Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by TheNightFly, Sep 16, 2017.
Nah, it just means they aren't going to look you in the eye with a smile and lie to your face.
So then they are, in effect, saying life is meaningless, abandon your family, quit your job, do drugs, drop out of school?
Meaning implies creationism. Since atheists don't accept creationism as an explanation for anything, they would say life is meaningless. They would also say that life has value- whatever value we give it- and that a person's decision to follow moral values strongly determines how much we value their life.
perfectly liberal but very good for drug suicide crime sloth!!!! We should teach atheism in schools to our children!! Life is meaningless so you can kill anyone.
its so nice liberal atheists define life as meaningless, but it has whatever value godless atheist liberals like Hitler Stalin and Mao give it. We must teach our children that too!!!
are you talking about Nazi moral values, Muslim moral values, Hindu, Hip hop moral values, MS-13???? See why we must be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
what on earth would you think that??????????????Famous atheists don't say their life has no meaning because they are atheists???
what??having no meaning or significance would imply they could kill randomly or commit suicide randomly. If life had no meaning or significance why bother to eat just to sustain a life that has no meaning? Christ loved everyone equally just so their life would have meaning.
Personally I feel more problems could be solved if we were to cease trying to find a one size fits all solution to everything.
People can work piecemeal, but what will benefit the quality of work is profit-sharing.
Not all equally, but all equitably. People must know that they are "contributing to the success of the company" and will be compensated by sharing in its profits. Again, not all equally but all equitably*.
That has worked in some European countries (once upon a time). I know of no company now employing the scheme here.
But when it was employed in Yugoslavia, it worked. (Even if the Yugoslav export car to the US was a real jalopy. It was called the "Yugo" and was based upon a model produced by FIAT.)
*I suspect that stock-options or profits, were they shared by ALL within a company, was introduced as part of work-remuneration, it would be very, very successful.
Atheism is not a subject that can be taught, it's merely the rejection of the baseless hypothesis of creationism. It's the natural result of not teaching creationism.
For life to have an existential meaning, it would have been created as a statement or form of expression, like art, by something or someone other than us- a creator, thus implying creationism. But, as far as science can tell, there is no creator, which means there is no existential meaning of life.
Value is always a matter of opinion. Some people don't value human life so they chose to kill the people they hate. Fortunately, we live in a time when people like that don't get very far before society fights back and kills them.
In order to be moral, a value must respect human life, liberty, and property, and has nothing to do with political alignment.
So I'm talking about all moral values.
Profit sharing sounds nice but it never implemented equitably.
I feel like I'm mostly working for executive salaries, the capital gains of investors, and income taxes than for my own compensation.
Stocks should only ever be sold to the employees of the same company because the employees are the only ones working and contributing to it. The number of shares an employee owns can be limited by their pay grade, making capital gains an equitable supplement to their regular income, like profit sharing. And when an employee leaves the company, the company buys back all of their shares, like severance pay. If they work long enough, the buy back is more like a retirement account.
100% absurd of course. Why on earth cant you teach that its illogical to believe in God especially given that we teach its logical to have faith in God??
obviously science does not even attempt to tell us what happened before the big bang so talking of creation from a human perspective as if you understand all that was created before the big bang is 100% totally absurd and beyond naive.
science does not pretend to even speculate about this realizing that time from big bang forward may be
1/onetrillionith of all time.
so in your world there is no reason to feel guilty about killing someone. if someone thinks its wrong that is just an opinion no better than any other. We could teach that in school!! You could lead the way!!
HItler had great respect for life, German life and believed he was merely speeding up evolution by killing the weaker people. His values were political and so were Christs. Why wouldn't values be political? Who said they are not???
capitalism is profit sharing. If you don't share enough of the profits with workers and customers they go elsewhere to where more profits are shared and you go bankrupt. This is why we love capitalism.
obviously if it would be successful some would try it to one degree or another and do more and more of it. they don't because it failed and was 100% stupid. This is so obvious.
Liberals are naturally Nazi-like and so want to impose at gun point one size fits all.
There is nothing stopping Layfayette or any human on earth in a free country from forming a communist company with 100% profit sharing to make everyone: workers management owners customers suppliers etc, happy and productive. Why don't they do it to prove that it works and bury the Republican capitalist competition that won't turn communist????? If communism worked capitalist freedom would prove it!
The problem with that approach is that it greatly complicates pay. For example, what if the task is originally underestimated and grows in scope. Now my incentive will be to just get a cheap quick version of the task done to not waste time since any extra time perfecting it is unpaid. The next problem is this puts a strain on the employer to have to estimate the cost of every task and they will eventually just do a quick estimate but will likely be often inaccurate.
Instead of abandoning salaried or hourly pay why not have managers give high-performing employees bonuses and pay increases and fire low performers.
Yes, it did. In Yugoslavia it worked very well. (I have a Yugoslav friend who misses it dearly.)
Try it, you'll like it ... !
It's the responsibility of business and management to create and sustain efficiency and effectiveness...no matter how you choose to compensate people...
Obviously, all Republican capitalist businesses do that. If they don't know who their good and bad workers are and pay them appropriately they will go bankrupt.
Separate names with a comma.