How the h*** do you get on the Boat?

Dragonclaw on 20/4/2002 at 13:57

Yeah, think so, too.

Attention, posters:
This thread is under our control! Everyone stay cool, and noone gets hurt! ;)

Anarkos on 20/4/2002 at 21:38

A couple of things before I start this mammoth task:

1) Don't take what I say in a debate personally. I try to keep arguments seperate from normal interaction; in short, outside of here, let's keep the TTLG Forum one big happy family :p

2) Quotes: I do not have any idea what is up here. It can't just be simply me not updating my clipboard, as I've generally done a lot of copying between posts...

Anarkos on 20/4/2002 at 22:16

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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 have every right to tell you what i feel should be done in the interests of friendly debate. I do not care if you apologise, but, I do feel that if we want to continue this in a polite and friendly manner we should do whatever it takes to put that little problem behind us.

In that interest, I'll not mention it again; time to move on.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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.

No charade. I don't act. I am myself. I will always be myself. This is me.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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.

How is my cause self-serving - what do I stand to gain? What do I stand to lose? My goal is simply the majority to gain self-determination.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
What this proves is that the majority did not want an open confrontation. The Home Bill passed in 1914 was encouraging,

It was not passed. It was placed on hold due to the outbreak of WW1.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
...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.

Indeed. I think you mistake me a little, however.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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.

Yet after independance, both Collins and de Valera were considerred great, great heroes. The people's view was changed. They were not shown to be right, but they were seen to be right.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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.

The ideas I...will...fight for...if..and...when I do so will then nbe acceptable. My point was that over 10 years, ideas became acceptable.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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.

Malcontent certainly exists. Malcontent is, likwise, growing. Otherwise I agree and accept that.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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.

Arrogant attitude? No, ICE, lazy attitude; I could simply not be bothered arguing it so I looked for an easy way out... ;)

I am trying to convert the majority toi install a system which they truly control. Calling it my system hides this; I don't want any power in it, nor would I be likely to get any.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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?

Remember I've said that it is Anarchic, Direct, Democracy? Every issue requires a referendum. And, if my "fellows" disagreed with one, I'd take up arms against them.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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).

Exactly. We are unproftable. When you speak out against the money, you lose your voice. It shows not how anti-social we are, but how unprofitable we are. The mainstream media's prime ideal is money.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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.

Why would I do this for myself? I have nothing to gain, everything to lose. If I stopped fighting I could quickly gain a good salary in a Law firm, work my way up the ladder, become "rich" like we're all supposed to want...

I see that this is wreaking a silent tole upon our humanity. So I oppose it. I lose a lot; solely in the hope others might benefit from it.

And, above, you say I would only fight for my morality; NO! I would fight against it, if the people didn't like it! I will not violently oppose the people. I'll try and convert them, but I'd fight for their Right to tell me to go away. Do you understand me?

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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.

Nor did I say that it did.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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 ever take any time to study philosophy and economics, you'll understand why I find simplistic, black and white, definitions insufficient. In such neologistic fields, we push words to their limit, and then create new words and new definitions. Half of philosophical debates I've been involved in spend a full half of their time setting the playing field of the wording.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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.

What? Once more, cease these presumptious and arrogant slurs. You are yet to prove my society is wrong, you cannot insult me for it with any validity. Don't, don't try. All it does is leave me with a worse opinion of you. It is a waste of time.

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
[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.

YES! I do, and there is nothing I'll admit to more happily. It has flaws, everything does, but, with thought, with work, I think we can sideline those.

In short, we're working on it :)

Now, let me question one little flaw I did not pick up earlier. You stated the minorities which are discriminated against would coalesce into like minded groups, which you likened to "ghettoes' and that they would then not labour. But, here the social forces remain in play; within the community - by no means a ghetto, they have the maaterial goods needed - the workers will be admired. You see how this works?

Quote:

Originally posted by ICEBreaker
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.

I take it you like Affirmative Action? That's the Capitalistic opposition to discrimination - and see the hatred it causes!

Anarkos on 20/4/2002 at 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
This time I was Ice-Breaker and he was Chillman :cheeky:
Yeah, yeah, I'll shut up ;)

Argh! It says DragonClaw. This is a conspiracy by the moderators to secretly discredit me, I suspect :p

Shouldn't have any problems this time. I hope.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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.

So, we either need a revolution in a self-sufficient nation, or globally. The only nation that fits the criteria is America. It has the scale, the people, and the malcontent is already growing. In addition, most Corporates are based there; hit America hard enough, and the ramifications reverberate throughout the Capitalist system.

And goods, yes. If my beliefs are correct, within a few decades, the discontent in the petite bougeois will be sufficient, and the proletariat and it will intermingle. These three groups - including the lumpen-proletariat, that is - will realise that they stand only to gain, in material and immaterial fields, by redistributing the upper's power; redistributing coporate dollars down to the people.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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)

True - this is where the truly free media comes into play.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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.

That is disgusting.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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.

Indeed. If those who aren't happy aren't united, they'll never get anywhere...

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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...

Me? No Dragon, we all are!

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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.

Or, like I said, a single super-power to change.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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)

Yes. You see, I think the third change will be wrought by Capitalism - what was that old joke; "How many Communists does it take to change a lightbulb? None, it sows the seeds of its own revolution." - I still believe Capitalism is doing that; but, not fast enough. We act to speed it up with the so-called meme-warfare.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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.

Unnecessary goods, given to boost your opinion of your fellow man, thus percieve greater safety. In short, it charity makes the "withs" feel safer around the "withouts". A counter-revolutionery tactic on a sub-conscious level; appeasement.

In addition, other humans share parts of our DNA; we want them to survive, but not as much as we want our relations, close family, and finally, selves, to.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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.

Indeed.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
As we see it, this messing in can either turn out bad (Africa), or rather well (America).

Well? Genocide of Indians? To me, it can turn out bad, or worse, for the people on the land, that is. Rather well for Colonialists, I admit...

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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.

True, and in our world this won't happen. However, a withdrawal of military support, banning on corporate presences (as they serve to spark conflict; see Shell and Ken Saro-Wira, in Nigeria, for example), et cetera, that is, slow withdrawal, a phasing back to local rule, should be more successful.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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.

Contraception? Very confused...

Economic growth can be good or bad. "Growth" measures the amount and number of transaction, in cash, material terms. Neo-classical economics states that Growth is always good. That is false. A plain crash raises a nations GDP; it causes more transactions. That is growth; but negative growth. We need to phase out this Empty-World economics, and replace it with Full Worl Economics. Economics that takes into account the other things in the World, the non-used resources. The value of a deer before it is shot, not just after. Understand? It's quite hard to explain. Economic growth can be good, if it is growth in "good" sectors. It can also be bad.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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) ?

Yes. They take more than they give.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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?

These economies can provide some employment, without the negative side-effects of Corporate investment. Without the violence and unequal transactions..

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
Of course, a rich one has no need to state that society doesn't allow him to be successful; he's the living disproof.

So, we agree that a culture of poverty can exist. How to stop it?

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
Oh, but not from the start. The pigs could easily seize power, because old major was a pig himself, if I remember right.

But in Soviet history, the "Pigs" took power, great power, from the moment of revolution. Orwell was wrong in portraying Lenin and Trotsky as Saints.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
I thought we were NOT discussing Soviet history, but your fictional future state?

Animal Farm is a history, albeit a poor one, of the USSR.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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.

I see. As I said, we have a powerful Democratic system. The state is too weak, and too easily toppled.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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.

Which is why "my" media is to be free of the state and the Corporation.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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.

MOST laws, MOST people agree on. To change them, a Bill would be taken, as a petition, to the Parliament, who would debate it, then air it for referendum.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
On some of your other posts:

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?

It is a limiter of the state. If the people can easily arm themselves, the "Secret Police" have a harder job...

In addition, you may not be able to "own" a gun, but you can still access weapons, and utilise them.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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.

Exactly, I think I've read that essay myself. The problem is not state oppression, but Corporate oppression. If you unadvertise Nike on a Nike sponsorred channel Nike will drag the channel through the rubbish pile. So, to appease their Corporate masters the TV execs don't air the ad. Then, in some states, the Libel Laws are also pro-Corporate - in most of America, McLibel would have been handed to Ronald McDonald in just weeks. In addition, we the synergistic media monopolies; the ones that advertise their products it the breaks on their shows, with their ads, on their channels.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonclaw
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:

Exactly. An apology is just a point of honour, a point of politeness, an aid, therefore, to burying it.

ICE - I've dug the grave for you, do the honours and bury it, okay?

tripwood on 21/4/2002 at 03:01

what the HELL did this innocent warez topic turn into? :eek: :confused:

ICEBreaker on 21/4/2002 at 06:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

How is my cause self-serving - what do I stand to gain? What do I stand to lose? My goal is simply the majority to gain self-determination.

Simply the fact that your model of the world is not one that the majority wants. It is what you want. What you gain is not material benefits, but the installation of your beliefs. I am NOT comparing you with Bin Laden, the following is just an example that motives are not always monetary. What does Bin Laden have to gain from terrorism? He is a billionaire, yet he lives like a pauper, and for what reason? Just in the hope that he can install his vision of Islam.

It was not passed. It was placed on hold due to the outbreak of WW1.

No, the Home Rule Bill was passed in 1914 but not implemented until after the war. The significance is that a promise of good will was given before the Easter Rising.

Yet after independance, both Collins and de Valera were considerred great, great heroes. The people's view was changed. They were not shown to be right, but they were seen to be right.

Why not? They shared a common cause with the common Irish from the start, and though their actions from 1918 onwards brought about the independence of Ireland. This is what the Catholic Irish wanted for a long time. Why should they not be considered great? This scenario is hardly the same as introducing ADS, something that the majority do not want. So you can hardly use De Valera as an example of minority support to start with, ending with a majority support.

The ideas I...will...fight for...if..and...when I do so will then nbe acceptable. My point was that over 10 years, ideas became acceptable.

As I said, I don't know about the popularity of De Valera. However if he did not have support at the beginning it is because the people did not like his methods. This was before the Easter Rising. Yet they always did share a common cause. So of course he was popular at the end. The keywords which I have spelt out many times is "common cause". Hence the whole debate we are having about Ireland is irrelevant. People do not feel oppressed at the moment!

Exactly. We are unproftable. When you speak out against the money, you lose your voice. It shows not how anti-social we are, but how unprofitable we are. The mainstream media's prime ideal is money.

I don't think that is the reason. The reason why the media refuses to air your propaganda is because they do not want to be associated with your cause. I think that is the main reason. There isn't much long-term vision in the world. I am sure the media would prefer to receive money from you for the advert now to make quick short-term gains then to worry about the remote possibility that you would ever get support from that particular advert which will one day mean the fall of the media corporate empires. If companies looked so far into the future, the world would be a better place.

And, above, you say I would only fight for my morality; NO! I would fight against it, if the people didn't like it! I will not violently oppose the people. I'll try and convert them, but I'd fight for their Right to tell me to go away. Do you understand me?

I would not be too scared if you were the leader. Unfortunately not everyone is forbearing as you when others oppose their ideas. I am also not too sure if you will be as lenient when you are in a position of power.

Nor did I say that it did.

You said in no uncertain terms that the majority of problems in the world are due to economic imperialism via global organisations like the IMF and the WTO.

If you ever take any time to study philosophy and economics, you'll understand why I find simplistic, black and white, definitions insufficient. In such neologistic fields, we push words to their limit, and then create new words and new definitions. Half of philosophical debates I've been involved in spend a full half of their time setting the playing field of the wording.

This is not one of those cases! There is a word that describes the Chinese government quite adequately; totalitarian. Why call it fascist when it only fits half the definition? It is simply wrong.

What? Once more, cease these presumptious and arrogant slurs. You are yet to prove my society is wrong, you cannot insult me for it with any validity. Don't, don't try. All it does is leave me with a worse opinion of you. It is a waste of time.

I was not referring to your society. To me it is simply a hypothetical model, and there is no right or wrong. I was referring to the way you think your morals and thinking supersedes ours (which made me join this discussion in the first place) and comparing your actions with that of historical figures, like De Valera amongst numerous others you quoted. By the way, you have yet to prove that a capitalist society is wrong either. Unlike Dragonclaw, I am not interested in politics and I would normally not join in these discussions (as demonstrated by my first post). My reason this time was really to do with the fact that you place yourself above the law, which I see as very wrong. The problem is not your willingness to break the law, but your justifications to break the law. As I said, if I were charged for some crime I would admit my wrong doing (or not admit it to save my skin, but then feel really guilty inside), rather than claim that my morals displace those of the law. I was also offended by many of your earlier posts in which you damn the rich people of today.

Now I need to tell you something that will shock you. I am not against your model at all. In fact one day I think the world will have a similar model. Many science fiction depicts a day when money will not longer be the driving force. The Federation in Star Trek is one where finance is no longer the primary incentive, (although I think a form of credits still exist as a way to manage the transfer of goods). However I support the evolutionary process of politics and society. As people get more civilised it is hope that noble aspirations surpass those of primitive needs and the monetary incentive slowly diminishes. There is no artificial placement of one system over the other. The system merely changes with time, depending on the needs of the society. Capitalism only works under certain scenarios and it works brilliantly at this moment of human development. I am very against revolutions (unless it is required, for example, to save the country from foreign invasion and the current government seems helpless etc.) and as you should be able to tell, I cherish the stability of nations and the ability for people to live safe lives. This is why I am against the stuff you posted here as it only leads to chaos. Just let the world adjust itself, and when the time is right, in many centuries' time, humanity will be civilised enough to move on to higher forms of society. We have to tackle fundamental problems like race, jingoism, religion and such before moving on to the economics of the society. Adapting your system now will just lead to a breakdown. There is a time for everything, and now nor the near future (our life time) is not the right time.

You stated the minorities which are discriminated against would coalesce into like minded groups, which you likened to "ghettoes' and that they would then not labour. But, here the social forces remain in play; within the community - by no means a ghetto, they have the maaterial goods needed - the workers will be admired. You see how this works?

They just get what they need from social welfare. Remember that no matter how hard one works, the only rewards received are emotional and not material. Those willing to forgo the emotional rewards can just live amongst themselves. Their material needs are still satisfied.

I take it you like Affirmative Action? That's the Capitalistic opposition to discrimination - and see the hatred it causes!

No I did not say that. Giving minority special consideration would be unfair to the majority. What is important is to make the system accountable which does not seem possible in your system.

Anarkos on 21/4/2002 at 09:39

Quote:

Originally posted by CHILLman
Heheh, yes Anarkos, I think we can safely nominate you for the Most Confusing User of the Quote Funtion award... or somethin'. ;)

It's not my fault, I tell ya!! Okay now, anyway?

Quote:

Originally posted by CHILLman
Fine, your explanations are acceptable, thank you for clearing it up.

Always glad to please...

Quote:

Originally posted by CHILLman
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:).

You'll notice I a,dmitted I was foolish etc. I am accountable; but that does not reflect upon how I would normally act.

Quote:

Originally posted by CHILLman
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.

True, partcularily online. Emotive language just doesn't work here...

Quote:

Originally posted by CHILLman
But again, when you vandalize someone's property to forward your own, personal causes, no one's life is in such a danger.

Are they not? If a Corporate has pursued aggressive and lethal policy, surely, whether or not they endanger more lives is immaterial. A criminal loses his Rights. In addition, most I target continue in these acts. Sweatshops are not bloodless, safe places; whether they make clothing or prepare the meat for McDonalds, knee deep in blood, in the only town to smell of rotting meat, Greeley. And then there's the direct actions. I'll not forget Shell's murder of Ken Saro-Wira.

Quote:

Originally posted by CHILLman
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:

I just listed a number of situation where my enemies endangered lives; oppose them before we can argue the result of that.

Quote:

Originally posted by CHILLman
Not if you're just going to sit there and make some vague list of broad fields.

I listed the broad fields because it's a lot shorter and than specefic instances. Do you desire specific examples?

Quote:

Originally posted by CHILLman
You must explain how, exactly, these rights are being "destroyed",

The media now bows to the dollar. We lack the Right to Free Assembly. We - almost - lack the Right to Bear Arms.

Quote:

Originally posted by CHILLman
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...

Not to the state, no. But to the Virtual-states, the Meta-Nationals, yes.

Quote:

Originally posted by CHILLman
Is it your belief that society cannot evolve and improve on its own? That is, without the "aid" of unpopular extremist movements / revolutions?

We are part of society. We are an instrument of that evolution. Revolution has always been part of that evolution.

Quote:

Originally posted by CHILLman
>>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.

UNFINISHED POST

I'll edit it, and complete my reply. I don't have the time now...

CHILLman on 21/4/2002 at 11:30

Aw, why'd ya have to post to me now, I was just about to go to bed. :p Ah well... extra-long posts ahoy, then... ;)

trip:
>what the HELL did this innocent warez topic turn into?<

Well, give us some credit, we've been pretty consistent with the "evolved" topic the past few pages. :)

Anarkos to ICE:
>Malcontent certainly exists. Malcontent is, likwise, growing.<

And your proof for this statement is...?

>Why would I do this for myself? I have nothing to gain, everything to lose. If I stopped fighting I could quickly gain a good salary in a Law firm, work my way up the ladder, become "rich" like we're all supposed to want...<

Ah yes, but you would be gaining something I believe you hold in far greater light... the satisfaction that you would be able to impose your own personal morals and convictions upon a society which would then widely accept your point of view. Or, as ICE put it, "the installation of your beliefs".

>And, above, you say I would only fight for my morality; NO! I would fight against it, if the people didn't like it! I will not violently oppose the people. I'll try and convert them, but I'd fight for their Right to tell me to go away. Do you understand me?<

Well, I, for one, do not. You claim you'd fight for the majority's right to tell you to go away, and yet you'd purposely and persistently step all over people's property rights for the sole reason of forwarding your own personal views...? :confused: Obviously, the vast majority of people don't want you vandalizing their property, but you would do so anyway; in which case, how, exactly, are you fighting for the majority's right to tell you to go away?

Anarkos to Moi:
>It's not my fault, I tell ya!! Okay now, anyway?<

Yeah yeah, sure sure... ;)

>You'll notice I a,dmitted I was foolish etc. I am accountable; but that does not reflect upon how I would normally act.<

Oh c'mon, that had nothing to do with your beliefs or anything at all pertinent. It was merely your behavior.

>Are they not? If a Corporate has pursued aggressive and lethal policy, surely, whether or not they endanger more lives is immaterial. A criminal loses his Rights.<

Perhaps he should've thought of that before he became a criminal.

>In addition, most I target continue in these acts. Sweatshops are not bloodless, safe places; whether they make clothing or prepare the meat for McDonalds, knee deep in blood, in the only town to smell of rotting meat, Greeley.<

And these are commonplace in America / western civilization, are they?

>I'll not forget Shell's murder of Ken Saro-Wira.<

Saro-Wira was executed by the Nigerian government. Of what relevance is this?

>>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.<<

>I just listed a number of situation where my enemies endangered lives; oppose them before we can argue the result of that.<

Well, hopefully that will suffice; though somehow I get the feeling it won't live up to your rigorous standards.

>I listed the broad fields because it's a lot shorter and than specefic instances. Do you desire specific examples?<

Why yes, I do.

>The media now bows to the dollar.<

When has the media in any nation not bowed to the dollar?

>We lack the Right to Free Assembly.<

You have the right to Free Assembly as long as it is a pre-approved assembly (and no, this is not for the purpose of censoring views, but for the simple purpose of maintaining order - even if not on private property, five thousand people randomly marching through downtown Main Street without prior notice doesn't fare terribly well for the morning commute).

>We - almost - lack the Right to Bear Arms.<

Oh yes, surely one needs an automatic rifle to defend himself.

>>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...<<

>Not to the state, no. But to the Virtual-states, the Meta-Nationals, yes.<

:confused: Um, I really have no idea what you're talking about here... ("Virtual-states"?)

>We are part of society. We are an instrument of that evolution. Revolution has always been part of that evolution.<

Yes, however, it does not take a revolution to make revolutionary changes.

Anarkos to Dragon:
>And goods, yes. If my beliefs are correct, within a few decades, the discontent in the petite bougeois will be sufficient, and the proletariat and it will intermingle. These three groups - including the lumpen-proletariat, that is - will realise that they stand only to gain, in material and immaterial fields, by redistributing the upper's power; redistributing coporate dollars down to the people.<

Have you ever tried re-reading your statements and pretending that one of the more "revolutionary" characters in Deus Ex was voicing it out (like the NSF operation leader at the top of the Statue of Liberty, for example)? I dunno... it just fits so perfectly, that's all... :) (btw, on a loosely-related note, could you please cut down on the bombastic linguistics a bit; no need to use complicated expressions like "petite bougeois" and "lumpen-proletariat" when "middle-class" will suffice, all the same ;)).

Anyway, of course the poor and middle-class will benefit initially. But will they have earned it? No. In the end, this can only lead to an escalation of laziness. If people think they can get more for doing less, they're going to do less. You can't possibly think that your society will somehow be magically immune to this principle. That's just the nature of the beast. And when they do less, without consequence, more and more will do less and less, until your society has inevitably reached a mortal level of inefficiency and collapse. And, as was mentioned before, if you don't have a worldwide revolution, and you completely purge your society of money, it will be extremely difficult to trade with the rest of the world. You'd, in effect, be involuntarily isolated from the rest of the world. This might be okay, though, if your nation were strong internally. But, of course, it is not. It relies solely upon the unrewarded integrity and dedication (or, more accurately, the unpunished sloth and laziness) of its greater populous to survive, which is just a big, all-around no-no (as it, again, conflicts with our nature as human beings). To be frank, your economy would seem to have about as much internal and external stability as a voluntarily-installed, chain-mail computer virus based on the honor system. :erg:

Dragonclaw on 21/4/2002 at 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

And goods, yes. If my beliefs are correct, within a few decades, the discontent in the petite bougeois will be sufficient, and the proletariat and it will intermingle. These three groups - including the lumpen-proletariat, that is - will realise that they stand only to gain, in material and immaterial fields, by redistributing the upper's power; redistributing coporate dollars down to the people.

And if my believes are correct, the vast majority of the people will become dumber, fed by the media, ignorant of things out of their own interest.
This is certainly not a point of discussion; either you are right, then your revolution will be possible, or I will be right, then it will be buried before being born.

In addition, maybe you mistake the "petite bourgeois". They are not the ones that cry for helping the poor, but the whole middle class is it, that is actually PAYING for the social aid. Most people I know, whom I'd count to middle-class, are calling for hard testing of the social aid-recievers. They certainly ARE discontent, but I think you may be mistaking the direction they want it to change.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

True - this is where the truly free media comes into play.

But is your media truely free?
In a state, where work is based on appreciation, is it not probable that the media tend to the majorities, for they get more appreciation from them?

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

That is disgusting.

But reality.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

Indeed. If those who aren't happy aren't united, they'll never get anywhere...

Maybe, but it's more. Those who ARE happy with the situation are united, and they are by far more.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

Me? No Dragon, we all are!

True, we all talk about it. But you are the one claiming that all three will be achieved at the same time.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

Or, like I said, a single super-power to change.

No, actually the whole world, or at least the biggest part of it. Else there might be enough possibilities for taking over your state, or abusing it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

Yes. You see, I think the third change will be wrought by Capitalism ...
I still believe Capitalism is doing that; but, not fast enough. We act to speed it up with the so-called meme-warfare.

No, I don't agree. I think the ethic change, as it takes place nowadays, is more towards: "I only care for myself, and noone else". And, as the world continues going as it does, I see little to no reason why this attitude should suddenly switch all around.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

Unnecessary goods, given to boost your opinion of your fellow man, thus percieve greater safety. In short, it charity makes the "withs" feel safer around the "withouts".

But it's not always unnecessary goods. And what safety would I get from giving goods to someone in Africa? Would it not be much rather logic to give it to my neighbours?

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

In addition, other humans share parts of our DNA; we want them to survive, but not as much as we want our relations, close family, and finally, selves, to.

Now that is a very strange thing on the biological level, no? I help some stranger survive, with the things that may help my relatives survive. That's NOT biologic cleverness, and not the usual method, as far as I know.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

Well? Genocide of Indians? To me, it can turn out bad, or worse, for the people on the land, that is. Rather well for Colonialists, I admit...

I'm in fact talking about the colonies, and what turned out of those.
While in Africa, Colonization probably only helped people killing others faster, in America, it helped creating states. And even you, in your rather "evil" view of the US, will not deny that they also (direct or indirect) helped some things turn to the better.
The native americans, well, that's another story. Each and every country has some of those history parts, in my opinion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

True, and in our world this won't happen. However, a withdrawal of military support, banning on corporate presences (as they serve to spark conflict; see Shell and Ken Saro-Wira, in Nigeria, for example), et cetera, that is, slow withdrawal, a phasing back to local rule, should be more successful.

Hm, maybe. But I think the wrong people have tasted technology, especially weapons, and will do everything to keep that with them...

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

Contraception? Very confused...

Yeah, I meant contradiction, my bad. Unfortunately, I'm not a walking dictionary.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

Economic growth can be good or bad. "Growth" measures the amount and number of transaction, in cash, material terms. Neo-classical economics states that Growth is always good. That is false. A plain crash raises a nations GDP; it causes more transactions. That is growth; but negative growth. We need to phase out this Empty-World economics, and replace it with Full Worl Economics. Economics that takes into account the other things in the World, the non-used resources. The value of a deer before it is shot, not just after. Understand? It's quite hard to explain. Economic growth can be good, if it is growth in "good" sectors. It can also be bad.

I do of course know about the bad growth, that's one of the earlier lessons in Economics.
But you just hacked on me saying it brought economic growth, and went on with a rambling about how economic growth is ridiculous und dangerous. Next time, you should maybe explain it like this earlier, to prevent misunderstandings.
And as you name it, you cannot cut down this bad economic growth to EPZs, but have to put it on the whole economy. And then your country will have to deal with that too...

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

Yes. They take more than they give.

Well, they take workpower, and give wages. If they don't give the wages, the people will have to look for someone else. Either they find noone, then they will starve sooner or later. Or they do find someone, then this one will have the worse conditions. (If he had better ones, they would have worked there from the start)
Again, I'm not saying EPZs are the finest solution to poverty in the third world, but I still think they do at least provide some money to the poor.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

These economies can provide some employment, without the negative side-effects of Corporate investment. Without the violence and unequal transactions..

Which economies? The ones from the third world?
Sure, they provide employment, but they do so yet. It's not enough.
And the violence and unequal trade: Do you REALLY think the companies are the reason for those, and that Africa itself and it's people are a master example of peace and humanity? Please.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

So, we agree that a culture of poverty can exist. How to stop it?

If I knew for sure, I'd suggest it to the government.
But I think there will always be people, who are less successful, and they will always look for excuses besides themselves.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

But in Soviet history, the "Pigs" took power, great power, from the moment of revolution. Orwell was wrong in portraying Lenin and Trotsky as Saints.

Yes, in soviet history. Again, I'm talking about the Anarkos-state future, not the soviet history. If you think, that it will be impossible for anyone to seize the power in your state, then please do prove it, besides remarks like "The media is free, and will cover this" or "if the people don't like it, it's a perfect democracy, they can vote other way"

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

Animal Farm is a history, albeit a poor one, of the USSR.

Yes, but besides its history parallels, it's still a book about an equal society, which turns into a terror reign.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

I see. As I said, we have a powerful Democratic system. The state is too weak, and too easily toppled.

This is exactly what I meant above. You can excuse everything with a free media and a truely democratic system. I can defend my view of Capitalism with it, and you will hardly be able to say anything bad about it, which I cannot take away with those arguments.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

Which is why "my" media is to be free of the state and the Corporation.

See above, but in addition:
What use are media, if the people ignore them?
And exactly HOW do you want the media to be free from the state? I think the same people work there, who vote in your state, so it will always be politically biased, same as today.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

MOST laws, MOST people agree on. To change them, a Bill would be taken, as a petition, to the Parliament, who would debate it, then air it for referendum.

Which still takes a long time, and is still a lot of work.
If you don't like the laws today, gather a group large enough, who joins your opinion, and confront the government with that. It may take a bit more people than the majority (50%+1), but usually politicians try to keep the majority behind them, so eventually it will work.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

It is a limiter of the state. If the people can easily arm themselves, the "Secret Police" have a harder job...

As the usual police. And the hospitals. And everyone else.
Think there is a group of people, who oppose the state as it is, but cannot forrm a majority. Imagine they have easy access to weapons. Do you like that picture? I don't.

Quote:

Originally posted by Anarkos

Exactly, I think I've read that essay myself. The problem is not state oppression, but Corporate oppression. If you unadvertise Nike on a Nike sponsorred channel Nike will drag the channel through the rubbish pile. So, to appease their Corporate masters the TV execs don't air the ad. Then, in some states, the Libel Laws are also pro-Corporate - in most of America, McLibel would have been handed to Ronald McDonald in just weeks. In addition, we the synergistic media monopolies; the ones that advertise their products it the breaks on their shows, with their ads, on their channels.

No, the problem Orwell described is not corporate oppression either. It's intellectual oppression. The common people at that time wouldn't buy it, just because "You cannot say things like that about our allies!". The intellectuals would call it trash, because it stands in contrast to their view of the heroic, ideal Soviet union.

What you describe is partially because of the commercial situation, I agree. But as someone else said, I think ICE was it: If there's money to get from it, the media, or a part of it, will do it.
And the other part is that they just don't WANT to air your spot. Maybe it's in opposition to their message, maybe they find it too extreme, whatever. But, after all, most television and radio stations live of the commercial way of life. Imagine most of today's shows or groups without support from companies. Unthinkable.

lunatic96 on 21/4/2002 at 22:09

Holy shit there's a lot of typing going on here

I got halfway down page 3 and then my head exploded...

I think this thread is a little out of control...

:angel: :rolleyes: :D :cheeky: :ebil: :eww: :erg: :sly: :sly: