General Discussion

shadowwinds

(22 posts)

34. Language is everything! We should start somewhere. I'm starting with the definition of a person.

Sat Jun 25, 2016, 06:04 PM

Jun 2016

In Chapter 1 of the INITIAL PROVISIONS AND GENERAL DEFINITIONS
on page 1-3

person means a natural person or an enterprise

Does this ring a bell?

Citizens United language all over again!!!!

I've been discussing this definition with my "evangelical relatives and friends" and asking them how their pastors are defining a person that is now "an enterprise". Where is the soul? Is it gone? Or, Is this the latest step in evolution? Human beings are now enterprises!!!

Not one of them has given me ANY answers!!!! needless to say, I tell them I am very concerned about this "new" definition of human being.

All of us should start going through this TPP and take it apart and just ask questions. Maybe we'll get some discussions going in all our associations with others as well as here on DU.

What say you???

“Remember the past, don’t hate, and don’t be a bystander.” Hedy Epstein

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

135 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I still see the TPP as a significant threat to our rights [View all] cali Jun 2016 OP

Yet more stuff for us average struggling aging people to worry about 90-percent Jun 2016 #1

PS 90-percent Jun 2016 #2

Orwellian for sure. Not sure it's "good business" though 99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #37

I remember when workers were valued! Silver_Witch Jun 2016 #116

getting medieval on the planet SoLeftIAmRight Jun 2016 #6

kick. Those cheering on the TPP would prefer to ignore cali Jun 2016 #3

This ^^^^^ OrwellwasRight Jun 2016 #55

Thanks so much for that great link, Orwell cali Jun 2016 #78

TPP is the best thing since The Black Death Vincardog Jun 2016 #4

That's about right. OrwellwasRight Jun 2016 #56

Wow, everything you hate about it I find to be appealling. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #5

So you actually support making generic drugs more difficult to obtain? cali Jun 2016 #8

I find your analysis of the treaty lacking in any semblance to reality. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #9

It's not my analysis. And unless you can point out cali Jun 2016 #13

I'm not going to spend hours writing a treatise on why the analysis is flawed. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #14

And my respect for those who make claims without cali Jun 2016 #16

And basing respect for people on a message board format is the height of silliness, IMO. eom MohRokTah Jun 2016 #17

How does it feel to be hawking for greedy corporate interests? 99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #40

Great! MohRokTah Jun 2016 #43

Which "Socialist rhetoric" might that be? 99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #49

they mean anything that doesn't kowtow to neoliberalism, corporate AntiBank Jun 2016 #53

Ah, ok.. THAT Socialist rhetoric! I'll own that. 99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #54

That would at least be some kind ethos. Marr Jun 2016 #87

North Korea Dear Leaderism AntiBank Jun 2016 #89

Oh great. HughBeaumont Jun 2016 #93

Hey Cali------------------ turbinetree Jun 2016 #32

You are so welcome, turbinetree. cali Jun 2016 #38

I have been reading your threads for about three years now-------------------------- turbinetree Jun 2016 #134

Its obvious to anyone reading that you won't because you can't. Marr Jun 2016 #85

Sources would be fine Bradical79 Jun 2016 #115

answer cali's simple question. its NOT analysis AntiBank Jun 2016 #29

I agree it's not really analysis. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #44

answer the question AntiBank Jun 2016 #48

I did. eom MohRokTah Jun 2016 #58

show me where you answered yes or no to support for the evergreening of drug patents AntiBank Jun 2016 #60

It's there, though not the answer you want. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #61

In this case it is black or white. You either support evergreening the patents or your do not. AntiBank Jun 2016 #64

I reject the basis of your premise as nothing more than rhetorical nonsense. eom MohRokTah Jun 2016 #65

NO. You simply refuse to answer one simple question. Furthermore: AntiBank Jun 2016 #75

I answered your question. That you refuse to accept the answer is your problem, not mine. eom MohRokTah Jun 2016 #80

you NEVER answered it. you are a pendantic game player AntiBank Jun 2016 #81

Again, I answered your question. You simply refuse to accept the answer. eom MohRokTah Jun 2016 #82

show me your answer AntiBank Jun 2016 #83

I showed youo, again, you refuse to accept it. eom MohRokTah Jun 2016 #84

you damn well know you never fucking did AntiBank Jun 2016 #86

And now you make things up about me. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #88

bullshit, you support the TPP, which allows for evergreening AntiBank Jun 2016 #91

Even more making up shit. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #92

You know, I said I wouldn't continue engaging with you, but I just cali Jun 2016 #94

And now you engage in a logical fallacy. MohRokTah Jun 2016 #95

Nothing buit puerile insults. That's it. That is the whole sum of your "argument" cali Jun 2016 #96

You posted the links and "evidence" MohRokTah Jun 2016 #97

Impact Of The TPP On The Pharma Industry (showing EXACTLY that the TPP puts evergreening into play) AntiBank Jun 2016 #101

You are going to find that to be the case anytime trade is discussed here RB TexLa Jun 2016 #122

I would like to regulate trade across state lines. bvar22 Jun 2016 #123

So you find Trans Canada suing the United States to be a good thing? TheFarseer Jun 2016 #127

I do as well. nt m-lekktor Jun 2016 #7

If it's blue it must be true? cali Jun 2016 #10

I hear you. nt m-lekktor Jun 2016 #12

+10 99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #41

DURec. bvar22 Jun 2016 #11

Thank you, bvar! The collective DU opinion on the tpp cali Jun 2016 #15

Same here. bvar22 Jun 2016 #31

My interest in remaining here is waning. Substantive issues cali Jun 2016 #33

Is there a viable alternative space? OrwellwasRight Jun 2016 #57

I was wondering the same thing. Stryder Jun 2016 #112

Sadly laundry_queen Jun 2016 #73

+100 AntiBank Jun 2016 #51

Good to see you, bvar awoke_in_2003 Jun 2016 #74

it is all they have to play with AntiBank Jun 2016 #50

I'm with you. reflection Jun 2016 #18

the evidence of corporate influence over the crafting of the TPP cali Jun 2016 #19

TPP to Protect American Freedom to Not Afford Medicine LS_Editor Jun 2016 #20

And not only Americans! cali Jun 2016 #21

Yes, there was more interest in the TPP months ago, but mostly speculative interest... George II Jun 2016 #22

It's not even good. Perfect? It's stupidly horrible. It's a complete disaster. w4rma Jun 2016 #67

What do Hillary's handlers say she thinks about TPP this week? Indepatriot Jun 2016 #23

well those people are obviously all wet in their opposition stupidicus Jun 2016 #24

I find the "if it's blue, it must be true" mentality shocking. cali Jun 2016 #25

so true cali stupidicus Jun 2016 #30

Good post. Thank you. PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #26

Thanks, PufPuf. cali Jun 2016 #28

It will be the final nail in our Democracy TDale313 Jun 2016 #27

Language is everything! We should start somewhere. I'm starting with the definition of a person. shadowwinds Jun 2016 #34

It rings it loudly. And not just CU language. cali Jun 2016 #90

Thanks for all your TPP posts cali Teamster Jeff Jun 2016 #35

right back at you Jeff. cali Jun 2016 #39

You may be interestd to watch this trade conference on Tuesday. OrwellwasRight Jun 2016 #59

k/r for the unvarnished truth AtomicKitten Jun 2016 #36

K&R smirkymonkey Jun 2016 #42

So do I. Corporations already have too much power. Overseas Jun 2016 #45

Corporate lawyers, lobbyists & CEOs wrote the damn thing. What else can we expect? 99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #46

I wish I knew why that doesn't trouble the people who support it. cali Jun 2016 #47

It is interesting how many Pro-TPPers are coming out of the woodwork. 99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #52

Slap the name "free trade" or "partnership" on one of these Elwood P Dowd Jun 2016 #66

That, and being supported by Obama 99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #69

Some "Democrats" *want* corporate governance. (nt) w4rma Jun 2016 #68

I have heard of this 99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #70

These are the "Democrats" that want whatever their big donors want. (nt) w4rma Jun 2016 #72

And then their supporters reactively support that position. cali Jun 2016 #105

...AND, they wrote it "in secret". bvar22 Jun 2016 #124

+10 99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #125

Thank you cali. You've been tireless in trying to educate people here riderinthestorm Jun 2016 #62

that is very kind of you to say. I don't know how effective it's been cali Jun 2016 #77

So do I. LWolf Jun 2016 #63

Same here IgelJames4 Jun 2016 #71

Thank you for the post Cali...K&R! Jack Bone Jun 2016 #76

kick midnight Jun 2016 #79

K&R Thanks for posting this. JEB Jun 2016 #98

And many thanks for kicking it. Yes. I think this is a critical issue. cali Jun 2016 #99

It stinks to high heaven, but certain powerful industries JEB Jun 2016 #100

Thanks for posting, Cali Bettie Jun 2016 #102

Sadly, I agree with you, Bettie. But I still think it's worth fighting. cali Jun 2016 #107

Big pharma disagrees with you. They see big $$$ in their eyes, and it NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #103

"evergreening" of patents is in the final text. Period. And yet there are people cali Jun 2016 #104

not "mind-boggling", just part of the Neoliberal agenda. NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #106

K&R unapatriciated Jun 2016 #108

TPP ISDS process concerns Arizona Roadrunner Jun 2016 #109

How come that has not happened with all the trade agreements since 1959 with similar provisions? Hoyt Jun 2016 #129

Rights? Soxfan58 Jun 2016 #110

Thank you for responding. cali Jun 2016 #111

This just shows how complicated free trade issues can be. Yes there has been widespread opposition totodeinhere Jun 2016 #113

Yes. Things are complex. Seemingly paradoxical opinions may not be cali Jun 2016 #114

I'm not well versed on Brexit either. But I think the course of world events will cause us to totodeinhere Jun 2016 #117

Please. No need at all for an apology. I appreciate your contribution cali Jun 2016 #120

My problem with the trade discussion on this forum... Bradical79 Jun 2016 #118

Yes. There has been a paucity of credible evidence for the benefits outweighing the cali Jun 2016 #121

Corporations have long sought ways to avoid being tied down by laws. vintx Jun 2016 #119

Notice that the pro-tpp folks in this very thread cannot give you just ONE positive net good Rex Jun 2016 #126

it's reactive, not informed. cali Jun 2016 #128

I know you've spent a lot of time looking it over, I just wish it would be made public Rex Jun 2016 #130

I'm a bit confused by your post cali Jun 2016 #131

Thanks! I did not know it was released to the public. Rex Jun 2016 #132

You're very welcome, Rex cali Jun 2016 #133

Thanks that is a lot of reading material. Rex Jun 2016 #135