Proposition: To link in a comment, the next video in a series, and pin that comment to the top of the comments section, will, should the user desire to watch another video in said series, always and forever help viewers watch all of your videos instead of bumbling as even the most avid RUclipsr does whilest attempting to find the next video in the series as RUclips recommends all kinds of unrelated stuffs in the results. It’s kind. It’s lovely. It’s perhaps even, dare I say, the ethical user experience. And… It’s something I thank you for considering. 🙏❤️🕴
…Obviously, I am joking about ethical user experience. Though… That is a debate I’d love to see addressed in The Oxford Union tho!!! Can I get a second of that motion? 🙌
As someone who supports the proposition I have to admit that this speaker presented very valid arguments. However, the argument that if you are a consumer of capitalism you are responsible is nonsensical. It is similar to the argument that those who used the products made by slaves are responsible for slavery. I am sure many would agree with me but if you don’t you are very welcome to rebuke my argument.
Of course a consumer is responsible for the purchasing choices he or she makes. Just as you are responsible for any choice you make, you are responsible for what you choose to trade your money. That to me is self-evident. But that is not the same as saying that women in the 1700s buying cotton in Britain, therefore, are slave owners. But they were responsible for providing the opportunity of making money from slavery. Even if the woman would be unaware of the slavery from which the cloth came from, she would be responsible for trusting the seller. I don't get how that can be disputed. As long as you have a choice, you are responsible for the consequences of those choices, whether you are aware of these consequences or not. That doesn't mean, however, that it would necessarily be sinful to purchase a good made from slavery. If there was no better option, it's not unethical, but you are still responsible.
@@gustavangerbjorn5601 What if a consumer is only presented with two options and both are made with slavery? How is that any different than if they are presented an option that is cheap but made with slave labor or something expensive made ethically?
@@BrokenTowelKP I’m not sure what you mean by that. I’m just saying that just as suppliers are ethically responsible for providing unethically made goods, consumers are ethically responsible for buying those products.
Mr. Irar Khan seems quite impassioned. However, I think using the argument that our consumption has led to women in India in receiving jobs in garment factories is quite weak. It’s the most cited example that is representative of the exploitation inherent in neoliberal capitalism.
The only argument these selfish egomaniacs ever seem to have is to compare one evil with another and come to the conclusion that at least they, with their god given gifts, have managed to rise in the capitalist system. We need a system that’s not based on greed, whether as a species we’re ready for that is the question.
All we have to prove is that 'some ethical consumption exists'. okayyyy. This is a very messed argument. Mr Khan seems to have allowed his expensive economics education get in the way of basic human decency and morals. Overall his arguments seemed just a set of weak attacks. You can do better Mr Khan.
@@dudebros6122 You are incorrect in telling me what I am assuming. I am not making any assumptions that being 100% ethical is possible. does anybody think that? Do you actually think that anybody believes that? It is odd that you make assumptions like that. Even if you consider it a spectrum, and not a black or white ethical/not ethical, surely you can see that we are very, very far away from anything that most people would consider ethical if asked individually. Go and look up ethical fading. It's reductionist (and not correct) to believe that capitalism has reduced human suffering the most. I also suggest you look into degrowth for explanations why this isn't the case.
@@dudebros6122 you clearly haven't read my response, so I'm going to have to assume you are incapable of basic comprehension. Go back, read it again and if your response is the same, then i can't debate with someone so far off the mark.
@@dudebros6122 Because you came back at me with a straw man argument. You keep going on about 100% ethical perfection, when I have never stated, or even suggested this should be what we are aiming for.
@@dudebros6122 No. He is arguing that it ONLY needs to be a teensy, tiny bit ethical to prove his point that capitalism is a fine model. That is messed up. It is a spectrum and the form of capitalism we have places far down the wrong end. He is trying to use that to justify capitalism. Also your arguments about capilism being better than any other model are incorrect and reductionist. This is why its pointless discussing with you, i dont think you have a nuanced enough understanding to develop the debate.
The idea that someone cannot critique capitalism because they consume within it is ironic because the same argument can be made for slavery/feudalism.
MC Burley wonder which ideology transported Africans from across the Atlantic to make “freedom” work
Capitalism did improve your standard of living
Proposition: To link in a comment, the next video in a series, and pin that comment to the top of the comments section, will, should the user desire to watch another video in said series, always and forever help viewers watch all of your videos instead of bumbling as even the most avid RUclipsr does whilest attempting to find the next video in the series as RUclips recommends all kinds of unrelated stuffs in the results. It’s kind. It’s lovely. It’s perhaps even, dare I say, the ethical user experience. And… It’s something I thank you for considering. 🙏❤️🕴
…Obviously, I am joking about ethical user experience. Though… That is a debate I’d love to see addressed in The Oxford Union tho!!!
Can I get a second of that motion? 🙌
As someone who supports the proposition I have to admit that this speaker presented very valid arguments. However, the argument that if you are a consumer of capitalism you are responsible is nonsensical. It is similar to the argument that those who used the products made by slaves are responsible for slavery. I am sure many would agree with me but if you don’t you are very welcome to rebuke my argument.
Of course a consumer is responsible for the purchasing choices he or she makes. Just as you are responsible for any choice you make, you are responsible for what you choose to trade your money. That to me is self-evident.
But that is not the same as saying that women in the 1700s buying cotton in Britain, therefore, are slave owners. But they were responsible for providing the opportunity of making money from slavery. Even if the woman would be unaware of the slavery from which the cloth came from, she would be responsible for trusting the seller. I don't get how that can be disputed.
As long as you have a choice, you are responsible for the consequences of those choices, whether you are aware of these consequences or not. That doesn't mean, however, that it would necessarily be sinful to purchase a good made from slavery. If there was no better option, it's not unethical, but you are still responsible.
@@gustavangerbjorn5601 What if a consumer is only presented with two options and both are made with slavery? How is that any different than if they are presented an option that is cheap but made with slave labor or something expensive made ethically?
@@BrokenTowelKP I’m not sure what you mean by that. I’m just saying that just as suppliers are ethically responsible for providing unethically made goods, consumers are ethically responsible for buying those products.
That was really good.
Mr. Irar Khan seems quite impassioned. However, I think using the argument that our consumption has led to women in India in receiving jobs in garment factories is quite weak. It’s the most cited example that is representative of the exploitation inherent in neoliberal capitalism.
A joy listening to Israr speak. Thank you, Israr.
Straw-man should be his middle name.
Where's Christopher Steele?
Shoutout Israr !
Great israr kakar
I think he tried to copy Mehdi Hassan debate on Islam is a peaceful religion.
.
NOPE
.
The only argument these selfish egomaniacs ever seem to have is to compare one evil with another and come to the conclusion that at least they, with their god given gifts, have managed to rise in the capitalist system. We need a system that’s not based on greed, whether as a species we’re ready for that is the question.
We are not ready.
Not as long as we need food to survive and desires to fulfill.
You think capitalism makes us greedy?
Humans are greedy normal
i live in same province of pakistan he came from.
Ok.that is a great achievement.
@@kashifhayat2616 😂
Proposition shall win
This guy is next level good !
He knows China and the third world
All we have to prove is that 'some ethical consumption exists'. okayyyy. This is a very messed argument. Mr Khan seems to have allowed his expensive economics education get in the way of basic human decency and morals. Overall his arguments seemed just a set of weak attacks. You can do better Mr Khan.
@@dudebros6122 You are incorrect in telling me what I am assuming. I am not making any assumptions that being 100% ethical is possible. does anybody think that? Do you actually think that anybody believes that? It is odd that you make assumptions like that.
Even if you consider it a spectrum, and not a black or white ethical/not ethical, surely you can see that we are very, very far away from anything that most people would consider ethical if asked individually. Go and look up ethical fading.
It's reductionist (and not correct) to believe that capitalism has reduced human suffering the most. I also suggest you look into degrowth for explanations why this isn't the case.
@@dudebros6122 you clearly haven't read my response, so I'm going to have to assume you are incapable of basic comprehension. Go back, read it again and if your response is the same, then i can't debate with someone so far off the mark.
@@dudebros6122 Because you came back at me with a straw man argument. You keep going on about 100% ethical perfection, when I have never stated, or even suggested this should be what we are aiming for.
@@dudebros6122 No. He is arguing that it ONLY needs to be a teensy, tiny bit ethical to prove his point that capitalism is a fine model. That is messed up. It is a spectrum and the form of capitalism we have places far down the wrong end. He is trying to use that to justify capitalism. Also your arguments about capilism being better than any other model are incorrect and reductionist. This is why its pointless discussing with you, i dont think you have a nuanced enough understanding to develop the debate.
I can't even understand half of the words this guy is saying
You should do treatment of your hears
@@mikaakhan1558
It's a brain issue
.
................. Move to Scotland
.
shut it