But please, keep it up. I love it when people get banned. I think it's funny.
Sadistic monster!
Typical Commie slob. That's the whole point of Communism, really. To bring the high-rollers down so that you poor, lazy scumbags can feel better about yourselves. A depraved system it is.
.... I hope you jest.... because I honestly don't have it in me to argue away your ignorance, right now.
...Too tired.
Typical Commie slob. That's the whole point of Communism, really. To bring the high-rollers down so that you poor, lazy scumbags can feel better about yourselves. A depraved system it is.
.... I hope you jest.... because I honestly don't have it in me to argue away your ignorance, right now.
...Too tired.
Too lazy! Slob!
How did you know I was a Creeper in disguise!?
Well, it's about time I take someone out with me..... *BOOM*
But please, keep it up. I love it when people get banned. I think it's funny.
Sadistic monster!
Typical Commie slob. That's the whole point of Communism, really. To bring the high-rollers down so that you poor, lazy scumbags can feel better about yourselves. A depraved system it is.
Can you start actually arguing? McCarthy 2.0?
Typical "lazy people" accusations. No actual civilization has failed because of laziness you know?
Better than McCommy!
Oh, yeah, I'm lazy. Being lazy is fine. But when you're so lazy that you can't provide for yourself (too lazy to even keep themselves alive, the slobs!), and try to use that laziness as an excuse to rob the rich blind? Evil. Pure evil. This is communism. Pure, vile, pathetic, disgusting, petty, vindictive, evil. The worst thing.
And no, I'm going to bed. I only got three hours of sleep last night, and I will only get five tonight, thanks to you guys. It's those damned dirty reds, keeping me up. Don't think I don't know you're there, Boris, you *******!
Oh, yeah, I'm lazy. Being lazy is fine. But when you're so lazy that you can't provide for yourself (too lazy to even keep themselves alive, the slobs!), and try to use that laziness as an excuse to rob the rich blind? Evil. Pure evil. This is communism. Pure, vile, pathetic, disgusting, petty, vindictive, evil. The worst thing.
And no, I'm going to bed. I only got three hours of sleep last night, and I will only get five tonight, thanks to you guys. It's those damned dirty reds, keeping me up. Don't think I don't know you're there, Boris, you *******!
Seriously, if you've got no arguments stay out of both threads. If you do have any, then by all means do post them.
By "lazy", and not being able to "provide for yourself" do you mean you think everyone is given equal opportunities, and that Communists are those who don't put any effort in ? etc etc
People are not given equal opportunities, some people are born into a middle-class perfect nuclear family with security and money already provided for you, does this sound like an equal opportunity to those at the complete opposite of the spectrum, who - by no fault of their own - are born into their situation?
Your, and your family's situation, at birth effects you throughout your life, what offers are available to you and how you will be treated.
This. All this. People, especially Americans, like to say that "All people are created equal." But currently, this is untrue. Yes, i know it means that everyone is created politically equal, but this is still untrue. For instance, to be well informed in politics you have to be educated. Otherwise you'll just be informed by ads. Who pays for the ads? People with money. Does anybody else think this is a little wrong?
If you really want an equal opportunity for every man to make his own empire, free-marketeers, then no one should be allowed to leave their children their estate. At the very least, no one should be allowed to inherit more than a million dollar's worth. I mean, if your kid blows that then aren't they worthless, lazy communists to you anyways?
By "lazy", and not being able to "provide for yourself" do you mean you think everyone is given equal opportunities, and that Communists are those who don't put any effort in ? etc etc
People are not given equal opportunities, some people are born into a middle-class perfect nuclear family with security and money already provided for you, does this sound like an equal opportunity to those at the complete opposite of the spectrum, who - by no fault of their own - are born into their situation?
Your, and your family's situation, at birth effects you throughout your life, what offers are available to you and how you will be treated.
This. All this. People, especially Americans, like to say that "All people are created equal." But currently, this is untrue. Yes, i know it means that everyone is created politically equal, but this is still untrue. For instance, to be well informed in politics you have to be educated. Otherwise you'll just be informed by ads. Who pays for the ads? People with money. Does anybody else think this is a little wrong?
If you really want an equal opportunity for every man to make his own empire, free-marketeers, then no one should be allowed to leave their children their estate. At the very least, no one should be allowed to inherit more than a million dollar's worth. I mean, if your kid blows that then aren't they worthless, lazy communists to you anyways?
Quote from Sunthorn »
Quote from TsundereMAN »
Oh, yeah, I'm lazy. Being lazy is fine. But when you're so lazy that you can't provide for yourself (too lazy to even keep themselves alive, the slobs!), and try to use that laziness as an excuse to rob the rich blind? Evil. Pure evil. This is communism. Pure, vile, pathetic, disgusting, petty, vindictive, evil. The worst thing.
By "lazy", and not being able to "provide for yourself" do you mean you think everyone is given equal opportunities, and that Communists are those who don't put any effort in ? etc etc
People are not given equal opportunities, some people are born into a middle-class perfect nuclear family with security and money already provided for you, does this sound like an equal opportunity to those at the complete opposite of the spectrum, who - by no fault of their own - are born into their situation?
Your, and your family's situation, at birth effects you throughout your life, what offers are available to you and how you will be treated.
You're both overlooking the fact that children who inherit social-class and wealth from their parents also inherit the genes that allowed whatever ancestor it was to first set their feet on the road to whatever social-class and however much wealth.
Also, there's no "opposite end of the spectrum" to the "middle-class".
You're both overlooking the fact that children who inherit social-class and wealth from their parents also inherit the genes that allowed whatever ancestor it was to first set their feet on the road to whatever social-class and however much wealth.
The "fact" ? Yes children inherit genes from the parents, but its your upbringing - or their upbringing and their parents upbringing and so on and so forth that they have found themselves in the situations they are in. This in turn affects the way they bring their children up. The reason class may stay within a family is for that reason, and literal inheritance of fortune.
And what determines upbringing? Culture. And what determines culture? Location or race. And what determines location or race? Migration of humans, or genes. What determined the original migration of humans? Evolution. What is the primary effect of evolution? Change in genes. Therefore, success is hereditary, and the fruits of success should be, too.
Quote from Sunthorn »
Quote from TsundereMAN »
Also, there's no "opposite end of the spectrum" to the "middle-class".
And nope, its a phrase.
Do you know what a "spectrum" is?
Do you know what an "end" is?
Do you know what a "middle" is?
Do you know what "opposite" is?
Apparently not. You now want to deny that there's such a thing as an upper-class, too. Nice going, brainiac.
Well one of my parents is in a high paid UNSKILLED job (~£10 an hour), and the other is in a low paid SKILLED job (~£14 an hour). So we are at the bottom parts of middle class. However, looking at my education so far, I will probably get a very high paid Skilled job (Involving either physics or chemistry, two very high paying fields, or perhaps even Aerospace, which is the highest at entry level of any job)
There, I just climbed up a position via ability.
No you didn't. Call back when you have actually gotten this skilled job, and it actually puts you in a better economic position than your parents.
@TsundereMAN: So you are actually acknowledging with the fact that capitalism leads to reduced opportunity to change socioeconomic class? And not just that, you are trying to pass it off as a good thing? I thought we lost the Caste System before we lost slavery. Do you want that back too?
And what determines upbringing? Culture. And what determines culture? Location or race. And what determines location or race? Migration of humans, or genes. What determined the original migration of humans? Evolution. What is the primary effect of evolution? Change in genes.
A) It is an extreme generalisation to say that it is only "culture" which determines upbringing; this assumes everyone within a certain culture is the same.
What makes people in a different culture different? Upbringing, cultural heritage (either in their lives of their ancestors) and genetics. So, yeah, still stands.
Quote from Sunthorn »
:cool.gif: Every single one of your points is grounded only in the fact that you consider yourself completely right.
Because I am.
Quote from Sunthorn »
Quote from TsundereMAN »
Therefore, success is hereditary, and the fruits of success should be, too.
You are talking about a far too varied a subject to generalise so much. The fruits of a 'successful job' per se, can be received by offspring of the successful parent/s, however this does not mean that if something goes wrong in your life, which is out of your control as many things are, these short comings should be passed down to your children who in fact deserve an equal opportunity.
Your genes let you fail. If you were in a situation with a risk like that that you couldn't control, it's because you, or your ancestors, made a mistake. It's in the genes.
Quote from Sunthorn »
Quote from TsundereMAN »
Do you know what a "spectrum" is?
Do you know what an "end" is?
Do you know what a "middle" is?
Do you know what "opposite" is?
Apparently not. You now want to deny that there's such a thing as an upper-class, too. Nice going, brainiac.
This is not a define-the-word thread so we wont go into details, however, i did not deny the there is "such thing as an upper-class, too", i was merely pointing out how different some people's upbringings are.
By calling the "middle-class" "just a phrase", and further implying that it does have an opposite on whatever spectrum it falls on, you're implying it is at the end, or towards the end, of that spectrum. That's false. By definition, it's in the middle. Anything at the end is not the "middle-class".
@TsundereMAN: So you are actually acknowledging with the fact that capitalism leads to reduced opportunity to change socioeconomic class? And not just that, you are trying to pass it off as a good thing? I thought we lost the Caste System before we lost slavery. Do you want that back too?
Works for me.
I mean, let's face it. I like capitalism because it lets me live my life more or less how I want to. A caste system, slavery, etc. wouldn't really change a whole lot for me.
@TsundereMAN: So you are actually acknowledging with the fact that capitalism leads to reduced opportunity to change socioeconomic class? And not just that, you are trying to pass it off as a good thing? I thought we lost the Caste System before we lost slavery. Do you want that back too?
Works for me.
I mean, let's face it. I like capitalism because it lets me live my life more or less how I want to. A caste system, slavery, etc. wouldn't really change a whole lot for me.
Ah, you'd be the slave-owner then?
Not necessarily. It's just that other people owning slaves wouldn't interfere with my life, because I wouldn't be a slave, and neither would anyone I care about.
I mean, let's face it. I like capitalism because it lets me live my life more or less how I want to. A caste system, slavery, etc. wouldn't really change a whole lot for me.
Ah, you'd be the slave-owner then?
Not necessarily. It's just that other people owning slaves wouldn't interfere with my life, because I wouldn't be a slave, and neither would anyone I care about.
Err... assume much?
You're assuming someone wouldn't turn you and your family into slaves.
For example, if I ruled the world and I hated you (which I'm beginning too, because you troll too much) I could easily turn you into a slave. What you gonna do about it? Nothing, that's what. Because I rule the world and you don't.
Now let's put that into contexts of Capitalism... I become so rich, that I own every company in the world. You therefore have 2 choices, to die of starvation, lack of food, and etc. Or work for one of my millions of companies.
If I hated you, I'd say... "Well, I'll pay you minimum wage"... since I own the most money, I turn to the government and pay off every individual lawmaker (because I can, because people like that always have a price) and ask them to lower minimum wage to $0.01 an hour. It's done, because they know if they don't do what I say, I make them go bankrupt (because again, I control the money).
Therefore, you only make 1 cent an hour, working for me. Therefore, you become my wage slave, and your only option is to let yourself die.
And why did all of this occur? Because you ticked me off, and I had more power than you did.
THAT - is Capitalism.
That would never happen in a Socialist/Communist society, nor could it.
Err... assume much?
You're assuming someone wouldn't turn you and your family into slaves.
For example, if I ruled the world and I hated you (which I'm beginning too, because you troll too much) I could easily turn you into a slave. What you gonna do about it? Nothing, that's what. Because I rule the world and you don't.
I'm a very intelligent and rather physically powerful individual. If either of us was going to rule the world, it'd be me. Even assuming it wasn't me, I'd be impossible to make into a slave unless I didn't mind the conditions of the slavery.
Quote from CosmicSpore »
Now let's put that into contexts of Capitalism... I become so rich, that I own every company in the world. You therefore have 2 choices, to die of starvation, lack of food, and etc. Or work for one of my millions of companies.
If I hated you, I'd say... "Well, I'll pay you minimum wage"... since I own the most money, I turn to the government and pay off every individual lawmaker (because I can, because people like that always have a price) and ask them to lower minimum wage to $0.01 an hour. It's done, because they know if they don't do what I say, I make them go bankrupt (because again, I control the money).
Therefore, you only make 1 cent an hour, working for me. Therefore, you become my wage slave, and your only option is to let yourself die.
And why did all of this occur? Because you ticked me off, and I had more power than you did.
Yeah, but it wouldn't happen, because people aren't that powerful. It's a purely theoretical flaw with the system.
Quote from CosmicSpore »
THAT - is Capitalism.
That would never happen in a Socialist/Communist society, nor could it.
No, instead, what happens is that, out of spite or malice or jealousy or whatever else, the poor people effectively steal from the rich. Not fair.
No, instead, what happens is that, out of spite or malice or jealousy or whatever else, the poor people effectively steal from the rich. Not fair.
Evil countries like sweden and norway, socialist yet having the highest living standards, best healthcare and education systems.
Evil. Unfair. Right?
It's unfair that those who could get better lives for themselves are held back by the government, yes. It's also unfair that those who couldn't provide such a life for themselves are granted it by the government (although this is in the sense of "you get out what you put in", rather than "oh it's just not fair!" sort of "fair").
So, yep, unfair, and, by extension, evil.
Quote from Chad_C_Mulligan »
Stealing from poor people on the other hand is awesome. I like particularly enjoy kicking them in the ribs when they're down as it makes me feel like one macho Alpha Male. It's more or less legal, too!
I know, right? The best part is that, since it's not really stealing, it's perfectly moral.
It's unfair that those who could get better lives for themselves are held back by the government, yes. It's also unfair that those who couldn't provide such a life for themselves are granted it by the government (although this is in the sense of "you get out what you put in", rather than "oh it's just not fair!" sort of "fair").
So, yep, unfair, and, by extension, evil.
They are not being held back. The government gives them a great health service - the best in the world. Couldn't be better. Low infant mortality, long life expectancy ec, and highly supported by the population. Nothing to complain about it. There is nothing better.
Indeed. But wait! Why don't they just go to a differant hospital with not-so ****ed doctors? Oh yeah, they can't.
And what about Frances magical safety net? It obviously doesn't work for all the people living in Bidonvilles. My Dad travels to Mexico every year on business, and he's seen the outskirts of Mexico City and whatnot, and not to mention the daily hobos who sleep in the abandoned building across from where he works in San Antonio TX, and you know where he said the worst poverty he's ever seen was? The Banlieues in south side Paris.
Those countries are not examples of socialism, they are (Well, were would be a better for sweden currently) welfare states. They have monarchies and mixed economies. Plus they are under right-wing (sweden) and social democrat (norway) governments.
I apologise and using the American definition of Socialism as they have when thinking of public option = socialism.
> He opposes Communism and Socialism
> He must be American
Yeah, nah, get ****ed.
Mod edit: user was warned for this post. Please, no flaming n-n
Err... assume much?
You're assuming someone wouldn't turn you and your family into slaves.
For example, if I ruled the world and I hated you (which I'm beginning too, because you troll too much) I could easily turn you into a slave. What you gonna do about it? Nothing, that's what. Because I rule the world and you don't.
I'm a very intelligent and rather physically powerful individual. If either of us was going to rule the world, it'd be me. Even assuming it wasn't me, I'd be impossible to make into a slave unless I didn't mind the conditions of the slavery.
Quote from CosmicSpore »
Now let's put that into contexts of Capitalism... I become so rich, that I own every company in the world. You therefore have 2 choices, to die of starvation, lack of food, and etc. Or work for one of my millions of companies.
If I hated you, I'd say... "Well, I'll pay you minimum wage"... since I own the most money, I turn to the government and pay off every individual lawmaker (because I can, because people like that always have a price) and ask them to lower minimum wage to $0.01 an hour. It's done, because they know if they don't do what I say, I make them go bankrupt (because again, I control the money).
Therefore, you only make 1 cent an hour, working for me. Therefore, you become my wage slave, and your only option is to let yourself die.
And why did all of this occur? Because you ticked me off, and I had more power than you did.
Yeah, but it wouldn't happen, because people aren't that powerful. It's a purely theoretical flaw with the system.
Quote from CosmicSpore »
THAT - is Capitalism.
That would never happen in a Socialist/Communist society, nor could it.
No, instead, what happens is that, out of spite or malice or jealousy or whatever else, the poor people effectively steal from the rich. Not fair.
................. So your argument is "No, I'm more powerful than everyone else, so I automatically win", and "It's only a theory and it would never happen, so I automatically win again".
Your arguments are stupid, and you are naive. That's simply all I can say to that....
You did not even bother to give me a serious reply, so why should I bother giving you one?
If you bother to actually discuss the matter further, you can give me a serious reply, or none at all.
Why can't we simply let eachother be? That's one of the problems here, we are forced to adopt the same law as people we differ with. Possibly we could adopt a form of polylegalism?
Too lazy! Slob!
How did you know I was a Creeper in disguise!?
Well, it's about time I take someone out with me..... *BOOM*
Luckily for me... I respawn.
Better than McCommy!
Oh, yeah, I'm lazy. Being lazy is fine. But when you're so lazy that you can't provide for yourself (too lazy to even keep themselves alive, the slobs!), and try to use that laziness as an excuse to rob the rich blind? Evil. Pure evil. This is communism. Pure, vile, pathetic, disgusting, petty, vindictive, evil. The worst thing.
And no, I'm going to bed. I only got three hours of sleep last night, and I will only get five tonight, thanks to you guys. It's those damned dirty reds, keeping me up. Don't think I don't know you're there, Boris, you *******!
Seriously, if you've got no arguments stay out of both threads. If you do have any, then by all means do post them.
This. All this. People, especially Americans, like to say that "All people are created equal." But currently, this is untrue. Yes, i know it means that everyone is created politically equal, but this is still untrue. For instance, to be well informed in politics you have to be educated. Otherwise you'll just be informed by ads. Who pays for the ads? People with money. Does anybody else think this is a little wrong?
If you really want an equal opportunity for every man to make his own empire, free-marketeers, then no one should be allowed to leave their children their estate. At the very least, no one should be allowed to inherit more than a million dollar's worth. I mean, if your kid blows that then aren't they worthless, lazy communists to you anyways?
You're both overlooking the fact that children who inherit social-class and wealth from their parents also inherit the genes that allowed whatever ancestor it was to first set their feet on the road to whatever social-class and however much wealth.
Also, there's no "opposite end of the spectrum" to the "middle-class".
And what determines upbringing? Culture. And what determines culture? Location or race. And what determines location or race? Migration of humans, or genes. What determined the original migration of humans? Evolution. What is the primary effect of evolution? Change in genes. Therefore, success is hereditary, and the fruits of success should be, too.
Do you know what a "spectrum" is?
Do you know what an "end" is?
Do you know what a "middle" is?
Do you know what "opposite" is?
Apparently not. You now want to deny that there's such a thing as an upper-class, too. Nice going, brainiac.
No you didn't. Call back when you have actually gotten this skilled job, and it actually puts you in a better economic position than your parents.
@TsundereMAN: So you are actually acknowledging with the fact that capitalism leads to reduced opportunity to change socioeconomic class? And not just that, you are trying to pass it off as a good thing? I thought we lost the Caste System before we lost slavery. Do you want that back too?
What makes people in a different culture different? Upbringing, cultural heritage (either in their lives of their ancestors) and genetics. So, yeah, still stands.
Because I am.
Your genes let you fail. If you were in a situation with a risk like that that you couldn't control, it's because you, or your ancestors, made a mistake. It's in the genes.
By calling the "middle-class" "just a phrase", and further implying that it does have an opposite on whatever spectrum it falls on, you're implying it is at the end, or towards the end, of that spectrum. That's false. By definition, it's in the middle. Anything at the end is not the "middle-class".
Works for me.
I mean, let's face it. I like capitalism because it lets me live my life more or less how I want to. A caste system, slavery, etc. wouldn't really change a whole lot for me.
Not necessarily. It's just that other people owning slaves wouldn't interfere with my life, because I wouldn't be a slave, and neither would anyone I care about.
Err... assume much?
You're assuming someone wouldn't turn you and your family into slaves.
For example, if I ruled the world and I hated you (which I'm beginning too, because you troll too much) I could easily turn you into a slave. What you gonna do about it? Nothing, that's what. Because I rule the world and you don't.
Now let's put that into contexts of Capitalism... I become so rich, that I own every company in the world. You therefore have 2 choices, to die of starvation, lack of food, and etc. Or work for one of my millions of companies.
If I hated you, I'd say... "Well, I'll pay you minimum wage"... since I own the most money, I turn to the government and pay off every individual lawmaker (because I can, because people like that always have a price) and ask them to lower minimum wage to $0.01 an hour. It's done, because they know if they don't do what I say, I make them go bankrupt (because again, I control the money).
Therefore, you only make 1 cent an hour, working for me. Therefore, you become my wage slave, and your only option is to let yourself die.
And why did all of this occur? Because you ticked me off, and I had more power than you did.
THAT - is Capitalism.
That would never happen in a Socialist/Communist society, nor could it.
I'm a very intelligent and rather physically powerful individual. If either of us was going to rule the world, it'd be me. Even assuming it wasn't me, I'd be impossible to make into a slave unless I didn't mind the conditions of the slavery.
Yeah, but it wouldn't happen, because people aren't that powerful. It's a purely theoretical flaw with the system.
No, instead, what happens is that, out of spite or malice or jealousy or whatever else, the poor people effectively steal from the rich. Not fair.
It's unfair that those who could get better lives for themselves are held back by the government, yes. It's also unfair that those who couldn't provide such a life for themselves are granted it by the government (although this is in the sense of "you get out what you put in", rather than "oh it's just not fair!" sort of "fair").
So, yep, unfair, and, by extension, evil.
I know, right? The best part is that, since it's not really stealing, it's perfectly moral.
Indeed. But wait! Why don't they just go to a differant hospital with not-so ****ed doctors? Oh yeah, they can't.
And what about Frances magical safety net? It obviously doesn't work for all the people living in Bidonvilles. My Dad travels to Mexico every year on business, and he's seen the outskirts of Mexico City and whatnot, and not to mention the daily hobos who sleep in the abandoned building across from where he works in San Antonio TX, and you know where he said the worst poverty he's ever seen was? The Banlieues in south side Paris.
mightwill happen under Obamacare. With Obamacare, there is no public option.> He opposes Communism and Socialism
> He must be American
Yeah, nah, get ****ed.
Mod edit: user was warned for this post. Please, no flaming n-n
................. So your argument is "No, I'm more powerful than everyone else, so I automatically win", and "It's only a theory and it would never happen, so I automatically win again".
Your arguments are stupid, and you are naive. That's simply all I can say to that....
You did not even bother to give me a serious reply, so why should I bother giving you one?
If you bother to actually discuss the matter further, you can give me a serious reply, or none at all.
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/
http://www.strike-the-root.com/
http://mises.org/