PDA

View Full Version : So I Wrote Noam Chomsky An Email



Pages : [1] 2

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 17:33
And he replied.

Here is the original email. (http://img818.imageshack.us/i/chomsky1.jpg/) And here is the reply (http://img844.imageshack.us/i/chomskyan2.jpg/).

It feels good that the smartest man alive right now, who has the deepest impact on their respective fields currently, and is considered the most revolutionary linguist with extreme impacts on the field of cognitive science in general can take the time to reply to me. Did I also mention he's one of the greatest political minds, exposing the inherent evil in the American government and foreign policy as well as crafting political philosophy models to explain the destructive American and governmental powers?

Usually, I would imagine someone like Glenn Beck or Ron Paul wouldn't be able to email you people back, but somehow this man who does more tremendous work(he writes over two books a year) as well as gives talks and teaches linguistics at MIT, can find six hours a night replying to everyone who emails him.

The videos I've seen of him indicates hes obviously very honest and humble, and the fact that he can take the time to reply confirms it.

/Discuss.

Rokstarr
07-26-2010, 17:44
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Also, grats on being a thief.

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 17:46
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Also, grats on being a thief.

The problem with being an idiot is that eventually you never run out of stupid posts.

Also, grats on being an idiot.

Oo_
07-26-2010, 17:49
eventually you never run out of

Thanks. I'm gonna use that somewhere... not sure yet where.

Oo_
07-26-2010, 17:54
oh and also slightly on topic:

I've seen some good lines from Chomsky before, but what does he think of personality cults? :ninja:

Rokstarr
07-26-2010, 17:59
The problem with being an idiot is that eventually you never run out of stupid posts.


You're right, that Margaret Thatcher sure was a tard....


Also, grats on being an idiot.

Pretty sure idiot is higher then thief on the 'acceptable member of society' scale, so I'll take it.

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 18:07
You're right, that Margaret Thatcher sure was a tard....

Many Welsh, Scots and Northern Englishmen agree with you. They fucking hate her for devastating their economy. Not sure why this was used though as a reply.


Pretty sure idiot is higher then thief on the 'acceptable member of society' scale, so I'll take it.

You should have recognized that I dismissed your points as idiotic by implying that your post is, and therefore nullifying your thief claim.

Silverhandorder
07-26-2010, 18:10
Chomsky says some fairly obvious things but gives no real solutions.

Rokstarr
07-26-2010, 18:11
Many Welsh, Scots and Northern Englishmen agree with you. They fucking hate her for devastating their economy. Not sure why this was used though as a reply.

She is credited with the quote. (http://www.marketobservation.com/blogs/index.php/2010/05/08/the-problem-with-socialism-is-that-eventually-you-run-out-of-other-people-s-money?blog=10)

If you don't like that, try this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2010/04/23/capitalism_vs_capitalists




You should have recognized that I dismissed your points as idiotic by implying that your post is, and therefore nullifying your thief claim.


You could nullify all you like, but you should recognize that you admitted to stealing in your letter, therefore validating my thief claim. At least Strawberry, you're an honest one. Honestly, you're my favorite socialist on these boards; you don't pull your punches or pretend you're something you're not, so at least it's respectable.

Largion
07-26-2010, 18:14
What did I miss? Im a Socialist and why am I a thife?

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 18:16
She is credited with the quote. (http://www.marketobservation.com/blogs/index.php/2010/05/08/the-problem-with-socialism-is-that-eventually-you-run-out-of-other-people-s-money?blog=10)

If you don't like that, try this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2010/04/23/capitalism_vs_capitalists

That's nice, could have at least used quotation marks followed by the name.

Also, linking Jonah Goldberg I see. Well, I have an interesting story. The other day I went into the bookstore, picked up Liberal Fascism and read his part on healthcare.

He stated that basically the Nazis and Liberals are alike because Hilary Clinton and Adolf Hitler both came in promising health-care and etc. Not sure what to make, but I realized another of the heroes of the right has got to be a fucking idiot, much like almost all the other heroes.



You could nullify all you like, but you should recognize that you admitted to stealing in your letter, therefore validating my thief claim. At least Strawberry, you're an honest one. Honestly, you're my favorite socialist on these boards; you don't pull your punches or pretend you're something you're not, so at least it's respectable.

I apologize, but I had thought you implied socialism was stealing and not that point specifically. Also in before SilverHandOrder hurr durrs saying "Yeah you lazy pink it is stealing."

88Chaz88
07-26-2010, 18:17
Many Welsh, Scots and Northern Englishmen agree with you. They fucking hate her for devastating their economy.

Reminds me of a good Frankie Boyle quote:

"I hear they're going to give Margaret Thatcher a state funeral. With that kind of money you could buy everyone in Scotland a shovel and we'll dig a hole so deep we can personally deliver her to Satan."

Silverhandorder
07-26-2010, 18:23
I haven't read your drivel to know what you stole. But socialism is stealing.

Tenebrion
07-26-2010, 18:24
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Also, grats on being a thief.

It amuses me that a few dumb right-wing rednecks don't know the difference between sharing and stealing, or, for that matter, nationalism or selfishness.

Grats on your willful Faux-News induced ignorance.

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 18:33
Chomsky says some fairly obvious things but gives no real solutions.

This is exactly the same argument that I have seen leftwing libertarians say about libertarians.

Your solution to corporations and the systematic shafting that has historically and present-day occurred under them is that they should have more power with less government.

Our solution is that the people should band together and fight against corporations to end these injustices.

Largion
07-26-2010, 18:36
Well I work and Im happy to pay my part for everyone to get healtcare and the option to go to any school they want.

Rachsucht
07-26-2010, 18:39
It amuses me that a few dumb right-wing rednecks don't know the difference between sharing and stealing.

Being forced to "share" is the same thing as having something stolen from you.


Well I work and Im happy to pay my part for everyone to get healtcare and the option to go to any school they want.

You say that now. Having lived and worked in Germany, where healthcare and education are "free", I know first hand how frustrating it is when the government takes close to 50% of your earnings (making under $40K).

Tenebrion
07-26-2010, 18:41
Being forced to "share" is the same thing as having something stolen from you.

I guess you must just hate taxes, then, don't you.

There's no sense in arguing with irrational people. These beliefs are not founded on anything that can be refuted - only on what the richest fucks in the World whip your stupid asses into believing.

So, again. Grats on your willful ignorance, and enjoy your irrational rage over being part of a civilized nation.

Reckin Crew
07-26-2010, 18:41
It amuses me that a few dumb right-wing rednecks don't know the difference between sharing and stealing, or, for that matter, nationalism or selfishness.

Grats on your willful Faux-News induced ignorance.

yes, blame fox news, that always wins the debate. Socialism has been doing just great for so many countries....

Tenebrion
07-26-2010, 18:43
yes, blame fox news, that always wins the debate. Socialism has been doing just great for so many countries....

Yes, you must absolutely hate your roads, schools, police force, fire department, military, local libraries, education grants, social security, medicare, and general infrastructure, don't you? God damn socialism is ruining us.

Fucking moron.

Rachsucht
07-26-2010, 18:46
I guess you must just hate taxes, then, don't you.


That doesn't change the fact that forcing someone to share is the same as stealing from him.



Yes, you must absolutely hate your roads, schools, police force, fire department, military, local libraries, education grants, social security, medicare, and general infrastructure, don't you? God damn socialism is ruining us.

Fucking moron.

Why don't we just have 100% taxes then, and have the Government provide for all our needs?

Fucking moron.

Bissen
07-26-2010, 18:48
I just ate a steak

Silverhandorder
07-26-2010, 18:48
I wont get into how wrong you are on less government point because you are a brainwashed child.

However I would like to point out that banding together against corporations does not require government. You would get a lot more supporters to your cause if you weren't a flaming liberal.

palo god
07-26-2010, 18:55
Are you planning to suck his dick rocky and talk about evils of imperialism and enjoying the fruits of your own labor? I’ve actually been enjoying forum fall lately before they unbanned the retards.


Yes, you must absolutely hate your roads, schools, police force, fire department, military, local libraries, education grants, social security, medicare, and general infrastructure, don't you? God damn socialism is ruining us.

Fucking moron.

Any form of Government=/=socialism

I expect much more educated arguments from you. Unless you're trolling.

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 19:08
Being forced to "share" is the same thing as having something stolen from you.

Being forced to participate in "sharing" doesn't happen though. A simple way to not share, pull a John Galt on society.


You say that now. Having lived and worked in Germany, where healthcare and education are "free", I know first hand how frustrating it is when the government takes close to 50% of your earnings (making under $40K).

As opposed to 30something percent in the U.S, but having to pay for shitty healthcare that can potentially bankrupt you right?


yes, blame fox news, that always wins the debate. Socialism has been doing just great for so many countries....

Yes yes, socialism is failing in Canada. I think tomorrow I might have to rob a bank to pay for my health care and education.


That doesn't change the fact that forcing someone to share is the same as stealing from him.

That again doesn't change the fact that if you want to work within a society you have to agree to its tenants. Society isn't a construct of individuals suddenly banding together. It was a conscious formation that was envisioned.


Why don't we just have 100% taxes then, and have the Government provide for all our needs?

Fucking moron.

I think its funny how this is your reply. He didn't imply total taxation but necessary taxation for necessary functioning in a society.


I wont get into how wrong you are on less government point because you are a brainwashed child.

However I would like to point out that banding together against corporations does not require government. You would get a lot more supporters to your cause if you weren't a flaming liberal.

No, that's the old anarcho-syndicalist dilemna. Either more government to fight corporations, or less of government in order to fight corporations. The fact however is that total destruction idea would not work because corporations would still exist more or less.

Flaming liberal? I think I should end this here.


Are you planning to suck his dick rocky and talk about evils of imperialism and enjoying the fruits of your own labor? I’ve actually been enjoying forum fall lately before they unbanned the retards.

That's nice.


Any form of Government=/=socialism

I expect much more educated arguments from you. Unless you're trolling.

But governments that nonetheless provides a social benefit to the people, like for example roads and schools and police forces and etc. are socialism aren't they?

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 19:14
It seems every thread eventually shifts back to a very basic argument. Socialism, hurr durr, capitalism, hurr durr.

Lets focus on Noam Chomsky and the fact that the father of the Cognitive Revolution replied to me. This revolution, which ended the false sciences of the Behaviouralists, and which contributed tremendously to a diverse range of fields such as computers and AI to psychology.

Rokstarr
07-26-2010, 19:20
It amuses me that a few dumb right-wing rednecks don't know the difference between sharing and stealing, or, for that matter, nationalism or selfishness.

Grats on your willful Faux-News induced ignorance.

Actually, I was talking about Strawberries admitted stealing in his letter.

Grats on your willful ignorance, since it was already discussed before you posted.

Faux-news. Clever.

Silverhandorder
07-26-2010, 19:21
Strawberry even your liberal allies on this forum think you are fucking weird. You not converting anyone here.

palo god
07-26-2010, 19:25
Yes yes, socialism is failing in Canada. I think tomorrow I might have to rob a bank to pay for my health care and education.

No, but you might have to wait months and sometimes even years in line to see a specialist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaPvJlPnc6E

A perfect example of how privatization has lead to innovation and advancement in Canada compared to government destroying innovation with bureaucracy and labor unions.


But governments that nonetheless provides a social benefit to the people, like for example roads and schools and police forces and etc. are socialism aren't they?

You can say the same thing about laws and the court system because they're state run and because they give a social benefit. It doesn't make it socialism. Socialism is the mass redistribution of wealth through the state.

Rokstarr
07-26-2010, 19:30
That's nice, could have at least used quotation marks followed by the name.

Also, linking Jonah Goldberg I see. Well, I have an interesting story. The other day I went into the bookstore, picked up Liberal Fascism and read his part on healthcare.

He stated that basically the Nazis and Liberals are alike because Hilary Clinton and Adolf Hitler both came in promising health-care and etc. Not sure what to make, but I realized another of the heroes of the right has got to be a fucking idiot, much like almost all the other heroes.


I apologize, but I had thought you implied socialism was stealing and not that point specifically. Also in before SilverHandOrder hurr durrs saying "Yeah you lazy pink it is stealing."

I actually don't know anything about Jonah Goldberg. While I was googling a link to Margaret Thatcher's quote to provide you, I clicked on that link and read the article, which I found to be quite accurate. Though his other works may or may not discredit him, the article as a stand alone piece rings true in my ears from the brief read i gave it.

Apology accepted. And apologies for not quoting originally, I thought it was a fairly well known quote and you seem studied.

Also, in my opinion, socialism is pretty much government-sponsored stealing; but that's neither here nor there.

ScareCrow
07-26-2010, 19:35
I'm not sure whether to be impressed that he responded or depressed that while being one of the greatest living minds he has a self manageable amount of personal email.


People I've written emails and gotten a personal reply from even though I expected a form letter response: Magician James Randi, Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins, Congressman Alan Grayson, Comedian Doug Standhope, Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson

Rokstarr
07-26-2010, 19:41
That again doesn't change the fact that if you want to work within a society you have to agree to its tenants. Society isn't a construct of individuals suddenly banding together. It was a conscious formation that was envisioned.


Society isn't really the right term here, as Socialism refers to government. And in that regard, this quote pretty much outlines the fundamental difference in our perceptions of governments roles and why they are formed. This about sums up my feelings:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

We believe in individuals, with government as the protector of their right to be an individual; you believe in collectivism, with government as their ruler.


edit: Statement clarity.

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 19:55
No, but you might have to wait months and sometimes even years in line to see a specialist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaPvJlPnc6E

A perfect example of how privatization has lead to innovation and advancement in Canada compared to government destroying innovation with bureaucracy and labor unions.

Considering that the average specialist wait time is a little under a week longer then the U.S. This is despite the fact that Canada has less doctors and is less funded per capita.

I've watched nearly five minutes of your video and didn't bother for the rest, and it seemed to attack federal air traffic control. Did it mention that they fired all of their staff back in the 80's and therefore weakening the system?

Also, what innovation and advancement does the U.S have over Canada in providing health care services? Canadian health care is higher ranked for one thing. Don't mention medical technology because that's seperate.


You can say the same thing about laws and the court system because they're state run and because they give a social benefit. It doesn't make it socialism. Socialism is the mass redistribution of wealth through the state.

No, you are again making up definitons on the go. Socialism has long been defined as the public and common ownership of of the means of production.

Roads, schools, and infrastructure are all a mean of production.

A court system can fall under the criteria given these one or two points, but courts are a function necessary for government to enforce its rules, not a government run function.

Sure, roads can be privatized, but it wouldn't look nice. Courts cannot however because that would essentially erase any semblance of society and government.

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 19:58
I'm not sure whether to be impressed that he responded or depressed that while being one of the greatest living minds he has a self manageable amount of personal email.


People I've written emails and gotten a personal reply from even though I expected a form letter response: Magician James Randi, Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins, Congressman Alan Grayson, Comedian Doug Standhope, Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson

Wow James Randi. I should try emailing him sometime.

Btw, check out this avatar (http://fi.somethingawful.com/customtitles/title-ayn_randi.jpg).

Reckin Crew
07-26-2010, 20:49
Yes, you must absolutely hate your roads, schools, police force, fire department, military, local libraries, education grants, social security, medicare, and general infrastructure, don't you? God damn socialism is ruining us.

Fucking moron.

are you saying our gov't is based on socialism...? couple more years of Obama then maybe, but we're not there yet.

palo god
07-26-2010, 20:51
Considering that the average specialist wait time is a little under a week longer then the U.S. This is despite the fact that Canada has less doctors and is less funded per capita.

Now compare the wait times for the higher end and more expensive procedures.


I've watched nearly five minutes of your video and didn't bother for the rest, and it seemed to attack federal air traffic control. Did it mention that they fired all of their staff back in the 80's and therefore weakening the system?

Well if you did bother to watch the whole video you would see how it compares Canada’s air traffic control and the US air traffic control, and how one is doing well and how the other isn’t and why.


Also, what innovation and advancement does the U.S have over Canada in providing health care services? Canadian health care is higher ranked for one thing. Don't mention medical technology because that's seperate.

Our system is better at allocating resources compared to your socialist model. Higher ranked by who? Biased joke organizations like W.H.O that give higher rankings for systems with socialized medicine?


No, you are again making up definitons on the go. Socialism has long been defined as the public and common ownership of of the means of production.

Roads, schools, and infrastructure are all a mean of production.

True socialism or how it’s practiced anyways is the suspension of private property rights and the mass redistribution of wealth through government institutions. Again, government tending to defense with fire fighters, roads, police, and military is not socialism. Things like socialized health care, government run schools, etc are socialist. You’re trying to make an argument that anything government run is socialist so you can justify it to being applied everywhere else in society. Defense isn’t a means of production it‘s a means of protecting the means of production. Your understanding of the definition of socialism is blurred.

Apex Vertigo
07-26-2010, 21:02
How funny would it be if he decided to take legal action against you for your confession of stealing his lectures?

Also, how old are you?

Reckin Crew
07-26-2010, 21:09
True socialism or how it’s practiced anyways is the suspension of private property rights and the mass redistribution of wealth through government institutions. Again, government tending to defense with fire fighters, roads, police, and military is not socialism. Things like socialized health care, government run schools, etc are socialist. You’re trying to make an argument that anything government run is socialist so you can justify it to being applied everywhere else in society. Defense isn’t a means of production it‘s a means of protecting the means of production. Your understanding of the definition of socialism is blurred.

For the fuckin moron Tenebrion. But go ahead, keep posting like you know wtf your talking about.

Apex Vertigo
07-26-2010, 21:13
That doesn't change the fact that forcing someone to share is the same as stealing from him.




Why don't we just have 100% taxes then, and have the Government provide for all our needs?

Fucking moron.

Without we couldn't have 'insert Teberions list here'. Taxes are a fundamental part of a civilized society. You may not want to pay them, and if you leave you don't have to, but if you want to live here and reek the benefits of them then you don't have a choice. It's not stealing, they aren't forcing you to work and they aren't forcing you to live here. It's an agreement of being a citizen here and you have the choice to be in which ever country allows you in.

EDIT: Fire Depts and Public schooling are definitely elements of socialism. Just because they don't meet your (Palo's) view of what a socialist country is doesn't mean the definition of the ideology changes.

palo god
07-26-2010, 21:14
For the fuckin moron Tenebrion. But go ahead, keep posting like you know wtf your talking about.

I don't think Tenebrion is a moron. He just hates people that advocate for no government whatsoever.


Without we couldn't have 'insert Teberions list here'. Taxes are a fundamental part of a civilized society. You may not want to pay them, and if you leave you don't have to, but if you want to live here and reek the benefits of them then you don't have a choice. It's not stealing, they aren't forcing you to work and they aren't forcing you to live here. It's an agreement of being a citizen here and you have the choice to be in which ever country allows you in.

EDIT: Fire Depts and Public schooling are definitely elements of socialism. Just because they don't meet your (Palo's) view of what a socialist country is doesn't mean the definition of the ideology changes.

I have no problem with limited taxation with representation and think that government is a necessary evil. I do however have a problem with excessive taxation without representation. Fire departments aren't socialist.

Sharuk
07-26-2010, 21:20
It amuses me that a few dumb right-wing rednecks don't know the difference between sharing and stealing, or, for that matter, nationalism or selfishness.

Grats on your willful Faux-News induced ignorance.

Its funny i dont remember us saying we wanted to share all of our money to bring us all down, excluding those in power of course :rolleyes:, to a crappy economic state

See "Sharing" in Socialism is FORCED, its a crazy concept i know, but its not charity or sharing when it is forced.

Rachsucht
07-26-2010, 21:30
Without we couldn't have 'insert Teberions list here'. Taxes are a fundamental part of a civilized society. You may not want to pay them, and if you leave you don't have to, but if you want to live here and reek the benefits of them then you don't have a choice. It's not stealing, they aren't forcing you to work and they aren't forcing you to live here. It's an agreement of being a citizen here and you have the choice to be in which ever country allows you in.

I never disputed that some taxes are necessary.

PirateGlen
07-26-2010, 21:33
I don't think Tenebrion is a moron. He just hates people that advocate for no government whatsoever.



I have no problem with limited taxation with representation and think that government is a necessary evil. I do however have a problem with excessive taxation without representation. Fire departments aren't socialist.

Why aren't fire departments socialist?

Apex Vertigo
07-26-2010, 21:35
I don't think Tenebrion is a moron. He just hates people that advocate for no government whatsoever.



I have no problem with limited taxation with representation and think that government is a necessary evil. I do however have a problem with excessive taxation without representation. Fire departments aren't socialist.

How are fire departments not socialist?

Oo_
07-26-2010, 21:36
I read now the mail in the OP and wow... is that kind of amount of ass-licking and fanboyism business as usual in the letters to public figures? Open question to others, who write to famous persons, as well.

Or did I just misread the tone there? Maybe it was just revering or something.. :confused:

palo god
07-26-2010, 21:41
Why aren't fire departments socialist?

Because they're a defensive institution and aren't a means of production but a means of protecting the means of production.

PirateGlen
07-26-2010, 21:45
Because they're a defensive institution and aren't a means of production but a means of protecting the means of production.

Ah, I see... Semantics will defend your unjustified distinction.

Wallstreet bailout is a defensive institution, it's not a means of production but a means of protecting the means of production.

palo god
07-26-2010, 21:52
Ah, I see... Semantics will defend your unjustified distinction.

Wallstreet bailout is a defensive institution, it's not a means of production but a means of protecting the means of production.

Wall street nor it's bailouts are defensive institutions. Red herring arguments won't get you far.

PirateGlen
07-26-2010, 21:56
Wall street nor it's bailouts are defensive institutions. Red herring arguments won't get you far.

There's nothing "defensive" about fire departments. It's a service like any other that you have made a fictional distinction for because you happen to like it. You simply label the ones you don't like as socialist arbitrarily.

It's a redistribution of wealth from my hands to the hands of retards who can't keep their houses from lighting on fire.

palo god
07-26-2010, 22:00
There's nothing "defensive" about fire departments. It's a service like any other that you have made a fictional distinction for because you happen to like it. You simply label the ones you don't like as socialist arbitrarily.

How is there nothing defensive about protecting citizens and property from harm just like the police and military do? My distinctions aren’t based on personal whim.

PirateGlen
07-26-2010, 22:02
How is there nothing defensive about protecting citizens and property from harm just like the police and military do? My distinctions aren’t based on personal whim.

But they could be provided as a service by a private business. Healthcare similarly protects the citizens from harm just like the police do... but somehow it's magically socialist while the rest remain pillars of capitalism.

rendelgrendel
07-26-2010, 22:20
Thomas Sowell would kick noam chomskys ass.

Silverhandorder
07-26-2010, 22:25
Thomas Sowell would kick noam chomskys ass.

You got that right.

Rachsucht
07-26-2010, 22:26
You got that right.

Racists, both of you. Just because Mr. Sowell is black does not mean that he is prone to violence.

palo god
07-26-2010, 22:31
But they could be provided as a service by a private business. Healthcare similarly protects the citizens from harm just like the police do... but somehow it's magically socialist while the rest remain pillars of capitalism.

So can the military and police and everything else but that doesn’t stop it from being one of the roles of government and it doesn’t make it socialist. I knew you were going to bring up health care. It's not similar as healthcare falls outside of national security and falls under the individual and his life choices. In the case of fire fighters if some guy’s house is burning down and it spreads to private, and state government property, it’s no longer just an individual problem but protection of the masses. There are however cases where healthcare provided by the government is not considered socialist because of national defense such as in the case of pandemics.

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 22:35
Now compare the wait times for the higher end and more expensive procedures.

If this was graphed and the distribution was correct for this assumption, doesn't that mean that easier procedures have longer waits for the U.S, thereby implying that the U.S cannot conduct easier procedures as well?


Well if you did bother to watch the whole video you would see how it compares Canada’s air traffic control and the US air traffic control, and how one is doing well and how the other isn’t and why.

I'll watch the video, but I will make a statement. That is, if one case is shown to be working for one industry, those principles do not necessarily translate into others due to other factors within those categories.

These principles, that total privatization means better services for everything is not true. If so, that would mean private police forces should work better then one police force.


Our system is better at allocating resources compared to your socialist model. Higher ranked by who? Biased joke organizations like W.H.O that give higher rankings for systems with socialized medicine?

By better allocating resources you mean spend double the amount with shittier results such as higher infant mortality, life span, cancer and disease mortality rate and etc.?

You also seem to dismiss every organization as merely a joke when it disagrees with you.


True socialism or how it’s practiced anyways is the suspension of private property rights and the mass redistribution of wealth through government institutions.

Those are not the working definition of what constitutes socialism. Those are of course, sometimes necessary steps, but again, you are trying to limit the definition of socialism.


Again, government tending to defense with fire fighters, roads, police, and military is not socialism. Things like socialized health care, government run schools, etc are socialist. You’re trying to make an argument that anything government run is socialist so you can justify it to being applied everywhere else in society. Defense isn’t a means of production it‘s a means of protecting the means of production. Your understanding of the definition of socialism is blurred.

You can easily say that roads are socialist, because they are a government provided and maintained service, redistributes wealth as poor and rich people use it the same, and suspends private properties because nobody can own roads. You can say the same thing for the police and firefighting since they do fit into your criterias for socialism.

Again, it is also defensive to have healthcare as just as you protect civilians from fires, you likewise do so for diseases.


How funny would it be if he decided to take legal action against you for your confession of stealing his lectures?

Also, how old are you?

I doubt he cares, they are in Youtube all over the internet and he links much of them on his website anyways.


I read now the mail in the OP and wow... is that kind of amount of ass-licking and fanboyism business as usual in the letters to public figures? Open question to others, who write to famous persons, as well.

No not really. Read it more carefully, and it'll indicate reasons for it. His influence on my political views are overwhelming, due to the truth of his analysis.


Or did I just misread the tone there? Maybe it was just revering or something.. :confused:

Probably this.


Because they're a defensive institution and aren't a means of production but a means of protecting the means of production.

You can say that private security companies are by definition, not a capitalist institution, because they protect the means of production.

The fact is that they are a capitalist institution. Again, making up definitions to suit your views.

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 22:43
So can the military and police and everything else but that doesn’t stop it from being one of the roles of government and it doesn’t make it socialist. I knew you were going to bring up health care. It's not similar as healthcare falls outside of national security and falls under the individual and his life choices.

From the original definition of socialism, your view is that socialism is everything except a government service that protects the individual from non-medical harm.

Okay, let's define roads. They of course fall outside of national security and under individual choices. Stop lights don't fall under socialism, but roads and highways do according to you.


In the case of fire fighters if some guy’s house is burning down and it spreads to private, and state government property, it’s no longer just an individual problem but protection of the masses. There are however cases where healthcare provided by the government is not considered socialist because of national defense such as in the case of pandemics.

So when fires are isolated and occurring in one place with no potential to spread, its by definition, a socialist fire. :lmao:

You are creating new meanings to capitalism and socialism. Its comedy gold.

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 22:50
Thomas Sowell would kick noam chomskys ass.


You got that right.

Noam Chomsky's pretty much annihilated everyone he's debated. I've yet to see him not win by a considerable margin on ideas relevant to his interests.

I doubt Sowell's economic background can stand the onslaught of Chomsky's knowledge of labor economics and its history and the effects of capitalism on labor and people because I've never seen convincing arguments against his criticisms of capitalism.

I cannot understand advance economics to the point of mathematical formulas, but on basic tenets Chomsky makes much more sense against the free market then whenever I read a libertarian.

Silverhandorder
07-26-2010, 22:52
/slurp Chomsky cock

You are irrelevant.

Rachsucht
07-26-2010, 22:52
and socialism. Its comedy gold.

What's comedy gold is that you are trying to define socialism as anything and everything the government provides.

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 22:55
You are irrelevant.

The fall of SilverHandOrder. Didn't you at one time actually argue instead of resorting to childish antics?


What's comedy gold is that you are trying to define socialism as anything and everything the government provides.

No you idiot, I am defining it as its historical and present day meaning, which falls under most services provided by the government.

Rachsucht
07-26-2010, 22:56
No you idiot, I am defining it as its historical and present day meaning, which falls under most services provided by the government.

Name a government service that you do not consider socialism, you idiot.

shock223
07-26-2010, 22:57
There are however cases where healthcare provided by the government is not considered socialist because of national defense such as in the case of pandemics.

this raises the question: does the responsibility of making sure that the health of the overall nation doesn't dip that low to cause a pandemic on the shoulders of the individual or the government?

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 23:00
this raises the question: does the responsibility of making sure that the health of the overall nation doesn't dip that low to cause a pandemic on the shoulders of the individual or the government?

Speaking of this point. Its sufficient enough to argue that there is a pandemic among Americans of obesity. Does that mean the government must now fight against obesity?

Silverhandorder
07-26-2010, 23:00
The fall of SilverHandOrder. Didn't you at one time actually argue instead of resorting to childish antics?
I argue with people who actually argue instead of running away after 10 pages of me deconstructing your views.

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 23:02
Name a government service that you do not consider socialism, you idiot.

Courts system, election of government, to a marginal degree police enforcement.

You can argue police enforcement, because it is a mode of production and that one can essentially privatize enforcement much like capitalist prison systems.

It works on the function of contracts, that is the police carry out a permanent contract with government laws. I'm not willing to continue this point however.

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 23:03
I argue with people who actually argue instead of running away after 10 pages of me deconstructing your views.

I recall our last debate was a win by me. That was a debate on technological research and the role of the government.

The debate where you had won was tirelessly repetitive, and I had simply given up trying to re-justify my views.

Using deconstruction? I don't think Derrida's formal concept applies to your methods.

Silverhandorder
07-26-2010, 23:07
I don't fucking remember all the details point being you are a flaming liberal who sucks Chomsky cock.

StrawberryClock
07-26-2010, 23:09
I don't fucking remember all the details point being you are a flaming liberal who sucks Chomsky cock.

Chomsky teaches advance grammar at MIT. Maybe he can give you a basic lesson if you email him.

Silverhandorder
07-26-2010, 23:10
And you sound like a broken record.

palo god
07-26-2010, 23:11
From the original definition of socialism, your view is that socialism is everything except a government service that protects the individual from non-medical harm.

No, I said any defensive or legislative government institution is not socialist. There are cases where health becomes a national security concern as in the case of pandemics where they can be addressed by the government without being socialist since it’s a defensive measure against a grand threat.


Okay, let's define roads. They of course fall outside of national security and under individual choices. Stop lights don't fall under socialism, but roads and highways do according to you.

I consider roads defensive institutions because they are used by military personal, police, and fire fighters to get from point A to point B and perform their duties. I never said roads fall under socialism you straw man peddling brainwashed hack.


So when fires are isolated and occurring in one place with no potential to spread, its by definition, a socialist fire.

Do you like to just post random shit that makes you look stupid and has nothing to do with what’s being advocated? The only thing that’s comedy gold is you worshiping a pseudo intellectual that disregards all evidence against his beliefs and that you would suck his cock which you admitted in earlier threads.


You can say that private security companies are by definition, not a capitalist institution, because they protect the means of production.

The fact is that they are a capitalist institution. Again, making up definitions to suit your views.

Do you consider private non profit companies as socialist? Private security companies are capitalist because they work for profit. Government institutions are different from a business. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Again, all government institutions=/= socialism.


By better allocating resources you mean spend double the amount with shittier results such as higher infant mortality, life span, cancer and disease mortality rate and etc.?

You also seem to dismiss every organization as merely a joke when it disagrees with you.

The things you’ve posted have less to do with healthcare and more to do with a societies culture. I dismiss all organizations that change results based on bias.

PirateGlen
07-26-2010, 23:24
So can the military and police and everything else but that doesn’t stop it from being one of the roles of government and it doesn’t make it socialist. I knew you were going to bring up health care. It's not similar as healthcare falls outside of national security and falls under the individual and his life choices. In the case of fire fighters if some guy’s house is burning down and it spreads to private, and state government property, it’s no longer just an individual problem but protection of the masses. There are however cases where healthcare provided by the government is not considered socialist because of national defense such as in the case of pandemics.

But the fire department makes no distinction between fires that spread and isolated fires. My taxes still pay for the dumb fuck in the middle of nowhere that allowed his house to catch fire. Zero risk to me or anyone else, yet my money goes to pay for his fire.

palo god
07-26-2010, 23:30
But the fire department makes no distinction between fires that spread and isolated fires. My taxes still pay for the dumb fuck in the middle of nowhere that allowed his house to catch fire. Zero risk to me or anyone else, yet my money goes to pay for his fire.

It poses a direct risk to the property and lives around it. Fire fighters aren't going to be called in for isolated fires like a small bin being set on fire. Also, nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee medical care.

Silverhandorder
07-26-2010, 23:32
But the fire department makes no distinction between fires that spread and isolated fires. My taxes still pay for the dumb fuck in the middle of nowhere that allowed his house to catch fire. Zero risk to me or anyone else, yet my money goes to pay for his fire.

On a separate note why not sell fire insurance?

zato`1
07-27-2010, 01:32
wish i could get rich writing books about how politics are corrupt

PirateGlen
07-27-2010, 01:57
On a separate note why not sell fire insurance?

Because it's shitty watching the fire fighters watch and wait for your neighbor's house to catch your house on fire before they do anything.

nate4449
07-27-2010, 02:39
Rofl, you pirated content of your beloved Chomsky. Hilarious. Pretty sweet that someone like that actually replies to people, indeed.



I cannot understand advance economics to the point of mathematical formulas, but on basic tenets Chomsky makes much more sense against the free market then whenever I read a libertarian.

I can't comprehend math or advanced economics enough to know what I'm talking about, but my soulmate seems to, so I'm going to go with that. Lawl, I can't tell if you're really that deep in his pants nowdays or if you have simply learned to use Chomsky as a trolling prop.




Relevant to healthcare QQ's: http://www.boston.com/news/world/canada/articles/2010/02/02/canadian_premier_seeks_heart_surgery_in_ us/

StrawberryClock
07-27-2010, 03:03
No, I said any defensive or legislative government institution is not socialist. There are cases where health becomes a national security concern as in the case of pandemics where they can be addressed by the government without being socialist since it’s a defensive measure against a grand threat.

Okay, nice to know Mr. Inventor of the English language.


I consider roads defensive institutions because they are used by military personal, police, and fire fighters to get from point A to point B and perform their duties. I never said roads fall under socialism you straw man peddling brainwashed hack.

But the other 99% of the time they are socialist roads aren't they? What was the original construction of the road for? Well, you guessed it, socialism. I said roads fall under socialism, not you, because they provide a government service to the public, free of national security(most of the time) concerns.


Do you like to just post random shit that makes you look stupid and has nothing to do with what’s being advocated? The only thing that’s comedy gold is you worshiping a pseudo intellectual that disregards all evidence against his beliefs and that you would suck his cock which you admitted in earlier threads.

I'm working off your definition, that anything that threatens others/ the nation is non-socialist, but that everything else provided by the government is socialist.

I'd rather much debate about Chomsky with you. Pseudo-intellectual that disagrees with evidence agianst his belief? That's laughable.

Pseudo-intellectual has a particularly ironic usage, which is that pseudo-intellectuals use it to dismiss others. Now can you make some points on where Chomsky follows this criticism?


Do you consider private non profit companies as socialist? Private security companies are capitalist because they work for profit. Government institutions are different from a business. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Again, all government institutions=/= socialism.

No I do not. Private security companies still, in your words, protect the systems of production. Which in your words, are the same as firefighters/the police, etc.

The only difference is that they are privatized. I wonder what they would be if it was publically owned.


The things you’ve posted have less to do with healthcare and more to do with a societies culture. I dismiss all organizations that change results based on bias.

America and Canada aren't radically different. Life span is somewhat, but it has a major health-care factor. Infant mortality isn't, because people in the US still all give birth in hospitals. Likewise for cancer mortality rate.


Rofl, you pirated content of your beloved Chomsky. Hilarious. Pretty sweet that someone like that actually replies to people, indeed.

What's wrong with that? Chomsky has criticized intellectual property, and I'm merely acting on these criticisms. He's always been a man more dominated by his intellectual contributions then wealth, having written something like 120 books in politics and linguistics.


I can't comprehend math or advanced economics enough to know what I'm talking about, but my soulmate seems to, so I'm going to go with that. Lawl, I can't tell if you're really that deep in his pants nowdays or if you have simply learned to use Chomsky as a trolling prop.

Read it carefully idiot. I said I can grasp basic tenents, but the advance mathematical formulas are a bit too advance for me. And both sides use these basic fundamental ideas that I can grasp, and which Chomsky was more convincing.

However, you being the idiot, I don't expect you to understand any idea fully, let alone a sentence.



Relevant to healthcare QQ's: http://www.boston.com/news/world/canada/articles/2010/02/02/canadian_premier_seeks_heart_surgery_in_ us/

And this nullifies Canadian healthcare how?

Sharuk
07-27-2010, 03:24
Did yall hear the news that the NHS is now rationing care because of the recent hard times....fun

Silverhandorder
07-27-2010, 03:29
Because it's shitty watching the fire fighters watch and wait for your neighbor's house to catch your house on fire before they do anything.

Rather dishonest of you. Why would anyone do such a stupid thing? Insurance would actually make them want to do less work.

Shaehl
07-27-2010, 03:30
It amuses me that a few dumb right-wing rednecks don't know the difference between sharing and stealing, or, for that matter, nationalism or selfishness.

Grats on your willful Faux-News induced ignorance.

The difference between sharing and stealing? When someone forces you to "share" your money under threat of violence, it's probably time to re-evaluate your verb choice.

nate4449
07-27-2010, 03:43
What's wrong with that? Chomsky has criticized intellectual property, and I'm merely acting on these criticisms. He's always been a man more dominated by his intellectual contributions then wealth, having written something like 120 books in politics and linguistics.

Oh, nothing is "wrong" with it, it's just the socialist thievery lulz of it.




Read it carefully idiot. I said I can grasp basic tenents, but the advance mathematical formulas are a bit too advance for me. And both sides use these basic fundamental ideas that I can grasp, and which Chomsky was more convincing.

Basics are basic.

Religious nuts all use simple logic and dogma to poorly explain the universe, whereas scientists use "Scawwy advance mathematical formulas" and quantum physics to explain it correctly.




However, you being the idiot, I don't expect you to understand any idea fully, let alone a sentence.


The difference between you and I; I know that I am an idiot.



And this nullifies Canadian healthcare how?

Nullifies? Oh no sir, it is a shining example of it's quality.

StrawberryClock
07-27-2010, 04:24
Oh, nothing is "wrong" with it, it's just the socialist thievery lulz of it.

Yes I recognize it as thievery in its law, but I am acting in what I think is Chomsky' political views since he criticized intellectual property many times. He's not exactly for every law in the U.S, being an anarchist and all and I very much doubt he cares if I pirated his audio lectures.


Basics are basic.

Religious nuts all use simple logic and dogma to poorly explain the universe, whereas scientists use "Scawwy advance mathematical formulas" and quantum physics to explain it correctly.

No, you fucking idiot, that is not what I stated. I am not using simple logic and dogma, I stated basic tenents, such as for example the effect of wage decreases on employment levels and shit like that. I don't understand advanced ideas like the effects of fiscal policies with y on x, when z occurs, etc. Second time you are trying to misrepresent my point.


The difference between you and I; I know that I am an idiot.

Yes and I recognize that I am not one. I think my views are correct here.


Nullifies? Oh no sir, it is a shining example of it's quality.

I suppose that this adds nothing but try to use one fucking instance that does not show the condition of health-care, rather this premier's actions(he stated that he fully agrees with Canadian healthcare), to paint a shining example.

Let me paint some examples, how about the fact that health-care related costs is the number reason for U.S bankruptcy.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html

PirateGlen
07-27-2010, 06:48
Rather dishonest of you. Why would anyone do such a stupid thing? Insurance would actually make them want to do less work.

Learn some history, retard. That's the history of firefighting and that's why we switched. It was extremely corrupt and it sucked.

Silverhandorder
07-27-2010, 06:58
Learn some history, retard. That's the history of firefighting and that's why we switched. It was extremely corrupt and it sucked.

Like there is no corruption in government...

raja
07-27-2010, 07:40
noam chomsky is shit.

PirateGlen
07-27-2010, 08:42
Like there is no corruption in government...

I didn't say there wasn't. But at least when there's a fire, a fire fighter wont ignore it until it catches fire to someone who paid for the services.

radicalhit
07-27-2010, 09:15
Read up to page 4 and then got bored of this socialism sucks/capitalism sucks : enter argument, enter fucking moron.

Like George Carlin said.
''You know how I define the economic and social classes in this country? The upper class keeps all of the money, pays none of the taxes. the middle class pays all of the taxes, does all of the work. The poor are there...just to scare the shit out of the middle class. Keep 'em showing up at those jobs.''

Keep paying your overbearing taxes and keep hating socialism.

also <3 Noam Chomsky

Jedicake
07-27-2010, 09:31
If I read this whole thread, my brain would explode by the time I'm at page 3

(Because I'm stupid and my brain can't handle it)


Hey btw that's neat he replied, I bet you're very happy about that :) Good job

Oh cool I read up a little and he praised Libertarian Socialism, I already like him :)

Bekka
07-27-2010, 10:24
Damn. Government and binding theory and focus particles in Somali was my dissertation subject. If I knew that the old guy answered his mail, oh how many times I'd have written to him "WTF DOES THIS MEAN?!?". He's a great genius, but really hard to follow at times (I mean his writings about syntax, I haven't read the political stuff).

wartywarlock
07-27-2010, 10:30
Many Welsh, Scots and Northern Englishmen agree with you. They fucking hate her for devastating their economy. Not sure why this was used though as a reply.

Everyone hates her. We could have had fibre network put in cross country 20 fucking years ago. But, it would have been a waste of money you know. Now, we're stuck with shitty 2mb connections if you are lucky and seeing all that lost income going to countries with the tech backbone to support growth in IT.

It is sickening.

MrBungle
07-27-2010, 11:22
The problem with being an idiot is that eventually you never run out of stupid posts.

Also, grats on being an idiot.

The problem with being butthurt sophisticated is that eventually you never run out of crafty, pseudo-intelligent things to say afterwards.

Also, grats on being a butthurt sophisticated whore.

Silverhandorder
07-27-2010, 13:38
I didn't say there wasn't. But at least when there's a fire, a fire fighter wont ignore it until it catches fire to someone who paid for the services.

But if there is a crisis the insiders will appropriate them selves trillions in broad day light. Dude you are attacking something for being corrupt when this same corruption permeates every fiber of government.

My hunch is that we moved away from private fire fighters and from my idea of insurance if it ever was tried not because it was corrupt but because someone wanted some protection from competition. We were at this before and I had to read up on history of NYC fire fighters and the facts were radically different then you were claiming back then.

PirateGlen
07-27-2010, 17:45
But if there is a crisis the insiders will appropriate them selves trillions in broad day light. Dude you are attacking something for being corrupt when this same corruption permeates every fiber of government.

My hunch is that we moved away from private fire fighters and from my idea of insurance if it ever was tried not because it was corrupt but because someone wanted some protection from competition. We were at this before and I had to read up on history of NYC fire fighters and the facts were radically different then you were claiming back then.

With bonuses offered as incentives, rivalries ensued between groups. Marked homes and businesses were brawled over, while residences on the same street, with no fire mark, often burned to the ground.
http://www.afirepro.com/history.html

At about this time, some of the bitter rivalries and brawls between companie began to hamper the effectiveness of the firefighting efforts. Gulick organized Hydrant Company #1 to take care of the water plugs and put a stop to the practice of hiding the plugs under a barrel until the preferred company arrived at the scene. At times, rival engines fought each other in the street over control of a hydrant while the structure burned merrily.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ubGf6Z15CiIC&pg=PA21&dq=history+firefighting&hl=en&ei=vwpPTPSwG4n4sAOX8r3lBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=history%20firefighting&f=false

ltankhsd
07-27-2010, 17:59
It amuses me that a few dumb right-wing rednecks don't know the difference between sharing and stealing, or, for that matter, nationalism or selfishness.

Grats on your willful Faux-News induced ignorance.

LOL god damn you're stupid. Sharing would be something called "charity". Stealing is taking someone elses hard earned money and giving it to someone else who didn't earn it. It's VERY simple.

88Chaz88
07-27-2010, 18:06
LOL god damn you're stupid. Sharing would be something called "charity". Stealing is taking someone elses hard earned money and giving it to someone else who didn't earn it. It's VERY simple.

You're making the assumption you earned that money.

ltankhsd
07-27-2010, 18:10
You're making the assumption you earned that money.

Let me respond to one of the stupidest things I've ever read: I did earn that money. When I run a business or am employed by a business I enter into a binding contract whereby I give my my expertise and work for cash renumeration which becomes my property. Socialism is a means to try to excuse taking my property to give to someone else who did not earn it.

PirateGlen
07-27-2010, 18:15
Let me respond to one of the stupidest things I've ever read: I did earn that money. When I run a business or am employed by a business I enter into a binding contract whereby I give my my expertise and work for cash renumeration which becomes my property. Socialism is a means to try to excuse taking my property to give to someone else who did not earn it.

God damn socialized roads. ARRR.

88Chaz88
07-27-2010, 18:16
Let me respond to one of the stupidest things I've ever read: I did earn that money. When I run a business or am employed by a business I enter into a binding contract whereby I give my my expertise and work for cash renumeration which becomes my property. Socialism is a means to try to excuse taking my property to give to someone else who did not earn it.

Oh excuse me. Was there some divine revelation that came and dictated how much each person's time and effort is worth in a man-made currency? If so, was it taken down on a chart or graph? I want to see if I should ask for a raise or not.

No. You decide you earn that simply because you got paid it. Nothing else. Do you deserve more, or less?

Edit: I'd also like to inform you that the society that allows you to be paid far above the world average is the very society you're arguing about upkeeping. If you want to hunt for your food, fine. Just do it away from us that know we have a good thing going.

Napalm_Enema
07-27-2010, 18:45
This just in:

Easily swayed high schooler 'finds a cause', writes lonely MIT Prof and gets a response that will change his life forever. :ohno:

Or at least until the next band wagon 'fresh' tragedy or way of thinking 'completely changes' his world once more.:ohno:X2

I do enjoy re-reading your e-mail to him, imagining you sitting there with a serious look on your face and a little plastic pipe that blows bubbles, as you bang out your 'serious bidnezz' e-mail. :lmao:

raja
07-27-2010, 18:56
This just in:

Easily swayed high schooler 'finds a cause', writes lonely MIT Prof and gets a response that will change his life forever. :ohno:

Or at least until the next band wagon 'fresh' tragedy or way of thinking 'completely changes' his world once more.:ohno:X2

I do enjoy re-reading your e-mail to him, imagining you sitting there with a serious look on your face and a little plastic pipe that blows bubbles, as you bang out your 'serious bidnezz' e-mail. :lmao:

zing!

StrawberryClock
07-27-2010, 19:04
The problem with being butthurt sophisticated is that eventually you never run out of crafty, pseudo-intelligent things to say afterwards.

Also, grats on being a butthurt sophisticated whore.

The problem with not being clever is that you never phrase words in a creative way, rather just use generic insults like crafty or pseudo-intelligent.

Also, grats on being not clever.


This just in:

Easily swayed high schooler 'finds a cause', writes lonely MIT Prof and gets a response that will change his life forever. :ohno:

Easily swayed? I'm certain that my knowledge in politics and the foundation for my political beliefs are much more solid then yours. I mean, the only times you apply reasoning to those kinds of threads, they are either overtly expressed and standard in its logic.


Or at least until the next band wagon 'fresh' tragedy or way of thinking 'completely changes' his world once more.:ohno:X2

I do enjoy re-reading your e-mail to him, imagining you sitting there with a serious look on your face and a little plastic pipe that blows bubbles, as you bang out your 'serious bidnezz' e-mail. :lmao:

That is of course interesting how you can picture me like that. I'm not sure if I understand your first sentence here though. I've always been a leftist with an anti-government lean before turning into an objectivist, and I reattached myself to my former political beliefs after reading Chomsky.

You should try it too. He's not called the most influential intellectual alive for no reason.

raja
07-27-2010, 19:14
does mental masturbation ever result in a climax?

Napalm_Enema
07-27-2010, 19:21
does mental masturbation ever result in a climax?

I love highschoolers, they try so very hard to sound 'all growed up'.

Don't look now, but I think Strawberry is wearing 'big boy' pull up pants now!

StrawberryClock
07-27-2010, 19:36
does mental masturbation ever result in a climax?


I love highschoolers, they try so very hard to sound 'all growed up'.

Don't look now, but I think Strawberry is wearing 'big boy' pull up pants now!

You know, the age of a person defines practically nothing when we are assessing subjects such as the ones I covered. Some people's views on politics mature faster and are much more expansive then others. I'd add that Chomsky formulated almost all of his political views when he was younger, but it never changed. They didn't change not due to ignorance, but because he's never been wrong.

It seems you cannot attack me on this because you're nowhere near my level of knowledge in political philosophy, so you must leverage criticisms of me based on my age.

Napalm_Enema
07-27-2010, 19:41
"nowhere on my level..." :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Yeah, sure thing kid... don't you have some groceries to sack? Oh that's right, you're part of an amazing movement and organization that will better all mankind now that you're aboard! :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

StrawberryClock
07-27-2010, 19:49
"nowhere on my level..." :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Yeah, sure thing kid... don't you have some groceries to sack? Oh that's right, you're part of an amazing movement and organization that will better all mankind now that you're aboard! :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

I have a feeling we are re-entering the good ole days of conservatives vs. the youth movement of the 60's in this argument.

That is, you are simply dismissing everything I said because I've associated my political with what can be defined as revolutionary and that its a "youth movement" and not attacking why I'm wrong.

Napalm_Enema
07-27-2010, 19:51
I have a feeling we are re-entering the good ole days of conservatives vs. the youth movement of the 60's in this argument.

That is, you are simply dismissing everything I said because I've associated my political with what can be defined as revolutionary and that its a "youth movement" and not attacking why I'm wrong.

Nah actually I debated for a day or so if I should bait you and bring forth your angsty post pubescent RaGe@!!!~~!!!

And decided to go ahead and poke your little ant hill with a stick.:ninja:

It was amusing, thanks for the laughs... :lmao::D

PirateGlen
07-27-2010, 19:53
This is some weak ass trollin'.

raja
07-27-2010, 20:05
You know, the age of a person defines practically nothing when we are assessing subjects such as the ones I covered. Some people's views on politics mature faster and are much more expansive then others. I'd add that Chomsky formulated almost all of his political views when he was younger, but it never changed. They didn't change not due to ignorance, but because he's never been wrong.

It seems you cannot attack me on this because you're nowhere near my level of knowledge in political philosophy, so you must leverage criticisms of me based on my age.

politics = mind candy, mental masturbation: a sport for "intellectuals" - just another complicated distraction from our natural path of exploring the true peace, beauty, and joy innately residing deep within and all around us. harmony will not be achieved by uncovering the OBVIOUS short-comings of the world, but by promoting the natural law of tranquility.
why waste a day (in your case), or a lifetime (in chomskys case), mentally masturbating over the horrors of the world; when you could go feed a hungry homeless kid, or ride a tube down a river, or make love to a beautiful woman?

learn to live.

Napalm_Enema
07-27-2010, 20:14
politics = mind candy, mental masturbation: a sport for "intellectuals" - just another complicated distraction from our natural path of exploring the true peace, beauty, and joy innately residing deep within and all around us. harmony will not be achieved by uncovering the OBVIOUS short-comings of the world, but by promoting the natural law of tranquility.
why waste a day (in your case), or a lifetime (in chomskys case), mentally masturbating over the horrors of the world; when you could go feed a hungry homeless kid, or ride a tube down a river, or make love to a beautiful woman?

learn to live.

Now this guy gets it.

Jedicake
07-27-2010, 20:20
politics = mind candy, mental masturbation: A sport for "intellectuals" - just another complicated distraction from our natural path of exploring the true peace, beauty, and joy innately residing deep within and all around us. Harmony will not be achieved by uncovering the obvious short-comings of the world, but by promoting the natural law of tranquility.
Why waste a day (in your case), or a lifetime (in chomskys case), mentally masturbating over the horrors of the world; when you could go feed a hungry homeless kid, or ride a tube down a river, or make love to a beautiful woman?

Learn to live.

snap!

PirateGlen
07-27-2010, 20:39
politics = mind candy, mental masturbation: a sport for "intellectuals" - just another complicated distraction from our natural path of exploring the true peace, beauty, and joy innately residing deep within and all around us. harmony will not be achieved by uncovering the OBVIOUS short-comings of the world, but by promoting the natural law of tranquility.
why waste a day (in your case), or a lifetime (in chomskys case), mentally masturbating over the horrors of the world; when you could go feed a hungry homeless kid, or ride a tube down a river, or make love to a beautiful woman?

learn to live.

"...it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."
-J S Mill

zato`1
07-27-2010, 20:47
"...it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."
-J S Mill

awesome context for this quote.
raja has some interesting views but even this one was too fucking hippy for me. if you were gifted with an intellect as brilliant as noam chomsky, you would be shitting bricks to apply it to your field of natural ability, trust me.

im all for saying fuck the bullshit and learn how to live on this earth better, but some folks are inclined from birth to simply have a much greater intellect than the rest of us, and such minds would be wasted if they were simply "another one of us".... theres plenty of us, not quite enough of them.

Nevron
07-27-2010, 21:54
politics = mind candy, mental masturbation: a sport for "intellectuals" - just another complicated distraction from our natural path of exploring the true peace, beauty, and joy innately residing deep within and all around us. harmony will not be achieved by uncovering the OBVIOUS short-comings of the world, but by promoting the natural law of tranquility.
why waste a day (in your case), or a lifetime (in chomskys case), mentally masturbating over the horrors of the world; when you could go feed a hungry homeless kid, or ride a tube down a river, or make love to a beautiful woman?

learn to live.

That's a lengthy way of saying ignorance is bliss.

raja
07-27-2010, 23:45
"...it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."
-J S Mill

what a seriously stupid fucking thing to say -
"it is better to be unhappy, than to be happy": to be a conscious intelligent being one must be dissatisfied?

do you actually think, or just memorize stupid fucking quotes?

if being happy and contributing to the joy of others makes me a foolish pig, then so be it;
better than being a dissatisfied "intellectual human".

raja
07-27-2010, 23:55
awesome context for this quote.
raja has some interesting views but even this one was too fucking hippy for me. if you were gifted with an intellect as brilliant as noam chomsky, you would be shitting bricks to apply it to your field of natural ability, trust me.
im wiping my ass as i read this, trust me.



im all for saying fuck the bullshit and learn how to live on this earth better, but some folks are inclined from birth to simply have a much greater intellect than the rest of us, and such minds would be wasted if they were simply "another one of us".... theres plenty of us, not quite enough of them.

chomsky has a very sharp mind...



its a shame we lost it to politics.

raja
07-27-2010, 23:55
That's a lengthy way of saying ignorance is bliss.

go feed a hungry homeless kid, or ride a tube down a river, or make love to a beautiful woman

Nevron
07-28-2010, 00:05
go feed a hungry homeless kid, or ride a tube down a river, or make love to a beautiful woman

You assume that what you're suggesting are things limited to those who choose to remain ignorant to the world and rub their nuts on tree bark to feel at one with mother earth. Sorry, guy, but that's just not the case. I've made contributions to the less fortunate, I've kayaked and done all kinds of outdoor shit, and I do very well when it comes to attractive women.

Now my challenge to you is to do all that without ignoring the realities around you.

Your extreme is just as shitty as the extreme of someone who delves into this shit to the degree that Straw obviously does. I'll continue being the happy medium.

raja
07-28-2010, 00:24
You assume that what you're suggesting are things limited to those who choose to remain ignorant to the world and rub their nuts on tree bark to feel at one with mother earth. Sorry, guy, but that's just not the case. I've made contributions to the less fortunate, I've kayaked and done all kinds of outdoor shit, and I do very well when it comes to attractive women.

Now my challenge to you is to do all that without ignoring the realities around you.

Your extreme is just as shitty as the extreme of someone who delves into this shit to the degree that Straw obviously does. I'll continue being the happy medium.

you assume ive been rubbing my nuts on trees all my life... one doesnt arrive at my perspective on reality by avoiding it, but by struggling through it.

Silverhandorder
07-28-2010, 00:38
With bonuses offered as incentives, rivalries ensued between groups. Marked homes and businesses were brawled over, while residences on the same street, with no fire mark, often burned to the ground.
http://www.afirepro.com/history.html

At about this time, some of the bitter rivalries and brawls between companie began to hamper the effectiveness of the firefighting efforts. Gulick organized Hydrant Company #1 to take care of the water plugs and put a stop to the practice of hiding the plugs under a barrel until the preferred company arrived at the scene. At times, rival engines fought each other in the street over control of a hydrant while the structure burned merrily.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ubGf6Z15CiIC&pg=PA21&dq=history+firefighting&hl=en&ei=vwpPTPSwG4n4sAOX8r3lBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=history%20firefighting&f=false
Sounds a lot like politicians. Should we do away with politics too then? There will always be conflict. So you rather have less infighting but more inefficiency and waste.

PirateGlen
07-28-2010, 00:40
what a seriously stupid fucking thing to say -
"it is better to be unhappy, than to be happy": to be a conscious intelligent being one must be dissatisfied?

do you actually think, or just memorize stupid fucking quotes?

if being happy and contributing to the joy of others makes me a foolish pig, then so be it;
better than being a dissatisfied "intellectual human".

The portion in bold demonstrates the quote perfectly. It has completely flown over your head, and proves that you neglect the "mind candy" of the world because you have not truly experienced it. The quote actually means that people only reject the higher pleasures because they have not truly experienced them, even if they claim to be satisfied in their ignorance. Mill would prefer to be in want of the higher pleasures rather than never experience them and remain ignorant.

You've rejected one extreme for another. Enjoy your ignorance, I will enjoy all the pleasures of the world in their due portions.

PirateGlen
07-28-2010, 00:45
Sounds a lot like politicians. Should we do away with politics too then? There will always be conflict. So you rather have less infighting but more inefficiency and waste.

Actually in the case of fires, it was the infighting that was inefficiency and waste. Politics is not the same as fire fighting, attempting to compare the two proves you are a retard.

raja
07-28-2010, 00:46
The portion in bold demonstrates the quote perfectly. It has completely flown over your head, and proves that you neglect the "mind candy" of the world because you have not truly experienced it. You've rejected one extreme for another. Enjoy your ignorance, I will enjoy all the pleasures of the world in their due portions.

:bang:

i couldnt eat any more candy because no amount of brushing would keep my teeth from falling out.

Silverhandorder
07-28-2010, 00:51
Actually in the case of fires, it was the infighting that was inefficiency and waste. Politics is not the same as fire fighting, attempting to compare the two proves you are a retard.

So you traded one inefficiency for another in there fire fighting example. It is sad that you do not have a consistent approach to intellectual discussion. Political infighting is a great sours of inefficient but you simply refuse to talk about it since it does not fit your narrow minded view.

raja
07-28-2010, 00:52
The portion in bold demonstrates the quote perfectly. It has completely flown over your head, and proves that you neglect the "mind candy" of the world because you have not truly experienced it. The quote actually means that people only reject the higher pleasures because they have not truly experienced them, even if they claim to be satisfied in their ignorance. Mill would prefer to be in want of the higher pleasures rather than never experience them and remain ignorant.

You've rejected one extreme for another. Enjoy your ignorance, I will enjoy all the pleasures of the world in their due portions.

just saw your edit...

so politics is a higher pleasure?
:bang:

PirateGlen
07-28-2010, 01:24
just saw your edit...

so politics is a higher pleasure?
:bang:

It is among them. My apologies for the ninja edit.

Edit:
Your elementary understanding of politics is likely why you wouldn't think of it as a higher pleasure.

PirateGlen
07-28-2010, 01:29
So you traded one inefficiency for another in there fire fighting example. It is sad that you do not have a consistent approach to intellectual discussion. Political infighting is a great sours of inefficient but you simply refuse to talk about it since it does not fit your narrow minded view.

I trades the worse for the better. Political infighting is intentionally inefficient because efficiency is not the best source of wisdom in determining the best policy. In an emergency on the scale of a fire, it's not appropriate to set up a committee to determine the best response. That's why they're not comparable, I didn't think I had to spell it out for you. I guess I should have known since you are a retard.

Silverhandorder
07-28-2010, 01:31
I trades the worse for the better. Political infighting is intentionally inefficient because efficiency is not the best source of wisdom in determining the best policy. In an emergency on the scale of a fire, it's not appropriate to set up a committee to determine the best response. That's why they're not comparable, I didn't think I had to spell it out for you. I guess I should have known since you are a retard.

So instead you pay salaries for life that end up wasting more resources then houses saved huh? This is even assuming what you say is of any issue. Any statistics on how much infighting cost in damage?

PirateGlen
07-28-2010, 01:39
So instead you pay salaries for life that end up wasting more resources then houses saved huh? This is even assuming what you say is of any issue. Any statistics on how much infighting cost in damage?

So you're trying to argue it's more efficient to have rival fire brigades fight in the street and hide fire hydrants while buildings burn down? You're a fucking retard. You're among the few assholes bold enough to claim firefighters are paid too well.

Silverhandorder
07-28-2010, 02:06
So you're trying to argue it's more efficient to have rival fire brigades fight in the street and hide fire hydrants while buildings burn down? You're a fucking retard. You're among the few assholes bold enough to claim firefighters are paid too well.

You have yet to provide any significant evidence that the practice is widespread and justifies all the inefficiencies of centralized government operation.

Yes fire fighters are paid too much, way too much.

PirateGlen
07-28-2010, 03:26
You have yet to provide any significant evidence that the practice is widespread and justifies all the inefficiencies of centralized government operation.

Yes fire fighters are paid too much, way too much.

Edit:
I presented evidence that showed corruption and inefficiency when multiple firehouses competed for fires to be paid by fire insurance companies. By comparison we now no longer watch houses burn down because they are uninsured and no longer have fire fighters brawling in the street while a house burns down.

You have presented absolutely nothing but your own retarded suspicions and yet you make claim after claim without supporting it. How about you fuck off until you bring your own evidence. I'm not running another "Why you are a retard" tutorial.

Silverhandorder
07-28-2010, 03:30
You have presented absolutely nothing but your own retarded suspicions and yet you make claim after claim without supporting it. How about you fuck off until you bring your own evidence. I'm not running another "Why you are a retard" tutorial.

I pointed out how you have a double standard. Then I made a counter claim as to trade offs you accept. Then you tried to claim your trade off is more practical while giving zero evidence to back this up.

So w/e happened to volunteer fire fighters? Can you put a price tag to fire fighter infighting? If you were remotely objective or utilitarian shouldn't you have to find out how much each course of actions costs? There is no doubt that you eliminated infighting. But you conveniently ignore hidden costs.

PirateGlen
07-28-2010, 03:52
I pointed out how you have a double standard. Then I made a counter claim as to trade offs you accept. Then you tried to claim your trade off is more practical while giving zero evidence to back this up.

So w/e happened to volunteer fire fighters? Can you put a price tag to fire fighter infighting? If you were remotely objective or utilitarian shouldn't you have to find out how much each course of actions costs? There is no doubt that you eliminated infighting. But you conveniently ignore hidden costs.

There's no double standard. What we have now is superior to what we had the in the past. It could be improved but not by changing to what we had before because clearly history has demonstrated the failure of insurance and competing firehouses. Volunteer firefighters still exist and get work when the professional firefighters are insufficient. It's also risky because it means jackass volunteers set fires on purpose out in the wilderness to get work.

Rokstarr
07-28-2010, 03:55
I have a feeling we are re-entering the good ole days of conservatives vs. the youth movement of the 60's in this argument.

That is, you are simply dismissing everything I said because I've associated my political with what can be defined as revolutionary and that its a "youth movement" and not attacking why I'm wrong.

Hopefully, this time you hippies will learn that forcing Collectivism doesn't work, as has been proven plenty of times in history.

Jedicake
07-28-2010, 04:01
Stop being so smart guys, jeez

Silverhandorder
07-28-2010, 05:13
There's no double standard. What we have now is superior to what we had the in the past. It could be improved but not by changing to what we had before because clearly history has demonstrated the failure of insurance and competing firehouses. Volunteer firefighters still exist and get work when the professional firefighters are insufficient. It's also risky because it means jackass volunteers set fires on purpose out in the wilderness to get work.

By what measure? You keep saying what we have is superior but you will not address what I said about you being unable to quantify the benefits or the costs.

Further more it seems like you are suggesting that it is superior by the virtue of being the status quo.

Hydrogenium
07-28-2010, 05:25
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.


Just because the iron lady spouted that in a moment of utter stupidity, doesn't make it so.
Go tell your grandma that then forfeit her medicare, medicaid and any social security benefits she might have. Those are as socialist as one can get. These are rights, she paid for it, these are not state nannying.

Always held the opinion that military service brain washes people. You are a clear example.

PirateGlen
07-28-2010, 06:02
By what measure? You keep saying what we have is superior but you will not address what I said about you being unable to quantify the benefits or the costs.

Further more it seems like you are suggesting that it is superior by the virtue of being the status quo.

It is superior because people actually get what they pay for instead of watching a pack of assholes fight while their house burns down. The cost is the meager proportion of your taxes that goes to the fire departments.

The status quo is better than what has already proven itself inferior.

raja
07-28-2010, 09:10
It is among them. My apologies for the ninja edit.

Edit:
Your elementary understanding of politics is likely why you wouldn't think of it as a higher pleasure.

compared to many other more deep and engaging subjects you are correct that my understanding of politics is relatively elementary. however, this is solely the result of learning quite enough to realize what a crock of shit government is period, and that more often than not it is found to be responsible for much more pain than pleasure.

...some things chomsky tends to agree with me on.

Adolf Stalin
07-28-2010, 09:20
You're right, that Margaret Thatcher sure was a tard....



Pretty sure idiot is higher then thief on the 'acceptable member of society' scale, so I'll take it.

look how stupid you are

StrawberryClock
07-28-2010, 13:22
politics = mind candy, mental masturbation: a sport for "intellectuals" - just another complicated distraction from our natural path of exploring the true peace, beauty, and joy innately residing deep within and all around us. harmony will not be achieved by uncovering the OBVIOUS short-comings of the world, but by promoting the natural law of tranquility.
why waste a day (in your case), or a lifetime (in chomskys case), mentally masturbating over the horrors of the world; when you could go feed a hungry homeless kid, or ride a tube down a river, or make love to a beautiful woman?

learn to live.


awesome context for this quote.
raja has some interesting views but even this one was too fucking hippy for me. if you were gifted with an intellect as brilliant as noam chomsky, you would be shitting bricks to apply it to your field of natural ability, trust me.

im all for saying fuck the bullshit and learn how to live on this earth better, but some folks are inclined from birth to simply have a much greater intellect than the rest of us, and such minds would be wasted if they were simply "another one of us".... theres plenty of us, not quite enough of them.

This reminded me on one of the best Onion articles I ever read, this article making fun of Chomsky trying to relax for a day (http://www.theonion.com/articles/exhausted-noam-chomsky-just-going-to-try-and-enjoy,17404/). I think I can fully agree, that he's unusually devoted to his work and is probably very boring judging by his videos. He was once asked what music he was interested in, he said almost nothing. I did see pictures of Chomsky going fishing with a bunch of fans visiting him once so he's also very humble.


Hopefully, this time you hippies will learn that forcing Collectivism doesn't work, as has been proven plenty of times in history.

They were also working for individual rights and personal lifestyl liberation. The modern extension of the new left deviated quite a bit, but hippies were as free and radical as you can get.

I think you should include examples of collectivism that is indeed terrible, like the modern corporation.

Sharuk
07-28-2010, 20:16
Just because the iron lady spouted that in a moment of utter stupidity, doesn't make it so.
Go tell your grandma that then forfeit her medicare, medicaid and any social security benefits she might have. Those are as socialist as one can get. These are rights, she paid for it, these are not state nannying.

Always held the opinion that military service brain washes people. You are a clear example.

Healthcare is not a right, neither is SS

StainlessSteelRat
07-28-2010, 20:35
I expect much more educated arguments from you.

You shouldn't.


Unless you're trolling.

He's not.

Adolf Stalin
07-28-2010, 20:59
Healthcare is not a right, neither is SS

Yes it is. Deal with it.

StrawberryClock
07-28-2010, 21:05
You shouldn't.



He's not.

Fascinating how you isolate just one part in an attempt to troll or insult.

Sharuk
07-28-2010, 21:05
Yes it is. Deal with it.

Nope its actually not

Enjoy your fail

Anyway having fun trolling?


Also this is what happens when you make up BS rights: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2913894/european_union_vacations_a_human_right.h tml


:lmao:

StainlessSteelRat
07-28-2010, 21:10
Fascinating how you isolate just one part in an attempt to troll or insult.

Isolate one part of what? The thread? Sorry, but I don't really have the time to comment on each and every post; like most people, I am forced to pick and choose. Besides, I'm just helping out my buddy Palo. No harm in that. ;)

StrawberryClock
07-28-2010, 21:11
Isolate one part of what? The thread? Sorry, but I don't really have the time to comment on each and every post; like most people, I am forced to pick and choose. Besides, I'm just helping out my buddy Palo. No harm in that. ;)

No, I didn't say you should, but that doing this is just for the sake of trolling.

I guess libertarians and conservatives are getting tighter on forumfall.

StrawberryClock
07-28-2010, 21:14
By what measure? You keep saying what we have is superior but you will not address what I said about you being unable to quantify the benefits or the costs.

Further more it seems like you are suggesting that it is superior by the virtue of being the status quo.

Wow this post is just hilarious. Silverhandorder advocating for a much worst state due to cost-effectiveness.

Is it just me or has Silver become progressively stupider/insane as time goes on?

Fergalicious
07-28-2010, 21:14
Yes, you must absolutely hate your roads, schools, police force, fire department, military, local libraries, education grants, social security, medicare, and general infrastructure, don't you? God damn socialism is ruining us.

Fucking moron.

Nearly all of those are complete failures on their own, or complete failures in the face of what has been done in the private sector. Thank you, come again!

StainlessSteelRat
07-28-2010, 21:30
No, I didn't say you should, but that doing this is just for the sake of trolling.

I guess libertarians and conservatives are getting tighter on forumfall.

I don't troll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

PirateGlen
07-28-2010, 21:46
compared to many other more deep and engaging subjects you are correct that my understanding of politics is relatively elementary. however, this is solely the result of learning quite enough to realize what a crock of shit government is period, and that more often than not it is found to be responsible for much more pain than pleasure.

...some things chomsky tends to agree with me on.

That is why it is all the more important that one be politically aware lest he simply submit to tyranny as he makes sleeping with women and riding down rivers in tubes his sole interest.

raja
07-28-2010, 23:10
That is why it is all the more important that one be politically aware lest he simply submit to tyranny as he makes sleeping with women and riding down rivers in tubes his sole interest.

so the solution to getting out of prison is to be very aware of the fact that you are in prison?
if anything we might be able to consider this the FIRST step.

like i said before, so aware that my teeth were falling out.

youre only as much of a victim as you allow yourself to be...

im too busy feeding hungry homeless kids, meditating, and floating down rivers with beautiful women to even afford the time to be aware of your prison anymore...

other than to suggest that you come out and play.

PirateGlen
07-29-2010, 00:06
so the solution to getting out of prison is to be very aware of the fact that you are in prison?
if anything we might be able to consider this the FIRST step.

like i said before, so aware that my teeth were falling out.

youre only as much of a victim as you allow yourself to be...

im too busy feeding hungry homeless kids, meditating, and floating down rivers with beautiful women to even afford the time to be aware of your prison anymore...

other than to suggest that you come out and play.

Such a terrible prison in which you get to do all that you please. :rolleyes:

I've not allowed myself to be victim of anything. You're simply so arrogant that you assume that everyone else is without joy because they've truly experienced a pleasure that you shun because you are ignorant. You just keep reaffirming how appropriate Mill's quote is for you.

raja
07-29-2010, 01:36
Such a terrible prison in which you get to do all that you please. :rolleyes:

I've not allowed myself to be victim of anything. You're simply so arrogant that you assume that everyone else is without joy because they've truly experienced a pleasure that you shun because you are ignorant. You just keep reaffirming how appropriate Mill's quote is for you.

:bang:
youve obviously read very little chomsky -
if you pay taxes practically 1/4 of your income goes directly to funding the war and drug trade..

a true pleasure indeed.


edit: anything i want, government ftw :rolleyes: (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=255061)

PirateGlen
07-29-2010, 01:54
:bang:
youve obviously read very little chomsky -
if you pay taxes practically 1/4 of your income goes directly to funding the war and drug trade..

a true pleasure indeed.


edit: anything i want, government ftw :rolleyes: (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=255061)

If you are unhappy with your "prison" then you have a direct incentive in altering its constitution (not the document). That's politics.

raja
07-29-2010, 02:10
If you are unhappy with your "prison" then you have a direct incentive in altering its constitution (not the document). That's politics.

fire with fire - riiiiight... historically speaking politics has contributed most efficiently towards creating a harmonious lifestyle for the entire planet,
much more so than art or science. :rolleyes:

Rachsucht
07-29-2010, 02:41
fire with fire - riiiiight... historically speaking politics has contributed most efficiently towards creating a harmonious lifestyle for the entire planet,
much more so than art or science. :rolleyes:

Don't be an idiot. You know what replaces politics? Violence. As fucked up as government is, it is still infinitely better than absence of it.

raja
07-29-2010, 02:46
Don't be an idiot. You know what replaces politics? Violence. As fucked up as government is, it is still infinitely better than absence of it.

:bang::lmao::confused:



edit: self government perhaps.

the fact that you associate government as the solution to violence and not a contributing source proves that you also have read very little chomsky.

PirateGlen
07-29-2010, 03:04
fire with fire - riiiiight... historically speaking politics has contributed most efficiently towards creating a harmonious lifestyle for the entire planet,
much more so than art or science. :rolleyes:

You're repeatedly demonstrating your inability to comprehend my suggestions and even worse demonstrating a weak understanding of history and politics, thus proving my original point: you don't like politics because you've never really experienced it.

raja
07-29-2010, 03:51
You're repeatedly demonstrating your inability to comprehend my suggestions and even worse demonstrating a weak understanding of history and politics, thus proving my original point: you don't like politics because you've never really experienced it.

no You're repeatedly demonstrating your inability to comprehend my suggestions and even worse demonstrating a weak understanding of history and politics

edit: have you read any chomsky at all?

this thread is proof of how much time and energy "politics" sucks from sharp minds.

im gonna go feed a hungry homeless kid,
see ya.

PirateGlen
07-29-2010, 04:22
no You're repeatedly demonstrating your inability to comprehend my suggestions and even worse demonstrating a weak understanding of history and politics

edit: have you read any chomsky at all?

this thread is proof of how much time and energy "politics" sucks from sharp minds.

im gonna go feed a hungry homeless kid,
see ya.

Aha, you've resorted to the internet classic of "no u". I didn't expect much else from such a weak mind.

edit: You've completely misunderstood either politics or Chomsky if you think he's apolitical.

StrawberryClock
07-29-2010, 08:15
Is anything even about Noam Chomsky anymore?

Rokstarr
07-29-2010, 08:46
Don't be an idiot. You know what replaces politics? Violence. As fucked up as government is, it is still infinitely better than absence of it.

You should try reading.

You might with "Common Sense," by Thomas Paine (far superior to anything Chomsky has ever written regarding politics). Here's a snippet.

"Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness...The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is buy a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

StrawberryClock
07-29-2010, 08:52
You should try reading.

You might with "Common Sense," by Thomas Paine (far superior to anything Chomsky has ever written regarding politics). Here's a snippet.

"Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness...The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is buy a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

Thomas Paine became a well known advocate for wealth redistribution and pensions you know. He didn't view the government as evil when it was utilitarian, but when it was the exact opposite he disliked it.

Furthermore, Chomsky is a successor to Paine, because he heavily criticized governments such as what Paine is against.

Its very narrow to create a view of government based on words in a completely different time, because its hard to represent the government at that time with our present times, especially given the rise of corporations and industrialization.

StrawberryClock
07-29-2010, 09:18
Nearly all of those are complete failures on their own, or complete failures in the face of what has been done in the private sector. Thank you, come again!

Are you willing to contend that the military, education grants, roads, the police, social security and etc. are failures?

This is laughable. Education is of course abysmal but nothing else is.

Adolf Stalin
07-29-2010, 09:27
Nope its actually not

Enjoy your fail

Anyway having fun trolling?


Also this is what happens when you make up BS rights: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2913894/european_union_vacations_a_human_right.h tml




Yes it is. Sorry you're cretinous scum who wants to deny people the right to live a healthy life.

So that is BS because European labor has better rights and is able to accomplish things that benefit the majority of people in those societies?

Rokstarr
07-29-2010, 09:33
Thomas Paine became a well known advocate for wealth redistribution and pensions you know. He didn't view the government as evil when it was utilitarian, but when it was the exact opposite he disliked it.

Furthermore, Chomsky is a successor to Paine, because he heavily criticized governments such as what Paine is against.


That is not an entirely accurate painting of the man, but like I said with a previous quote, the man's other views do not nullify his statement. Or, as Paine wrote in his Pamphlet, "Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man."


However, it's very clear that Paine was very much in favor of laissez-faire government, for example. "Here is the Origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security."

In 'The Rights of Man' Paine certainly does champion on some ideas about the Welfare state, but as Sidney Hook put it: "The inconsistency in Paine is a tribute to his sense of compassion for human suffering, but it reveals a political naivete, probably strengthened by his reading of Rousseau, that blinded him to the realities not only of American life but of life in modern society."

However, I suspect if Paine had the lessons available to him of Socialism that Chomsky does, he would have been singing a different tune. Pain was Naive; Chomsky should know better.



Its very narrow to create a view of government based on words in a completely different time, because its hard to represent the government at that time with our present times, especially given the rise of corporations and industrialization.

Not particularly, governments are pretty much all the same, excepting for their quality, and in that regard, "that which governs least governs best."

You think we're the first generation to have corporations effecting politics? Ever hear of the East India Company?

Corporations, industrialization, technology; these things did and would continue to have existed with or without government.

To think we have some marvelous advantage, or difference in condition of soul then our fathers, other then technology and the ability (in form of chance) to learn from their mistakes, shows immatuirty, arrogance, and a lack of understanding about what has happened and continues to happen in the this world.

"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun."

Kusghuul
07-29-2010, 09:55
You're right, that Margaret Thatcher sure was a tard....

The South English are wondering whether she should have a state funeral. The rest of Britain are debating whether she should be dead before we bury her.

PirateGlen
07-29-2010, 10:37
That is not an entirely accurate painting of the man, but like I said with a previous quote, the man's other views do not nullify his statement. Or, as Paine wrote in his Pamphlet, "Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man."


However, it's very clear that Paine was very much in favor of laissez-faire government, for example. "Here is the Origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security."

In 'The Rights of Man' Paine certainly does champion on some ideas about the Welfare state, but as Sidney Hook put it: "The inconsistency in Paine is a tribute to his sense of compassion for human suffering, but it reveals a political naivete, probably strengthened by his reading of Rousseau, that blinded him to the realities not only of American life but of life in modern society."

However, I suspect if Paine had the lessons available to him of Socialism that Chomsky does, he would have been singing a different tune. Pain was Naive; Chomsky should know better.
"

There you go again, misunderstanding the people you quote. Sidney Hook was a democratic socialist. The naivete of Paine that Hook asserts is not whatever you seem to be claiming it to be. Hook is explaining that Paine shows his compassion for human suffering but is too politically naive to realize that he cannot achieve his goals without government.

This will show Hook's true position on the topic:
It is quite clear, however, that the subsequent development of the United State could never have taken place under the aegis of laissez-faire regime such as Paine favored.

This will show the context of the quote and the above quote:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9Pf3T3vzAT4C&pg=PR28&lpg=PR28&dq=The+inconsistency+in+Paine+is+a+tribu te+to+his+sense+of+compassion+for+human+ suffering,+but+it+reveals+a+political+na ivete,+probably+strengthened+by+his+read ing+of+Rousseau,+that+blinded+him+to+the +realities+not+only+of+American+life+but +of+life+in+modern+society.&source=bl&ots=LO_Ubi0HYE&sig=Jf1rOYxxm6yRFG53hrTcB_qLK58&hl=en&ei=QkVRTMLzPIb2swP8hvxC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20inconsistency%20in%20Paine%20is% 20a%20tribute%20to%20his%20sense%20of%20 compassion%20for%20human%20suffering%2C% 20but%20it%20reveals%20a%20political%20n aivete%2C%20probably%20strengthened%20by %20his%20reading%20of%20Rousseau%2C%20th at%20blinded%20him%20to%20the%20realitie s%20not%20only%20of%20American%20life%20 but%20of%20life%20in%20modern%20society.&f=false

Rokstarr
07-29-2010, 10:54
There you go again, misunderstanding the people you quote. Sidney Hook was a democratic socialist. The naivete of Paine that Hook asserts is not whatever you seem to be claiming it to be. Hook is explaining that Paine shows his compassion for human suffering but is too politically naive to realize that he cannot achieve his goals without government.

This will show Hook's true position on the topic:
It is quite clear, however, that the subsequent development of the United State could never have taken place under the aegis of laissez-faire regime such as Paine favored.

This will show the context of the quote and the above quote:


I have the book right in front of me; there's no debate about Hook being a huge Socialist, he admits it freely.

Hook's position on the topic, however, is not relevant to Paine's position. The quote at the end of the introduction, that you selected, is simply his own belief. The quote that I selected, is descriptive of Paine's position; "For him it is not the absent of government that is not anomalous and must be explained, but it's presence." Hook's own position is counter to this. The naivete he is referring to his own opinion: that man needs government to regulate all his actions, but this is contrary to Paine's own position as to the necessity of government.

Paine's ultimate goal is liberty, the end of abuse of (government) power. Clarified in his own introduction to "Common Sense:"

"The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind....The laying of a Country desolate, with Fire and Sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the concern of every man to whom Nature hath given the power of feeling;..."

ZeroCool
07-29-2010, 10:59
Are you willing to contend that the military, education grants, roads, the police, social security and etc. are failures?

This is laughable. Education is of course abysmal but nothing else is.

lol @ your new sig

StainlessSteelRat
07-29-2010, 11:49
Are you willing to contend that the military, education grants, roads, the police, social security and etc. are failures?

This is laughable. Education is of course abysmal but nothing else is.

Military - are you suggesting the MIC is a success? For the US, that is, not those running it.

Education - lol

Roads - great for Teamsters, how about the rest of us and our oil dependency? Or is being oil dependent OK when discussing our roads? Or the 250k in taxes we pay per mile of interstate each year?

FBI - /shrug how much do they really do? I can't honestly comment one way or another but since it is 'federal' I am skeptical. ;)

SS - lol, complete failure; it has no money, it's a ponzi scheme

PirateGlen
07-29-2010, 12:24
I have the book right in front of me; there's no debate about Hook being a huge Socialist, he admits it freely.

Hook's position on the topic, however, is not relevant to Paine's position. The quote at the end of the introduction, that you selected, is simply his own belief. The quote that I selected, is descriptive of Paine's position; "For him it is not the absent of government that is not anomalous and must be explained, but it's presence." Hook's own position is counter to this. The naivete he is referring to his own opinion: that man needs government to regulate all his actions, but this is contrary to Paine's own position as to the necessity of government.

Paine's ultimate goal is liberty, the end of abuse of (government) power. Clarified in his own introduction to "Common Sense:"

"The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind....The laying of a Country desolate, with Fire and Sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the concern of every man to whom Nature hath given the power of feeling;..."

The problem is that Hook's basis for his conclusion is extremely persuasive. I take the opinion that Paine is not naive but was simply pragmatic, where in the context the best government is that which governs least is appropriate when governance is something alien to your desires, as it would be under a monarchy. Only when his words are removed from context can they be misinterpreted as you have, especially when you must ignore all his other work writing on proper government, taxation, and justice.

It makes no sense to proclaim that he thinks that government is and can only be oppressive. You are attempting to draw a narrow scope of Paine's writing to suit your own personal opinion even though the context of Paine's writing is based on a Parliamentary Monarchy that refused to grant representation to the colonies, contrasted with a constitutional republic that we find ourselves in today, enacting social justice (in part) via progressive taxation, consistent with Paine's recommendations.

raja
07-29-2010, 17:24
Military - are you suggesting the MIC is a success? For the US, that is, not those running it.

Education - lol

Roads - great for Teamsters, how about the rest of us and our oil dependency? Or is being oil dependent OK when discussing our roads? Or the 250k in taxes we pay per mile of interstate each year?

FBI - /shrug how much do they really do? I can't honestly comment one way or another but since it is 'federal' I am skeptical. ;)

SS - lol, complete failure; it has no money, it's a ponzi scheme

ty.

shamer gamer
07-29-2010, 17:39
noam chomsky is a leftist gatekeeper for the zionist empire/nwo.

a gatekeeper facilitates discussion and movements but keeps it within certain boundaries in order to control it. For instance, noam chomsky refuses to acknowledge the power the israeli lobby wields in congress and how they have manipulated the system amongst other things.

the NWO has its "heros" in place in every faction of society in order to control them and try and keep them from revolting against their true aggressors. This is seen in most blatantly in rap music and practically every institution far and wide .

in before dumbass ignoramuses say "crazy conspiracys theorys lawl" :sly:

shamer gamer
07-29-2010, 18:20
strawberryclock are you the same strawberryclock that makes flash movies for newgrounds?

rokstarr is an idiot, im surprised he still posts. some retards have no shame.

MikeJT
07-29-2010, 18:35
Police, military, emergency services, street sweapers, unemployment benefits, public roads...

All examples of what is essentially socialism

Most capitalists are only capitalists whilst it's to their benefit.

When tables turn and the free market is fucking them in the arse for a change, they're suddenly in support of some socialistic policies which mean they're not giving head to truckies for $5 so they can eat something.

Employers who like to think of themselves as strict capitalists still benefit from the megre public health care which is provided to their employees, free of charge, from training and charity hospitals.

Even if you limit the power and the role of government to simply protecting the rights of its citizens, there is still a form of socialism.

Rachsucht
07-29-2010, 20:00
ze jews are secretly ruling the world


Just make sure you don't get whacked by jew assassins for exposing them to forumfall. :ninja:

StrawberryClock
07-29-2010, 20:58
That is not an entirely accurate painting of the man, but like I said with a previous quote, the man's other views do not nullify his statement. Or, as Paine wrote in his Pamphlet, "Who the Author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man."

So who do you suggest that Paine entrust giving wealth redistribution to? He was anti-British government and the elitist structured government, which resembles the one we have today in a way, but he was not anti all forms of government.


However, it's very clear that Paine was very much in favor of laissez-faire government, for example. "Here is the Origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. freedom and security."

Again, my description fits quite well. Because he dislikes that form of government, it doesn't mean he disagrees with a government that has social security, etc.


In 'The Rights of Man' Paine certainly does champion on some ideas about the Welfare state, but as Sidney Hook put it: "The inconsistency in Paine is a tribute to his sense of compassion for human suffering, but it reveals a political naivete, probably strengthened by his reading of Rousseau, that blinded him to the realities not only of American life but of life in modern society."

Intersting how you dismiss Paine like that, and this doesn't refute whether one of his views is superior to the other. In fact, it strengthens his anti-government views as irrational in the face of modern society.


However, I suspect if Paine had the lessons available to him of Socialism that Chomsky does, he would have been singing a different tune. Pain was Naive; Chomsky should know better.

What lessons? The lessons of communist dictatorships, which Chomsky has criticized? Chomsky has recognized that these are ills, but he only wants a stronger government to combat the corporations. His most radical view is the anarchist concept of syndicalism, but its so far off that he relies on socialist and leftist views for practicality.


Not particularly, governments are pretty much all the same, excepting for their quality, and in that regard, "that which governs least governs best."

A government that has stronger controls by the people and therefore has different intentions is much different then for example, a communist dictatorship which had no control by people.


You think we're the first generation to have corporations effecting politics? Ever hear of the East India Company?

This did not affect the American colonies, and so they did not really had a view of it. And another point, it wasn't even a private company by our standards, since much of it was controlled by the British crown. A government company if you will.


Corporations, industrialization, technology; these things did and would continue to have existed with or without government.

Corporations would have much more power without the government, although with our present government it has quite a bit of power. Industrialization in many countries was actually the result of government planning alongside markets. Technology is widely owed to government. Research the weapons industry and the DoD, and you will see how much is actually done by the government.


To think we have some marvelous advantage, or difference in condition of soul then our fathers, other then technology and the ability (in form of chance) to learn from their mistakes, shows immatuirty, arrogance, and a lack of understanding about what has happened and continues to happen in the this world.

Society is much more different. The changes that were brought about by the progression of industrialization gave something they can never imagine. Research the concepts of modernity, and post modernity. Modernity is basically the attitudes and views of the world until the 50's or so. This is anti-traditionalist, non-agarian industrialist, while our stage post modernity is an evolution of that, which the founding fathers could never fathom.


noam chomsky is a leftist gatekeeper for the zionist empire/nwo.

a gatekeeper facilitates discussion and movements but keeps it within certain boundaries in order to control it. For instance, noam chomsky refuses to acknowledge the power the israeli lobby wields in congress and how they have manipulated the system amongst other things.

But they don't. Chomsky is probably Israel's most famous critic and he sees it objectively.

Okay I'll give you cases that Israel is controlled by America, and not vice versa. Well one time Israel was trying to sell some weapons to China, America told them no so they didn't. Another time Israel would recognize North Korea if they stopped giving Syria nuclear tech, America threatened them so they backed off. Okay these are two cases.

If you ever read about Nixon, in one paper his government called Israel and Iran cops on the beat willing to do America's bidding in the mid-east, which shows that it is America with control of Israel.

Before America even touched the Mid-East region, they identified several regions of interest. It just so happens that their allies like Turkey, Indonesia, and etc. were also within proximity and as a result, they also benefited similarly to Israel. Point being is that it is in America's imperial interest to have Israel as a base, like the dozens of other nations around the world.


the NWO has its "heros" in place in every faction of society in order to control them and try and keep them from revolting against their true aggressors. This is seen in most blatantly in rap music and practically every institution far and wide .

in before dumbass ignoramuses say "crazy conspiracys theorys lawl" :sly:

This is probably one of Chomsky's most common criticisms. He stated clearly and talked about the NWO, that is the Bilderberg group and etc. However, he uses the points they make objectively and more rationally to criticize the new corporatist/government structure. That is, they are not secret backdoor meetings, rather the institution that wants total and further American elite control.

For example, during the Vietnam War, he said the reason why it ended was because the corporate powers called the war off. Things like these he verifies with conclusive proof. Conspiracy theorists do not.


strawberryclock are you the same strawberryclock that makes flash movies for newgrounds?

rokstarr is an idiot, im surprised he still posts. some retards have no shame.

No, I took it off the band Strawberry Alarm Clock.

StrawberryClock
07-30-2010, 04:55
Military - are you suggesting the MIC is a success? For the US, that is, not those running it.

No, I should have clarified that. That the military is better then privatized armies, who cost a shit-ton more as well with lower morale.


Education - lol

Grants are pretty important. Ask how it benefits universities.


Roads - great for Teamsters, how about the rest of us and our oil dependency? Or is being oil dependent OK when discussing our roads? Or the 250k in taxes we pay per mile of interstate each year?

The creation of roads and suburbs, in small part, was brought about partly by oil companies. However, our current road system management is better then if it was privatized toll roads.


FBI - /shrug how much do they really do? I can't honestly comment one way or another but since it is 'federal' I am skeptical. ;)

I can't imagine how a private FBI system would work better.


SS - lol, complete failure; it has no money, it's a ponzi scheme

It failed because the government kept stealing from Social Security, otherwise it wasn't that bad. Ask private pension funds, which many were decimated during the collapses.

StainlessSteelRat
07-30-2010, 15:56
No, I should have clarified that. That the military is better then privatized armies, who cost a shit-ton more as well with lower morale.

Grants are pretty important. Ask how it benefits universities.

The creation of roads and suburbs, in small part, was brought about partly by oil companies. However, our current road system management is better then if it was privatized toll roads.

I can't imagine how a private FBI system would work better.

It failed because the government kept stealing from Social Security, otherwise it wasn't that bad. Ask private pension funds, which many were decimated during the collapses.

First of all, we are talking about the federal gov't. Second, we are talking about the absolute value of the success or failure of these ventures so you can stop making up bogus claims about the success or failure of private versions for which you have no data in order to pretend that each venture is somehow successful relative to some arbitrary and imagined benchmark in your mind.


The creation of roads and suburbs, in small part, was brought about partly by oil companies. However, our current road system management is better then if it was privatized toll roads.

On a side note, wtf does this have to do w/ what I posted?

Sharuk
07-30-2010, 18:19
Yes it is. Sorry you're cretinous scum who wants to deny people the right to live a healthy life.

So that is BS because European labor has better rights and is able to accomplish things that benefit the majority of people in those societies?

You really dont have the ability to think do you, anyone i dont remember ever saying we should deny people the right to live

Your a moron who doesnt understand anything and a troll

/killyourself

Captain Kirk
07-30-2010, 18:33
The problem with being an idiot is that eventually you never run out of stupid posts.

Also, grats on being an idiot.

I have to agree with this.

Rachsucht
07-30-2010, 19:04
I have to agree with this.

Yes, "eventually you never run out of stupid posts" is probably the smartest thing he ever said that he didn't regurgitate from Chomsky.

Captain Kirk
07-30-2010, 19:09
Yes, "eventually you never run out of stupid posts" is probably the smartest thing he ever said that he didn't regurgitate from Chomsky.

I like to see idiots following people with some kind of intellect rather then all the idiots following the biggest retards they can find.

Rachsucht
07-30-2010, 19:49
I have to agree with this.


I like to see idiots following people with some kind of intellect rather then all the idiots following the biggest retards they can find.

some kind of intellect = anybody with a similar political ideology

biggest retard = anybody with an opposing political ideology


gtfo

palo god
07-30-2010, 19:55
some kind of intellect = anybody with a similar political ideology

biggest retard = anybody with an opposing political ideology


gtfo

An idiot will see another idiot as an intelligent person if only one of the idiots is a little smarter.

StrawberryClock
07-30-2010, 21:20
First of all, we are talking about the federal gov't. Second, we are talking about the absolute value of the success or failure of these ventures so you can stop making up bogus claims about the success or failure of private versions for which you have no data in order to pretend that each venture is somehow successful relative to some arbitrary and imagined benchmark in your mind.


Nearly all of those are complete failures on their own, or complete failures in the face of what has been done in the private sector. Thank you, come again!

This is what I am replying to. I am comparing it to the private sector by assessing present day private forms of these services. Toll roads exist, correct?

Companies aren't going to let people use their roads for free. A privatized police system won't exist without being absurdly fucked. Private grants cannot even match public grants, which fund way more science and tech in the university level. Private armies, such as blackwater, in theory would be entirely fucked and too costly.

With that being said, you did not provide reason that they are complete failures, rather failures when its applied, or created, or robbed from.


On a side note, wtf does this have to do w/ what I posted?

I wasn't sure why you introduced anti-teamster/road cost argument when I was determining whether roads, not its creation, are failures. And I saw a bit on oil dependancy, and given you strange wording, I thought it was criticism of sprawl.

StrawberryClock
07-30-2010, 21:20
An idiot will see another idiot as an intelligent person if only one of the idiots is a little smarter.

Since I wrecked your arguments, are you resorting to verbal attacks now? Well, feels good man.

palo god
07-30-2010, 21:45
Since I wrecked your arguments, are you resorting to verbal attacks now? Well, feels good man.

Lol? Repeating debunked arguments like a broken record is considered wrecking my argument? I destroyed your argument when I posted the CATO report. Everything after that was just a side show of me humiliating you based on your stupidity, but if it makes you feel better please continue your denialist revisions of reality.

StainlessSteelRat
07-30-2010, 21:58
This is what I am replying to. I am comparing it to the private sector by assessing present day private forms of these services. Toll roads exist, correct?

Companies aren't going to let people use their roads for free. A privatized police system won't exist without being absurdly fucked. Private grants cannot even match public grants, which fund way more science and tech in the university level. Private armies, such as blackwater, in theory would be entirely fucked and too costly.

With that being said, you did not provide reason that they are complete failures, rather failures when its applied, or created, or robbed from.

You neglect the 'or' in Fergy's post. So private armies? No. Private education? Yes, and it's 100% better. Private police? Yes, and it's 100% better but regardless, police aren't federal except FBI. Toll roads? There are a ton and most are gov't run, not private. And what the fuck is the difference between a toll road and a gov't road? You have to pay for both. A private toll road would at least be accountable to its customers and shitty road repair and/or delays would not be acceptable.

Essentially, when any of those items occurs in the private sector, it is done better than what the gov't has done. Fergy never said 'all' of them were done better in the private sector. He said they were all failures or were also done better by the private sector.


I wasn't sure why you introduced anti-teamster/road cost argument when I was determining whether roads, not its creation, are failures. And I saw a bit on oil dependancy, and given you strange wording, I thought it was criticism of sprawl.

The point is, miles and miles of interstate doesn't equate to a successful implementation of travel infrastructure that benefits the average US citizen. What it did do is empower the teamsters, big oil, and Detroit. So the highway system is also a failure imo.

StrawberryClock
07-30-2010, 22:10
You neglect the 'or' in Fergy's post. So private armies? No. Private education? Yes, and it's 100% better. Private police? Yes, and it's 100% better but regardless, police aren't federal except FBI. Toll roads? There are a ton and most are gov't run, not private.

My reply did not make the distinction between what I was replying to initially, and you filled it out using one. I had to clarify my points that I was replying to whether a private system worked better.


And what the fuck is the difference between a toll road and a gov't road? You have to pay for both. A private toll road would at least be accountable to its customers and shitty road repair and/or delays would not be acceptable.

A toll road can be monopolies in many places, a toll road is generally burdensome when switching roads or paying fees, a toll road, it would be very inefficient for city and residential areas.


Essentially, when any of those items occurs in the private sector, it is done better than what the gov't has done. Fergy never said 'all' of them were done better in the private sector. He said they were all failures or were also done better by the private sector.

Yes, and I had to make comparisons to whether private versions succeeded. Private armies would not, private policing would not, etc. Then I compared which failed, of course not much did because last time I checked education grants never failed anybody.

He again did not make the distinction, and neither did I. You made the distinction about which cateogory I was talking about, and when I clarified that I was talking about the private sector category, you said this has nothing to do with it.


The point is, miles and miles of interstate doesn't equate to a successful implementation of travel infrastructure that benefits the average US citizen. What it did do is empower the teamsters, big oil, and Detroit. So the highway system is also a failure imo.

Let me clarify that I did not make the distinction that it being created wasn't a failure, and I'm not up for debate on it. I did say that the system of usage, that is that anybody can use it regardless, is not a failure.

StrawberryClock
07-30-2010, 22:12
Lol? Repeating debunked arguments like a broken record is considered wrecking my argument? I destroyed your argument when I posted the CATO report. Everything after that was just a side show of me humiliating you based on your stupidity, but if it makes you feel better please continue your denialist revisions of reality.

The trouble with these personal retrospective analysis of our debates is that you and I can easily skewer what actually happened. You denying that I wasn't refuted and me saying otherwise also becomes a bit repetitive.

So I advise anyone else to not pay attention to this post and actually read the debate. As I recall, you didn't reply to by rebuttal, did you?

palo god
07-30-2010, 22:33
The trouble with these personal retrospective analysis of our debates is that you and I can easily skewer what actually happened. You denying that I wasn't refuted and me saying otherwise also becomes a bit repetitive.

So I advise anyone else to not pay attention to this post and actually read the debate. As I recall, you didn't reply to by rebuttal, did you?

No, because it wasn't a rebuttal you simply repeated yourself like a broken record after I debunked your argument while you thought that it was still a valid response. I advice anyone to read the WHO report and their criteria for assessment and then read the CATO report to see just how full of shit WHO's rankings are.

StainlessSteelRat
07-30-2010, 23:02
My reply did not make the distinction between what I was replying to initially, and you filled it out using one. I had to clarify my points that I was replying to whether a private system worked better.

But you can't simply make hypothetical shit up in your head and pretend like you've demonstrated that the hypothetical private versions wouldn't work. And once again, his post was that the gov't versions were failures. Don't reply to his post as if to refute it when you are instead going to present a distinct argument of hypothetical bullshit.


He again did not make the distinction, and neither did I. You made the distinction about which cateogory I was talking about, and when I clarified that I was talking about the private sector category, you said this has nothing to do with it.

Yes, he did distinguish. It's implicit in his statement that he is talking about reality and not hypothetical fantasy land.


Let me clarify that I did not make the distinction that it being created wasn't a failure, and I'm not up for debate on it. I did say that the system of usage, that is that anybody can use it regardless, is not a failure.

So what? Stop trying to split hairs. I'm sure there are success stories within public education despite the fact that overall it is a horrible fucking failure. No one gives a shit if you want to argue that some small aspect of some gov't endeavor worked. You're not a politician and we aren't dumbfuck voters gobbling up bullshit.

Education = failure
Military = failure
Interstate Highways = failure

etc.

Captain Kirk
07-31-2010, 13:53
some kind of intellect = anybody with a similar political ideology

biggest retard = anybody with an opposing political ideology


gtfo


Biggest retard = You

Come again.

Biggest retards imo are generally the fanatics that believes something because its what they always have or because everyone else does. The people that follows it blindly and never questions it. The people that just picks a side for the sake of being on one side and not alone.

Silverhandorder
08-01-2010, 00:42
It is superior because people actually get what they pay for instead of watching a pack of assholes fight while their house burns down. The cost is the meager proportion of your taxes that goes to the fire departments.

The status quo is better than what has already proven itself inferior.
How do you know the increase in taxes is less then paying infighting fire fighters?

Exactly you are a one trick pony. All you can do is ignore the arguments presented to you.

PirateGlen
08-01-2010, 01:35
How do you know the increase in taxes is less then paying infighting fire fighters?

Exactly you are a one trick pony. All you can do is ignore the arguments presented to you.
It doesn't matter if the taxes is less because if you don't get what you pay for there's no point in paying anything. You present arguments without any support. You might as well present the argument that private fire fighters would do it perfectly for 50 cents a year even when past history has demonstrated otherwise. Why sell yourself short as long as you're making shit up?

StrawberryClock
08-01-2010, 02:25
But you can't simply make hypothetical shit up in your head and pretend like you've demonstrated that the hypothetical private versions wouldn't work. And once again, his post was that the gov't versions were failures. Don't reply to his post as if to refute it when you are instead going to present a distinct argument of hypothetical bullshit.

No, his post was that the free market either worked better or they failed. I refuted the idea of free markets working better, through analyzing PRESENT free market forms. There is no way to measure except applying what I see right now to a wider level.


Yes, he did distinguish. It's implicit in his statement that he is talking about reality and not hypothetical fantasy land.

No, me and him did not say whether the government failed or the free market worked better on the various topics. You did.


So what? Stop trying to split hairs. I'm sure there are success stories within public education despite the fact that overall it is a horrible fucking failure. No one gives a shit if you want to argue that some small aspect of some gov't endeavor worked. You're not a politician and we aren't dumbfuck voters gobbling up bullshit.

So you can simply dismiss that road system as a giant fucking failure because incidentally there are "failure" stories in a success? Or there are "success" stories in a failure? You are criticizing the same method that you fucking use.


Education = failure
Military = failure
Interstate Highways = failure

etc.

The military failed? They are way too excessive but they didn't fail. Education is failing but its not entirely failed since American education does have many good schools such as for example, Stuyvesant. Highways are debatable.

Silverhandorder
08-03-2010, 22:34
It doesn't matter if the taxes is less because if you don't get what you pay for there's no point in paying anything. You present arguments without any support. You might as well present the argument that private fire fighters would do it perfectly for 50 cents a year even when past history has demonstrated otherwise. Why sell yourself short as long as you're making shit up?

The only thing that history has demonstrated was that there was firefighter infighting. A response to that was public take over. Now you claim it is better. I ask by what measure. This is my argument you can't measure the benefit or the cost that was imposed.

My theory is that the established firefighters wanted a monopoly for them selves and lobbied for government to make them the official fire fighters. They might have even instigated infighting. Point being it is not so simple just to give me a quote with no context and expect for me to bow down to such a weak reasoning.

Also it matters if you pay less taxes or not. If I pay less taxes that means I get to decide who I employ to rescue my house. And even if I don't get a choice (what originally started this argument) I get to purchase the service on my terms.

PirateGlen
08-03-2010, 23:27
The only thing that history has demonstrated was that there was firefighter infighting. A response to that was public take over. Now you claim it is better. I ask by what measure. This is my argument you can't measure the benefit or the cost that was imposed.

My theory is that the established firefighters wanted a monopoly for them selves and lobbied for government to make them the official fire fighters. They might have even instigated infighting. Point being it is not so simple just to give me a quote with no context and expect for me to bow down to such a weak reasoning.

Also it matters if you pay less taxes or not. If I pay less taxes that means I get to decide who I employ to rescue my house. And even if I don't get a choice (what originally started this argument) I get to purchase the service on my terms.

So your response is... "No it's not, but I have no evidence."

ElNarco
08-04-2010, 08:35
This is exactly the same argument that I have seen leftwing libertarians say about libertarians.

Your solution to corporations and the systematic shafting that has historically and present-day occurred under them is that they should have more power with less government.

No, our libertarian solution is that we eliminate the present forms of intimidation, through government policy and funding, and ENFORCE rules AGAINST coercion and corporate fucking ups.

It is a hard task to create a working government that protects liberties from corporations, but it seems no more harder then destroying it entirely.


Our solution is that the people should band together and fight against corporations to end these injustices.

But why is it necessary to collectivize in that idea? We libertarians can promote free market ideals, and simultaneously enforce laws against corporate abuse of power. Destroying a working model is pointless.


Many Welsh, Scots and Northern Englishmen agree with you. They fucking hate her for devastating their economy. Not sure why this was used though as a reply.

But she created a new economy, based on trading and capitalism in the Southwest England. Who cares if she destroyed the economies elsewhere, they weren't needed in England anyways since the new British economy was more geared towards the new capitalist system.

ElNarco
08-04-2010, 08:44
Being forced to participate in "sharing" doesn't happen though. A simple way to not share, pull a John Galt on society.[QUOTE]

It depends on how you define sharing. Was it sharing before the creation of redistribution? No. They worked on those terms.

[QUOTE]As opposed to 30something percent in the U.S, but having to pay for shitty healthcare that can potentially bankrupt you right?

Much of our taxes are due to the fact that the U.S boasts a much larger military then the combined world. If we were to eliminate that, our tax percentages would be shaved by about 20-25%, which leaves it as around 25%. Further shaving of social security would lower it.


Yes yes, socialism is failing in Canada. I think tomorrow I might have to rob a bank to pay for my health care and education.

Socialism, while it isn't failing, is too unflexable. Canada right now is experiencing an age average shift, causing instability on pensions, healthcare, and social services. That is one reason for Canadian immigration, in order to sustain the older population's service.


That again doesn't change the fact that if you want to work within a society you have to agree to its tenants. Society isn't a construct of individuals suddenly banding together. It was a conscious formation that was envisioned.

Perhaps those individuals had constructed a society but promoted ideals of individuality and capitalism, doesn't that mean that that society was hijacked and morphed? Does that make it right for the people if society transformed from capitalism into modern socialism?


I think its funny how this is your reply. He didn't imply total taxation but necessary taxation for necessary functioning in a society.

We are debating the necessity of what to tax right?


No, that's the old anarcho-syndicalist dilemna. Either more government to fight corporations, or less of government in order to fight corporations. The fact however is that total destruction idea would not work because corporations would still exist more or less.

Why can't the government fight corporate powers, but within a mold that does not make the government "care" for social services, but protect them from harm or obstruction of liberty.

A government that says, hey you cannot almost kill your workers with these chemicals, would be still promoting the idea that the government is only there to protect people from each other.

Silverhandorder
08-04-2010, 13:56
So your response is... "No it's not, but I have no evidence."

Neither do you yet you claim with veracity that you are right. I am trying to hold a dialogue while you are getting all sandy in the vagina over socialism.

PirateGlen
08-04-2010, 19:35
Neither do you yet you claim with veracity that you are right. I am trying to hold a dialogue while you are getting all sandy in the vagina over socialism.

I presented multiple sources that show what happened under a private system of fire fighting. You've proposed that getting the services one pays for is worse than that without any evidence that a private system would be cheaper or provide better results, it's just more religious utopian abstraction from you.

Strangia
08-04-2010, 20:31
Neither do you yet you claim with veracity that you are right. I am trying to hold a dialogue while you are getting all sandy in the vagina over socialism.

"Claiming with veracity you are right" should be entered into the Department of Redundancy Department's Databases.

StrawberryClock
08-08-2010, 01:56
No, our libertarian solution is that we eliminate the present forms of intimidation, through government policy and funding, and ENFORCE rules AGAINST coercion and corporate fucking ups.

No, but the problem with that on any practical level is that almost all forms of political power eventually devolves to revolving around economic power. If libertarian socialism existed, then political power would revolve around the economic power, the people, rather then individual oligarchs.


It is a hard task to create a working government that protects liberties from corporations, but it seems no more harder then destroying it entirely.

Not at all. Again as I said, a foundation doesn't imply freedom from corruption. I'm certain no other group can get idealistic as the founding fathers, yet within months of the creation of the United States, they were quickly overwhelm with problems that were anti-enlightenment ideals. Take the constitution, not a trace of enlightenment principles except the later added bill of rights. Total destruction assures it will never be an issue.


But why is it necessary to collectivize in that idea? We libertarians can promote free market ideals, and simultaneously enforce laws against corporate abuse of power. Destroying a working model is pointless.

I'd agree, that capitalism is a better alternative then feudalism because it allows creative expression. But that libertarian socialism allows greater creative expression in a democratic manner.

Collectivizing is easily the strongest way to solidify and reinforce an ideal, as individuals can easily manipulate individuals but harder to manipulate whole groups.


But she created a new economy, based on trading and capitalism in the Southwest England. Who cares if she destroyed the economies elsewhere, they weren't needed in England anyways since the new British economy was more geared towards the new capitalist system.

The new British economy meant that many lost homes, and that the Rich were able to own MORE things. Because of some economic industries growing under her cannot be attributed to her, since the financial capitalist system has been growing anyways since the 70's.

It is possible that both of these would simultaneously exist, as British steel was still in strong demand until she destroyed it.



It depends on how you define sharing. Was it sharing before the creation of redistribution? No. They worked on those terms.

It can be maybe called plundering or stealing when for example, someone creates wealth then sometime later someone else says hand that over. However, that is not how income taxes work, because they continue to work in a society that has changed its laws, and thereby agreeing to hand over that wealth. I think my idea still applies.


Much of our taxes are due to the fact that the U.S boasts a much larger military then the combined world. If we were to eliminate that, our tax percentages would be shaved by about 20-25%, which leaves it as around 25%. Further shaving of social security would lower it.

Yes, that is true, which shows how inefficient the military-industrial state is. However, you are also denying the per-capita expenses of healthcare, since its much more financially burdensome then taxing your wealth. Social security exists OUTSIDE of income taxes by the way.


Socialism, while it isn't failing, is too unflexable. Canada right now is experiencing an age average shift, causing instability on pensions, healthcare, and social services. That is one reason for Canadian immigration, in order to sustain the older population's service.

Socialism is actually pretty flexable given how much more productive workers are today then before. It would work in Canada because Canadian society is many times more productive now then ever.


Perhaps those individuals had constructed a society but promoted ideals of individuality and capitalism, doesn't that mean that that society was hijacked and morphed? Does that make it right for the people if society transformed from capitalism into modern socialism?

The problem is however, that society isn't a solid unmorphable structure. It is ever changing according to the changing attitudes and technology of people. If you were to make an argument, that for example, feudalism is the ideal system despite changing economic systems, it can fit with capitalism and modern socialism.


Why can't the government fight corporate powers, but within a mold that does not make the government "care" for social services, but protect them from harm or obstruction of liberty.

The anarcho-socialist belief is that "social services" should be provided to all according to their labor, and that capitalism is an inefficient mode to providing due wages and compensation so group association for these rights must be done.


A government that says, hey you cannot almost kill your workers with these chemicals, would be still promoting the idea that the government is only there to protect people from each other.

Because that implies stronger governments rather then individuals/corporations having control over their own business, which is a no go to most libertarians.

palo god
08-08-2010, 03:35
Why are you debating with yourself rocky?

StrawberryClock
08-08-2010, 04:58
Why are you debating with yourself rocky?

Who says that was me?

Ausei
08-08-2010, 07:07
on that e-mail you said you debated with your friends. Is forumfall your 'friends'?

StrawberryClock
08-08-2010, 17:40
on that e-mail you said you debated with your friends. Is forumfall your 'friends'?

No, not at all. Most forumfallers are imo, idiots. There are maybe five or six people I pay attention to because there posts aren't worthless talking points.

That's the reason why I debated myself in the last page. I thought I should apply the Hegelian concept of dialectics since it'd probably be more interesting then debating others.

Silverhandorder
08-08-2010, 20:39
You lost your mind... Everyone is ignoring you here.

Banka plixz
08-08-2010, 21:17
Looked like an auto-reply mail lol

Reckun
08-08-2010, 22:02
Looked like an auto-reply mail lol

ahhhh don't crush strawberry's dream of one day sucking chomsky's dick :(

StrawberryClock
08-08-2010, 22:16
You lost your mind... Everyone is ignoring you here.

I thought you lost yours when you stopped arguing and started name calling in debates.


Looked like an auto-reply mail lol

No, not really. Its short, but the answer he gives is a clear reply. Evolution of thinking, course you are pursuing, him visiting Toronto etc. all fit in.

Not only that, but he's someone who actually replies to all of his emails.

Silverhandorder
08-08-2010, 22:25
I thought you lost yours when you stopped arguing and started name calling in debates.

Rocky you don't debate stop making us all laugh. You fucking recite gibberish that you think sounds like Chomsky.

StrawberryClock
08-08-2010, 22:33
Rocky you don't debate stop making us all laugh. You fucking recite gibberish that you think sounds like Chomsky.

Okay.

I thought I had an excellent post here. (http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?t=256406)

Mind telling me what exactly was gibberish? While you on the other hand start dismissing global warming because "no countries are taking action" and because "global cooling was the issue in the 70's."

Laughable because of the Kyoto accord, furthermore laughable because understanding of climate change back then was nothing like it is today.

Silverhandorder
08-08-2010, 23:09
You linked me to a post where you are agreeing with a guy and some how that is supposed to be a good post? It is more like a needless post since both of you are essentially in agreement. Overall it was just too long repeating the same thing for a paragraph then bringing an example without explaining it and then going off tangent on academia.

Magnum1
08-08-2010, 23:15
I haven't read your drivel to know what you stole. But socialism is stealing.

Don't bother. It's the same shit most communists agree on and of course socialism (communism lite) is stealing.

What will be interesting over the next decade+ will be watching how far Europe implodes starting with Greece. The U.S. isn't far behind either and hopefully a nice worldwide depression occurs that wakes people up that they need to actually earn a living rather than sit around on another persons dime and hard earned labor. Only so much cash for freebies and the tab is due ... about time.

Won't get that far IMO before the Middle East erupts and that will be a godsend. Wipe it off the map so go Israel.

StrawberryClock
08-08-2010, 23:29
You linked me to a post where you are agreeing with a guy and some how that is supposed to be a good post? It is more like a needless post since both of you are essentially in agreement. Overall it was just too long repeating the same thing for a paragraph then bringing an example without explaining it and then going off tangent on academia.

That is a good post because it does not show this so called gibberish. You were supposed to state that I am speaking gibberish and ripping off Chomsky you fucktard.

Its not needless because a thread isn't necessarily always a debate since it can be a discussion too.


Don't bother. It's the same shit most communists agree on and of course socialism (communism lite) is stealing.

Stop talking. This has already been explained.


What will be interesting over the next decade+ will be watching how far Europe implodes starting with Greece. The U.S. isn't far behind either and hopefully a nice worldwide depression occurs that wakes people up that they need to actually earn a living rather than sit around on another persons dime and hard earned labor. Only so much cash for freebies and the tab is due ... about time.

Yes Mr. Greatest Economist Alive, you can clearly see how Europe and the world is going to explode when trends indicate that the world is shifting out of the recession.

One of the most annoying things is when some idiot comes in parading his beliefs like they are fact.

The only thing libertarians have it going for there end-of-world belief is a "second crash".


Won't get that far IMO before the Middle East erupts and that will be a godsend. Wipe it off the map so go Israel.

It wouldn't erupt since everything is under American pacification. Iran won't fight a war anytime soon, unless America starts it.

Silverhandorder
08-08-2010, 23:35
I could rip your grammar, the main reason why everything you write is gibberish, but then I would get grammar nazis on my ass too.

Anyways world is moving out of recession and particularly the east. The west is yet to experience the pain of recession.

Libertarians have one thing to say about all of this and that is the current level of government is not sustainable. I would not mischaracterize their views if I were you. That is the easiest way to get discredited on a forum, when you put words in some one else mouth.

Magnum1
08-09-2010, 00:06
[/QUOTE]It wouldn't erupt since everything is under American pacification. Iran won't fight a war anytime soon, unless America starts it.[/QUOTE]

Basement dwelling thought. If you would take a look beyond your self-importance you'd learn something, rather than rant on about your ignorance of the real world on an MMO forum thread.

Keep reading propaganda.

Silverhandorder
08-09-2010, 00:12
Actually I would agree with him on no war with Iran. Military industrial complex is interested in a war any war not in starting more wars. Americans are already scared shitless and they are fleecing us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They need no reason to go for Iran.

StrawberryClock
08-09-2010, 02:26
Actually I would agree with him on no war with Iran. Military industrial complex is interested in a war any war not in starting more wars. Americans are already scared shitless and they are fleecing us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They need no reason to go for Iran.

I doubt an invasion would happen. They are going to attack with bombs and etc. but no initial war will happen unless worst comes to worst and Iran retaliates.

Bush was exceptional since most conservatives even recognized his faction were radical nationalists and Obama and the same backers he have don't seem as belligerent.



Basement dwelling thought. If you would take a look beyond your self-importance you'd learn something, rather than rant on about your ignorance of the real world on an MMO forum thread.

Keep reading propaganda.

I love these type of responses. Basically, most responses in an argument would use facts and knowledge particular to a specific case. Like for example, you are debating economics and you use specific graphs and numbers, or logic and you use the correct logic.

However, this argument is, while ad hominem in nature, seeks to criticize methods on such a broad way. I mean, the best part is that you can take this very piece and apply it countlessly, like how I can use this reply to you and would still sound right.


I could rip your grammar, the main reason why everything you write is gibberish, but then I would get grammar nazis on my ass too.

I thought my email was understandable by all, I thought my replies were also understandable as well.

Perhaps its a matter of a biased perception, where you lack comprehension skills but refuse to accept that and in a mode of cognitive dissonance, rationalize that I am at fault.


Anyways world is moving out of recession and particularly the east. The west is yet to experience the pain of recession.

Which is why stock markets are climbing again after taking the worst dive, which is why unemployment has settled and in some cases reversing. Yes, we haven't felt the pain of the recession. I think your grammar is off here, as you stated we haven't even felt the "pain".:rolleyes:


Libertarians have one thing to say about all of this and that is the current level of government is not sustainable. I would not mischaracterize their views if I were you. That is the easiest way to get discredited on a forum, when you put words in some one else mouth.

I am not even debating that point. I am debating the libertarian belief on whether the economy will re-collapse or not. This is the belief, since a downward trend is not occurring.

PirateGlen
08-09-2010, 06:20
Basement dwelling thought. If you would take a look beyond your self-importance you'd learn something, rather than rant on about your ignorance of the real world on an MMO forum thread.

Keep reading propaganda.

How is this not an equally appropriate response to your own post?

Magnum1
08-11-2010, 07:50
How is this not an equally appropriate response to your own post?

What most don't understand about individuals who think like the original poster, is that he and many other youths have no real world experience in the beliefs they espouse. It's a primary focus of the Marxist, Socialist, Communist or even Anarchist. Reach the young and influence them before capitalism and free thought are taken hold of.

Noam is an Anarchist at heart. His own words and they can easily be found ... just check wiki if you don't have the ability to research for original sources.

Chomsky's beliefs are based on classical liberalism or progressivism if you want to be kind. Back in the days when eugenics was discussed and written about by the big government types and those that believed the "small man" or non intelligent individuals needed to be weeded out by sterilizing the masses. True stuff, just research it. It was huge at the end of the 1800's and beginning of the 1900's. Republican President Teddy Roosevelt and Democrat President Woodrow Wilson were believers in such tactics. Awful stuff.

These beliefs were largely expressed by many in the '20's and '30's and had a slight comeback in the '60's but still failed.

But still today, the young, naive, seemingly oppressed or just downright bored fall into this pit and many never come out. Sad and pathetic ... but it's all been seen before.

One of my favorite interviews with the nutcase is with a sort of hero of mine in many ways .. William F. Buckley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

PirateGlen
08-11-2010, 17:40
What most don't understand about individuals who think like the original poster, is that he and many other youths have no real world experience in the beliefs they espouse. It's a primary focus of the Marxist, Socialist, Communist or even Anarchist. Reach the young and influence them before capitalism and free thought are taken hold of.

Noam is an Anarchist at heart. His own words and they can easily be found ... just check wiki if you don't have the ability to research for original sources.

Chomsky's beliefs are based on classical liberalism or progressivism if you want to be kind. Back in the days when eugenics was discussed and written about by the big government types and those that believed the "small man" or non intelligent individuals needed to be weeded out by sterilizing the masses. True stuff, just research it. It was huge at the end of the 1800's and beginning of the 1900's. Republican President Teddy Roosevelt and Democrat President Woodrow Wilson were believers in such tactics. Awful stuff.

These beliefs were largely expressed by many in the '20's and '30's and had a slight comeback in the '60's but still failed.

But still today, the young, naive, seemingly oppressed or just downright bored fall into this pit and many never come out. Sad and pathetic ... but it's all been seen before.

One of my favorite interviews with the nutcase is with a sort of hero of mine in many ways .. William F. Buckley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

None of this answers the question.

StrawberryClock
08-11-2010, 21:28
What most don't understand about individuals who think like the original poster, is that he and many other youths have no real world experience in the beliefs they espouse. It's a primary focus of the Marxist, Socialist, Communist or even Anarchist. Reach the young and influence them before capitalism and free thought are taken hold of.

Okay. Sure is alot of assumptions all up in here.

Can I argue that the founding fathers had no real world experience in establishing a limited government, which ultimately failed and had to be replaced by a stronger government a few years later?


Noam is an Anarchist at heart. His own words and they can easily be found ... just check wiki if you don't have the ability to research for original sources.

Chomsky's beliefs are based on classical liberalism or progressivism if you want to be kind. Back in the days when eugenics was discussed and written about by the big government types and those that believed the "small man" or non intelligent individuals needed to be weeded out by sterilizing the masses. True stuff, just research it. It was huge at the end of the 1800's and beginning of the 1900's. Republican President Teddy Roosevelt and Democrat President Woodrow Wilson were believers in such tactics. Awful stuff.

Your Chomsky bit is correct and based on basic knowledge, but when I started seeing an eugenics connection I had to :lmao:.

Anyhow, I fail to see how this is a connection to Chomsky's belief since Chomsky would be sickened by any idea such as that.


These beliefs were largely expressed by many in the '20's and '30's and had a slight comeback in the '60's but still failed.

But still today, the young, naive, seemingly oppressed or just downright bored fall into this pit and many never come out. Sad and pathetic ... but it's all been seen before.

This is hilariously wrong. The beliefs that resurged in the 60's were democratic, anti-imperialist/corporatism beliefs.

I'm sure you have fundamental misunderstandings about politics, but when you are speaking about things you have no knowledge of, its just laughable.


One of my favorite interviews with the nutcase is with a sort of hero of mine in many ways .. William F. Buckley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

Wow, I always see this link get posted to glorify Chomsky, since he does entirely smash Buckley. He had to resort to sarcasm, threats, and etc. because he was getting wrecked on all points.

After the show, Buckley raged at Chomsky apparently.

Rokstarr
08-11-2010, 22:02
http://sciencestage.com/v/1038/anarchism-101-with-noam-chomsky.html

I love how he spends the first 3 minutes explaining the position of our founding fathers, paraphrasing the US Dec. Of Independence, and then tries to claim that there are far more levels of consciousness for the natures of structure of domination today then our own revolutionaries had in their day.... :bang:

This is your intellectual?

StrawberryClock
08-11-2010, 22:21
http://sciencestage.com/v/1038/anarchism-101-with-noam-chomsky.html

I love how he spends the first 3 minutes explaining the position of our founding fathers, paraphrasing the US Dec. Of Independence, and then tries to claim that there are far more levels of consciousness for the natures of structure of domination today then our own revolutionaries had in their day.... :bang:

This is your intellectual?

Yes. I don't see how he's wrong.

His interpretation of some of the founding fathers are spot on, nothing wrong with paraphrasing and the awareness of today's hegemony of power is much stronger today. I mean, it wasn't on a broad level, since most American's don't realize it though but the knowledge behind identifying and criticizing it is there.

EDIT: This one is awesome because I use to live pretty close to the place he's speaking at.

PirateGlen
08-11-2010, 22:36
http://sciencestage.com/v/1038/anarchism-101-with-noam-chomsky.html

I love how he spends the first 3 minutes explaining the position of our founding fathers, paraphrasing the US Dec. Of Independence, and then tries to claim that there are far more levels of consciousness for the natures of structure of domination today then our own revolutionaries had in their day.... :bang:

This is your intellectual?
I didn't check the link, but modern intellectual consciousness has grown far beyond the understanding held by the founding fathers. It's not their fault, really. People aren't really aware of potential problems until confronted by them. We can only speculate on what side the intellectuals of 200 years ago would find themselves when accompanied by modern context and history.

StainlessSteelRat
08-12-2010, 12:11
I didn't check the link, but modern intellectual consciousness has grown far beyond the understanding held by the founding fathers. It's not their fault, really. People aren't really aware of potential problems until confronted by them. We can only speculate on what side the intellectuals of 200 years ago would find themselves when accompanied by modern context and history.

I would have to disagree w/ that assessment. I think we are far more immature and unaware. I don't think there is anyone around today that could do a better job laying down a framework for government that would be applicable 200 years later w/ all the change that has occurred.

Only our limitations require us to pervert the Constitution in order to "apply" it. It actually holds all the answers on its own merits despite 'modern context and history'.

PirateGlen
08-12-2010, 21:29
I would have to disagree w/ that assessment. I think we are far more immature and unaware. I don't think there is anyone around today that could do a better job laying down a framework for government that would be applicable 200 years later w/ all the change that has occurred.

Only our limitations require us to pervert the Constitution in order to "apply" it. It actually holds all the answers on its own merits despite 'modern context and history'.

Eh... having greater awareness of the various structures of domination has nothing to do with (mis)interpreting the constitution. If you disagree with that assessment you're probably just ignorant of all the philosophical and political developments which help us understand the various methods of domination.

Silverhandorder
08-12-2010, 22:31
Eh... having greater awareness of the various structures of domination has nothing to do with (mis)interpreting the constitution. If you disagree with that assessment you're probably just ignorant of all the philosophical and political developments which help us understand the various methods of domination.

You are such an elitist. I think for the most part philosophy stayed stagnant from the days of the Greeks.

PirateGlen
08-12-2010, 23:30
You are such an elitist. I think for the most part philosophy stayed stagnant from the days of the Greeks.

Well that kinda explains why you are stupid. Being elitist is only bad if it's partisan. It is good to be elitist against ignorance.

Silverhandorder
08-12-2010, 23:43
Well that kinda explains why you are stupid. Being elitist is only bad if it's partisan. It is good to be elitist against ignorance.

So just because you are smarter then some one you should be able to tell that person how to live their life? Because that is what they thought of slaves back in the day?

edit: If that is what you truly believe why not have voter exams? Why not only allow the tax payers ability to vote. And by taxpayers I mean people who put in more then take out. All of these measures will allow the better members of the society to decide.

Rokstarr
08-13-2010, 02:46
Eh... having greater awareness of the various structures of domination has nothing to do with (mis)interpreting the constitution. If you disagree with that assessment you're probably just ignorant of all the philosophical and political developments which help us understand the various methods of domination.

I think it's reasonable to assume that people who lived in the times of relevant monarchies, slavery, etc. had a greater understanding of it then we do in modern times.

I always find it astonishing when people make the claim that we are more enlightened then our fathers, as if they weren't as intelligent. We have more advanced technology, for sure; but that has nothing to do with philosophy.

PirateGlen
08-13-2010, 03:12
I think it's reasonable to assume that people who lived in the times of relevant monarchies, slavery, etc. had a greater understanding of it then we do in modern times.

I always find it astonishing when people make the claim that we are more enlightened then our fathers, as if they weren't as intelligent. We have more advanced technology, for sure; but that has nothing to do with philosophy.

And I think the people who lived in the times of the industrial revolution have greater understanding of that time than the founding fathers. I never said they weren't as intelligent. Specifically, I was making the point that they were ignorant of the things learned since their death, just as previous philosophers were ignorant of what the founding fathers knew.

PirateGlen
08-13-2010, 03:16
So just because you are smarter then some one you should be able to tell that person how to live their life? Because that is what they thought of slaves back in the day?

edit: If that is what you truly believe why not have voter exams? Why not only allow the tax payers ability to vote. And by taxpayers I mean people who put in more then take out. All of these measures will allow the better members of the society to decide.

I don't know where you infer these things from the very simple statements I make. Something that is better is by definition better. You seemed to make the claim that it is elitist to favor knowledge over ignorance. But in that context elistism is good because knowledge IS better than ignorance.

I made the supposition that StainlessSteelRat holds his opinion because he is ignorant and that if he had greater knowledge of what has occurred philosophically since 1800 he would not hold that opinion. I've no idea what any of that has to do with telling people how to live their life.

Rokstarr
08-13-2010, 03:24
And I think the people who lived in the times of the industrial revolution have greater understanding of that time than the founding fathers. I never said they weren't as intelligent. Specifically, I was making the point that they were ignorant of the things learned since their death, just as previous philosophers were ignorant of what the founding fathers knew.

My second paragraph wasn't in reference to you, btw; rather a general statement. Apologies if you took it as a personal shot.


What do you suppose has been learned philosophically about structures of domination since the time of our founding fathers?

Silverhandorder
08-13-2010, 03:44
PG you admitted to being elitist so I am not inferring anything. Look up the definition if elitism. It is pretty much bad to be elitist no matter what.

PirateGlen
08-13-2010, 03:48
My second paragraph wasn't in reference to you, btw; rather a general statement. Apologies if you took it as a personal shot.


What do you suppose has been learned philosophically about structures of domination since the time of our founding fathers?

It is my general understanding of the time that the primary if not the only form of power was government power. The supposition is that if only we can eliminate or at least diminish government power, the people will be liberated from domination. This makes sense because the primary form of domination they experienced was from the monarchy. Since then, mainstream philosophy has come to accept that power and domination is an intrinsic component of nearly all if not every relationship.

While some might reject this understanding of power of domination because of their politics, I think you can retain the same politics and accept that understanding because even if we accept that understanding it is still a political issue in determining which relations of power governments (or other institutions) ought to intervene in.

PirateGlen
08-13-2010, 04:49
PG you admitted to being elitist so I am not inferring anything. Look up the definition if elitism. It is pretty much bad to be elitist no matter what.

I admitted to being elitist against ignorance.

Silverhandorder
08-13-2010, 04:54
I admitted to being elitist against ignorance.

So you think you better then ignorant people?

PirateGlen
08-13-2010, 06:07
So you think you better then ignorant people?

If we accept that it is better to be knowledgeable rather than ignorant (which I do), then it's fair to say that a person who is knowledgeable in a certain area is better than a person who is not at least for the purposes of comparing them in that area.

Silverhandorder
08-13-2010, 06:48
If we accept that it is better to be knowledgeable rather than ignorant (which I do), then it's fair to say that a person who is knowledgeable in a certain area is better than a person who is not at least for the purposes of comparing them in that area.

Should the ignorant have their votes counted?

Jedicake
08-13-2010, 06:55
This thread is getting a lot of pages

PirateGlen
08-13-2010, 08:52
Should the ignorant have their votes counted?

Why shouldn't they?