Mofo
dont give a shit   SSHOLEPosts: 442 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
4/21/2005 at 03:46 |
If it's so easy, why can't you just explain it?
Well, you seem predetermined not to change your mind anyways, so it's just a waste of time. And you'll never change my mind, so I see no point in continuing this tirade.
There are too many posts in this thread that quote other posts and still fail to realize the REAL ULTIMATE TRUTH: nobody in here has changed anyone else's mind about anything.
Yea, but if you stop supporting your side, your a weak willed pussy. Or so goes the Internet community.
|
| |
Stump
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 310 Registered: 6/18/2002 Offline
|
4/21/2005 at 04:41 |
LOki:
Being "less fortunate" is not a mortgage on the life, and life's work, of another. Recognizing that it is theft to place an obligation on someone else, by the use of force, is what makes us civilized. The farther from that we get, the less civilized we become.
[Edited on 17/4/2005 by LOki]
Is that Rand I smell? |
| |
Stump
SENATOR BABYHEAD Posts: 310 Registered: 6/18/2002 Offline
|
4/21/2005 at 05:00 |
Mofo:
You seem to confuse "supporting the less fortunate" with "give them free money for no apparent reason". Even if you pay them to hoist your throne to the sky, those poor people below you still support you. Communism finds a place in the community for everyone. He may not be able to clean your gutters, but for all you know he could recite poetry or be a comedian. Either way, he is supported by those more fortunant, and should support those less fortunant.
(Italics added for emphasis. Italians added for pasta and good masonry work.)
Your whole argument is destroyed by that one statement as in a communism no one would be more or less fortunate you would all be earning the same wage regardless if you were reciting poetry all day in the square or hauling stone to build the square.
|
| |
LOki
Refusenik  SSHOLEPosts: 487 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/21/2005 at 10:09 |
When LOki said:
"If it's so easy, why can't you just explain it?" Mofo said:
"Well, you seem predetermined not to change your mind anyways, so it's just a waste of time." How do I seem "predetermined not to change [my] mind"? Is it the presentation of arguements that you fail to, refuse to, or just cannot refute? (And I mean refute with coherent reasoning, rather than faulty logic and speculative accusation.)
Then Mofo continued with:
"And you'll never change my mind, so I see no point in continuing this tirade." No matter what evidence, logic, and reasoning I bring to the debate. You might be interested in looking up the word "projection." While you're at it, seek out some intellectual integrity.
[Edited on 21/4/2005 by LOki]
____________________
|
| |
tank
SENATOR BABYHEAD  Posts: 113 Registered: 4/4/2002 Offline
|
4/21/2005 at 21:04 |
I beleive the point here has been sorely missed. If I am wrong with my interpretation of LOkitics, then I apologize, but here goes.
1) I have the right to keep what I earn.
2) YOU do not have the right to tell me what I have to spend my earnings on.
3) It is in my best interest to support the programs that are useful i.e. fire departments, police, etc.
4) It would be in the best interest of industry to subsidize schools and promote children's educations - they are the future bread-winners.
5) All of you who have more money than me, pony up and send a portion to me via Paypal - if you truely believe in socialism, it is your moral duty to do so, and I have to do NOTHING to earn it.
My point here, people, is that we are penalized for being productive. If you remove the constraints of capitalism (make more money, get more stuff) you also remove the impetus behind the desire to to a better job. What makes a brain surgeon become a brain surgeon? I'd be willing to bet it ain't minimum wage.
____________________
64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday. |
| |
Mofo
dont give a shit SSHOLEPosts: 442 Registered: 2/8/2004 Offline
|
4/22/2005 at 02:46 |
No matter what evidence, logic, and reasoning I bring to the debate. You might be interested in looking up the word "projection." While you're at it, seek out some intellectual integrity.
Now you just attack me because I have a differing view from you? I find socialism/communism good, you hate it. Big deal. It isn't going to change anything.
Your whole argument is destroyed by that one statement as in a communism no one would be more or less fortunate you would all be earning the same wage regardless if you were reciting poetry all day in the square or hauling stone to build the square.
To clarify my point, that italic part would be in regards to a non-socialist state.
My arguemnets directly address your pure "theoretical" communism. Communism blows chimps both theoretically and practically.
(Italics added for emphasis. Italians added for pasta and good masonry work.)
They sure would. In fact it is all too common in socialist societies to have nice single family residences confiscated and torn down (in the interest of the "common good")to make room for multi family residences.
That sure does look like you describing a attempt at a communist nation in the past.
"Nowhere in our Constitution is there even a hint of authority for most of what Congress taxes and spends for today. "
For those interested:
Section 1, Article 8
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
[Edited on 22/4/2005 by Mofo] |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 487 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/23/2005 at 23:10 |
It's a good thing I'm me, or I'd get tired of this.
SPOON!
Mofo said:
"Well, you seem predetermined not to change your mind anyways, so it's just a waste of time. And you'll never change my mind, so I see no point in continuing this tirade."So LOki responded to Mofo with:
"No matter what evidence, logic, and reasoning I bring to the debate. You might be interested in looking up the word "projection." While you're at it, seek out some intellectual integrity." Mofo said:
"Now you just attack me because I have a differing view from you? I find socialism/communism good, you hate it. Big deal. It isn't going to change anything." I did not attack you at all.
You, on the other hand, attacked me with the accusation of being closed-minded (see Mofo: "...you seem predetermined not to change your mind...") and then assert that you, yourself, engage in the exact same activity (see Mofo: "...you'll never change my mind,...").
What I actually did was offer you constructive avdice about alleviating your closed-mindedness (see LOki: "...seek out some intellectual integrity."), and correcting an ineffective compensating behavior you possess (see LOki: "You might be interested in looking up the word "projection."").
I have been attacking your flaccid assertions about the merits of socialism/communism. I have pointed out its actual practicle and moral failure, and I have even granted you the consideration of some "ideal" theoretical communism, and still find the practical and moral faults in its foundational principles.
Your very, very best responses thus far can be summarized thus: "Theoretically, if communism could work and have a moral foundation for doing so, then communism would work and have a moral foundation for doing so." You can check to see if I'm mistaken, but I feel pretty confident that that is all you've really come up with.
Your very same best argument could be made for fascism--or free-market capitalism--and that would be wrong too. Your arguments are embedded in a logical fallacy. I am encouraging you to set yourself adrift from the premise that communism works, and is moral, so that you can explore wether or not communism works or is moral. That cannot happen as long as you will "never change [your] mind."
And so again, SPOON!
When LOki said:
"They sure would. In fact it is all too common in socialist societies to have nice single family residences confiscated and torn down (in the interest of the "common good")to make room for multi family residences." in response to Mofo saying:
"[Communists/Socialists] wouldn't take your house." Mofo said:
"That sure does look like you describing a attempt at a communist nation in the past." Although almost incomprehensibly constructed, I think I know what this entence is supposed to be saying. My response is that, actual OR theoretical, if it is deemed to be in the interests of "the common good," communists not only would, but must destroy an individual's house to make room for multi-family dwellings. So, I posit that you are wrong. Both about communism, and my argument.
When Walter Williams said:
"Nowhere in our Constitution is there even a hint of authority for most of what Congress taxes and spends for today. " Mofo said:
"[Section I, Article VIII, Clauses 1 - 18 of the U.S. Constitution]" But Mofo failed to post:
Non Existent Clause 19: The Congress shall have Power to take the money you would save for retirement and subsidize someone elses retirement with it.
Non Existent Clause 20: The Congress shall have Power to take the money you would save for heath care and subsidize someone else's healthcare with it.
Non Existent Clause 21: The Congress shall have Power to take the money you would save for your home and subsidize someone else's dream of home ownership.
Non Existent Clause 22: The Congress shall have Power to take your grocery money and subsidize someone else's grocery bill with it.
Non Existent Clause 23: The Congress shall have Power to take the money you would save for children's education and subsidize the education of someone else's children.
Non Existent Clause 24: The Congress shall have Power to take your wages and subsidize someone else's wages with them.
Non Existent Clause 25: The Congress shall have Power to take the money you would save for an HDTV and home theater system to subsidize a trip for 4 dudes to the FUKING MOON!!!!!!
Anyone care to hazard a guess why Mofo did not cite those last clauses to Section I, Article VIII of the U.S. Constitution?
Anyone?
Well, before Mofo starts checking, the reason is...THEY DON'T FUKING EXIST!!!!!
So, no Mofo, not even a fuking "hint of authority for most of what Congress taxes and spends for today."
Because I'm feeling a bit bad for you right now, I'll give you a chance at redemption. Here it is:Mofo said:
"In communism, you get 10, keep 5 for yourself, and redistribute that 5 to others who need it. That way, the whole profits, not just one person." And I replied "Why, why, why?"
I know many of my questions sound rhetorical, but they mostly are not. I don't usually ask questions I'm afraid to get answers for. So, I'm asking you again and I'll give you hints to my counter arguments in (parenthesis):
1) In Communism, why would you get $10? (...if you didn't get it using force via the instrument of governemt?)
2) In Communism, why would you then keep $5? (...once you already got $10? I mean, really, if the government got you your $10, but you only get to keep $5, why didn't they just give you $5 in the first place?)
3) In Communism, why would you redistribute $5 to others who "need" it? (Since the governmet is just doling out the wealth anyway, why not just give the needy what they need in the first place?)
4) In Communism, under the above conditions, how exactly does "the whole" profit, but not just one person? (I can see how the person who is earning nothing profits by geting $5, but how is the person who earns $10 profiting by only getting $5?)
[Edited on 23/4/2005 by LOki]
[Edited on 23/4/2005 by LOki]
[Edited on 24/4/2005 by LOki]
____________________
|
| |
LORDKAHUNA
Don't make me fuk your moustache  SSHOLEPosts: 1691 Registered: 8/5/2003 Offline
|
4/24/2005 at 05:54 |
COMMUNISM!
____________________
never underestimate how many women have basically no self-esteem to speak of |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 487 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/24/2005 at 18:45 |
In reveiwing the posts to this forum, I realized that I off-handedly dismissed an interesting assertion from dragonstaff.
dragonstaff said:
"Karl Marx is nothing more than a plagiarist who stole from the most famous Socialist Revolutionary of all time. This Revolutionary is known to us today as... Jesus Christ! If you read the Gospels ( discounting the religious mumbo-jumbo) and concentrate on the social side of what JC did and said, his real message, that we all can use, is socialism. Please expand upon this--particularly the means and role of human sacrifice in JC's version of socialism.
____________________
|
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 487 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/27/2005 at 00:26 |
"Question #2: Do you agree that the global purpose of establishing the Gulag day should be promoting the understanding that the Gulag is an inalienable and even a fundamental part of any communist regime? In other words, Gulag Day must not be limited only to the Soviet experiment, but to every socialist experiment. Right?
Kuznetsov: Absolutely. Gulag day must represent the victims of all socialist atrocities.
Hollander: I agree that forced labor camps were essential parts of most communist systems at any rate during much of their existence. They served both political and economic purposes: intimidation, elimination of potential opposition and cheap labor.
Yarim-Agaev: Gulag is a fundamental fact of any communist system. The history says it. It also follows from the uniformity of the totalitarian system, — if you have something in one of those countries you must have it in any other. Communism is absolutely identical in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Korea, and will be the same in any other country, which, God forbid, may decide to install this system. And I can guarantee that they will have their Gulag. Hence the Gulag Day must not be limited to the Soviet Union.
I also suggest limiting our discussion to communism no matter to what extent it is related to socialism in general, and how much the members of this panel disagree with the latter. Our goal should be the universal condemnation and prohibition of communism. Communism should be declared a totally unacceptable political system no matter how it comes to power, whether by a violent coup or a majority vote. By itself this would be a dramatic result with the enormous political consequences. That is why it will be so hard to achieve it. Yet, I believe that this task is feasible and fully justifiable. I cannot say it about socialism per se. And for all practical purposes of making our world better, the universal condemnation and prohibition of communism would mean much more than hundreds of debates about disadvantages of socialism.
Bukovsky: Of course, you are right. This is why we all agree that remembering the results of that experiment is so important, and will be so relevant in the decades to come. One hopes that those enormous human sacrifices will not be in vain, that humanity will learn something as a result and, at least, try to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future. Yet, this is precisely why this idea is bound to meet a very stiff resistance from the Establishment. Let us face it: we did not win the Cold War conclusively, and the socialist Utopia is still a dominant political idea among the so-called "educated classes". They still see only the "bright side" of it, while stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the dark one. They still insist on their "right to have a dream", refusing to see that one man's dream is another man's nightmare. I guess Nazis also had a nice dream of an Aryan paradise, but somehow we do deny a right for such "dream" to anyone now, bearing in mind the cost of it to all of us. "
HAHAHA! GULAG DAY!
____________________
|
| |
acheron
Cynical_Malcontent  SSHOLEPosts: 567 Registered: 4/29/2004 Offline
|
4/27/2005 at 00:46 |
"Please expand upon this--particularly the means and role of human sacrifice in JC's version of socialism."
This is the whole liberation theology thing, which the Panzer Pope worked to get rid of, and the US army-aided generals basically massacred people until it went away.
Its interesting, and kind of attractive, but the bible is such a load of heavily edited dogma I'd never believe anything out of it. JC was a rob from the rich and give to the poor kind of guy though.
____________________
I'm an INTJ. This explains why I'm alternating between silence and judging you. |
| |
LOki
Refusenik SSHOLEPosts: 487 Registered: 3/8/2002 Offline
|
4/28/2005 at 17:59 |
You know what?
It appears that I cannot tolerate having the forums gheyed up by spam.
____________________
|
| |
|
