How did it come to be that we have two debate halls? One where there is no discussion at all, and one where I am not allowed to post?
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I'm not quite sure. It seems like the administration hasn't been all that active lately so the PG has kind of descended into relative inactivity, while the actual DH is 100% inactive.How did it come to be that we have two debate halls? One where there is no discussion at all, and one where I am not allowed to post?
This is a little bit of a head scratcher to me. I thought that once you were let in the DH, you could have access to both the PG & DH. Or maybe it's just me. :/How did it come to be that we have two debate halls? One where there is no discussion at all, and one where I am not allowed to post?
Nope, I know i am unable to post in the PG. I once tried to post in the thread where DH members were supposed to comment and give tips to PG members... but was unable to do so.This is a little bit of a head scratcher to me. I thought that once you were let in the DH, you could have access to both the PG & DH. Or maybe it's just me. :/
I didn't want to be the one to bring this up since I'm not one of the more well known Debaters, but I agree. If this place has 4 mods then why is it so inactive?It isn't anything personal, but I think we need to change up the leadership around here. It's just not active enough to keep up interest in the Debate Hall.
You have to be in the temp debater group to post in the PG. Just reapply if you want to post there.This is a little bit of a head scratcher to me. I thought that once you were let in the DH, you could have access to both the PG & DH. Or maybe it's just me. :/
Well, CK wanted to let the mods do it but I'll ask him again if I can post it.No need for so much structure. If you have a neat idea and want to do it, make a thread.
Good! We need some activity in here.I know RDK is going to argue against me on Campaign Finance Reform LOL.
But I'll get working on it. Give me a few days.
No worries for me, as I have PG access.You have to be in the temp debater group to post in the PG. Just reapply if you want to post there.
No, I am not.Isn't Alt a DH mod?
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=257057Good! We need some activity in here.
This leaves me wondering...What did you say?Sorry this post was uncalled for.
**** =\No, I am not.
I'm not really sure what to think. At what level does ethics end and pure business begin.The lone voice of a wildly unpopular view, journalist Nicholas Kristof makes his case for supporting sweatshops.
In his New York Times Op-Ed column championing sweatshops in third world countries, Kristof admits he is “just about the only person in America who favors sweatshops.”
Despite suffering the common criticisms of unhealthy conditions, abuses, low wages, etc., sweatshops, Kristof maintains, “are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause, and banning them closes off one route out of poverty.”
For many citizens in poverty stricken nations, a factory job is a “cherished dream, an escalator out of poverty,” says Kristof. To take that away is more harmful than helpful. To be a garment worker is far from the worst thing out there.
In order for poor countries to pull themselves out of poverty, they must develop their manufacturing businesses. And if this means constructing sweatshops in third world countries, well, as “bad as sweatshops are, the alternatives are worse.”
Kristof makes strong points about looking at sweatshops through the lens of impoverished third world residents and being realistic about what factory jobs, no matter how low the wages in comparison to US standards, can provide.
Though, as Matador member Kelsey Timmerman points out in his comment on the post, “[Kristof's] argument ’sweatshops are good’ is too simple, just as is the one ’sweatshops are bad.’ ”
While Timmerman agrees that such factory jobs are incredibly important to the workers, he worries that Kristof’s column “encourages apathy” among consumers through it’s bottom line.
Rather than taking a black or white, good or bad side on the sweatshop debate, Timmerman feels that what people should be doing is becoming engaged consumers, asking brands where they manufacture their products and whether or not they have codes of social conduct for their factories.
“In my eyes, if an engaged consumer discovers something they don’t like about a brand they are wearing, they shouldn’t just write off the brand, they should pick up the phone and give them a call or drop them an e-mail. They should express what their concern is and see what, if any, action or response the brand is taking to correct it.”
It’s hard to say whether or not such phone calls or emails would have significant impacts on the way companies do business, but what is for sure, what both Kristof and Timmerman can agree upon, is that a general boycott of companies whose products are made in sweatshops is not the answer as it damages the lives of very workers its trying to help by putting them out of work.
Is this a universal statement or a specific statement?I guess what I'm saying is in this case; The ends justify the means.
Just in this case, I sometimes think the term "the ends justifies the means" can be a very acceptable term. In this case it's acceptable for torturing enemy combatants it's not. (for the obvious practical and moral arguments.)Is this a universal statement or a specific statement?
Also I'm highly surprised that both GS and Aesir approve of this. Can't wait for Alt to come in here waving a pro-sweatshop banner.
I'm not really sure my opinion on it so I'll wait until some more people express theirs.
Can't wait for Alt to come in here waving a pro-sweatshop banner.
Am I a bad person for laughing at this?As much as I should find that funny, I just don't.
They don't show collusion; the maybe two or three instances everyone is getting crazy over are easily explained in the articles I posted in the Climategate thread.Lol Rdk.
Some more stuff on "Climategate"
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/05/enviro-watergate/
I still can't get over Conservatives and their love for the Rule of Law, yet they have no problem with illegal hacking attempts lol.
When these emails show no collusion I'm going to lul.
Idk, I kind of disagree because in this case, the sweatshops are based in China. The thing is, there won't be that HUGE rise in pay becauseWhy do I feel like a baby-killer for opposing sweatshops?
Eh, ok, while I see a reason when we're talking about internal to emerging nations, when the sweatshops are used for export, no, not at all, a number of bad effects follow.
Basically, when living conditions rise enough to force a substantial increase in wages, rather then improving conditions (like what occured in the US), they move to a less expensive area.
This causes the area that was economically dependant on the plant, to collapse, and because local businesses grow dependant, they collapse too.
Agreed lol.They don't show collusion; the maybe two or three instances everyone is getting crazy over are easily explained in the articles I posted in the Climategate thread.
And even if they did show collusion, it doesn't discount decades worth of scientific data supporting global warming. The fundies kill me with this "biggest fraud in the history of science" nonsense. Before that it was evolution, and before that it was heliocentrism.