webadict

I'll bet she could carry more meat than you.

By that logic, forcing any name on a child is selfish, so they should pick their own name, since they are the ones that would have it. Although, in that case, temporary names would probably be a thing, so I don't really see the issue (or you could use other cultural naming conventions like that, but that is one that exists.)

Unless your argument is nonconformity is selfish? I personally think some people will find a reason to make fun of another person, but nominative determination does have its appeal if you don't believe that.

All names were unique at some point, but that's a moot point. Eventually they will either become more popular or less popular.

How is it a stupid name? Are rarer names stupid? It's just a name, if a very uncommon one, and it's not even particularly hard to spell or pronounce, nor is it without thought. Combination names can sometimes produce odd results, so this one feels fairly mild.

Are you arguing that variants of names meaning blessing shouldn't exist, or are you just against a new name? Because every name was new at one point, and lots of new names are variants of older ones.

Endorsements have been a thing throughout a lot of human history because we are very social beings. It may sound silly, but some people literally care more what an entertainer says instead of any or all politicians or political experts, and will vote because of it.

Eh, the kid could have worse, and it seems pretty fitting for the name's origins.

If you think of children as blessings, and want to change an existing name a little -- in this case, Jessica -- it makes sense. The first recorded instance of Jessica is from Shakespeare, who could've changed the biblical Iesca (Jeska) to Jessica by mixing Jesse into it (or making Jesse into a woman's name... or other potential origins like the word jess being turned into a name.) And you consider Bless to be a name (though rather unpopular), so it wouldn't even be particularly odd for the name.

You keep going in circles. Whose safety? The fact that it is related to the bottom line DIRECTLY contradicts yourself, that safety is only a concern as related to the money, because the money is the only concern, and that money flows to the owner.

You can call my acumen bad, but I'm just using historically very successful businesses and their complete and utter neglect for worker, consumer, and environmental safety.

You did.

I tend to disagree with this, not that it's entirely incorrect, but I think quality can't be disregarded; can the product be made safely is another factor

Meritocracy was shown to be related to the ability to generate capital because capital is economic power and allows you to concentrate more power. Quality didn't factor in because consumers buy bad products. Safety didn't factor in because consumers buy unsafe products. The best childcare workers aren't paid more than an average software developer because it's not meritocratic for workers.

Exploding sugar mills are an example and literally not the crux of my argument. The same could be said about giving your workers coal lung or mesothelioma, but it's easier to envision. You refuse to acknowledge that worker safety is not a concern unless it affects the amount of capital generated, and NONE of it is nepotism. Can you rebut that, or are you essentially ragequitting because you were wrong?

Nepotism doesn't factor in in any explanation I have given because they would only factor in getting around equal access to materials, labor, production, or markets, or possibly skirting regulations. Your argument is "No, those instances of horrible working conditions were nepotism, even though there was nothing illegal or unfair about it."

Unsafe working conditions are merely a cost-analysis in capitalism. If you make more than the costs of a decision, what is stopping capitalism from implementing those unsafe conditions if they are not illegal? Nothing. Capital-holders hold all the power and make the decisions, the workers do not, and that is the problem.

Who would work for Jeff's sugar factory if Jeff's sugar factory keeps blowing up and jim sugar factor understands the process and puts it nessisary safe gaurds

If Jeff somehow makes more money than Jim, why would Jeff ever stop? What makes you think Jim wouldn't simply start doing what Jeff does? Ideally, exploding factories would be more expensive, but that isn't always the case, so I ask again, what does capitalism do to disincentivize chasing profits at the expense of the workers or consumers or safety or the environment or the planet?

Apologies, I believe you might be confused, as I believe you proved my point succinctly: Money is the goal and the only thing a capitalist company truly cares about. You say safety matters, but you use the monetary concerns the business would incur if it failed to achieve these things because, well, the bottom line is the only thing that matters. The only way it would even be forced to do these things (besides the bottom line) is laws and oversight, since otherwise these risks are merely actuarial tables.

It doesn't really matter if your sugar mills or sweatshops or factories explode if you make a profit. It doesn't matter if your workers break their backs or inhale fumes or asbestos or coal dust or even die if you make a profit. At the end of the day, if it's just a cost of doing business, what stops capitalism from doing these things besides if you make a profit? The only thing that would stop it is the law.

The system is inherently unfair to the workers as the only choice they get to make is whether they work for a certain company or not (technically, this is untrue, as capitalism can (and historically did) use slaves, but I digress.) Many workers could (and historically did) perform work that might kill them without their knowledge because the only one allowed to make decisions under capitalism is the owner, and if an owner chooses to focus on something that is less profitable like worker safety, another capitalist can (and historically did) take that spot and undercut that company out of existence.

Thus, capitalism incentivizes the bottom line.

Consumers do not care about safety, or else we wouldn't buy oil or gasoline, and we wouldn't buy clothing made in sweatshops. Companies follow safety guidelines because of fines or other punitive measures that could affect the bottom line, and you have to admit that the bottom line is the chief concern here, and not the safety of the workers of consumers. This is a problem that capitalism is forced to deal with with government oversight because it is a failure of capitalism.

Nepotism merely makes this failure worse, but the system would be an issue even without nepotism. Businesses can perform risk assessments to determine if ignoring guidelines would make more money than the cost of restitution would incur.

Capitalism needs oversight to work fairly, but it doesn't really need oversight to do what it does best: Make those with capital more capital. The system generates profit for those with capital, and that means it makes the wealthy wealthier (and that's entirely by design.) You can argue nepotism causes the unfairness, but it doesn't, since the profits feed back to the capital owners and not the workers by definition. Oversight is the only thing that can make it even close fair.