A corporation is not owned by anyone; a corporation, by law, as a legal person, owns itself. Persons, legal or otherwise, cannot be owned -- at least since we got rid of slavery. — Xtrix

Oh, so the meaning of ownership changes when your position changes.
— Cheshire

No. — Xtrix

Good, so a worker-owner is a nonsense term by your own reasoning.

Are you just an idiot? Apparently. Mondragon is OWNED BY THE WORKERS. That's a "lie"? Then why repeat the lie: — Xtrix

About wraps that one up.

Interesting this company of yours managed to tie the manager salary to the min. wage. So, the definition of career success there is basically leaving as a manager for a better paid position or hoping to hit a ceiling and grind against it for 30yrs. It's not a good idea to limit your ability to hire the people that direct the most assets.

Well compare Microsoft to Mondragon, for example. Both corporations. One (it's claimed) is owned by shareholders, the other (also claimed) by workers. — Xtrix

Oh, so the meaning of ownership changes when your position changes. All of a sudden that legal sense in regards to legal liability and direction of assets is a hologram. Which is it? Is a corporation owned or not by actual people.

The shareholders are not the owners of corporations. Neither are the board of directors, who run the company. The board of directors, although elected by shareholders, have no legal obligation to do what the shareholders want, and often don’t. There are plenty of court cases about this as well. — Xtrix

Fascinating. Now, tell me how they are different than worker-owners?

They are legal persons, not real persons. And they do own themselves, legally. That’s not the same thing as running itself, which is done by real humans. Mostly the board of directors and CEO. — Xtrix

They are legal entities; that is not a person. The board is elected by the shareholders dumbass....aka the owners of the company.

They are economic entities. Not people. They do not own themselves otherwise a majority shareholder couldn't control them.

Only right wingers reply with a laughing faces as an "own the libs" attempt to inject frustration. It's your giveaway.

Shareholders are not the owners of a corporation, nor do they sell the corporation. If you want me to explain it to you, I will. If you want to posture, that’s your business. — Xtrix

I'll let my auditing prof. know; it's really gonna shake up the industry.

It’s fun to watch you try to fit what I say into your rather limited categories. Keep trying. — Xtrix

It's the only rational explanation outside of sophomoric rebellion against some one that holds a misunderstanding of a left wing position.

Because shares have nothing to do with ownership. — Xtrix

You have no idea how companies are owned or sold.

Worker ownership is right wing? In what world? Maybe the 19th century, I guess. Who knows. — Xtrix

Your presentation is of a left wing position as it's misunderstood by a right wing propogandist.

Why not?

If I buy 1 share of Microsoft, do I own Microsoft?

Your reality certainly requires an observer; it's participatory realism. The understanding that things are real and they are experienced from your point of view. What your point of view entails has been the subject of many poetic philosophical verses attempting to capture that unknown function. The most obvious is probably scale. Things are big and small relative to your concept of size.

I try not to be mean, or an intellectual bully, but this is so ridiculous it’s embarrassing. Being angry at me being an asshole doesn’t change when I also happen to be right. — Xtrix

In that case your presentation may be unrepairable.

In this case, it’s obvious. Mondragon is owned by workers. That’s not a lie. Period. Whatever else you meant by that, who knows. — Xtrix

Oh, so it is obvious that I already know it is technically worker owned? Good, I mentioned that 4 or 5 times.

2) You claim it’s a hallucination and lie that workers own anything. — Xtrix

Well, no I don't. I imply that this ownership is of a limited benefit. The "whatever else you meant" is an indication you are well aware of this fact.

Let’s see if people on the internet are still capable of acknowledging reality, even when angry… — Xtrix

I was a little irritated when I thought the position you held actually represented what you think. After reading your other posts and looking at the justifications you use; it's more than obvious you have a right wing basis. Honestly, completely honestly, there is no way to reconcile your position with any modern liberal position. And all of the tactics for argumentation you are using come out of a right wing propaganda playbook. It's satisfying to see the right have to resort to faking a position in order to draw support.

He's faking the position. One of yours.

Are you just an idiot? Apparently. Mondragon is OWNED BY THE WORKERS. That's a "lie"? Then why repeat the lie:

They are worker-owned but not managed.
— Cheshire

You liar you. How can you say they're "worker owned" -- don't you know that's an illusion! — Xtrix

You make less sense the more obnoxious you become. The claim above doesn't even make sense. Even in your normal naive way. Being worker owned is not the same as worker managed. You can tell because we use to different words to indicate the difference. Seriously though, I'm seeing how people become politically revolted and drift right. If you could refrain from speaking in public the rest of us would really appreciate it.

Democracy is a stupid idea. Co-ops are a stupid idea. Interesting perspective. :smirk: — Xtrix

Democracy works as a government because it is inefficient. Inefficiency in a production setting reduces the profits available for distribution to the workers. It is a dumb way to run an operation. Which is why none are run this way.

Yes, if I can find a better master, that solves the problem of slavery. Well done. — Xtrix

Still trying to pretend like you don't get it is fine.

No, that's exactly what you're doing. — Xtrix

Could have sworn I introduced a novel arrangement where people provide labor without the coercive lie they own the place. But, go on. Repeat your lie.

Advocating for democracy in the workplace and pointing to co-ops as a real-world example of an alternative form of corporate governance is helping my "masters"? Alright, if you say so. — Xtrix

Yes, because they are stupid ideas. If you want to break capitalism then give power to the workers to leave and sell labor to the highest bidder. The flex economy adopted to scale erases this deeper entrenchment solution. If I can quit work for a dollar more at any moment, then I am in power. If I can refuse work on the days I'm not paid enough, then I am in power. You are selling slavery under the guise of a failed hallucination.

I admire your attempt to cover for the fact that you're struggling to understand all of this. Fairly common, though.

It's quite simple: democracy at work. We're for it or against it. If you're against it, then by all means be happy with working in companies of which you have absolutely no say, for a wage determined by people who make more in an hour than you make in a year, Uncle Tom. — Xtrix

It's not and I know, because I worked in metal box in 110F making other people rich. Then sat through more sociology and economics lectures than you are aware of exist. Yes, there is a problem with the labor market functionally and morally. But, the people that both understand it and want to change it are fairly limited. Pretending a capitalist enterprise hangs co-op on the door will fix anything is the result of not knowing enough to understand your wrong. Yes, there is a problem. No, this is not the simple solution. On a side note I've never worked in a shop the was willing to own a Fagor machine tool, but I've heard stories. The devices basically self destruct every time you home them to machine reference. You are an asset to people that want to show the unreasonable nature of the opposition. You are helping your masters.

Many of those managers come from the workers, as I'm sure the Wikipedia article will tell you. But that's completely irrelevant. The workers run the company, democratically. No one is claiming, as I've said repeatedly, that every decision is made by majority vote. Like our politcal system in the United States, when we vote for our senators and congressman and President, no one argues that because we don't then get to vote on every decision from that point on it's somehow not democratic. — Xtrix

Ok, you know it isn't run democratically in a literal direct democracy. But, you believe it is a representative democracy. It's not, so your analogy fails. In a very plainly obvious way.

Apparently neither are you. — Xtrix

Alright, your post is just rhetoric followed by contradiction. But, I thought this choice to sign it with an insult was cute. So, here's the secret. A co-op is a way to get people to work harder for less money with the belief they own something. But, if they lose that job can they sell off the mill they were running? No, cause they don't own anything. If anything it's a bloated labor union with forced capital infusion by it's own employees. It's a union that is not opposed to the company? Sure fire way to prevent exploitation there; I admire your vigor for your bad argument and intolerable persona.

Mondragon Corporation would disagree with you.

Sorry to hear you prefer dictatoriship to democracy within the workplace. False consciousness knows no bounds. — Xtrix

I actually looked it up. It turns out they wouldn't. They are worker-owned but not managed. They have a very pleasant company culture even though there is a built in 2 tier system between workers and worker-owners. Unfortunately, my preferences don't dictate reality any better than yours do. In order to survive a capitalist global market the option of managed by worker democracy fails viability at the necessary scale at which production is most profitable.

Sorry, you are quick to judge and confuse other's cognitive fault for your own ignorance.

(6) Would anyone say that a corporation is run democratically? — Xtrix

No, a democracy is an inefficient form of operations management. It turns out most peoples ideas are bad and its best to ignore them.

Condemned? I think you're confusing 'condemned' with 'reluctant to inject the entire future generation of the human race without a little more data'. — Isaac

More like reluctant to extend my personal decisions to the scope of the world's children to maintain a position.

There is an interesting bias that comes along with this discussion. Because, each position correlates to action or inaction in recent memory. It is rare a philosophical position is being lived.

I suppose the process (vaccine development) can be sped up if the standard duration (longer) is due to logistics issues and not due to biological factors that have to do with the pathogen (Covid-19) or the test animals/humans. Good point!

It's not as simple as I thought it was! :up: — TheMadFool

Thanks for considering it. I think it does have some basis in reality, but I was really just demonstrating how much concern was being derived from assumptions regarding time. I don't know of any other vaccinations that were produced in hopes of thwarting an endemic cycle during a pandemic. The novel case of being both new and heavily encouraged due to trying to outpace a pandemic seems to be reason alone to discard it. Then, the necessary scale demands the ability to organize and mobilize capital; which entails using a large medical manufacturer. So, the vaccine arrives on the table condemned, because it hasn't already existed and hasn't been produced by some imaginary artisan small batch vaccine operation.

The issues involved in more informed disagreements over safety, whether they have a more or less equal balance of advocates on either side or relatively few on the dissenting side, are beyond the capabilities of non-experts, that is those who are not epidemiologists, virologists or immunologists, to critically assess, and that seems to be a big problem. — Janus

Agreeable.

Do you have such evidence? — Isaac

Evidence that vaccinations reduce transmission at a rate significant to cases of not vaccination. Besides the remarkable initial reduction in transmission following the introduction of a vaccine. Hold on I'm gathering evidence the sky is blue for a different study.
I probably wouldn't take it if I were you. The irony could be deadly.

Yep. Which is why I wouldn't demand that it's met. I'm not demanding anything here. It's other people doing the demanding, I'm happy to just let people make up their own minds. — Isaac

Yes, it is. What difference does that make to a claim that it is the unvaccinated who are clogging hospitals? And yes, things might be different in the US, or they might not. We don't know do we, because you're too lazy to actually look up any evidence for us to discuss. — Isaac

I think you've been hacked.

Exactly the kind of anecdotal evidence we've been trying to stop anti-vaxxers from using to spread disinformation. — Isaac

Empirical observations provided in real time by known medical professionals in direct contact is not the same kind.

Yes, it is. What difference does that make to a claim that it is the unvaccinated who are clogging hospitals? And yes, things might be different in the US, or they might not. We don't know do we, because you're too lazy to actually look up any evidence for us to discuss. — Isaac

It is evidence your position is untenable and must result to holographic facts. At least 40% of all affected were probably also British by residence. No one needs a dishonest tactic to present the truth. I consider this a concession your position can not be maintained.

We haven't established that they're bad ideas yet. — Isaac

See above.

Where's your evidence for "The number of unhealthy unvaccinated people clogging hospitals in places ". In the UK 40% of hospitalisations related to covid are among the vaccinated. — Isaac

Literally the hospital 5 miles from my house. From a nurse named Karin Heller in the ICU watching young people die from a delta variant begging people to address the situation. In the UK at least 40% of anything that occurs is likely to some one vaccinated. It is a function the populations vaccination rate which I addressed as being novel 5 or 6 times.

Yep. Which is why I wouldn't demand that it's met. I'm not demanding anything here. It's other people doing the demanding, I'm happy to just let people make up their own minds. — Isaac

I'm pretty sure I was verbally abused for not providing evidence which you now acknowledge can't exist. Letting people make up their own minds does not entail justifying their bad ideas; should covid prove to hold the ordinary dynamic of having been less effective due to anti-vaxxer spread of speculative danger.

Why? With an increase in vaccine uptake we'd expect an increase in healthy vaccinated people in all cases (except the vaccine actually being lethal). Increasing numbers of healthy vaccinated people tells us nothing. — Isaac

Should someone take advice from someone that holds no significance to the health of people following vaccination; when the matter is the effect of a vaccine on health? Then, why provide it? Beyond justifying one's own choice to the detriment of others?

Let's be candid here. Vaccines usually take much longer than the 1 year Covid-19 vaccines have been developed within. My hunch is fast-tracking the process like this a realy bad idea - shortcuts, I'm told save time but there's a tradeoff here between speed and safety/efficacy which everyone, oddly, seems to be ignoring. — TheMadFool

Can I make assertions extrapolated only from the duration of the time taken? Are they equally as valid.

If you've done design and manufacturing work; then you are aware a lot of the progression can be derived from the initial setup or concept. Suppose whoever made the prototype knew what they were doing. The lack of changes and reevaluation to an original design also makes for quick output.

Right, but if you are playing on the poetic aspect of semantics it is a treatment group. It is a preventive treatment; a specific test.

Treatment group

'It' being the take up of the covid vaccine. Evidence would therefore have to apply to the covid vaccine. As I've said multiple times, I'm a staunch supporter of most vaccination programs. I think they save millions of lives and in most cases anti-vax campaigners are dangerous. — Isaac

We agree in principle on the generalized dynamic, but you require proof the covid vaccine is not an extraordinary case.

That doesn't mean I'm just going to blindly throw my support behind every vaccine going. So to support your claim you need evidence from this vaccine, because our disagreement is entirely and only about this vaccine. — Isaac

I believe we have different definitions of what qualifies as blindly.

It is a demand for deductive evidence for the unknown outcome of a probabilistic trial awaiting inductive corroboration. It is a function of the amount of time that has passed; that makes the request impossible to meet. I don't know the outcomes of things that have not happened. If you take a Bayesian approach the number of currently healthy vaccinated people increasing at a steady rate should be reasonably compelling. The number of unhealthy unvaccinated people clogging hospitals in places should also be reasonably compelling.

I still find your position largely temporal. Prove to me what happens to me in the future. Can't be done. But, it has no bearing on the actual make up of this vaccine. You have conclusively proved it is a new vaccine.

However, anti-vaxxers have a hidden benefit that seems to have escaped our notice. What they do or should do is galvanize vaccine developers into paying attention to reducing the risks, minor & major. Until now, vaccine developers have gotten away with it in a manner of speaking by constantly harping on the positives of vaccination and how the negatives are so negligible. — TheMadFool

The only benefit of anti-vaxxers is the default position as a self-selected control group with minimal loss to the aggregate IQ of society from remaining untreated.

Why would evidence of the effectiveness of the measles vaccine have any bearing on the effectiveness of the covid-19 vaccines? We're not discussing the general point that vaccines work. We're discussing this one specific situation. Otherwise you could just generalise it to 'all medicines'. — Isaac

You requested* evidence for a causal relationship between vaccine hesitation and population harm. The case of a documented anti-vax movement resulting in an outbreak on an island seemed to match up for this particular request for evidence. The matter of effectiveness was not mentioned in my post.

Reference:
It is a case where being wrong negatively effects others; made worse by distribution to others that might have otherwise decided correctly.
— Cheshire

*
Evidence. Honestly, we can't have a proper discussion if you're just going to make shit up. I could just say "the vaccine is poisonous anyway so no one should take it". His does that constitute an argument. Cite your fucking sources! It's like arguing with children. — Isaac

Now I see where you're coming from - you think vaccineas hould be accepted in spite of causing more common minor discomfort (minor side-effects, MiSE) and the rare death/disability (major side-effects MaSE). The benefits (disease immunity) , as has be shoved down our throats, outweigh the risks (MiSE/MaSE). — TheMadFool

Yes. Because of the time sensitive nature. Like, take all the time you want waiting on the japanese encephalitis vaccine to get a golden review; I'm not headed to Tokyo. If we wait to meet unreasonable standards then the benefits of a vaccine aren't realized. I think we shouldn't defeat our own purpose.

What I'm advocating for is people to adopt an approach similar to if not identical to the approach we have towards good/products sold to us by businesses big and small; after all we do have to buy vaccines. What's this approach? — TheMadFool

Our difference would be that I think a vaccine is a novel product category. And I don't think it is dangerous. I think we should adopt this argument in regards to the actual product quality. People shop on price too much.

That this didn't happen indicates that vaccine manufactures don't care about quality (less/no MiSE and MaSE) as much as they do about money - it's more profitable to sell vaccines as they are (with risks) because people are more worried about not dying than dipping into their savings. — TheMadFool

I'm not really following you here. I understand what you are saying though.

The problem is in thinking that a groups reaction correlates 1 for 1 with the actual quality. Perhaps people are idiots and not fit to judge the quality of a vaccine. But, suppose they don't know it and instead say whatever their little minds produce.

With anti-vaxxers, the situation has hopefully changed for the better - a clear message has been sent to vaccine manufacturers that people won't tolerate a compromise on quality, they want vaccine manufacturers to adopt the exact same policy towards their customers as Samsung & Apple have towards their clients - extra emphasis on quality which for vaccines must include, among other positive features, a reduction or elimination of negatives (risks), another name for safety. — TheMadFool

Anti-vaxxers as a group are idiots in regards to their expertise in a subject of choice. I don't call NASA commenting on rover designs for the same reason.

Granted, others fall outside this model and are 'rather' complicated in their rationalization of a phobia.

Don't people generally warn each other of danger? Why is this the exception? Out of everyone taking it and yet not one person has told me; I regret it. Seems like people with first hand experience ought be reliable. At least occasionally.

Oral medication can be improved e.g. powder forms that'll prevent choking . A similar logic should apply to vaccines. The medical/pharmacological communities are asleep at the wheel. — TheMadFool

How many vaccinated people have told you to avoid it?

What I meant was scientists/doctors developed vaccines, a heroic feat no doubt, but they didn't make the follow-up move which is to make vaccines better in the sense reduce the number and severity of their side-effects. Had they done that, anti-vaxxers would have never been able to do what they're doing right now - undermine decades of medical progress. — TheMadFool

You give baby aspirin to enough people and someone will choke to death. It is an unreasonable expectation on the part of the anti-vaxer that supports their position.

Feedback appreciated. You disagree with my facts? My reasoning? Or are you you all in on "show me your papers" to every non-white face in New York City? You want to bring back stop-and-frisk but for vax cards instead of guns and knives?? And if you did implement nationwide walking and driving checkpoints, how long do you think it would be before the inevitable scope expansion and mission creep set in? Check for your vax card, check your wants and warrants. Behind on your child support? Carrying any unapproved contraband? Tweet any unapproved thoughts recently? — fishfry

I haven't considered any government enforced denial of freedom of movement, so any disagreement I might raise isn't to that effect. My issue is with the pronouncement that the possibility of a vaccinated person spreading a virus and the possibility of an unvaccinated person spreading the virus are treated as equal. Or the first makes the latter not matter. It seems to me a strong argument could acknowledge that one is taking place regularly and the other is somewhere between rare and not impossible. You disagree above, but maybe I missed something.

Are you unsure what 'rather than' means? — Isaac

You could replace every post you've made with a single one that simply says "I'd rather not". And I would respect that more; than the reaching, wandering, and misdirection by authoritarian demand. Why?

Evidence. Honestly, we can't have a proper discussion if you're just going to make shit up. I could just say "the vaccine is poisonous anyway so no one should take it". His does that constitute an argument. Cite your fucking sources! It's like arguing with children. — Isaac

There was an antivax movement that lead to a measles outbreak on the island of Samoa that would serve as evidence if the casual implications aren't obvious enough for your tastes. As a follow up, try and guess how many covid cases they have today.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/samoa/

Your argument is that everyone in America should get vaccinated even if they live rurally, are healthy, socially distance etc. Thus using up precious sticks, taking them away from those that really need them in other countries. — Isaac

Bit of a pivot. Let me think about it.