Bone to pick with Osborn thread......

[Osborn F Enready]

This is Osborn, saying if you have a bone to pick, feel free and I will reply as possible in time and ability.

The floor is open, the topics are open, the context is open.... proceed.

[gw120]

I don't like your name. It's weird. And what exactly does that "F" Stand for. Just putting up an initial is suspicious. Like wearing a hat low. And what exactly makes so "principled" at observing?

You're a very suspicious man Mr. Enready.

[bishop]

get a job man.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: gw120 I don't like your name. It's weird. And what exactly does that "F" Stand for. Just putting up an initial is suspicious. Like wearing a hat low. And what exactly makes so "principled" at observing? You're a very suspicious man Mr. Enready.

He was born effin' ready. Say it slow, with a bit of an accent, in the first person.

As for the principled part, I'll let him say it for himself.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Stop smoking, man.

[fushigi]

I debate opinions, not people.

I have no problem with you, Os. If I knew you IRL, I'm sure we'd get along well. Most of my buddies back in Detroit think and act just like you, or pH, or Keith, or Rob, or any of the Libertarians here.

As for some of your opinions, I must say some seem to be more akin to beliefs than principled observations. For example, China. Persisting in criticizing it as a job-stealing, human right-abusing, communist (that's the funniest part) state, without considering that the benefits of trade with China--with its billion customers--far outweighs any of the harms, is just plain fear-mongering IMO.

Furthermore, not considering that it's only China's desire to trade that opens the country up (permitting future political development) is short-sighted in my view. If you really want to increase personal freedom in the world, there are 1.3 billion people here waiting for the liberating benefits sustained economic development brings.

Like Barrington Moore said: "no bourgeoisie, no democracy."

[CoffeeSaint]

Stop trying to tell me that guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's condescending to assume I haven't already thought that through. I simply came to a different conclusion than you did -- find out how I arrived at it before assuming you know how to deconstruct it.

I love your avatar, by the way.

[Osborn F Enready]

gw120 said: I don't like your name. It's weird. And what exactly does that "F" Stand for. Just putting up an initial is suspicious. Like wearing a hat low.

The name is old, and has stuck with me for many reasons.

It was the product of a brainstorm session, in searching for a "real sounding" name, but that still expressed both humor and seriousness depending on how taken.

The full name: Osborn Frick Enready. (all real names)

I's born F'n Ready, is one perceived context, which adequately describes my attitude in many areas, mainly, political change and the need for peaceful or violent revolution in the nation in which I reside. That is why I used it for this forum.

At the time it was created, it was intended to reflect "I's born F'n Ready" to race, since it was created initially to be a name of a "persona" in a computer racing game.

gw120 said: And what exactly makes so "principled" at observing?

I have principles, and I apply them to my observations.

gw120 said: You're a very suspicious man Mr. Enready

Well, if that's what you perceive, you are welcome to do that.

Bishop said: get a job man.

Do you know of any GOOD ones? I don't. My job status will likely change should I find one, and my other personal intrests are taken care of.

SHW said: Stop smoking, man.

Worry about yourself, man.

I am not taking applications for head nanny, thanks.

Fushigi said: I have no problem with you, Os. If I knew you IRL, I'm sure we'd get along well. Most of my buddies back in Detroit think and act just like you, or pH, or Keith, or Rob, or any of the Libertarians here.

Thanks, and I think the same from my perspective as well, of you. If you are ever in the NW Ohio area, e-mail or PM me and we can meet for coffee, a meal or something.

Fushigi said: As for some of your opinions, I must say some seem to be more akin to beliefs than principled observations.

Well, I respect your right to opinion, but disagree. My priciples are quite clear to me, though sometimes by writing may fail at making them clear to everyone, when I post. I consider myself to be my biggest critic, and its rare when people offer views on MY principles I haven't yet considered.
That being said, it does happen, I am not perfect, nor do I claim to be. My principles are my own, as are everyones, and I as anyone seek to know when I am mistaken, how I am mistaken, and why I am mistaken in my principals or observations. I consider my philosophy nearly complete, and with only a few holes that are quite small. While I welcome the views of other philosophies, and read them as well, I have yet to find one that suits me better than my own, and that after all is the purpose of principals. To form a code or moral standard by which we live our lives, with integrity, regarding those principals.

Fushigi said: For example, China. Persisting in criticizing it as a job-stealing, human right-abusing, communist (that's the funniest part) state, without considering that the benefits of trade with China--with its billion customers--far outweighs any of the harms, is just plain fear-mongering IMO.

Well, not to be brash or rude, opinions are like assholes, and we all have one. I have pointed out why I fault your opinions on China, to which you admitted a partial bias due to your close ties with China and the people who live around you there. Fair enough, point taken, and I can accept that. By the same token, free-trade and capitalism are in my view the most moral, ethical, and individual respecting form of government to ever be created, so it belies some of my bias toward the arguments against China, its system(current and past), its history, its ideology, its nature.

We all know that facades are easily created in the political climate, and while I DON'T deny that China SEEMS to be showing progress, if the people aren't allowed the freedom of expression, and free-press, they can't homogenize their collective intrests, even if their intrests ARE free-trade and capitalism.

I fault China for many reasons, as I do other nations who look to capitalism and free-trade as exploitation and/or perversion of nature.

Fushigi said: Furthermore, not considering that it's only China's desire to trade that opens the country up (permitting future political development) is short-sighted in my view. If you really want to increase personal freedom in the world, there are 1.3 billion people here waiting for the liberating benefits sustained economic development brings.

While I surely want to increase personal freedom, I don't offer the rights of United States individuals to be crucified on the altar of "limited free-trade" in the name or claim of that pursuit, nor is our government allowed to do so, since they already ratified the Constitution which states it is NOT their rights to offer.

Coffee said: Stop trying to tell me that guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's condescending to assume I haven't already thought that through. I simply came to a different conclusion than you did -- find out how I arrived at it before assuming you know how to deconstruct it.

Coffee, I don't mean to be condescending, but it is the truth that somehow seems to be overlooked in many arguments. I am always asking you to itemize or explain your logic on that issue, and I have still yet to come to that same conclusion as you, for reason I have noted.

I respect your right to not own a gun, as much as the right to own a gun.
What bothers me, is that the right to defense is not hingepinned on the gun, though many argue it is. It is only pinned there, until something better comes along, that is more effective, more user-friendly, and more capable of protecting an overwhelmed innocent minority against a larger, better armed, rights revolking majority.

I also find one thing very interesting in your underlying philosophy. You, like I, support the womans right to abortion, based on the same principles I do. Why then, do we differ on guns?

The very same argument you use against guns, can be used against your argument for abortion, yet you choose a different (more subjective in my opinion, and flawed) argument to counter the pro-gun arguments than you do the anti-abortion rights arguments.

Sex, is a tool to make babies. It's only designed(or natural) purpose is to make babies, yet you fortify the stance of the rights of the mother to abort with the argument it is her right, since the baby is not an intentional product of sex. (rightly so, since birth control is often used and babies are still sometimes the result) as well as other issues which we agree on, like individual and what is deemed an individual. Sex can be used responsibly, or irresponsibly, but the RESULTS lie squarely within the individuals involved, much like the use of a gun.

A mother that aborts, bears the burden of that choice internally, mentally and for life. A person who is not allowed to abort, also is FORCED to bear that burden for life, at the DEMAND of the state. A person who uses a gun and uses it properly for defense, is a rights respecting person, and accidentally kills another, bears the burden of that choice internally, mentally for life, and also legally due to the "taking of the rights of the innocent" life taken by the person who mishandled the gun.
If that person refuses to use a gun to protect themselves, and instead demands state protection, it FORCES other to rely on state protection also, which REMOVES their rights to individual protection.

Is that clearly stated in your opinion?

Coffee said: I love your avatar, by the way.

Thank you, me too!

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Do you know of any GOOD ones? I don't. My job status will likely change should I find one, and my other personal intrests are taken care of.

I have a freaky idea. You ever though about teaching? I would bet that Ohio, like California and Oregon, has a way for someone to get licensed based on competence, without specific training; even if it is an "emergency license" it would allow you to get a job in a school that was in need of a teacher -- and then once you were in, as long as you followed the basic curriculum and jumped through some hoops, you could focus your instruction on anything you like.

Can you imagine yourself teaching REAL history to a history class? Or maybe physical education, focusing on survival skills instead of team sports?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Coffee, I don't mean to be condescending, but it is the truth that somehow seems to be overlooked in many arguments. I am always asking you to itemize or explain your logic on that issue, and I have still yet to come to that same conclusion as you, for reason I have noted. I respect your right to not own a gun, as much as the right to own a gun. What bothers me, is that the right to defense is not hingepinned on the gun, though many argue it is. It is only pinned there, until something better comes along, that is more effective, more user-friendly, and more capable of protecting an overwhelmed innocent minority against a larger, better armed, rights revolking majority. I also find one thing very interesting in your underlying philosophy. You, like I, support the womans right to abortion, based on the same principles I do. Why then, do we differ on guns? The very same argument you use against guns, can be used against your argument for abortion, yet you choose a different (more subjective in my opinion, and flawed) argument to counter the pro-gun arguments than you do the anti-abortion rights arguments. Sex, is a tool to make babies. It's only designed(or natural) purpose is to make babies, yet you fortify the stance of the rights of the mother to abort with the argument it is her right, since the baby is not an intentional product of sex. (rightly so, since birth control is often used and babies are still sometimes the result) as well as other issues which we agree on, like individual and what is deemed an individual. Sex can be used responsibly, or irresponsibly, but the RESULTS lie squarely within the individuals involved, much like the use of a gun. A mother that aborts, bears the burden of that choice internally, mentally and for life. A person who is not allowed to abort, also is FORCED to bear that burden for life, at the DEMAND of the state. A person who uses a gun and uses it properly for defense, is a rights respecting person, and accidentally kills another, bears the burden of that choice internally, mentally for life, and also legally due to the "taking of the rights of the innocent" life taken by the person who mishandled the gun. If that person refuses to use a gun to protect themselves, and instead demands state protection, it FORCES other to rely on state protection also, which REMOVES their rights to individual protection. Is that clearly stated in your opinion?

I know you didn't mean to be condescending. I was pointing out how it appears to me, not trying to accuse you.

As for the problems between our views, is this thread the place for hashing them out? You want to do a Special Debate?

[Heather]

Hey Os. No bone to pick exactly, just a general observation. You use quotes a lot. Do you have a big notebook of favorite quotes that you keep at your computer desk or something?

[bishop]

i think he's handle with ol' google.

[Slevin57]

Every time I see your name, I see Kennedy. Stop that. Now.

[fushigi]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I have a freaky idea. You ever though about teaching?

Or assistant principal. Well one thing's for sure. Once they found out he was a concealed weapons-carrying power lifter the disciplinary problems would probably stop pretty damn quick.

Mrs. Reeves: "Bobby, stop talking."
Bobby: "Shut up!"
Mrs. Reeves: "Bobby, did you want to have a trip to Mr. Enready's office?"
Bobby: "I'll be good, I promise!"

[Osborn F Enready]

Coffee said: You ever though about teaching?

Yes, always wondered how to get in the field without a college education, like maybe as a substitute or something. I don't plan on staying in Ohio, so I would hate to start a new career venture like that here, especially in my local schools. I also would have a moral integrity issue with working "for the man" since it would probably be only a public school that would take me with my work history and lack of college.

Its still on the option sheet though. I wouldn't mind being a substitue, especially at a private school.

Thanks for the idea, and the thought.

Coffee said: As for the problems between our views, is this thread the place for hashing them out? You want to do a Special Debate?

You know I can't turn down a debate.


I will leave it up to you. If you want to delve into it, make a special debate and I will participate.

Heather said: Hey Os. No bone to pick exactly, just a general observation. You use quotes a lot. Do you have a big notebook of favorite quotes that you keep at your computer desk or something?

Bishop said: i think he's handle with ol' google.

Well, I have a collection of books that I refer to often, as well as what Bishop said. I think Google and the internet are superior to most college educations if you apply yourself in the same manner.

Slevins said: Every time I see your name, I see Kennedy. Stop that. Now.

??????

Fushigi said: Or assistant principal. Well one thing's for sure. Once they found out he was a concealed weapons-carrying power lifter the disciplinary problems would probably stop pretty damn quick. Mrs. Reeves: "Bobby, stop talking." Bobby: "Shut up!" Mrs. Reeves: "Bobby, did you want to have a trip to Mr. Enready's office?" Bobby: "I'll be good, I promise!"

LOL....

In all fairness, and honesty, I am an ex-powerlifter. Right now I am not doing much exercise, and have gained a bit of pudge.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Os,
You seem to be pushing Ayn Rand lately. Shes like the ultimate NWO globalist neocon... no?

Cheap Labor conservatives the catalyst for a prison planet.

Unregulated business results in poverty or even slavery.

Take Wal Mart. They dont like labor laws either. So they change the definition of terms,,, like "Full Time".
When Walmart says 70% of their work force is "full time" That means 70% could very well be living in poverty, because Walmart re-defines full time as 28 hours. They send their employees to welfare for healthcare. Thats their healthcare plan. They hate socialism but thats their solution for the poverty they create by underpaying their workforce. (Check out "Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices" for more on that)

Wamart is a perfect example of Ayn Rands school of busness. And dont you dare try to unionize. You will be squashed like a bug. Because its all about the multi billions for the few while your little peons stock the shelves with cheap foreign crap on an empty stomach (because your child needed your lunch money for over-priced medicine).

Ayn Rand is all thats wrong with America today.

Edit to add linky goodness: Cheap Labor Conservatives Issues Guide

[Heather]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Os, You seem to be pushing Ayn Rand lately. Shes like the ultimate NWO globalist neocon... no? Cheap Labor conservatives the catalyst for a prison planet. Unregulated business results in poverty or even slavery. Take Wal Mart. They dont like labor laws either. So they change the definition of terms,,, like "Full Time". When Walmart says 70% of their work force is "full time" That means 70% could very well be living in poverty, because Walmart re-defines full time as 28 hours. They send their employees to welfare for healthcare. Thats their healthcare plan. They hate socialism but thats their solution for the poverty they create by underpaying their workforce. (Check out "Walmart: The High Cost of Low Prices" for more on that) Wamart is a perfect example of Ayn Rands school of busness. And dont you dare try to unionize. You will be squashed like a bug. Because its all about the multi billions for the few while your little peons stock the shelves with cheap foreign crap on an empty stomach (because your child needed your lunch money for over-priced medicine). Ayn Rand is all thats wrong with America today.

I cannot comment on Ayn Rand gr8ful, as I have not yet read any of her works, but do have one sitting on my "too read pile". Yet, I must question your "Wal-Mart" comments.

Firstly, please post your link about Wal-Mart so that I, and others here, can read it. I'm curious to read it.

Second, I think defining full time as 28 hours a week is generous. Most companies do not. It's 32 hours, if you're lucky.

As to how much they pay hourly, I think people pick on Wal-Mart because they are so nationally huge for one. Also, considering the education and knowledge level that is required to work there, their pay rate is, in my opinion, on target. They do also pay more if you, for example, have been able to keep a job for a significant amount of time. I do not define that as under payment.

If 70% of Wal-Mart's employees don't work full time (28 hours or more), that's a choice the worker made, regardless of how much they make.

And before you start an argument that I wouldn't know, I worked for Wal-Mart full time on a temporary basis to earn extra money. They seemed very good people to me.

Considering the type of work expected from someone employed by their company, I think they are fair, considering my personal knowledge of them. Again, I would love to read any articles that have good legitimate points that would indicate otherwise.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Heather I cannot comment on Ayn Rand gr8ful, as I have not yet read any of her works,

You can get Thom Hartman interviews with the president and other affilliates of the Ayn Rand Institute, here: MP3 Interviews
Look in the 3rd column for Aynrand.org but you will click on the link in the 1st column that looks like this TH-040407-CN (translation Thom Hartmann 04/04/2007)

but do have one sitting on my "too read pile". Yet, I must question your "Wal-Mart" comments. Firstly, please post your link about Wal-Mart so that I, and others here, can read it. I'm curious to read it.

Walmart Movies Facts

Second, I think defining full time as 28 hours a week is generous. Most companies do not. It's 32 hours, if you're lucky.

The law says its 40. Anything over 40 and you have to pay overtime.

As to how much they pay hourly, I think people pick on Wal-Mart because they are so nationally huge for one.

Actually, no. Walmart is rightfully targetted for their policies. Objectively.
Like this one:

Federal Poverty Level Family of Four - $17,650 Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001 Federal Poverty Guidelines Average Wal-Mart Hourly Sales Employee Wages - $13,861 "On average, Wal-Mart sales clerks -- "associates" in company parlance -- pulled in $8.23 an hour, or $13,861 a year, in 2001, according to documents filed in a lawsuit pending against the company." Source: Anthony Bianco and Wendy Zellner, "Is Wal-Mart Too Powerful?" Business Week, October 6, 2003. Primary source information on 2001 wage data is from the testimony of Dr. Richard Drogin, in Dukes v. WM.

Also, considering the education and knowledge level that is required to work there, their pay rate is, in my opinion, on target. They do also pay more if you, for example, have been able to keep a job for a significant amount of time. I do not define that as under payment.

How can anyone keep a job that doesnt pay a living wage?

If 70% of Wal-Mart's employees don't work full time (28 hours or more), that's a choice the worker made, regardless of how much they make.

Actually thats management. Management is under pressure (extreme) to lower overhead. That means no overtime. And employers understaff. Many are working for free ...they have to clock out and get back to work to finish a chore....(if you dont want to do it...they can find someone who will) That is starting to sound even more like slavery.
There are currently thousands of lawsuits for walmart employees trying to get back pay.

Women are dehumanized, too. Just like on the "good old fashioned" plantations.

And before you start an argument that I wouldn't know, I worked for Wal-Mart full time on a temporary basis to earn extra money. They seemed very good people to me.

Ever try to get "real world" full time work there? Or a management position? More than 2/3 of Walmart employees are women. Less than 1/3 are in management.

Considering the type of work expected from someone employed by their company, I think they are fair, considering my personal knowledge of them. Again, I would love to read any articles that have good legitimate points that would indicate otherwise.

Check out the movie "Wal-Mart, the high cost of low prices. (I dont think they stock it at Wal-mart) I got a copy of it at my college library.

It includes the stories of mom and pop shops that went under when Walmart came to town. Cities would give millions of dollars in subsidies to bring these stores to town (with promises of jobs)... then when it came time to pay full taxes they would close the stores and move to the outskirts of town. Its CRIMINAL!! .........dammit

[gr8fuldaniel]

This isnt he "Bone to pick with Wal-mart" thread.

Maybe that topic should continue elsewhere. there HAS TO be a Wal mart thread.

[Heather]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel This isnt he "Bone to pick with Wal-mart" thread. Maybe that topic should continue elsewhere. there HAS TO be a Wal mart thread.

Perhaps, I will admit to being nervous about over taking Os’s thread with this. I will look into it before I reply.

[Nono]

Quote by: fushigi I must say some seem to be more akin to beliefs than principled observations. For example, China. Persisting in criticizing it as a job-stealing, human right-abusing, communist (that's the funniest part) state, without considering that the benefits of trade with China--with its billion customers--far outweighs any of the harms, is just plain fear-mongering IMO.

Off-topic bone to pick with fushigi: Jeez, fushi, that sounds a lot like the sort of thing I might diagnose in your views on France, say, i.e. simplistic conformity to an American stereotype.