CHILLman on 17/4/2002 at 00:14
Anarkos:
>>>Heh, that makes you a damn reformist. This is about when I'm supposed to set fire to your house for class treason and few other Marxist crimes.<<<
>>Damn moderates, you're as bad as reformists!<<
>I detest those who use such weak political insults. Worse, to me, is internal fighting. If I hear another person say "stupid Trotskyite", "reformist" or "bourgeois Communist" I will be violent I tell you...<
Gee, if I didn't know any better, I'd say these words came from the mouth of a grade-A hypocrite (but then again, that's been proven time and time again against you throughout the course of this thread). I hope you're prepared for a little self-torture (being "violent" and all). Not that there's any reason to believe you at all.
Anyway, I think we live in a sad world if the vast majority of people (we're called "moderate" for a reason, you know) deserve to have you "set fire to their houses" for this supposed "treason" to your own personal views. You may have been joking a little there, but the underlying message remains the same - you are a stubborn extremist who's unwilling to compromise with anyone or anything who would dare disagree with you, and thus are a danger to society. I don't happen to find you "joking" about burning people's houses down at all funny, taking into account your complete disregard of people's property rights.
>>ICE: You are doing what is right for the majority, by changing that majority. This is a bit like a captain saying that the ship is fine now, and they will not need to abandon ship unless the ship starts sinking. So you go and sabotage the ship.<<
>I'd prefer the analogy of a sinking ship, called freedom. It has sprung a leak, but most people are yet to see it. So I run from person to person, telling them of the leak!<
No, what you are doing is trying to make people see a leak where none exists. And this is easily evidenced by the simple fact that the ship is not sinking. But like ICE said, nothing will change the way you want it to unless the ship is sinking, and so you attempt to sabotage the ship to try to get what you want.
>We are, in apathy, allowing the destruction of essential freedoms and rights. That cannot continue.<
May I ask what essential freedoms and rights are being destroyed? Just today, the Supreme Court upheld the "right" to freely produce and distribute child porn, as long as they aren't real children (in other words, animated by hand, computer, etc.). Come on, surely this is far beyond "essential freedoms and rights", and yet it is being upheld - by a Conservative-dominated justice board, no less! Again, I ask you what specific essential freedoms and rights are being destroyed, that would suggest the evil, downward-spiraling, freedom-destroying trend that you speak of?
>No social system remains dominant; generally those that cease to be become obsolete and are evolved out of.<
By the same principle, your social system will eventually fall victim to this just the same. So what's the point of fighting for it? Why bother? Talk about apathetic.
>Can we please not argue Animal Farm, but Soviet history?<
As I recall quite vividly, every single time Soviet history or anything that remotely alludes to it has been brought up and used against you, you reject it and persistently say "No! That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about has never been tried before!" :sweat: So if you don't want us to argue you with fact, and you don't want us to argue you with fiction, what is it, exactly, you expect us to argue you with? :confused: Sadly, it seems the clearer your fragile system becomes, the more you fanatically cling to it, and consequently, the farther you alienate yourself from any reasonable, logical debate. :erg:
Anarkos on 17/4/2002 at 07:20
CHILL, please do as you say I should. I have curbed my language fully; I shall no longer speak rudely, you must do the same. I found your post arrogant, offensive, and rude.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman Gee, if I didn't know any better, I'd say these words came from the mouth of a grade-A hypocrite (but then again, that's been proven time and time again against you throughout the course of this thread). I hope you're prepared for a little self-torture (being "violent" and all). Not that there's any reason to believe you at all.I take it you are unfamiliar with sarcasm? :p
You'll notice in my first usuage of the term I said "supposed...for...other Marxist crimes." I was jokingly commenting on the stereotypes leftists are supposed to follow. When I called Dragon a reformist, I was being sarcastic. You see, I love the idea of reform, but do not think it possible.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman Anyway, I think we live in a sad world if the vast majority of people (we're called "moderate" for a reason, you know) deserve to have you "set fire to their houses" for this supposed "treason" to your own personal views. No, someone following the Marxist stereotype which I was mocking would believe that. I don't. It's not treason to
my views; Christ, I'd be likely to lose my house as well! I'm no Marxist...
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman You may have been joking a little there, but the underlying message remains the same - you are a stubborn extremist who's unwilling to compromise with anyone or anything who would dare disagree with you, and thus are a danger to society.You claim so much about me, knowing so little. Don't make this sort of claim; you know me only through one political debate here. I'm by no means stubborn; look at the disciussion between Dragon and I; I'm sure you can see that I'm conceding points to him...
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman I don't happen to find you "joking" about burning people's houses down at all funny, taking into account your complete disregard of people's property rights.I do not possess a complete disregard; I follow them when it does not lead to an infringement upon a human being. I'll not put a possession of anyone's over another's life - would you? I hope not... However, if a more essential Right is not at risk, I'll obey society's accepted rules.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman No, what you are doing is trying to make people see a leak where none exists. And this is easily evidenced by the simple fact that the ship is not sinking. But like ICE said, nothing will change the way you want it to unless the ship is sinking, and so you attempt to sabotage the ship to try to get what you want.Tell me, please, can you, in all honesty, read the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and tell me they are all followed in this world? They are not! And that is the water that we've already let in...
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman May I ask what essential freedoms and rights are being destroyed? Just today, the Supreme Court upheld the "right" to freely produce and distribute child porn, as long as they aren't real children (in other words, animated by hand, computer, etc.). Come on, surely this is far beyond "essential freedoms and rights", and yet it is being upheld - by a Conservative-dominated justice board, no less! Again, I ask you what specific essential freedoms and rights are being destroyed, that would suggest the evil, downward-spiraling, freedom-destroying trend that you speak of?Freedom of press.
Free assembly.
Education.
Health.
Free speech [at times].
Right to bear arms.
I could continue; shall I explain which Freedoms, from the UN, I consider breached?
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman By the same principle, your social system will eventually fall victim to this just the same. So what's the point of fighting for it? Why bother?Of course; I do not call it utopia. I fight for it as it, to me, is better than now. Understand? Society evolves, improves...
Would you stop cleaning your teeth, because they'll end up dirty again?
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman Talk about apathetic.How am I being so?
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman As I recall quite vividly, every single time Soviet history or anything that remotely alludes to it has been brought up and used against you, you reject it and persistently say "No! That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about has never been tried before!" :sweat: Tell me how you can connect Authoritarian and Libertarian Socialism, but not connect the two extremes in a Capitalist state?
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman So if you don't want us to argue you with fact, and you don't want us to argue you with fiction, what is it, exactly, you expect us to argue you with? :confused:Logic, theory, or relevant fact, relevant fiction.
Also, here we are arguing, Dragon and I, not that my system will fall, as Russia did, or be "evil" as it, apparently, was. Rather, we're arguing about the development of Authoritarianism there.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman Sadly, it seems the clearer your fragile system becomes, the more you fanatically cling to it, and consequently, the farther you alienate yourself from any reasonable, logical debate. :erg: Do not, do not, ever,
ever, make comments such as this and expect respect, politeness, or intelligent debate. It is arrogant, rude and childish. If we are going to step above and beyond that, we must
all do so.
Do not tell me that my ideology illogical or unreasonable; if you want I'll prove with logic, in the Randian fashion. Do not conclude this without support.
Prove me wrong. Then, take this credit, understand? Accept?
ICEBreaker on 17/4/2002 at 09:00
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos I have apologised for my mistakes; now the ball is in your Court. It is hypocricy if you consider my actions, rightfully, unnacceptable, yet yours acceptable.You talk to me about hypocrisy? You lost the right to talk about good conduct ages ago. You called me a fucking idiot on numerous occasions and my response was to ridicule you about your incessant demand for us to acknowledge you are not an anarchist but an ADS. Wow, I am so brutal and mean! I didn't ask for your apology, and in the face of what happened, it is ridiculous that you would even consider asking for mine. I see no reason why I should accommodate your mood swings. How convenient it is to blame everything on alcohol.
Nor have I said that they do; rather that they used methods similar, or even more extreme, that ours. They supported our actions, although not our cause.That is a bit like saying, because the US attacked Afghanistan, it must condone military actions. Thus by your line of argument, the US should support Iraqi action against Kuwait. Even though the cause is not the same, the method is similar, right?
Some where not. Collins, de Valera, most certainly not. When the Anglo-Irish War began, the IRA was regarded as a group of thugs. Two years later, they were ridiculed for failing; they'd become popular while they fought their revolution, not before. De Valera also; in 1922 he walked out of the first legal Dail with the words "there are some rights a minority may uphold, even against a majority". Ireland was plunged into a civil war; the IRA split. Soon, Collins was dead. When Ireland was freed, fully, under the Statute of Westminster, Eamon de Valera was its first prime minister. Both Collins and he began fighting as a minority, and ended leading a majority.I am really not sure what you are talking about! The terrible executions of The Easter Rising in 1916 gained overwhelming support for Sinn Fein who in 1918 won nearly every seat outside of Ulster. What do you mean by no support from the majority? In 1919 the IRA, the military arm of Sinn Fein began guerrilla warfare against Britain until 1921 when the Partition occurred. The IRA didn't fail! The civil war was before 1921 not after 1922 as you inferred. I don't know how popular Eamon De Valera was in 1916 when he joined the Irish Volunteer force but he certainly seemed to have support after 1916 and especially during the Anglo-Irish war. Besides, supposing for a moment that De Valera had no support, his cause was popular, even if his methods were not. Your cause does not share a common cause with the public, and that is the point I made. So not only do I have a problem with your facts, I also have a problem with the relevance of the example you chose!
I see the difference that you claim; but I believe it is false.And you seem to have provided no evidence of why it is false.
It won't work. The theory Constitutional Republic is a wonderful one; the reality is not.Neither will your system. In theory it may be wonderful to you but when it becomes a reality, it won't work.
So, so, I campaign to create the society's awareness. I'm not starting a revolt now, God forbid, it would be suicidal, for myself and the movement; our Easter wouldn't be as "successful" as that of 1916. No, we must gain our popularity through legal means when possible, and when they are denied to us, illegal means.Have they been denied? All that has been denied is your demonstration marches. Your other rights of propaganda have not been curbed. You may continue to publish and distribute propaganda material. You may still hold meetings and talks. Frankly, demonstrations only give you a bad image.
Explain why the Republicans, the Democrats, the Greens, et cetera, can campaign towards a majority, but I cannot.You may, as long as it is legal and through the right channels! The above American political parties respect the American Constitution and the laws, which derive from it. I have no objection whatsoever if you formed a political party and by means of an election come to power. However what you want is the destruction of the Constitution in favour of your own system, which is considered treason.
I would rather surrender now than allow this. Socialism is not the principle I fight for - freedom is. Understand me? If a system becomes locked in place against the people's will, I will oppose it. If my idea becomes perverted such, I'll take up arms against it.First of all I am not against or pro socialism. I think every country is unique and requires a different form of government. Secondly I quote, "If a system becomes locked in place
against the people's will...". This is a vital quote point and I am glad you brought it up. The western system of democracy is not against the people's will. People don't want it to change. So why are you opposing it then? Why are you taking up arms against it?
And, the problem that holds nations back now is debt, forced debt; and the only way out; "cash crops"; things the West want. People starve, with fertile fields of coffee for the international market. The nation needs these to sell to pay back the debt; the people starve. That's why the IMF/WTO has suffered such vocal opposition.That describes a minority of countries, which are in turmoil at the moment! South America is hardly the worst place on earth! What about war torn countries? The Balkan and Middle East conflicts were caused by the territorial problems I mentioned, and not by economic problems. The WTO/IMF is hardly the cause of today's conflicts. The Argentinean problem is minor compared to those of many other countries. However for a moment, let me focus on the economic problems. Numerous countries have been unable to repay their international debt (a loan they asked for) and the one who loses the money in the end are the first world countries that don't get their money back. America is hardly going to seize another nation's assets just because it can't pay its debts. What you seem to advocate is that when a country goes into economic turmoil, other countries should freely give it money (a donation not a loan). So in the end, you want the richer countries to support the poorer countries unconditionally.
Fascism is Conservative Capitalist Authoritarianism.No it is not.
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. That is by no means an accurate description of China, and I have not heard anyone else describe China as a fascist country.
Social recognition, respect and admiration.These are not quantifiable attributes and working hard is only one factor in this. Your system of reward is open to abuse by discriminatory bodies. For example, minorities are routinely given less recognition, respect and admiration for their work. When felt unappreciated, the minority workers will be less productive and the destructive cycle begins, until one day, the minorities feel no incentive to do more than the bear minimum. Minorities tend to group together, and soon there will be a minority, which is despised and ostracised. The government can't do anything about it. In today's world, unequal opportunities are easily be shown up by the discrepancies in salaries. Subjective claims of unequal "back patting" are useless. Your system of reward is nothing more than a popularity contest. When the rewards are not directly measurable, any issue involving it is subjective.
if we ever have the misfortune to meet face to face, just give me 2 hours, and I think that'll change.... with bruises all over my body.
It's not subversion, any more so than the Democrats campaigning is... I never knew that the Democrats wanted to overthrow the constitution!
Anarkos on 17/4/2002 at 10:19
Quote:
Originally posted by ICEBreaker You talk to me about hypocrisy? You lost the right to talk about good conduct ages ago. You called me a fucking idiot on numerous occasions and my response was to ridicule you about your incessant demand for us to acknowledge you are not an anarchist but an ADS. Wow, I am so brutal and mean! I didn't ask for your apology, and in the face of what happened, it is ridiculous that you would even consider asking for mine. I see no reason why I should accommodate your mood swings. How convenient it is to blame everything on alcohol. "How conveniant that the gun was never found! No, as I am innocent, I find it dee-cidedly inconveniant."
How conveniant it would be not to have had such an excuse; if that was the case, our problems would not have occurred.
And
do not for one moment believe you are an injured party. You have consistently been immature and abusive, in tone, if not wording. Normally, I am a stoic; I would not react. I'm not good with emotion; so I control and repress it. In extreme situations, the floodgates open. I don't find that a matter of pride.
If you wish - as, by your reply, I assume you do - to continue this, it is pointless to attempt rational debate with emotion at the fore. Thus, we must both reconcile. We must both accept the past as what it is; past.
If you continue to hold my past actions over me, I shall cease to reply. It is pointless for me to approach someone who has nothing but enimity for me.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman That is a bit like saying, because the US attacked Afghanistan, it must condone military actions. Thus by your line of argument, the US should support Iraqi action against Kuwait. Even though the cause is not the same, the method is similar, right?Why yes, if the motives are also the same; remember, both actions would, or have, been done for oil.
But, to return to my argument; it is not that they should support me, but that they did, in their time, the same, for the same reson.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman I am really not sure what you are talking about! The terrible executions of The Easter Rising in 1916 gained overwhelming support for Sinn Fein who in 1918 won nearly every seat outside of Ulster. What do you mean by no support from the majority? An overall majority of, as I recall, roughly 75%. However, a large percentage did not vote in the Khaki Election. However, the acts of Collins and Sinn Fein must also be viewed as seperate and distinct. His acts of open rebellion were widely condemned, as Pearse's had been in 1916. However, the British response was violent and indiscriminate once more; again, they swung public opinion.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman In 1919 the IRA, the military arm of Sinn Fein began guerrilla warfare against Britain until 1921 when the Partition occurred. The IRA didn't fail!Incorrect. They failed. Read up a little, may I suggest, on the later history of Ireland; '22-3 particularily. In 1920, the Home Rule Bill was passed, with Partition. This was ignored by the now Republican Ireland. The "Irish Free State" was little more than Home Rule. By the Armistice, Collin's forces were near to collapse; they had to accept the British terms. However, the British, likewise, were tiring of war. Thus, they made a slightly more generous agreement than just Home Rule. Collins signed the Anglo-Irish Treaty; de Valera rejected it. In retrospect, we can understand Collins. He faced an ultimatum; sign, literally, now, or we send more troops.
In Ireland, he was widely accused of treason for this.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman The civil war was before 1921 not after 1922 as you inferred. Incorrect. You speak of the Anglo-Irish War. The Civil War lasted from 1922-1923, and was fought between the - now legal, and, ironically, British backed, IRA, and de Valera's Irregulars. Collins, however, I would estimate, was supported by a majority of 60-70%; certainly, the Dail's support was greater than this. Thus, de Valera fought for the minority.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman I don't know how popular Eamon De Valera was in 1916 when he joined the Irish Volunteer force but he certainly seemed to have support after 1916 and especially during the Anglo-Irish war. Again, you forget the result of that war.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman Besides, supposing for a moment that De Valera had no support, his cause was popular, even if his methods were not. Your cause does not share a common cause with the public, and that is the point I made. So not only do I have a problem with your facts, I also have a problem with the relevance of the example you chose!And, like your factual problem, this can easily be opposed. The Dail's support of Collin's, and the public electoral support he recieved shows this. De Valera held a minority.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman And you seem to have provided no evidence of why it is false.I'm sorry, but a traditional rule of debate is the affirming person must prove. I can sit and tell you that is false, until it is shown to be true.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman Neither will your system. In theory it may be wonderful to you but when it becomes a reality, it won't work.Perhaps; luckily, you may recall my powerful electoral system allows for this...
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman Have they been denied? All that has been denied is your demonstration marches. Your other rights of propaganda have not been curbed. You may continue to publish and distribute propaganda material. You may still hold meetings and talks. Frankly, demonstrations only give you a bad image. Publishers will rarely touch our views, for fear of Court cases. Monsanto, for example, can easily be shown to have prevented printed opposition through crude bullying and scare tactics.
We cannot air advertisements on public networks. The Adbusters Organization raised the funds, and approached a number of American TV networks. Only once has an Adbusters ad been screened.
Likewise, papers, bilboards, the prime modern propaganda techniques won't touch us, cash up front or not...
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman You may, as long as it is legal and through the right channels! The above American political parties respect the American Constitution and the laws, which derive from it. I have no objection whatsoever if you formed a political party and by means of an election come to power. However what you want is the destruction of the Constitution in favour of your own system, which is considered treason. But, let us refer back to the Constitution - is it any wonder that I feel more in common with those on the Right who wish to see its return to prominence than with the mainstream? To me, the American Constitution is a wonderful, but now abused, document.
[
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman First of all I am not against or pro socialism. I think every country is unique and requires a different form of government. Secondly I quote, "If a system becomes locked in place against the people's will
...". This is a vital quote point and I am glad you brought it up. The western system of democracy is not against the people's will. People don't want it to change. So why are you opposing it then? Why are you taking up arms against it?I did not say I would
only do so then.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman That describes a minority of countries, which are in turmoil at the moment! South America is hardly the worst place on earth! What about war torn countries? The Balkan and Middle East conflicts were caused by the territorial problems I mentioned, and not by economic problems. The WTO/IMF is hardly the cause of today's conflicts. The Argentinean problem is minor compared to those of many other countries. However for a moment, let me focus on the economic problems. Numerous countries have been unable to repay their international debt (a loan they asked for) and the one who loses the money in the end are the first world countries that don't get their money back. America is hardly going to seize another nation's assets just because it can't pay its debts. What you seem to advocate is that when a country goes into economic turmoil, other countries should freely give it money (a donation not a loan). So in the end, you want the richer countries to support the poorer countries unconditionally. No, I want Neo-Colonialism to end. Full stop. In addition, tell me, is the Palestine situation not caused by Colonialism? What about the Balkans?
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman No it is not. Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. That is by no means an accurate description of China, and I have not heard anyone else describe China as a fascist country.It is highly accurate; only on race is it innaccurate.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman These are not quantifiable attributes and working hard is only one factor in this. Your system of reward is open to abuse by discriminatory bodies. For example, minorities are routinely given less recognition, respect and admiration for their work. When felt unappreciated, the minority workers will be less productive and the destructive cycle begins, until one day, the minorities feel no incentive to do more than the bear minimum. Minorities tend to group together, and soon there will be a minority, which is despised and ostracised. The government can't do anything about it. In today's world, unequal opportunities are easily be shown up by the discrepancies in salaries. Subjective claims of unequal "back patting" are useless. Your system of reward is nothing more than a popularity contest. When the rewards are not directly measurable, any issue involving it is subjective.Correct in full.
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman ... with bruises all over my body.[/BYou underestimate me. I'm a better talker than I am a typer; and I don't like violence...
Quote:
Originally posted by CHILLman I never knew that the Democrats wanted to overthrow the constitution! I never knew that I did!
ICEBreaker on 17/4/2002 at 15:28
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos I did not ask for your apology / reconciliation, nor do I claim to be the injured party. All I am saying is that for someone with an attitude like yours you have no right to ask me for an apology nor do you have any right to tell me what I should or should not do. I don't demand any thing from you, so you should just stop this charade of being civilised and reasonable, when your previous posts here, even before your outburst have shown otherwise.
Why yes, if the motives are also the same; remember, both actions would, or have, been done for oil. But, to return to my argument; it is not that they should support me, but that they did, in their time, the same, for the same reson.If you won't accept the
fact that what you are doing is different then I have nothing more to say. It is blatantly obvious to me that those famous people you love quoting from, shared a common cause with their majority, while you
don't share a common cause with the current majority. So to me, your cause is only self serving, under the guise of something else.
However, the acts of Collins and Sinn Fein must also be viewed as seperate and distinct. His acts of open rebellion were widely condemned, as Pearse's had been in 1916. However, the British response was violent and indiscriminate once more; again, they swung public opinion.What this proves is that the majority did not want an open confrontation. The Home Bill passed in 1914 was encouraging, and people wanted self-government under an agreement with Britain. What changed in 1916 was
not that Collins (I know little about him) was right all along and opened the eyes of the people (what you are proposing about the current situation), but that the British response was so harsh and brutal, involving the execution of many Irish, that the people's opinions changed. It was not that people realised Collins was right and started to supported him, it was just that the people started to dislike and distrust the British government. This is a big difference, which makes this example invalid.
Incorrect. You speak of the Anglo-Irish War. The Civil War lasted from 1922-1923, and was fought between the - now legal, and, ironically, British backed, IRA, and de Valera's Irregulars. Collins, however, I would estimate, was supported by a majority of 60-70%; certainly, the Dail's support was greater than this. Thus, de Valera fought for the minority.You are right, I looked up some school notes and I did confuse the Anglo-Irish War with the Civil War, which ensued afterwards. However regardless of who had the greatest support, they all fought for a similar cause. Just because (you claim) De Valera fought for the minority did not mean that he had some radical ideas, which was unacceptable to the public. You cannot draw a parallel between your situation and that of De Valera's.
And, like your factual problem, this can easily be opposed. The Dail's support of Collin's, and the public electoral support he recieved shows this. De Valera held a minority.What you said had nothing to do with what I wrote. I said even assuming that De Valera had little support (in other words, supposing you are right) you still could not draw an equivalent between him and yourself. De Valera's cause was still similar to that of the majority's. In the end, the Catholic Irish wanted independence; they just had different ideas on how to reach this. Your situation is totally different, and this was my point (not the point that De Valera was popular or not). What started this talk about Ireland is that those famous people you quoted did not need to convert people. A majority of malcontent existed. This is not the case with your situation. You then decided to bring up De Valera and Collins and illustrated that they were the minority and later became the majority. People may not agree with their methods but they agreed with the cause. So I don't agree that you and Da Valera are in a similar case.
I'm sorry, but a traditional rule of debate is the affirming person must prove. I can sit and tell you that is false, until it is shown to be true.Do you remember what this is in response to? This was a summary of the above. I am saying (repeating again) that those people you quoted shared a common cause with the majority of people who were not content with the situation. On the other hand, you do not share a common ideology with the majority, nor are the majority against the current system. What you are doing is trying to convert the majority for the purpose of installing your system. I have just given my point, which you can dispute with reason, but you cannot merely say it is false without saying why. With this arrogant attitude, I can just reciprocate and say that, as the ADS is the minority, it is up to you to prove that the current system is wrong. All the points you have made so far do not convince me. I do not need to give reasons why. End of discussion.
Perhaps; luckily, you may recall my powerful electoral system allows for this...What? That every few years without fail, people will vote whether to go back to the old days and return to global capitalism, or stay within the current ADS framework? Would your fellow revolutionaries allow this when the time comes, or is this just your own ideals?
Publishers will rarely touch our views, for fear of Court cases. We cannot air advertisements on public networks. The Adbusters Organization raised the funds, and approached a number of American TV networks. Only once has an Adbusters ad been screened. Likewise, papers, bilboards, the prime modern propaganda techniques won't touch us, cash up front or not...That is not because the Government prohibits it. It is because the mainstream media does not share your ideology. This just shows how anti-social your propaganda is. I guess the only thing you can do is just give out flyers and hold seminars (provided you can find a venue).
I did not say I would only do so then.So basically what you are saying is, if a system becomes locked in place against the
your will, you will oppose it. In the end it all comes back down to your personal set of morals superseding those of the majority. In other words, you are just self serving. So I wish you would stop talking as if you are doing this for the benefit of the majority.
No, I want Neo-Colonialism to end. Full stop. In addition, tell me, is the Palestine situation not caused by Colonialism? What about the Balkans?They are due to colonialism and that was my point. The problems are not due to economics but due to territorial disputes caused by the remapping last century. Capitalism did not cause these problems.
It is highly accurate; only on race is it innaccurate.The above sentence is illogical. Basically China does not fit the entire definition of fascism as so it is not a fascist country. Clear and simple. If you can't even deal with something black and white like a simple definition, no wonder why you have problems realising what you propose is wrong.
Correct in full.[On the issue of discrimination of minorities leading ultimately to their segregation.] In which case you agree that your reward system has great flaws, which you have to address. The success of the monetary system is that it is highly accountable. If you ever wish to replace this system, you better think of some other quantifiable reward system. I guess giving people "gold stars" for work well done like in lower school is a possible start.
Dragonclaw on 18/4/2002 at 00:29
This time I was Ice-Breaker and he was Chillman :cheeky:
Yeah, yeah, I'll shut up ;)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
I'd love a worldwide revolt. However, a national one would be acceptable; on the condition that we could be guaranteed freedom from outside intervention.
In my view, you will NEED a worldwide revolution. Partially because of you mixing some things together (if I don't forget it, that will come later), partially because the people will most probably not be willing to give up on goods they had before, if they give up their property at first (coming later, too). You will hardly be able to trade with other countries if you don't use money at all. Therefor, some goods will plainly not be available to your citizens, for example foreign cars (Depending on which country we're talking about maybe not even cars at all), maybe bananas (known example), high-tech, and so on, and so forth.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
But the concept of "bribe" becomes harder; what to give? Likewise, these groups will be, generally, elected ones, which have an allowance for their constituents opposition; when someone's seen as corrupt, he'll walk...
First they have to be shown as corrupt... If a policeman is corrupt today, he will have a problem, still I consider more policemen corrupt than policemen being sued for corruption. (And no, I don't think the police is majorly corrupt)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
God! Tell me, where and who have you heard saying such?
First, I have to admit, that I hold certain prejudjices towards the turkish immigrants due to my experience with them, and therefor maybe overvalue some things, but said is said.
This particular statement in Fulda, about 3 years back, on my way to school. Said by immigrant youths. Basically, I hear similar statements (guess by whom) on my way to/from Uni in the bus about every two months.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
I detest those who use such weak political insults. Worse, to me, is internal fighting. If I hear another person say "stupid Trotskyite", "reformist" or "bourgeois Communist" I will be violent I tell you...
Unfortunately, those are heard often in todays "lefting" society here. But after all, this is germany, and this is how many people want us to be, I think.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Ahh, perhaps. But, you recall, I don't view Human Nature that way.
Yes, unfortunately for you, you're mixing many things in this discussion:
You want to create a state based on socialism, and abolish money.
You also want the third world countries to be left alone, and raise them from their poverty.
Moreon, you want to change human nature from the shape and traits it has today towards a social conscient, helpful kind.
And more, but I'll keep it short here...
While all of those three work perfectly together (in fact, the third is the mere base to create the state imho, and also probably a necessarity for the second), each of those are a hard task in itself. And here again, you'd need a world-wide change of the human kind, else it will not work.
To cut it short: If the morals are established as you described them, the first one will be easy, and the second one possible. However, as they are pretty different in today's world, you will be most likely failing in your other goals.
And, honestly, I don't believe this human nature can be forged. Humans have at all times struggled for power, at all times crept for standing out of the "ordinary" (for example by riches), and have at all times been violent. Yet, during those times, there have been plenty propagating a peaceful way of respect for each other. I really doubt you could change them... (though I will not stop at least trying)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
I base my view on Socio-Biology; the theory that social acts are influenced primarily by biology. The one constant of that is the selfish gene theory - DNA wants to continue existing in as close to its current form as possible...
But with that theory, you won't be able to explain benefical deeds, for example donating to the poor across the corner, or giving clothes to people in need. If you can, I'm interested.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
I am a firm Anti-Colonialist. I believe that if the First World pulls out of the Third, it will fix it's own problems eventually.
As life is, I happened to talk about that with a friend of mine today, too, and I _basically_ agree with your point. If the first world had kept out there, Africa may stand better today.
In my opinion, Africa is just on a step of "evolution" that happened maybe 500-1000 years ago in Europe: Tribes, kingdoms, the unwilling to live with your enemy (who is mostly the same as you). The first world just provided them with a better arsenal of weapons.
As we see it, this messing in can either turn out bad (Africa), or rather well (America).
I'm, however, not so sure about the first world pulling out, I think it's too late now. The technology has been brought over, and they got used to it. If you pull back, the tech will be likely to fade, as many people don't know how to deal with it (producing, using, maintenaince), and those who can, could work in other countries for better wages.
And I think a forced step-back (or rather jump-back) in technology is a big shock for every civilization.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
A reason for continued poverty, combined with the rest of the Neo-Colonialist package.
Depends on what you put in that package.
I'd more count to that corruption, crime, general abuse of the weaker (not necessarily created or run by colonisation or neo-Colon.)
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
"Economic growth"; God I hate that. I hate Neo-Classical economics. Growth is always good, therefore growth will be good for an infinite amount of time, therefore growth will be infinately good. But we live in a finite system; continued growth in a finite system; infinite inside finite. Won't work...
In one word: HUH?
You are not suggesting economical growth is a contraception in itself, are you? And I hope you are not calling economical growth always a bad thing. Then I guess we would have some basic misunderstandings happening here.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
The EPZ's gain international revenue, needed for trade, needed to pay back loans. If a state refuses them, they go somewhere else. The indebted nations fight over chances to make international revenue so they can pay their debts; they compete to make EPZ's "better".
You have not really answered my question: Would you prefer it, if the companies would not invest there, and would not provide wages (maybe low, but at least some money)and other investions (be they measurable or not) ?
I know you spoke about the drawing back, but when given the fact that the first world still trades with those countries and therefor, and for other reasons, has impacts on the thrid world: Rather jobs there, or rather not?
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
It exists; you recall I mentioned it's relation to poverty, on a more local scale, above.
Of course, a rich one has no need to state that society doesn't allow him to be successful; he's the living disproof.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
But, like in the USSR, the state it modelled, the pigs [Bolsheviks] had the power.
Oh, but not from the start. The pigs could easily seize power, because old major was a pig himself, if I remember right.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Can we please not argue Animal Farm, but Soviet history? Certain parts of Orwell's work are biased, such as the saintly Trotsky, that is driven out, the ignored Mensheviks, the...
I thought we were NOT discussing Soviet history, but your fictional future state?
However...
I was not discussing animal farm here. Just stating, that in animal farm, it turned out to get a "bad society", and it is quite imaginable to be realistic.
That's the end of AF, as then I went on saying that this will in my opinion happen to most (if not all) socialistic systems, and that it is very easy to deceive the masses by speaking about "the good of society" and "protecting the people". Then I merely asked you, what you would do to prevent it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
But, following its Constitution, if this happens, and the people dislike it, it falls.
Yes, but if the people don't dislike it, if they are convinced one way or another, if they may even enjoy doing bad, then you had in fact opened the evil genie's bottle.
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
True; but I want the majority to freely and fairly determine them.
Which is not an easy task, and will probably take a at least lifetime on that one alone. But then, there's a new generation, which has the right to decide about the laws itself. And so on, and so on. Exaggerated, you would have to change the laws every 10 years, which causes many obvious problems.
On some of your other posts:
Quote:
Originally posted by Anarkos
Freedom of press.
Free assembly.
Education.
Health.
Free speech [at times].
Right to bear arms.
Right to bear arms? Why would you count that as an essential right/freedom?
In addition, I think that is more or less linked with possession, no?
And that [at times], in my opinion cutting on that, limiting it, is in fact contradicting it, no?
On the media thing, I agree with ICE, it's not due to governmental restrictions, it's due to the media not wanting to publish it, for whatever reasons. I have a great essay by Orwell in my copy of AF, stating the exact same problem when he tried to publish the book.
And, on the matter of excuse:
I think it has been done between you, I just wanted to make myself clear:
I did not want to force ICE to excuse for his words, I think this was caused by your insults, Anarkos. I did in fact want him to recognize your excuse, and that this point would be buried between you two.
I guess that's it for now, it's late enough already :erg:
CHILLman on 18/4/2002 at 10:09
Dragon:
>This time I was Ice-Breaker and he was Chillman :cheeky:<
Heheh, yes Anarkos, I think we can safely nominate you for the Most Confusing User of the Quote Funtion award... or somethin'. ;)
Anarkos:
>I take it you are unfamiliar with sarcasm?
You'll notice in my first usuage of the term I said "supposed...for...other Marxist crimes." I was jokingly commenting on the stereotypes leftists are supposed to follow. When I called Dragon a reformist, I was being sarcastic.
No, someone following the Marxist stereotype which I was mocking would believe that. I don't. It's not treason to my views; Christ, I'd be likely to lose my house as well! I'm no Marxist...<
Fine, your explanations are acceptable, thank you for clearing it up.
>You claim so much about me, knowing so little. Don't make this sort of claim; you know me only through one political debate here.<
Which is why all of my claims have been politic-related (ie. when I call you "stubborn", I'm talking about your "stubborn political views", not you, personally - unlike when you went around calling everyone ignorant, idiotic fools; but alas, you were drunk, and so cannot be held accountable... :erg:).
>I'm by no means stubborn; look at the disciussion between Dragon and I; I'm sure you can see that I'm conceding points to him...<
Only the most trivial of things, or things in which he says he partially agrees with you, etc. However, this stubborness tends to be typical during any political debate, on some scale or another.
>I do not possess a complete disregard [of property rights]; I follow them when it does not lead to an infringement upon a human being. I'll not put a possession of anyone's over another's life - would you? I hope not... However, if a more essential Right is not at risk, I'll obey society's accepted rules.<
But again, when you vandalize someone's property to forward your own, personal causes, no one's life is in such a danger. You see, it is not a choice of "property rights" vs. "someone's life", but rather "property rights" vs. "promotion of your own personal cause". Yet you would disregard those peoples' property rights anyway. In essence, you would choose to infringe upon peoples' rights, the very thing which you claim to defend. :erg:
>Tell me, please, can you, in all honesty, read the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and tell me they are all followed in this world? They are not! And that is the water that we've already let in...
Freedom of press.
Free assembly.
Education.
Health.
Free speech [at times].
Right to bear arms.
I could continue; shall I explain which Freedoms, from the UN, I consider breached?<
Not if you're just going to sit there and make some vague list of broad fields. You must explain how, exactly, these rights are being "destroyed", as you claim. Like I said, virtual child porn(!), of all things, is being upheld. Needless to say, I find it rather difficult to believe the that "freedom front", as it were, is collapsing before our very eyes...
>Of course; I do not call it utopia. I fight for it as it, to me, is better than now. Understand? Society evolves, improves...<
Is it your belief that society cannot evolve and improve on its own? That is, without the "aid" of unpopular extremist movements / revolutions?
>>what is it, exactly, you expect us to argue you with?<<
>Logic, theory, or relevant fact, relevant fiction.<
And just who decides what is "relevant"? Why, you do, of course (see below). :weird:
>Do not, do not, ever, ever, make comments such as this and expect respect, politeness, or intelligent debate. It is arrogant, rude and childish. If we are going to step above and beyond that, we must all do so.<
What I was saying was that you keep placing these arbitrary walls up on subject matters you don't like. Take what I said above, for example. When Soviet history was brought up against you, you dismissed it as irrelevant, as it didn't portray, exactly, what you had in mind. When fiction regarding Socialism arose, placing it in a negative light, you dismissed it as irrelevant, apparently on the simple merit that it is fiction. Of course, it's perfectly okay for you to bring up Soviet history, in small, specific areas where it supports your views. And of course it's okay for you to bring up fictional stories / ideas (Farenheit 451, 1984), when they happen to support your views. Do you see where I'm going with this? There's a growing trend of you barring certain discussions where it seems you cannot defend yourself adequately, without any real explanation. Who made you the undisputed authority on what is satisfactorily within the boundries of the debate? What makes Animal Farm any less an inevitability of Socialism than F451 is supposedly an inevitability of Capitalism? Sooner or later, you're going to have to answer to these criticisms; be it here or in the midst of your triumphant revolution. You cannot simply ignore them, they will not just go away. And as such, I would suggest you stop dancing around them, and start answering to them. Now better than later.
Cyborg on 19/4/2002 at 14:59
I suppose that someone is out of the topic here. :p
Anarkos on 19/4/2002 at 22:05
Is anyone in it?
CHILLman on 19/4/2002 at 22:06
Yyyyyep. The thread went off topic after like the fifth or sixth post though. But hey, if we can singlehandedly keep a forum alive with a completely off-topic discussion... why not? ;)
