Life
-
Posts
3,829 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Life
-
-
Don't mind me, I'll be sobbing in the corner.
Another season down the tubes.
-
Bills up by two scores in the Black Hole.
We deserve some respect.
-
3-Nil.
Nobody circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills.
-
Cheering for the following teams this week:
- Bills (duh)
- Ravens (I'd rather have Miami lose)
- Falcons
- Packers
- Jaguars
- Giants
- Buccaneers
- Jets (I want to throw up)
Let's see what happens.
-
"USSR wasn't real Marxism. That isn't real Marxism."
Skip to 1:13:30 for this exact quote. -
For your last question, I think Jackson was a bad person. His history speaks for himself.it's not whataboutism. i think castro is a fascinating ruler to look at (in addition to genghis khan, actually), and writing him off as just another crazy is a disservice to history itself. he's one of those people where understanding why he made the decisions he did matters. i don't think castro is 100% bad. more like 90-95%, making the 5-10% very interesting. i don't know much about nero, admittedly, but castro, i think, is different from "known evils" like pol pot, stalin, hitler, zedong, etc. i would say lenin is different from the rest of the pack too.
the united states fought for the silencing of leftist ideologies in various forms for decades, and had two distinct red-hunt events in its history. a history ridden with secret missions and assassination attempts to silence world leaders. the concept of manifest destiny, in retrospect, is disgusting. why don't we see jackson as a monster? or do we?
But to say "the United States has fought to silence leftist ideologies" is disingenuous when those leftist ideologies are fascism and communism. If the US was trying to silence leftists, why haven't they silenced Canada?
Probably because Canada didn't attempt to nuke the USA a mere four years after a violent revolution.
Edit: Meant four.
Castro is fascinating to look at. So is Pol Pot and Mussolini. I say that complete honestly. But you can't attempt to sweep their brutal regimes under the rug.
-
I was making a point through hyperbole.They don't. What are you rambling about this time?If any of them, the ones that leave don't want to do this, because they want to escape from the bullshit that is Pakistani politics. You're overestimating the effect that civilians in a third world nation would have on freedom of speech and religion.
The point is that it is not the job of the leader of the US to put the citizens of any other country above his own or to even equalize them.
-
A few points:I'm not interested in listening to your Randist memes on skype. Also if you're going to defend capitalism(lol), why not read Hegel or Locke.
1) Nobody is forcing you to listen. If you don't want to, don't.
2) If I'm so wrong, then it should be easy to embarress me on a medium where I am more effective at explaining my position and presenting arguments.
3) I'm currently working on re-reads of Leviathan, The Prince and a reading of Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions. I read Locke years ago (like almost 10 years ago) but it'll take me a while before I get to him again. I can only read so many books at the same time.
-
Tell you this much, I'm not happy with Trump's kids talking shop with world leaders. As in there are some serious ethical problems here for me.
To be expected, I guess, but that doesn't mean that I'm happy about it.
-
Is your name Justin Trudeau?do you think i like castro
If you answered no to the above question, then no, we don't. But we also think that it is disingenuous to handwave Castro's crimes in his own country "in retrospect to other leaders".
There is a reason why people don't debate who was the less terrible ruler between Pol Pot or Nero (for example). It doesn't achieve anything.
-
To me, this is a conversation best done in person via Skype. For me specifically, I'm much better at articulating my points verbally than I am at writing them down (especially since I go off of my phone).
If someone wants to oblige for the Marxist case, that would be amazing. I suggest we record it (you don't have to show your face even though I don't mind showing mine) and we all can then discuss afterwards.
Anyone up for it? I am a lot less confrontational in person, by the way.
Besides, who doesn't want to see a hippie arguing for Capitalism?
-
Can someone yell at Conservatives to get politics out of my football? I'm tired of doing it myself.
Case in point, the 'phins/Niners game. I needed Miami to lose. Stop telling me that I love Kaepernick and his ridiculous political comments if I care more about the implications of the game than the player himself.
Raven, I know that we've had our differences in the SD forum but here, back me up bro. Football is football and only football. -
Cambodia also failed.
Marxism can not be achieved before Capitalism reaches to the highest perfect level.
In other word, you cannot promote to 3rd tier class before you reach level requirement and promoted to 2nd tier class.
No. My point is that they succeeded rather than failing. You only consider them failed because they became brutal dictatorships. I am saying that this is the reality of Marxism. Oppression is required to enforce the system.
-
Murdering civilians in Pakistan does not protect basic human rights in the USA.
If those civilians in Pakistan wanted to spread an ideology to the USA which would be inherently at odds with rights like freedom of speech or freedom of religion, then yes. Murdering Pakistanis would then protect basic freedoms in the USA.
-
*raises hand*
About ten years ago, I believe?
Great. The question wasn't sarcastic, by the way.
I'm not saying that I agree with Ayn Rand entirely (because she did believe in unfettered Capitalism) but she brings up excellent points in a lot of the book. The trial of Hank Rearden is one and another one is Francesco D'Anconia when he talks about how money cannot possibly be the root of all evil. Those are important passages to read if you want to critique Capitalism.
-
That's not Marxism, you're just simply don't understand it enough.
The truth is "well, Marxism hasn't worked yet because we're not at the societal level where it can".
It's in the far future, it must be at least hundred years before any of us can reach to that level.
Stalinism, Maoist or Communist, while they claim they are, they all have misunderstood, and practiced it in a wrong way.
It's like in a game, you know your final boss right from the beginning of the game, but you can't deal with it until you reach some certain level, find high end gears, learn all the required skills, etc...
None of us has reach to that level yet, anyone want to try that before the time comes will be doomed.
This is from the other thread and I wanted to comment on this.
What makes your brand of "Marxism" the correct interpretation? I mean, isn't it funny that every single government that attempted to use Marxism became an oppressive dictatorship within years of the implementation?
Forget USSR/Mao China/Cuba for a second. What about Cambodia? Is it just a coincidence that Marxism relies on brutal oppression, no matter where it is applied?
I'm pretty sure that I understand Marxism quite fine but I'll re-read The Communist Manifesto just to make sure.
-
Obama's job is to murder civilians in Pakistan and Jemen?
No but his job isn't to care about them more than the American people or even on the same level.
This is going to sound cold and callous but if murdering citizens in Pakistan meant protecting basic human freedoms in America, then there is a (weak) moral justification for doing so as President of the United States. That's obviously not ideal but any leader should put their own sovereign nation before anyone else's.
-
The biggest problem with socialism (I find) is that Lenin was absolutely correct when he said that Communism is the ultimate goal of Socialism.
Are there issues with unfettered Capitalism? Absolutely. I just don't think that wealth inequality is actually a problem, even in unfettered Capitalism.
Show of hands. How many people have actually read Atlas Shrugged cover to cover?
-
Problem with this: we're ultimately driven by a desire to survive, and that can be just as strong as the law. It is necessary for Capitalism to be restrained or the worker can't quit without his ability to live being severely impacted. Not arguing for Communism, just against pure Capitalism.
Well sure but there's also the idea of supply vs. demand. If a company prices its product out of the masses' income scale, the company fails until it reigns back in the price. And if it is because they can get away with paying workers less (which causes average incomes to fall), eventually the price of said product will also have to fall to meet the demand.
There's lots of discussion to be had on how much restraint should be put on Capitalism but the main takeaway from my point is that no company is forcing someone to work for less with the use of force. Not so under Marxist ideology since you owe your workload to the state.
I think it was Raven who said something along the lines of "well, Marxism hasn't worked yet because we're not at the societal level where it can". Which is completely false because Marxist ideas work perfectly since they require brutal dictatorships to enforce the system. If I were to think that I was entitled to my own gain, the state needs to step in with force to make sure that it is fairly shared across the country. That's why all Marxist based regimes ban freedom of speech; dissent breeds opposition to the idea of forced altruism.
As I like to say, "Statism - Ideas so good that they have to be mandatory".
EDIT: I know that eclipse just said but I'm playing Civ 6 (Game of the Month #2) and I just unlocked the Class Struggle civic (to unlock Communism as a government because they have sweet production bonuses but I don't need them when aiming for a culture victory). And guess what the quote says?
"The class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat." - Karl Marx
Marx himself realized the need for a dictator (whether one person or an entire class) to enforce his own ideas.
This was totally by accident. I just want to finish this GotM (my first attempt at Immortal) and this just happened to pop up.
-
capitalism is inherently bad because it fails to keep safe the exploited worker from the owners of production, and as such it makes everyone overall less productive because there's no incentives to perform at their best. i believe that even the idealistic scenario for capitalism would be utterly detrimental to humanity.
Why this doesn't make sense:
Under capitalism, the worker can quit because capitalism is reliant on a mutual gain system without coercion. Under any form of Marxism, he can't because this is his portion of work owed to the state. Only one system can actually succeed in exploiting the worker and it ain't capitalism.
Tell you what. I'll go re-read The Communist Manifesto while you read Adam Smith. Fair?
-
Ugly win but hey, a win is a win.
Shady is still a beast. And welcome back, Sammy. We missed you.
-
Don't you know that assuming makes an ass out of you and of me?
If the roles had been reversed, then you'd probably have seen pro-Trump people rioting instead of the pro-Clinton people. You would've heard cries of "it's rigged, it's rigged" from the pro-Trump people. Both sides have some supporters who are horrible and we all know it, so not sure what you're trying to do by implying that only the Clinton supporters are like this.
Also, even if Clinton had won the Electoral College I'd still think it's really dumb. Just because I may get a result I like doesn't mean it stops being a dumb idea.
And I would have called them out too. I was expecting Trump to lose, remember?
My point is that I think that you guys are hypocrites.
-
Today we say goodbye to Ghengis Khan, the former Mongolian leader best known for opening new trade routes to China.
I can keep doing this all day because Trudeau deserves to be called out for the ridiculous statement he made.
-
Bills are already trying to destroy my optimism for the rest of the season.
#trudeaueulogies
in Serious Discussion
Posted · Edited by Life
No, it doesn't. This is your attempt at poisoning the well.
I created the thread because I'm also Canadian (dual-citizenship) and I've never been so ashamed of being Canadian in my life due to Trudeau's statement. But hell, the UN Human Rights Council followed suit. Because hypocrisy doesn't exist in the lefty handbook.
http://louderwithcrowder.com/u-n-human-rights-council-holds-moment-silence-fidel-castro/
This has absolutely nothing to do with me being Israeli. I even said in the opening post that "I was ashamed to call myself Canadian". In fact, let's quote it.
If I have an angle to push, I'll be upfront and push it. Fuck you for even pretending to insinuate that I'm doing this out of nationalistic pride to a country that I haven't mentioned in this thread.