mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Aug 2, 2006 19:27:27 GMT -5
Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a materialist, small-government, free-trade, controlled-market kind of person, who also seems quite Marxist.
These characteristics would put you in the overall category of Marxist. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Communism area.
Below, on this page, is an analysis of the (up to) eight categories that you were sorted into above, and an explanation of how you scored on the eight scales used to determine these categorisations.
The pages following this one show the breakdown of results for all participants on each question. You can freely navigate through the pages by using the hyperlinks in the top right of each page.
Individual vs Social
"The individualist believes that society works best through a focus on individual rights, freedoms, actions and responsibilities. The social thinker believes that the ideal state should focus more upon collective action and take a social approach to rights and responsibilities."
Individual
Social
You scored 51 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.
* 38% of test takers were more individual than you.
* 60% of test takers were more social than you.
Theist vs Materialist
"The materialist believes that all objective criteria to influence politics can be reasonably derived without recourse to the divine or the spiritual. The theist believes that spiritual beliefs are important and should influence government policy."
Theist
Materialist
You scored 89 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.
* 92% of test takers were more theist than you.
* 7% of test takers were more materialist than you.
Big Government vs Small Government
"The big government advocate believes that governments should be responsible for regulating a wide array of social practices, even what might be considered personal decisions such as abortion, euthanasia, children's education and births. A small government advocate thinks that, wherever possible, these issues should be up to individuals or companies to direct."
Big Gov
Small Gov
You scored 82 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.
* 91% of test takers were more big government than you.
* 8% of test takers were more small government than you.
Nationalist vs Internationalist
"The nationalist believes in the sovereign rule of nation states, particularly his or her own. The internationalist believes that there should be more important international fora and perhaps, ultimately, international government."
National
International
You scored 54 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to favour international bodies over national ones.
* 36% of test takers were more nationalist than you.
* 62% of test takers were more internationalist than you.
Protectionist vs Free Trader
"The protectionist believes in barriers against free trade most probably due to a belief that this is in his or her country's interests. The free trader rejects such notions, believing that the system ultimately suffers when tariffs, subsidies and other obstacles to free trade persist."
Protection
Free-Trade
You scored 61 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are more likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.
* 62% of test takers were more protectionist than you.
* 37% of test takers were more pro free trade than you.
Absolutist vs Non-Absolutist
"The absolutist believes that either a divine presence or scientific laws provide absolute truths about the world, which can and should be applied in practise. The non-absolutist may be either a relativist, or simply someone who is more pragmatic."
Absolute
Non-Absolute
You scored 55 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.
* 40% of test takers were more absolutist than you.
* 56% of test takers were more non-absolutist than you.
Controlled Market vs Liberal Market
"Both of these categories assume a capitalist system. Assuming this system, the controlled market believer holds that government should intervene in regulating a nation's economy: wage laws, environmental standards, privatised industries and workplace relations policy. A liberal market thinker believes that such regulation is unnecessary and often counter-productive."
Controlled
Liberal
You scored 39 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.
* 52% of test takers were more controlled market thinkers than you.
* 45% of test takers were more liberal market thinkers than you.
Marxist vs Non-Marxist
"This scale purports to show to what extent you follow the thought and teachings of Marx. Marxists tend to be scientific, materialist and revolutionary, believe in class struggle and the laws of historical and dialectic materialism."
Marxist
Non-Marxist
You scored 32 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are more likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.
* 16% of test takers were more Marxist than you.
* 83% of test takers were more non-Marxist than you.
|
|
pilaf
Foreman
Out of step with the world
Posts: 455
|
Post by pilaf on Aug 4, 2006 11:50:50 GMT -5
Pilaf, on your avvie: REAGAN SMASH! REAGEN SMASH!  The homeless population exploded under his presidency, and he never once addressed the issue. I'm more of a Carterite myself. |
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 4, 2006 13:18:10 GMT -5
Some of these questions were quite ridiculous. Some didn't address political beliefs, but rather asked questions that were more proposition of fact than proposition of policy. I did not like that. I ended up lying on some in order to not totally skew my results based on the stupidity of the questions. But, meh. Here's my scores:
Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a socially-orientated, materialist, small-government, nationalist, protectionist, non-absolutist, controlled-market kind of person, who also seems quite Marxist.
These characteristics would put you in the overall category of Marxist. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Communism area.
Below, on this page, is an analysis of the (up to) eight categories that you were sorted into above, and an explanation of how you scored on the eight scales used to determine these categorisations.
The pages following this one show the breakdown of results for all participants on each question. You can freely navigate through the pages by using the hyperlinks in the top right of each page.
Individual vs Social
"The individualist believes that society works best through a focus on individual rights, freedoms, actions and responsibilities. The social thinker believes that the ideal state should focus more upon collective action and take a social approach to rights and responsibilities."
You scored 88 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are more likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.
* 98% of test takers were more individual than you.
* 1% of test takers were more social than you.
Theist vs Materialist
"The materialist believes that all objective criteria to influence politics can be reasonably derived without recourse to the divine or the spiritual. The theist believes that spiritual beliefs are important and should influence government policy."
You scored 78 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.
* 78% of test takers were more theist than you.
* 21% of test takers were more materialist than you.
Big Government vs Small Government
"The big government advocate believes that governments should be responsible for regulating a wide array of social practices, even what might be considered personal decisions such as abortion, euthanasia, children's education and births. A small government advocate thinks that, wherever possible, these issues should be up to individuals or companies to direct."
You scored 76 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.
* 85% of test takers were more big government than you.
* 14% of test takers were more small government than you.
Nationalist vs Internationalist
"The nationalist believes in the sovereign rule of nation states, particularly his or her own. The internationalist believes that there should be more important international fora and perhaps, ultimately, international government."
You scored 18 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are less likely to favour international bodies over national ones.
* 3% of test takers were more nationalist than you.
* 97% of test takers were more internationalist than you.
Protectionist vs Free Trader
"The protectionist believes in barriers against free trade most probably due to a belief that this is in his or her country's interests. The free trader rejects such notions, believing that the system ultimately suffers when tariffs, subsidies and other obstacles to free trade persist."
You scored 16 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are less likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.
* 5% of test takers were more protectionist than you.
* 94% of test takers were more pro free trade than you.
Absolutist vs Non-Absolutist
"The absolutist believes that either a divine presence or scientific laws provide absolute truths about the world, which can and should be applied in practise. The non-absolutist may be either a relativist, or simply someone who is more pragmatic."
You scored 69 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.
* 87% of test takers were more absolutist than you.
* 11% of test takers were more non-absolutist than you.
Controlled Market vs Liberal Market
"Both of these categories assume a capitalist system. Assuming this system, the controlled market believer holds that government should intervene in regulating a nation's economy: wage laws, environmental standards, privatised industries and workplace relations policy. A liberal market thinker believes that such regulation is unnecessary and often counter-productive."
You scored 7 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.
* 3% of test takers were more controlled market thinkers than you.
* 96% of test takers were more liberal market thinkers than you.
Marxist vs Non-Marxist
"This scale purports to show to what extent you follow the thought and teachings of Marx. Marxists tend to be scientific, materialist and revolutionary, believe in class struggle and the laws of historical and dialectic materialism."
You scored 28 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are more likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.
* 11% of test takers were more Marxist than you.
* 88% of test takers were more non-Marxist than you.
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Aug 5, 2006 0:21:10 GMT -5
Someone's awfully serious. It was a joke.
|
|
|
|
Post by redyellow on Aug 7, 2006 8:22:12 GMT -5
This is what I got:
"The individualist believes that society works best through a focus on individual rights, freedoms, actions and responsibilities. The social thinker believes that the ideal state should focus more upon collective action and take a social approach to rights and responsibilities."
Individual
Social
You scored 48 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.
* 31% of test takers were more individual than you.
* 67% of test takers were more social than you.
Theist vs Materialist
"The materialist believes that all objective criteria to influence politics can be reasonably derived without recourse to the divine or the spiritual. The theist believes that spiritual beliefs are important and should influence government policy."
Theist
Materialist
You scored 95 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.
* 98% of test takers were more theist than you.
* 2% of test takers were more materialist than you.
Big Government vs Small Government
"The big government advocate believes that governments should be responsible for regulating a wide array of social practices, even what might be considered personal decisions such as abortion, euthanasia, children's education and births. A small government advocate thinks that, wherever possible, these issues should be up to individuals or companies to direct."
Big Gov
Small Gov
You scored 54 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.
* 39% of test takers were more big government than you.
* 58% of test takers were more small government than you.
Nationalist vs Internationalist
"The nationalist believes in the sovereign rule of nation states, particularly his or her own. The internationalist believes that there should be more important international fora and perhaps, ultimately, international government."
National
International
You scored 79 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are more likely to favour international bodies over national ones.
* 87% of test takers were more nationalist than you.
* 12% of test takers were more internationalist than you.
Protectionist vs Free Trader
"The protectionist believes in barriers against free trade most probably due to a belief that this is in his or her country's interests. The free trader rejects such notions, believing that the system ultimately suffers when tariffs, subsidies and other obstacles to free trade persist."
Protection
Free-Trade
You scored 53 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.
* 47% of test takers were more protectionist than you.
* 50% of test takers were more pro free trade than you.
Absolutist vs Non-Absolutist
"The absolutist believes that either a divine presence or scientific laws provide absolute truths about the world, which can and should be applied in practise. The non-absolutist may be either a relativist, or simply someone who is more pragmatic."
Absolute
Non-Absolute
You scored 64 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.
* 73% of test takers were more absolutist than you.
* 24% of test takers were more non-absolutist than you.
Controlled Market vs Liberal Market
"Both of these categories assume a capitalist system. Assuming this system, the controlled market believer holds that government should intervene in regulating a nation's economy: wage laws, environmental standards, privatised industries and workplace relations policy. A liberal market thinker believes that such regulation is unnecessary and often counter-productive."
Controlled
Liberal
You scored 32 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.
* 39% of test takers were more controlled market thinkers than you.
* 59% of test takers were more liberal market thinkers than you.
Marxist vs Non-Marxist
"This scale purports to show to what extent you follow the thought and teachings of Marx. Marxists tend to be scientific, materialist and revolutionary, believe in class struggle and the laws of historical and dialectic materialism."
Marxist
Non-Marxist
You scored 51 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.
* 58% of test takers were more Marxist than you.
* 39% of test takers were more non-Marxist than you.
98% Materialistic, that sounds about right
Socialism? Well, I have an unusual and non definite view on it; I believe that it can work, but I don't want to be a part of one now because there havn't been any favourable socialist nations.
So yes, I am a little more of a marxist than this test suggests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Daemon Sophic on Aug 7, 2006 14:36:34 GMT -5
Hello all, First post here. Sort of "Hi, this is what I'm like." kind of thing. eh? I'll be posting very intermittently around here. Anyway..... Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a socially-orientated, materialist, internationalist, controlled-market kind of person. These characteristics would put you in the overall category of socialist. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Socialism area. Pretty moderate in all areas, leaning toward big-international government (we need a planetary government, with equality and justice for all). 'Nationalism' is just a nice word for 'fascism'. Also leaning toward: - Free-trader - "make a better mouse-trap......." - non-absolutionist - some things are black & white, most are not. - materialist - Religion is your own personal choice. Don't try to convert me, and I won't correct you. Howdy!  |
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Aug 7, 2006 14:40:31 GMT -5
Welcome to the forums  Hope you like the debates that are to be found here, its my favourite part of the forum. |
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 7, 2006 17:05:41 GMT -5
Welcome to the forums. If Nationalist is another word for Fascist then clearly Internationalist would be another word for Anarchist, no? If that is the case, you are one big contradiction  Nationalism is not something I support, but at the same time I am even more against Internationalism. I'm a firm believer in decentralization, and as such cannot support anything that makes the central government control anything more than it already does, therein, totally against any kind of "Planetary Government." As one of the questions on the test stated, "If there's one thing worse than a Nationalist, its an Internationalist." Nothing short of complete agreement here. |
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Aug 7, 2006 21:52:02 GMT -5
Ain't no party like a Fascist party!  |
|
|
|
Post by Daemon Sophic on Aug 8, 2006 11:21:31 GMT -5
Ain't no party like a Fascist party! They have all the best cigars and whiskey. Thanks. As to your question. No. Not at all. Like you, I don't believe in a government intruding in the lives of its citizens (like.....say......the Republicans in the U.S.). However, I believe in law, order, good education/nutrition/shelter, freedom of creed/speech/religion/etc....meted out to ALL humanity. Without some twit nation over......there.....saying "We're the best! Our economic system/religion/hair color/ etc....are better than yours. So we're going to build weapons to kill you. Even if it means many people in this region of the world are cut off from necessities, or rights, etc... because of active hostilities. So there! Hah!" Instead, there would be one government. All religions allowed. All speech (except hate-mongering) allowed. Free trade is encouraged. Flat taxes across the globe. Uniform globally minded environmental controls on ALL industries. Free exchange of ideas and technology. Uniform, open education for all. No foolish little dictatorships/theocracies/etc....cropping up in their usual attempts to kill people by bullet or starvation. Anarchy though (on a global scale), is many nations deciding different ways of doing things. Often contradictory ways. Leading humanity.........nowhere.  |
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 8, 2006 14:20:15 GMT -5
Thanks.  As to your question. No. Not at all. If fascist is the opposite of anarchist, which most believe it is, then actually my analysis would hold. Being as Internationalist is by definition the opposite of Nationalist, then if Nationalist was another word for Fascist, it would follow that Internationalist is another word for Anarachist. But you do believe in the existance of a government, no? How quaint. And unrealistic. What a simplistic world view. Surely you realize that no matter what government controls the world, national or planetary, there will be groups of people who think themselves better and try to prove it? To quote myself from earlier in this post: "How quaint. And unrealistic." A few points: 1. You aren't disallowing the right kinds of speech. You should worry more about slander and things that endanger people as opposed to words said in ignorance. I would not do anything like outlawing "hate-mongering" speech, because it infringes on free speech. 2. "Free trade" would kind of be inherent in a world government wouldn't it? All taxes would go to the same place... 3. IMO, flat taxes are not exactly along the same line of thought as some of your other goals. And are, in fact, very counterproductive to your stated goals. Unless you plan to have oppressively high taxes on the poor (causing them to starve and die) then you will have no chance to fund all the wonderful things you want to do. 4. I don't see this world government being able to do any good for the world in the ways of preventing other government types. What if people vote such governments into office? Would you be authoritarian enough to declare those defunct and put in your own government? Wouldn't that defeat the point? 5. How would this government deal with nationalism? There will always be some nationalist who believe they are citizens of a certain area first, and the world second. What will you do with them? Oh, and a corrupt, overcentralized, authoritarian government that looks to resemble a poor reproduction of the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China would be better? Interesting theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Daemon Sophic on Aug 8, 2006 16:25:19 GMT -5
If fascist is the opposite of anarchist, which most believe it is, then actually my analysis would hold. Being as Internationalist is by definition the opposite of Nationalist, then if Nationalist was another word for Fascist, it would follow that Internationalist is another word for Anarachist. What most people believe is simply wrong. Main Entry: fascism Part of Speech: noun Definition: dictatorship Synonyms: absolutism, autocracy, bureaucracy, demagogy, despotism, nazism, one-party system, party government, racism, regimentation, totalitarianism Antonyms: democracy, socialism Absolutely. How far would you like to carry your 'decentralization'? To anarchy? Do you believe that would be better? Hmmm.....as you say. "How quaint. And unrealistic." But....as my next answer shows......why not? I have a dream.  Of course. That is why a single unified government (an informed democracy, or a democratic intelligarchy perhaps) would be so useful. With laws in place against such ignorant hatred, along with a quick police force.  Of course, MUCH more importantly, having a unified and uniform global education system, along with the resultant easier international travel/communication/diversification, the incidence of such flare-ups of human stupidity would fall away sharply. Making police 'control' of the situations less and less common. And no, I'm not talking of brain-washing. Boy, this could start a new thread unto itself. Perhaps someone might. But I must run momentarily. To continue...... 1. You aren't disallowing the right kinds of speech. You should worry more about slander and things that endanger people as opposed to words said in ignorance. I would not do anything like outlawing "hate-mongering" speech, because it infringes on free speech. Once again, with a liberal, secular, and multi-religious, multi-cultural free global education of all children (and adults), over a few decades, this sort of thing would fade anyways. By and large.
? - A question for you. What good/useful purpose does hate-mongering/racism/bigotry serve? --2. "Free trade" would kind of be inherent in a world government wouldn't it? All taxes would go to the same place... Very good! My oversight. ------ Yes! Bonus points!3. IMO, flat taxes are not exactly along the same line of thought as some of your other goals. And are, in fact, very counterproductive to your stated goals. Unless you plan to have oppressively high taxes on the poor (causing them to starve and die) then you will have no chance to fund all the wonderful things you want to do. I am no economist. But I see your point. My ideal would be a level of fairness to the taxing process. True. The rich should carry more percentage tax burden. But then again, in an ideal society, there would be 'maximum wages' as well as 'minimum wages'.4. I don't see this world government being able to do any good for the world in the ways of preventing other government types. What if people vote such governments into office? Would you be authoritarian enough to declare those defunct and put in your own government? Wouldn't that defeat the point?  Please restate the question. 5. How would this government deal with nationalism? There will always be some nationalist who believe they are citizens of a certain area first, and the world second. What will you do with them? Education.Anarchy though (on a global scale), is many nations deciding different ways of doing things. Often contradictory ways. Leading humanity.........nowhere. [/quote] Oh, and a corrupt, overcentralized, authoritarian government that looks to resemble a poor reproduction of the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China would be better? Interesting theory. I never suggested communism. That is folly given current human nature for sloth. Unless you are living in some Starfleet-esque dream world, people will attempt to exploit the system for their personal benefit. I am far from naive. Global education is the only possible beginning for such a dream government, as it is for humanity's hope of survival overall. The establishment of said government couldn't possibly be rationally considered for decades from now, at the barest minimum.
But again, it is the best (but not only) hope of survival and progression.
Sorry, but I must go. Perhaps you, or another, will continue this here or in its own thread.
Bye for now. |
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Aug 8, 2006 19:30:37 GMT -5
Anti-Racism laws often end up with the people in fear, and minorities untouchable, if they commit a crime.
Stuttgart is an example of this, according to ancedotal evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 8, 2006 22:22:11 GMT -5
What most people believe is simply wrong. Main Entry: fascism Part of Speech: noun Definition: dictatorship Synonyms: absolutism, autocracy, bureaucracy, demagogy, despotism, nazism, one-party system, party government, racism, regimentation, totalitarianism Antonyms: democracy, socialism Authoritarian Part of Speech: noun Definition: domineer Synonyms: absolutist, autocrat, despot, dictator, disciplinarian, tyrant Antonyms: anarchistIf possible. But, it isn't. No, instead just the smallest possible government. I don't like ideologies that try to create utopias and do the impossible. Sorry. Authoritarian, much? I doubt that very much. We've been saying that for years with every problem, "Well with education and time it will eventually go away..." blah. Doesn't work. Never has, never will. There will always be trouble makers who don't go along with the "let's all just be friends" line. That'd be plausible at least. Slander would sort itself out? Or hate-mongering? Both are never going to fade out, so it doesn't really matter which you meant. That is fact. So you can wake up from the utopian dreamworld. As for what positive purpose it serves- only one. The ability to express your feelings, whatever they may be. If you think (for example) all Slavs should be killed, then you should be allowed to say that. Speech on any topic is perfectly ok when it does no harm. The only thing that should be illegal is what harms another person. What business is it of yours what I do, look at, hear, or say so long as I am not harming another human being? For those of you having trouble answering that, I'll do it for you- none of your business. For all your overtures of freedom and liberalism, you should be able to appreciate that statement. Maybe you should consider reorganizing the system that causes wages to be so disproportionate and treat the cause instead of the symptom. You said, and I quote, "No foolish little dictatorships/theocracies/etc." Well, what if the people of a nation decided to vote for a party that wanted to establish one of those systems of government? Would your world government strike down their democratic wishes to be undemocratic? Education, save brainwashing, will not change most people from something like nationalism. I know. Being as neither the Soviet Union nor Red China have been communist at any point in their cruel and terrible history, that isn't really an issue. "Global education" must mean brainwashing. Because as far as can be seen, the world will never accept a world government. Ever. If I may quote a song's lyrics, "Your feeble attempts towards world peace, Gimme a  ing break Need world-wide genocide, planetary suicide and when the whole damn world is ing dead... Theres your ing peace" Your world government sounds more like a Soviet system the more you talk about it. Politically, not economically, being as you haven't really gone into economics. |
|
|
|
Post by Daemon Sophic on Aug 10, 2006 13:11:19 GMT -5
Anti-Racism laws often end up with the people in fear, and minorities untouchable, if they commit a crime. Stuttgart is an example of this, according to ancedotal evidence. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to link to the article. I tried searching "Stuttgart" with variations of "racism", "anti-rascism", "laws", etc..... I got hundreds of articles, and the few I scanned talked of many interesting and disturbing things, but none mentioned minorities getting away with crimes that a non-minority would not have gotten away with. Hmmm.. I can play that game too. Anarchist == Definition: insurgent Synonyms: agitator, insurgent, insurrectionist, malcontent, mutineer, nihilist, rebel, revolter, revolutionary, terrorist Anarchy Definition: lawlessness Synonyms: chaos, confusion, disorder, disorganization, disregard, hostility, mob rule, nihilism, nongovernment, rebellion, revolution, riot, turmoil Antonyms: law and order, lawfulness, order, organization, rule But that's not the point..... Believe it or not, I feel the same way.   One minimalist government for all, instead of many, less efficient, bickering, warring, repetitive governments for all the little nations  . Each with their own agenda, and overall wasting a greater percentage of humanity in "administration" than one small (relative to the population size) government without war. If you are not living and working toward a better world than the one you came into, for yourself and your (?possible?) children....... then what are you living for? "They" said it was "impossible" to sail around the world, to fly, to survive in space, to travel faster that 43 miles per hour (a pre-automobile thought ), that blacks and women should be allowed to vote.....etc....etc.... To quote a song as you did --- Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one Its just that this song is a little less suicidally depressed, and has a lofty goal. Eh? As need be. No authority, No forceful power over the populace, No control of the haters ---- then you have standard human stupidity. Rwanda, Armenia, Darfur, Nazi Germany........to name a few.  Some would state that Hezbollah is the result of the Lebanese government being too small.....too weak to provide for its own people, and too weak to put down an (initially) small religious, violent sect within its own borders. P.S. - As to the possible counter-argument that Nazi-German represents a 'government-led genocide'. Well, that is why the constitution of such a "utopia" as I describe would have anti-hate-mongering, anti-fascist, anti-racism articles built into it. And articles outlining the violent, painful, public style of executions that would be held for any political leader that began using his office as a pulpit of hateful stupidity. Or something like that.  I doubt that very much. We've been saying that for years with every problem, "Well with education and time it will eventually go away..." blah. Doesn't work. Never has, never will. There will always be trouble makers who don't go along with the "let's all just be friends" line.Actually, nobody (as far as I know) has ever really tried to freely educate the populace. Demanding certain levels of education and knowledge in certain areas prior to allowing them to vote on subjects. Even in the U.S. and other 'democracies' (actually representative government(s) ), the congress, courts, and executive branches are mainly social science students/lawyers with little or no working knowledge of many of the things that they are called to vote upon. [glow=red,2,300]OOC: How many quotes are we allowed per post in this forum?[/glow] Quote:And no, I'm not talking of brain-washing.
That'd be plausible at least. No! Must.....press.....thoughts.....out of head!!   Slander would sort itself out? Or hate-mongering? Both are never going to fade out, so it doesn't really matter which you meant. That is fact. So you can wake up from the utopian dreamworld.
As for what positive purpose it serves- only one. The ability to express your feelings, whatever they may be. If you think (for example) all Slavs should be killed, then you should be allowed to say that. Speech on any topic is perfectly ok when it does no harm. The only thing that should be illegal is what harms another person. What business is it of yours what I do, look at, hear, or say so long as I am not harming another human being? For those of you having trouble answering that, I'll do it for you- none of your business. For all your overtures of freedom and liberalism, you should be able to appreciate that statement.Of course you're right! And what I describe is far from true Utopia. There is no, and there never will be a "Perfect" world. In real utopia the populace would all get along with each other willingly/happily. --- --- They wont. Period. --- --- -- Thus, since humans are so asinine, their occasional uprising of general stupidity needs to be [glow=red,2,300] crushed[/glow]. Until they can be shown how self-destructive, how short-sighted, and meaningless their foolishness is. Yes, freedom is lovely and all: Yes, I believe that a maximum of freedom should be allowed to ALL citizens......until they become violent, or promote senseless violence. But as I have said many times; education is [glow=green,2,300] THE[/glow] big step needed to greatly decrease (below any level ever known in our history) such self-aggrandizing, violent ignorance. Now then......believing as one wishes, and speaking about those beliefs is fine. Mumbling over your 6th beer that all the Slavs should "just be killed like the bugs they are" is fine and dandy. But getting on the radio and announcing it as fact......gathering a mob of foolish young men (in white hooded robes? ) and telling them "The Slavs should be killed like they bugs they are!"......... Gets you a nice stone and steel-walled room. Or you could at least try to entertain the heavily armed police who are converging on your position. (Please? ). Promoting senseless hatred and violence will not be tolerated. It will be met with overwhelming violence. And then with education. Or do you see teaching people not to rush to senseless hatred and violence as ‘brainwashing’? No, we need not have an Orwellian nightmare of everyone reporting on (and fearing) their own neighbors. It is simply that leaders of such mobs will be targeted. And they won't be able (as many in the KKK have done) to say "Its my RIGHT to tell others about my ignorant hatred. It is my RIGHT to tell them how to kill. --- I shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of a few hot-heads who took my words literally." No. Homey don't play that game any more. There ARE limits on free speech as you know. The mobs will be sent home, and the government will try to figure out, and then alleviate the root cause of the unrest. Surely you would agree that this would be the method of least violence. We're talking about advancing and protecting humanity here. -- Tis not for the squeamish. Please restate the question. You said, and I quote, "No foolish little dictatorships/theocracies/etc." Well, what if the people of a nation decided to vote for a party that wanted to establish one of those systems of government? Would your world government strike down their democratic wishes to be undemocratic?Ah! I see. Good question. I suppose the constitution would have to address such eventualities (sp?). Say allowing only democratic states, with any contender for ‘dictator’ being the definition of a corrupt politician, with the result outlined above. Similarly, all religions/cultures must be represented in the voting, and are afforded basic human rights, just like ALL others. Religions, as shown by history, come and go. If one or more die out, fine. If one religion rises as that of 100% of the population (  ) then God can take the throne. Education, save brainwashing, will not change most people from something like nationalism. Prove it. Like I said, I'm unaware of anyone ever trying it before. Also, ‘brainwashing’ is trying to force one form of thought into someone’s head (imbuing a single idea or way of thinking), what I’m describing is teaching EVERYBODY about ALL religions, all cultures, all history (as seen from multiple viewpoints), basic and higher levels of math and science (for at least a foothold on reality), human rights, economics, etc…... Show them issues for voting and how prior history has unfolded as a result of similar laws……multiple views on how this bill might unfold in the present tense given the current facts. --- --- Only then…..let them decide. We wouldn't be instructing them to think from one view, but rather to think from all views. Maybe you should consider reorganizing the system that causes wages to be so disproportionate and treat the cause instead of the symptom.Okey Dokey. What do you have in mind? |
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Aug 10, 2006 13:31:37 GMT -5
I won't name who said it, since that'd violate his privacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 10, 2006 14:33:43 GMT -5
Hmmm.. I can play that game too. Anarchist == Definition: insurgent Synonyms: agitator, insurgent, insurrectionist, malcontent, mutineer, nihilist, rebel, revolter, revolutionary, terrorist Anarchy Definition: lawlessness Synonyms: chaos, confusion, disorder, disorganization, disregard, hostility, mob rule, nihilism, nongovernment, rebellion, revolution, riot, turmoil Antonyms: law and order, lawfulness, order, organization, rule But that's not the point..... No, it isn't. Especially since it doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying. But the point I was trying to make is one that I don't even want to continue, because I don't support most nationalism to begin with. I just support the right to national government and against a world government. But, the point was, nationalism doesn't equal fascism just like internationalism doesn't equal anarchy. Haha, that's funny. End war? No chance in hell. In any case, the world government would have to be very much larger (proportionally and in real terms) to actually function and do all the things you want it to. I am living to better the world. And using unattainable goals helps nothing. All it does is give false hope and false reason. Allowing governments like the one you proposed to spring up and oppress the populace with its wonderful goals. But that is just words, not reality. In reality, the government is taking away freedoms in order to someday be able to attain some far off and distant goal of a utopian society. Sorry, I'll stick to realistic goals for improving the world. The other examples of people saying things were impossible are silly. They are science based. Of course people can't predict the future of science. And less realistic too. There will always be things to kill and die for. There will always be religion. So long as humans do exist that is. The authority was what did it in Germany. In the others, I agree that authority should step in to stop that. But not necessarily to stop the ideas, just to stop the actions. Do I condone the ideas of genocide? Of course not. But I certainly won't be imposing my moral standards on others. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are funded by a much larger and stronger power than the whole of Lebanon? Ah, so in order to prevent people from committing violence against others because of their race/religion/beliefs, you will use cruel and unusual punishment against people with certain religions or beliefs? Interesting. We've tried that in America for years to stop racism and sexism. But guess what? There is still racism and sexism. It's been 40-some years and we still have some people who are racist, sexist, etc. And you think you will stop people with far more entrenched beliefs through education? How long will that take? One thousand years? As far as I'm aware, as many as you like. Crushed? Is it just me or does that sound kinda like a fascist statement? Wow you sound like a fascist. "Well I believe in freedom and all, but I don't think my people are ready for it just yet. I need to show them how foolish they are being first, and then, when I think they are ready, they can be free and stuff. Then they will be able to say whatever they want. Unless of course I disagree with it." Ok, so let me get this straight. No freedom of speech, no freedom of the press, and no right to assemble? Yeah, this just gets better and better doesn't it? I'm a little more worried about the 'overwhelming violence' aspect, myself. Will this be called the "Safe Speech" (SS) force by chance? Or perhaps we will not use euphemisms and just call it the Gestapo? I only see it as brainwashing if that's what it is. If you have a part of required education being to take a class that deals with the problems, historical and contemporary, of racism/sexism/etc and gives a fair agruement for both sides and lets the children decide for themselves, then that is one thing. If you require a class that teaches it only from one perspective and drills into the minds of all students your ideas on racism/sexism/etc then that is quite another. Unfortunately, yes there are limits like this. In my opinion they DO have the RIGHT to tell people whatever they want. It is called freedom of speech for a reason. It is one thing to say to someone "YOU MUST GO KILL NOW!" and quite another to say, "I wish these people were killed." If you are forcing or paying someone to kill another, then that should be against the law. But if you are just telling them your beliefs on an issue, then that should be perfectly legal. Trading freedom for security is not something I encourage. Another knock against freedom to assemble from your regime I see. [/IMG] ) then God can take the throne.[/quote] So no ability to form political parties either, eh? Ok, I suppose that does follow what you've taken away already, so I see where you might want to do that. Look at Yugoslavia, you don't think they tried quite hard to make their population believe they were all Yugoslavs, and not the many nationalities that they used to consider themselves? Last time I saw a map of the Balkans, that didn't work too well. You are trying to do the same thing, but starting with even more diversity and hatred. You are trying to convince everyone that they are not citizens of their old countries, but of the world. And they will not accept it. You will Balkanize the world. So, you are brainwashing them into your theory of multi-culturalism and internationalism. That is still brainwashing, despite your attempts to cover it up with optimistic words and pictures of a better tomorrow. You certainly aren't allowing all cultures and religions to be taught. Lest your teachers have to break your own laws about hate speech. It is part of some cultures and religions to hate others. And btw, you cannot possibly teach all religions and cultures fairly. People will do things like starting the religion of the FSM and force you to teach it. Even more problematic are the thousands of "real" religions that exist and many have no writings, but merely customs known only by people who practice them. That'd be a bit silly, don't you think? I think education should stay away from religion, or else you end up favoring some over others. An updated form of Marxism. As for a final note, let's recap what the world government has: -Laws against freedom of speech. -Laws against freedom of the press. -Laws against freedom to assemble. -Laws against freedom to start political parties. -A goal of a government controlled by the elite. -A dream of utopia, claims that it is not impossible despite all evidence pointing to that. -A crack police force that will crush any dissent. -Cruel and unusual punishments for leaders who fail to tow the government line. -A centralized government controlling many different nationalities. -Plans to brainwash the entire populace in order to make sure they agree with the laws of the nation that take away their freedoms, making them think these measures are necessary for security. -A creator who has no problem with being authoritarian and violent "when necessary." Wow, is it just me or does this sound a lot like the system of government used in the Soviet Union and like ones used in many other fascist/totalitarian regimes? |
|
|
|
Post by Daemon Sophic on Aug 10, 2006 16:30:03 GMT -5
Nor does internationalism equal totalitarianism or authoritarianism. And after you arrest and/or kill those maniacs running around with machetes.....what then? Wait for a week or two for them to start the slaughter all over again? If you are an individual in a position of power over a populace of many cultures and religions, you cannot be allowed to be biased. Violence is not necessary if you step down, or simply don't run in the first place. Just be equal and fair, and fear not. and fading FAST. You are right, this is an extremely hopeful point. Thanks for making it. Yes. No. All of these are allowed......peacefully. Here, I believe you are absolutely wrong. You cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre as it will lead to injury and death. Similarly you should not be allowed to foment a riot or ignorant, violent hatred. Your proposition fits right into the hands of the KKK, and was used 'masterfully' by Hitler. I simply say that that sort of speech should not be allowed. You prefer mob rule? Lynchings? What a pleasant, happy world you live in. Wow! You could write for the GOP. That is not what I said at all. I said "all religions/cultures must be represented in the voting, and are afforded basic human rights, just like ALL others. " Which is to say that ALL parties are represented at all times.....always. No one party gets to have ABSOLUTE power......ever. Very good. Now you begin to see why this dream could never exist for many decades yet to come. The belief must preceed the act. The people must come to realize their commonality, and as a group, demand the abolishment of their foolish little governments in favor of one unified government. - What is FSM? - Religions with foundations designed to hate/harm others would be disbanded Too bad, so sad. Don't let the door hit your  on the way out. - Perhaps you need to divest yourself of various "church" teachings (which often promote hatred) and learn how (short of some branches of Satanism) the core of almost every religion on Earth is peace. But a discussion of Church vs Religion truly is a topic of another thread. An updated form of Marxism. And all along, I saw you playing the role of the pessimist. You are indeed full of suprises. Alright, we've discussed the idea of a benevolant, well educated U.N. global government to some extremes now. Your turn. An updated form of Marxism.OK. A classless society...... Modified how? |
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 10, 2006 17:22:16 GMT -5
Nor does internationalism equal totalitarianism or authoritarianism. Not inherently, no. But your version sure does. I believe the punishment for first degree murder in most places is life in prison or death. Your government seems to be allowed to be biased, why can't other governments? Oh, really? Forgive me for not believing you. Do you have statistics for that? Nice chop job on my post. You missed the important parts. Unless they don't agree with you. Right? If someone says, "I want all Slavs dead!" you aren't ok with that. The person has done nothing violent. If someone says on the radio, "I want all Slavs dead!" you aren't ok with that. The person has done nothing violent. If a group of people meet together to discuss how they hate Slavs, you aren't ok with that. The people have done nothing violent. Yelling fire in a crowded place would cause harm by its very nature, as it causes panic. This is quite different than hate-speech which does not cause harm unless consciously acted upon. While it may fit into the hands of the KKK and Nazis, it also protects us from governments who decide they should be able to regulate speech. First it is hate-speech, then it is all non-state sponsored speech. I never said that, nor even implied it. They need not take away our freedoms to protect us. They are protecting us from people taking away our freedom when they stop murderers, rapists, theives, etc. Right to life, right to be secure in our persons, etc. I doubt that very highly. They are more your slant, I do think. People who like freedom need not apply to the GOP. No government should have absolute power, but you are well on your way to creating one. And you certainly do not allow all parties. You've said that numerous times. Whenever I ask about parties that don't agree with your ideals, you always respond that their leaders will suffer horrible deaths at the hands of your police force. Maybe we should think about things that might actually be able to occur in this millennium, eh? Flying Spaghetti MonsterAdd freedom of religion to the growing list of relinquished freedoms for this regime. Well, if their are people who believe a supernatural force is commanding them to kill [insert group] then that is pretty well a religion, no? Yes, perhaps. Not to say one has to be optimistic to propose Marxism... Haha! Benevolant! I love it! You should be writing for the Republicans. My parents are Republicans and I read a letter to them from Senator Frist a few days ago asking if they would donate to the GOP so they could help GWB continue making America, and I quote, "freer." I was literally laughing out loud. Giving up already? Tisk, tisk. What would the world be like if Hitler had given up? Or Stalin? You sure you're done? Well now, I would say that we need to really just figure out a system which would allow Marx's principals to operate, and take out some of the more extreme ideas he had (much like capitalists did with Adam Smith's ideas). Some things we'd need: -Public ownership of all factors of production -Public ownership of all land -Abolishment of the stock market, or of money, if we could find a suitable replacement -A flexible chain of command in the economy, to allow for decentralization (taking advantage of the knowledge of the entire nation, as opposed to the decidely anti-Marxist Soviet model that hyper-centralized and relied on the impossibility that all the knowledge of the nation lie in the few hundred members of the Gosplan) -Systems of internal competition, to ensure the most efficent use of resources -Compensation for labor based on the Marxist principal of getting out what you put in. But, at the same time, a maximum wage to ensure you aren't harming those around you by taking and using wealth you do not need (ie- no one needs 30 cars, 4 houses, etc). -Application of protectionist tariffs to ensure foreign markets do not take away jobs - De facto mandatory employment by measures of removing the ability to stay unemployed for long periods of time and continue to get government aid unless you are unable to work (too young/old or disabled). Along with this, the government should create more jobs and ensure your ability to get a job doing something, somewhere. Probably some type of application process for being hired in which the government would either hire you for the job you requested, or, if you are unqualified, give suggestions (note- you are NOT required to follow their suggestions) on what jobs you would be qualified for. -Methods of stopping anyone from ending up in a dead-end job, by always allowing advancement through hard work. |
|
|
|
Post by powerslide on Aug 11, 2006 6:32:04 GMT -5
I cannot click on some options enough;
Basic economics knowledge can help in many of these questions.
Opinion of the US? I'm not going to judge the poor sods on their leaders policies am I?
This test is a bit silly, vote for Nader? What the hell is he going to do?
Drunkeness = honesty =...
You scored 45 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social
You scored 49 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist
You scored 58 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government
You scored 61 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist
You scored 15 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader <------- cheats economic theory, MACROECONOMICS SHOULD BE MANDATORY!
You scored 54 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist
You scored 18 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market (Warning! This student actually BOTHERS with economics)
You scored 34 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist
Marx is god, so what?
|
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Aug 11, 2006 13:38:35 GMT -5
Blow up all burgers, is what Nader's gonna do! Time to go RPG fishing, whooo!
|
|
|
|
Post by Daemon Sophic on Aug 14, 2006 11:51:07 GMT -5
Blow up all burgers, is what Nader's gonna do! Time to go RPG fishing, whooo! Do you mean to say that you have a PC game where you look out over a body of water, cast a line in, and try to catch fish.  On a more serious note LJGS -- Your prior post. I'm sorry about your young friend being assaulted in Stuttgart. There are many rough neighborhoods (rough for various creeds and colors) in every city around the globe. :shakehead: I do not mean to sound insulting. Nor am I making light of your friend's assault. However, I am sorry to see him make such unilateral statements about genetics and religion as a cause of aggression. I fully understand what he is currently going through (more than you may suppose), and that this has a way of biasing people, whether they wanted to be biased or not. However, I almost always try to look up backing for claims made by myself or others. Please be patient with me. I tried extensively and found several things amiss. - Stuttgart, though praised as one of the safest cities in all of Europe, still has a homicide rate well above 1 per year. And those homicides I found records of in the last couple of years (when involving the Islamic community) were either assaults by German Caucasians on Turks, or were Turkish-on-Turkish "honor killings". That is to say, when not your general 'acts of passion', child abuse, or drug deals gone 'bad'. :rolleyes: - DaimlerChrysler does seem to have extended vacation time for its plants operating in Europe (compared to the U.S.), but not specifically for only Muslims. I found several *ahem* ultra-rightwing articles ranting about this subject for various reasons, ranging from "lazy Europeans all wanting long Alpine ski-vacations", and "lazy Muslims travelling back to the middle-east for nefarious reasons." *ahem* - There are (were - circa2000-2002) a couple of court cases wherein Turkish immigrants had been denied child-birth benefits even though they paid German taxes, and now these Turkish parents were suing the government in order to gain said benefits. ........ Please help. ------------------------------------------------ Not at all. I have little time to devote to these forums however, and I just want to see where you stand, rather than repeatedly, countering all your sensationalist accusations, ad nauseam. Oh! And by the way……'Sticks and stones' young one…… But clearly you haven't been reading my posts fully, but rather have only focused (like a mule with blinders) upon the reality of a police force necessary in all governments. Even 'benevolent' ones. Yet you still haven't addressed the root cause. How many executions do you figure it will take to teach the disenfranchised, misled, misinformed young men (and women) of your nation that their righteous, divinely inspired violence is wrong? And that the martyrdom of their brothers at your government's murderous hand was “with their best interests in mind”? I proposed education.....and you? Yes. 5000+ years of male absolute control over society, and slave trade worldwide. Then.....a couple hundred years of thinking slavery is wrong......a few dozen years of even considering equality (and voting rights) for members of other races and the female sex.........and now......many (if not a majority of humanity) consider anything other than equality as a moral failing. And of course now these people (previously considered as soulless chattel) are voting, being educated , demanding, and creating positions of power across the globe (yesssss, not quite even yet (the populace is far from well-educated yet) but MUCH better than 5000 years ago, 2000/1000/500/100/50 years ago. Don't be so pessimistic and impatient......We’re talking about educating an entire global population here. Not 100 stupid white men in one of your “harmless” KKK rallies. Who knows what a few more decades will bring. Your and my lifetimes are but single waves trying to erode a cliff-face of stony, willful ignorance. If you try really hard, if you rise to lead a massive revolution, then your wave may stand a little higher. No I didn't. Me: ---Until they can be shown how self-destructive, how short-sighted, and meaningless their foolishness is. Yes, freedom is lovely and all: Yes, I believe that a maximum of freedom should be allowed to ALL citizens......until they become violent, or promote senseless violence. You: --- Wow you sound like a fascist. "Well I believe in freedom and all, but I don't think my people are ready for it just yet. I need to show them how foolish they are being first, and then, when I think they are ready, they can be free and stuff. Then they will be able to say whatever they want. Unless of course I disagree with it." Which I then abbreviated as: ---...... and then, when I think they are ready, they can be free and stuff. Then they will be able to say whatever they want. ..... That's pretty much the core argument, right there. So you only act after innocents have been killed? Those poor men in Britain.....they only talked about getting on the planes and blowing them up. They hadn't actually done anything violent. THEIR RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!! DOWN WITH THE STATE!!! But of course. Even better than violently 'taking out' the leaders of these murder-bent imbeciles, would be to proactively educate them, provide for them, and employ them so that the cause of unrest would not have arisen in the 'leaders' minds in the first place. And even if it did, there would be no audience to support those deluded ‘leaders’. Why? Thinking that disallowing hate-mongering, and using public broadcasting in order to lie to the people so as to foment them to religious or racial war......is bad?  State-sponsored messages of what? Please attend the classes on socialized medicine, and comparative religions, to be updated this Thursday night on [thestate.edu.gov]. While there, please review all of the pro and con views for the issues in next month's quarterly elections.
Also, as always -- Feel free to pursue your religion, your culture, your sexuality, your personal ideals and limits, and your happiness; as long as you don't try to hurt other people in the process. That is an evil, authoritarian regime?? Hell, boy! Sign me up! Too late, that was already taken. The women and children in that religious associated daycare center are already dead. And without 'brainwashing' both the killers and their associates/ leaders/speakers, your simple imprisonment and/or execution of the killers will do nothing to prevent its recurrence and escalation. The only thing, the only parties, the only religions that I would disallow......as I've tried to tell you quite a few times now..... are those that promote violence.  But as I said, and you show down below, it is nice to dream. Eh? Flying Spaghetti Monster I like! *sigh* Once again.......see above. Or schizophrenia. But it is hard to differentiate the two. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'll go along for now, although I must ask....How will you get to that state from here? Revolution? You have suggestions? Ah! The core of Marxism.....a classless society. I agree, a noble endeavor. And how would you prevent its utter failure as seen in former (and current) communist regimes (which initially, and very idealistically/unrealistically started out with this same goal)? - Please elucidate "A flexible chain of command in the economy". You don't expect people with power and money to step aside for others because 'their turn is up', do you? These two points go together, and make the first one obviously essential. So.....a laissez-faire, isolationist attitude eh? Very anti-Adam Smith of you. In the modern world of fast-paced changes, rapid communication, and technological advances; how do you expect your people to keep up? Or are your people all Amish, so you don't care. - I'm all for the maximum wage as I stated several posts above. B) - So.....no money, no market.....and with neither of those and the isolationist tariffs.....your nation is prit well cut off entirely. As you said above....you are happier with a small nation, not a global one. So you are isolated, alone (no significant trade agreements with other nations), small, and falling behind your land-craving neighbors (but not to worry....I'm sure they are all 'benevalent'). - Hmmmm......no money.....Hmmmm.....So I'm a farm-worker. How many bales of hay must I stack to earn 1 week's food?...Two dental fillings?....A new truck? Gasoline? (from where (and how) did you import the oil?). So I'm a heart surgeon. I've replaced the bad heart valves on Mr. Johnson (the cobbler).....Now I'm set for new shoes for the rest of my life ; but what about the new windows I need on my house?... the college education for my 3 kids? Who sets these standards? Or, if not by a who, then please explain how the 'invisible hand' would do it in your isolated society. Whoa! Paid for by whom? So in 3 years time, everybody's a boss......Where are the workers? Or did the bosses advance to become 'super-bosses'? (after all, you don't want them stagnating either.) And what of the people unwilling or unable to work hard.....since everyone is advancing, likely inflation will soar as the supply of (whatever it is you are using for money) constantly grows. Leaving a large portion of the populace as a poorly paid..... Underclass! Lastly, in your ideal benevolent society.... --- Who polices the people? What is their social standing? Limits of authority? -- What do you do with a growing violent religious faction (12% of your population - and growing) who are repeatedly, and violently asserting that they should be in control of the country, as is their God-given right? Your people (at least 38% of them) are turning to you in fear and desperation marty! They want you to act, or they will! By the way, this all started 10 years earlier with a few of the small religion's "hot-headed" priests spouting stuff about 'purity of souls, and purity of goals'.....with time (and lack of police crackdown) more priests are taking up the chant to their congregations. P.S. Marty, they are not of your religion, and they see you as an apostate devil, who must be killed. --- 15% of your population feels that the state should take care of them (food, medical care, housing, transportation). They are either uneducated or don't care to be. Do you let them starve in the streets (i.e. panhandle, rob, and/or riot)? Give in to their demands? Deport them? Forced labor? -- Note that 49% of your population regularly kicks, spits on, and denies jobs for that "lazy" 15%. --- What sort of 'education system' (you would read "brainwashing system") do you have in place? --- What medical system do you have? (insurance?) Sorry, but I'm out of time......for now. |
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Aug 14, 2006 16:17:09 GMT -5
Blow up all burgers, is what Nader's gonna do! Time to go RPG fishing, whooo! Do you mean to say that you have a PC game where you look out over a body of water, cast a line in, and try to catch fish. Don't they already have one of those? I think I've addressed every one of your points and each time you just bring your position further and further towards fascism and away from liberty and freedom that I continue to address your increasingly authoritarian ideals. And I think you have agrued various times that words do indeed cause pain and death, although I have yet to figure out how. So, um, no 'sticks and stones' for you I propose ending the cycle of crime, thereby bring murders down to just those who do it for reasons like blind faith and such. For them, education and rehabilitation in prison, if possible. But I shan't take away the rights of all to prevent the danger of the few. And it took FIVE THOUSAND YEARS. And we ain't out of the mess yet. So, how long will it take you to finish off the rest? I see it like this, society is like a radioactive element. It has a certain "half life" when half of the ignorance will go away. But, you will never rid it of ALL the ignorance, and each person (as half isn't as much as it used to be) takes longer and longer to get rid of as you go along. So, I'm think in maybe another thousand years maybe the threat will be decreased quite a bit, but it won't EVER go away completely, save brainwashing (and even then, iffy). And realistic. Yeah, I should stop doing that. Utopian idealism is soooo much more productive. What happens when that wave destroys more than just the stony cliff of ignorance? What happens when that waves destroys the fragile sands of freedom? Sure, you destroyed more ignorance, but at what cost? The agruement was you sound like a fascist. Which, you do. If you read the whole quote it means something completely different than your "abbreviation." I believe they broke the law, no? Probably get them on conspiring to harm or something? Again, I have no problem with people being arrested for making actual plans to carry out crimes. I DO have a problem with people being arrested just for talking about how much they hate X. Yes, taking away the causes of crime helps, most definitely, we can agree on that. Oh, how high and mighty you are. The government, who has NEVER lied to its people and would NEVER try to create an enemy in order to gain power or start a war will make sure the people do the same. Yeah, because state-sponsered propaganda has NEVER and will NEVER exist Are you kidding me? If anyone should be telling someone to stop spreading lies and creating enemies it should be the people to their governments. Governments use fear and lies to control its population, that's a fact. So you can stop your rightous crusade for the almighty, omnibenevolent government to make sure its citizens are all saints who hate none and love all. People have these things, they are called "rights." Now I can tell you don't believe in them, but stay with me for a moment. These "rights" are what protect them from a government that would try to oppress them. But, these "rights" are like canvas. If you try to rip and tear them as a whole, they will not break very easily. But the tinest cut (or in this case taking away a part of the right), and the whole thing will tear like paper. Fear is like a pair of scissors, if the government is given your fear, it can make cuts. If we give up ANY of our liberties, it just opens the door for more to be taken away. Look at what happened after the PATRIOT Act was passed. We gave up some of our liberties. It seemed all fine and dandy. But then it spiraled downhill to the oppression and dictatorship we have today in America. All because we gave the government our FEAR after 9/11. And how did they obtain this fear? Lies. Any reasonable person can now clearly say that the government story on 9/11 is false and a lie. This is why we cannot give up our rights to TOTAL freedom of speech and the press, especially not out of fear of a few people taking it too far. I'm not saying education is bad. I'm not saying rehabilitation is bad. I am in favour of both of those. But, I am not in favour of bias when educating. I don't want the government telling me what to believe. Sure, it is easier to have my beliefs decided for me. But, I like my freedom, regardless of how hard it is. I'm not saying people shouldn't be subject to laws against harming other people. We will never, save a super oppressive regime which controls everyone and everything, be able to stop people from killing each other and arming each other. So, the least we can do is allow the good citizens of this country to keep their freedom. What you are doing is just creating more criminals for no reason. You aren't stopping any crime, and you are creating more "crime." The prisons will be full of people who were trying to use their freedoms they thought they had. And your police force will probably be so occupied finding all the people who have ever said they hate someone and locking them up that they won't have time for REAL criminals. And prisons won't have room for REAL criminals. So you'll build more, sure that's fine. But you are just putting a band-aid on. The "criminals" who dare to have opinions of their own will continue filling up your prisons and occupy your police force. And so that's how it starts. But I think the term "violence" may have a more flexible definition than you realize. As does the term "promote." Soon, you will probably be able to have but one party. And won't that be fun? It is nice to dream. But sometimes you have to wake up. And when you do, have a realistic plan for improvement. See above for my answer as well, just change "party" to "religion." Indeed it is. Actually, in the United States, that is quite possible without revolution. Either Eminent Domain everything or amend the Constitution. Or both. |
|
Gold_skywalker
Squire
Official Forum Socialist
Darth Caedus
Posts: 1,121
|
Post by Gold_skywalker on Aug 15, 2006 2:10:42 GMT -5
Blow up all burgers, is what Nader's gonna do! Time to go RPG fishing, whooo! Do you mean to say that you have a PC game where you look out over a body of water, cast a line in, and try to catch fish. On a more serious note LJGS -- Your prior post. I'm sorry about your young friend being assaulted in Stuttgart. There are many rough neighborhoods (rough for various creeds and colors) in every city around the globe. :shakehead: I do not mean to sound insulting. Nor am I making light of your friend's assault. However, I am sorry to see him make such unilateral statements about genetics and religion as a cause of aggression. I fully understand what he is currently going through (more than you may suppose), and that this has a way of biasing people, whether they wanted to be biased or not. However, I almost always try to look up backing for claims made by myself or others. Please be patient with me. I tried extensively and found several things amiss. - Stuttgart, though praised as one of the safest cities in all of Europe, still has a homicide rate well above 1 per year. And those homicides I found records of in the last couple of years (when involving the Islamic community) were either assaults by German Caucasians on Turks, or were Turkish-on-Turkish "honor killings". That is to say, when not your general 'acts of passion', child abuse, or drug deals gone 'bad'. :rolleyes: - DaimlerChrysler does seem to have extended vacation time for its plants operating in Europe (compared to the U.S.), but not specifically for only Muslims. I found several *ahem* ultra-rightwing articles ranting about this subject for various reasons, ranging from "lazy Europeans all wanting long Alpine ski-vacations", and "lazy Muslims travelling back to the middle-east for nefarious reasons." *ahem* - There are (were - circa2000-2002) a couple of court cases wherein Turkish immigrants had been denied child-birth benefits even though they paid German taxes, and now these Turkish parents were suing the government in order to gain said benefits. ........ Please help. ------------------------------------------------ Not at all. I have little time to devote to these forums however, and I just want to see where you stand, rather than repeatedly, countering all your sensationalist accusations, ad nauseam. Oh! And by the way……'Sticks and stones' young one…… But clearly you haven't been reading my posts fully, but rather have only focused (like a mule with blinders) upon the reality of a police force necessary in all governments. Even 'benevolent' ones. Yet you still haven't addressed the root cause. How many executions do you figure it will take to teach the disenfranchised, misled, misinformed young men (and women) of your nation that their righteous, divinely inspired violence is wrong? And that the martyrdom of their brothers at your government's murderous hand was “with their best interests in mind”? I proposed education.....and you? Yes. 5000+ years of male absolute control over society, and slave trade worldwide. Then.....a couple hundred years of thinking slavery is wrong......a few dozen years of even considering equality (and voting rights) for members of other races and the female sex.........and now......many (if not a majority of humanity) consider anything other than equality as a moral failing. And of course now these people (previously considered as soulless chattel) are voting, being educated , demanding, and creating positions of power across the globe (yesssss, not quite even yet (the populace is far from well-educated yet) but MUCH better than 5000 years ago, 2000/1000/500/100/50 years ago. Don't be so pessimistic and impatient......We’re talking about educating an entire global population here. Not 100 stupid white men in one of your “harmless” KKK rallies. Who knows what a few more decades will bring. Your and my lifetimes are but single waves trying to erode a cliff-face of stony, willful ignorance. If you try really hard, if you rise to lead a massive revolution, then your wave may stand a little higher. No I didn't. Me: ---Until they can be shown how self-destructive, how short-sighted, and meaningless their foolishness is. Yes, freedom is lovely and all: Yes, I believe that a maximum of freedom should be allowed to ALL citizens......until they become violent, or promote senseless violence. You: --- Wow you sound like a fascist. "Well I believe in freedom and all, but I don't think my people are ready for it just yet. I need to show them how foolish they are being first, and then, when I think they are ready, they can be free and stuff. Then they will be able to say whatever they want. Unless of course I disagree with it." Which I then abbreviated as: ---...... and then, when I think they are ready, they can be free and stuff. Then they will be able to say whatever they want. ..... That's pretty much the core argument, right there. So you only act after innocents have been killed? Those poor men in Britain.....they only talked about getting on the planes and blowing them up. They hadn't actually done anything violent. THEIR RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!! DOWN WITH THE STATE!!! But of course. Even better than violently 'taking out' the leaders of these murder-bent imbeciles, would be to proactively educate them, provide for them, and employ them so that the cause of unrest would not have arisen in the 'leaders' minds in the first place. And even if it did, there would be no audience to support those deluded ‘leaders’. Why? Thinking that disallowing hate-mongering, and using public broadcasting in order to lie to the people so as to foment them to religious or racial war......is bad? State-sponsored messages of what? Please attend the classes on socialized medicine, and comparative religions, to be updated this Thursday night on [thestate.edu.gov]. While there, please review all of the pro and con views for the issues in next month's quarterly elections.
Also, as always -- Feel free to pursue your religion, your culture, your sexuality, your personal ideals and limits, and your happiness; as long as you don't try to hurt other people in the process. That is an evil, authoritarian regime?? Hell, boy! Sign me up! Too late, that was already taken. The women and children in that religious associated daycare center are already dead. And without 'brainwashing' both the killers and their associates/ leaders/speakers, your simple imprisonment and/or execution of the killers will do nothing to prevent its recurrence and escalation. The only thing, the only parties, the only religions that I would disallow......as I've tried to tell you quite a few times now..... are those that promote violence. But as I said, and you show down below, it is nice to dream. Eh? Flying Spaghetti Monster[img src="http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b245/PowerRangerForum/Emoticons/ ![]() i20.photobucket.com/albums/b245/PowerRangerForum/Emoticons/rofl.gif"].gif [/IMG] [img src="http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b245/PowerRangerForum/Emoticons/ ![]() i20.photobucket.com/albums/b245/PowerRangerForum/Emoticons/rofl.gif"].gif[/IMG] I like! *sigh* Once again.......see above. Or schizophrenia. But it is hard to differentiate the two. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'll go along for now, although I must ask....How will you get to that state from here? Revolution? You have suggestions? Ah! The core of Marxism.....a classless society. I agree, a noble endeavor. And how would you prevent its utter failure as seen in former (and current) communist regimes (which initially, and very idealistically/unrealistically started out with this same goal)? - Please elucidate "A flexible chain of command in the economy". You don't expect people with power and money to step aside for others because 'their turn is up', do you? These two points go together, and make the first one obviously essential. So.....a laissez-faire, isolationist attitude eh? Very anti-Adam Smith of you. In the modern world of fast-paced changes, rapid communication, and technological advances; how do you expect your people to keep up? Or are your people all Amish, so you don't care. - I'm all for the maximum wage as I stated several posts above. B) - So.....no money, no market.....and with neither of those and the isolationist tariffs.....your nation is prit well cut off entirely. As you said above....you are happier with a small nation, not a global one. So you are isolated, alone (no significant trade agreements with other nations), small, and falling behind your land-craving neighbors (but not to worry....I'm sure they are all 'benevalent'). - Hmmmm......no money.....Hmmmm.....So I'm a farm-worker. How many bales of hay must I stack to earn 1 week's food?...Two dental fillings?....A new truck? Gasoline? (from where (and how) did you import the oil?). So I'm a heart surgeon. I've replaced the bad heart valves on Mr. Johnson (the cobbler).....Now I'm set for new shoes for the rest of my life ; but what about the new windows I need on my house?... the college education for my 3 kids? Who sets these standards? Or, if not by a who, then please explain how the 'invisible hand' would do it in your isolated society. Whoa! Paid for by whom? So in 3 years time, everybody's a boss......Where are the workers? Or did the bosses advance to become 'super-bosses'? (after all, you don't want them stagnating either.) And what of the people unwilling or unable to work hard.....since everyone is advancing, likely inflation will soar as the supply of (whatever it is you are using for money) constantly grows. Leaving a large portion of the populace as a poorly paid..... Underclass! Lastly, in your ideal benevolent society.... --- Who polices the people? What is their social standing? Limits of authority? -- What do you do with a growing violent religious faction (12% of your population - and growing) who are repeatedly, and violently asserting that they should be in control of the country, as is their God-given right? Your people (at least 38% of them) are turning to you in fear and desperation marty! They want you to act, or they will! By the way, this all started 10 years earlier with a few of the small religion's "hot-headed" priests spouting stuff about 'purity of souls, and purity of goals'.....with time (and lack of police crackdown) more priests are taking up the chant to their congregations. P.S. Marty, they are not of your religion, and they see you as an apostate devil, who must be killed. --- 15% of your population feels that the state should take care of them (food, medical care, housing, transportation). They are either uneducated or don't care to be. Do you let them starve in the streets (i.e. panhandle, rob, and/or riot)? Give in to their demands? Deport them? Forced labor? -- Note that 49% of your population regularly kicks, spits on, and denies jobs for that "lazy" 15%. --- What sort of 'education system' (you would read "brainwashing system") do you have in place? --- What medical system do you have? (insurance?) Sorry, but I'm out of time......for now. [/quote] No, of course not, silly wabbit. On to the more *serious* matters: He's not exactly a friend. I was cruising the local Anti-Racist Coalition and found that little story... I know him through the internet, but otherwise we don't know each other. He's an Islamophobe, so no harm done there. I think his experiences there have turned him into one, sadly... However, my belief that Anti-Racist laws are harmful, and limit Freedom of Speech, still stand. While I disagree with you, I respect your opinion on it. I am also saddened to hear that there are Turks not receiving equal treatment, as well. |
|
Kained But Able
Aspirant
A generation standing with anger in their eyes...
Posts: 879
|
Post by Kained But Able on Aug 22, 2006 18:42:18 GMT -5
Pft. Said I was a bloody commy. Socialism FTW!
|
|
on the way out. 
