AvatarFollow

Again with the "one must lose for the other to win" assumption.

Why does a corporation benefiting their bottom line automatically not benefit you? Where does that assumption come from?


Name 5 products you use every day and which benefit you in some way. How many were produced by a corporation attempting to improve its bottom line? Most likely all of them, right? Still "struggling" to understand this?



You're looking for the wrong thing. You're starting with an assumption, which conveniently makes it harder for you to see the obvious truth in front of you: That when corporations improve their bottom lines, it's overwhelmingly beneficial to the people who use the products and services they create.


Again: Where do you suppose that assumption came from? Do you think it's an accident that you have so completely adopted a "rich get rich at the expense of everyone else" mentality? Or do you think maybe all those films you've seen since you were a child might just have had something to do with it?


Wake up! See the world for how it is. Heck. Just stop and look around you sometime. Look at what you have. Ask "how did those things get here". A stunningly high percentage of the time, the answer isn't "the government did it", but rather "a large corporation figured they could make money if they built a better <whatever>". Their actions help both you and them. It's not a zero sum game.

Governments act as zero sum operators. In order for the government to give you something, it has to take it from someone else. Corporations don't work that way. In order to make money, they have to come up with a way to get you to buy their product instead of someone else's. The vast majority of the time, that requires that they make something that is better, less expensive, or both. Thus, you are benefited at the same time. You see this all around you, but your own ingrained assumptions prevent you from seeing them.


Wake up!

That is somewhat absurd. Which is probably why most people don't say that and instead note that [some/many] corporations are more concerned with turning a profit than in worrying about the welfare of other people. Which is a completely different argument.

I already addressed this. Large organizations don't make good protagonists, individuals do.

Um, this is a MOVIE, people! Sheesh...

Ridiculous politics aside, Hollywood itself consists almost entirely of massive corporations last I checked.

Dances with wolves... INNNNN SPAAAAAACCCEEEEE!!!

Corporations are powerful organizations that can potentially have a fluid change of leadership in their power structure. That's frankly an ideal environment for someone who want's to gain power for whatever purpose, nefarious or benevolent.

"Villains" would be frankly retarded if they didn't look to it as a potential route to seizing power. You don't have to be nearly as popular among the "common man" to seize power via the private sector, rather than the public. It's a power structure that encourages rather than stifles "ends justify the means" decision making, and you don't get bogged down with as much of the hot violence and personal physical risk that is involved with organized crime. In addition, you don't need private financiers, as the general public will more or less happily financier whatever "special projects" you embark on.

And it makes for a good story.

No wonder it's a common theme.

1) I was told it was "Dances with Smurfs". Which rather makes me want to go and see it.

2) Gabji, it's not the first time I say this, but you should really go and see a doctor. This paranoia of yours is getting increasingly pervasive.

3) Wake up! Lol.. folks.

Not going to throw a "sheeple" in there?

Funny I thought that the Supreme Court could take on cases that question the Constitutionally of Laws made by either State lawmakers, or Congress and Sign into law by the President of the USA.

SSeems that how such things are done in the USA, where Might doesn't always make on Right.

Apparently, Avatar just got beat out at the box office by Alvin and the chipmunks: The Squeakuel.

I have a sneaking suspicion that varus drained his office's funds to make this happen.

Now that I've actually seen the movie, I'll just pop in fashionably late to call Varus a moron. Not only did he completely miss the point of seeing the movie (the visual effects), but he also managed to twist the little bit of plot and turn it into a left wing agenda indoctrination attempt, while simultaneously failing to notice that the film actually portrays many of the values that he professes to follow himself.