.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Manchu wrote:I think it refers to China's domestic labor market.

I thought he was asking about the emoticon.

Oh, it's a crying face. The T's are eyes with tears streaming down and the dash is a little crying mouth.

Alpharius wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Albatross wrote:So China needs to sterilise people because they just can't get it together enough to create a workable internal economy? I don't buy that for one iota of a second.

Sorry what does internal economy mean T-T

What does that mean?

Its my emoticon in place of
or commonly known also as: Q.Q or ;_;

Im not exactly a fan of ork emoticons , and most people dont understand typed emoiticon,
so sometimes i use onion emoticons then people report me for trolling.

Life is great in OT!

Wait is it crying or rolling its eyes?

Manchu wrote:Wait is it crying or rolling its eyes?

I dont see how the eyes are rolling .

From the look of it , i can only imagine it been 2 things.

1) Tears flowing from -_- face
or
2) Eye balls melted flowing off eye socket.

Well, that Orkmoticon is neither crying nor are its eyes melting out of its skull. It's rolling its eyes as if to sarcasticly blow someone off, like saying "yeah right."

Oh... like i said i dont use them so they looked similar...
it looked like its pouting

well i made a thread explaining emoticons... you can take it a look so i dont get in trouble for OT...

What a wierd thread, starting with population to Asian emoticons... ^.^

lol my chinese friends are now reading this thread.

They told me one thing i forgot about.

"Never trust words from the mouth of someone that is still forced to remain in China. Not because they want to lie to us , but they'll be diciplined."

And from words of the ones finally free and out of China , John im sure even your parents will say this:

这样的官草菅人命 http://www.chinese-tools.com/chinese/chengyu/dictionary/detail/2633.html

In the US, we're staring down massive problems with sustainability on all fronts, and haven't really done a damn thing about it. China appears proactive, but still has to deal with a massive peasant population. In the mean time, the world is a far more competitive place, with less time remaining for anybody to get their gak straight.

So I think it'll be interesting to see how things go in the next couple decades.

In a bizzare twist of fate, I think it's no longer impossible that I end up moving to Asia for some period of time.

JohnHwangDD wrote:


In the US, we're staring down massive problems with sustainability on all fronts, and haven't really done a damn thing about it. China appears proactive, but still has to deal with a massive peasant population. In the mean time, the world is a far more competitive place, with less time remaining for anybody to get their gak straight.

So I think it'll be interesting to see how things go in the next couple decades.

In a bizzare twist of fate, I think it's no longer impossible that I end up moving to Asia for some period of time.

Not sure what you mean, population growth in the u.s. is fairly static and immigration issues are really only issues if you don't bother to look historically at american immigration and realistically at just what the immigrants do for our economy. Our economy is still growing faster than a good portion of the planets and our average standard of living will be well beyond that of china for at least another half century. Our only big sustainability issue stems from the growth of low wage labor markets in other parts of the world and an over reliance on an oil infrastructure and coal based power plants. By contrast chinas got enormous issues with soil erosion in it's more fertile areas and a fundamental issue with how to maintain its industrial strength once it releases it's currency and it's standard of living increases (thus making chinese manufacturing more expensive than indonesia, north africa, the golden triangle, or parts of south america).

Everywheres got issues, your best bet is to move to one of the member states of the EU that doesn't suck. We could all be living the swiss dream!