Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-06-2005, 05:31 PM   #26
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
I was gonna say I preferred T-bone steak to Big Mac's, but then I thought about it and left it at steak!
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2005, 10:24 PM   #27
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
The tapit tongue twister was great, but this is brilliant.

Thanks, T-man.


Er... I think I'll just have a happy meal, thanks... :roll:



-Yu wanta da tói dat gouz wid it? :shock:
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2005, 09:11 AM   #28
drgnlvr
 
drgnlvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Usually. I don't sit here and think, "Hm, I'm going to go piss people off with my ideas," but it usually just turns out that way.
Pissing people off, and yanking chains is two different things

Okay, maybe not. But pissing people off, and getting people to talk are.

Quote:
Oh, good. I apologize for assuming that you were like that; I'm just tired of arguing with people who look at me like I'm a monster because I use wooden furniture.
Pish! I love good wood furniture. And no apology needed. I admit I sounded like a tree-hugger. It wouldn't be the first time, either. I just acknowledge the "source" of what we have.

Quote:
And yes, we need to replace what we take, at least to a certain extent. Requiring lumber companies to plant so many seedlings for so many trees cut down seems reasonable.
Agreed! But at the same time, I do believe we should preserve the "old growth" forests, as well. Not just for the ecology, but becuase we can't really replace them.

Quote:
True, but this is due more to economic inequality than to the enviornment being unable to sustain our numbers. The total amount of food-stock in circulation in the US is more than enough to feed 300 million people if perfectly distributed, but some people hold more of it than others. (I do NOT advocate wealth redistribution, by the way -- as though anyone here could accuse me of that.)
Yes, I agree. And no, I don't believe in "wealth redistibution", either. Another name for that is Communism. I'm more of a Socialist (after a fashion). On the other hand, I also don't agree with a corporate CEO buying a new Jag every year, or a Learjet every 5, while his employees down on the line (who are -also- helping make his company prosper) are working 2 jobs just to keep a hovel over their heads, or worse, paying someone in a 3rd-world country $2.00 a day, and a couple of chickens, just so they can have a bigger profit margin. However, this is not all the fault of the CEO, or the shareholders, but also the unions, who've stopped working for labor rights, and become politicians just wanting to line their pockets (And helped price American labor out of the market), as well as the consumer who demands cheaper goods, and the credit card companies who make it easy to get into debt, thus creating a false economy, and......well, I think you get my drift. It's all relative.

And you would not be the first to accuse me of over-thinking an issue.

Quote:
I hate modern philosophy for just that reason.
Buddhism is not exactly modern philosophy. (Yes, I'm just being contrary)

Quote:
Philosophy is the ultimate science of black-and-white. It is the search for absolute truth that transcends all other petty concerns and circumstances.

And Aristotle is on my side :P. Roughly paraphrased: "A is A, always has been A, and always will be A. If it ceases to be A, then it is not A.

"That which is not A is not A, nor will it ever be. If it ceases to be not A, then it becomes A."

Aristotle was always very black and white: something either is, or it is not. There is no in-between on anything.
There are a gazillion philosophies. Your own personal beliefs will dictate which one you chose to follow.
__________________
Lover, Bard, Phone Monkey, and MILF!
drgnlvr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2005, 09:21 AM   #29
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by drgnlvr
...I love good wood
Doesn't everyone?


Oh and forgive me Asurai, but I gotta take one more shot at you: Philosophy is thinking about thinking.
It's closer to art and meditative religion than science. I mean, we're still asking the same questions we did thousands of years ago. Philosophy would have progressed a wee bit more if it were scientific and not a completely subjective thinking matter.

:P
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2005, 09:47 AM   #30
drgnlvr
 
drgnlvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom
Quote:
Originally Posted by drgnlvr
...I love good wood
Doesn't everyone?
Touche!
__________________
Lover, Bard, Phone Monkey, and MILF!
drgnlvr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2005, 03:19 PM   #31
WolfMoon
 
WolfMoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I own Pitseleh!!
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Allow me to quote from The Enemies of Columbus by Thomas Bowden:


Contrast this breadth of intellectual endeavor with the constricted mental outlook of the savage, whose world view is dominated by animism, the primitive notion that everything in the universe is inhabited by powerful spirits, that Nature remains mysterious. The anxiety that necessarily results from such superstition induces cognitive paralysis . . . . It is the savage's lot to see one of his tribe's crude boats vanishing over the horizon and feel dread that the water spirits might prevent its return -- to take that dread and turn it into a frenzied dance of supplication -- to take that dance and make it into a ritual, to be repeated generation after generation -- to invent a new ritual for every danger, for every wild animal, flood, famine, drought, or illness that threatens his existence -- and finally, to have nothing to pass on to the next generation but a pile of arrowheads and a vision of the future that differs not from the past. Immobilized by superstition, the savage society is helpless before the forces of nature, and consequently its members cannot control the course of their own lives.
The ceremonies the Indians performed were just as meaningful to them, spiritually, as the many ceremonies that the catholics still perform today. I don't see much difference between the two, actually. It would be awfully rude to hunt an animal without giving thanks for it, no? Don't the christians say grace before meals, giving thanks for the bounty on their plates?

The part about the water spirits preventing boats from returning? Just laughable. If their boats went over the horizon and came back on a regular basis, they wouldn't have feared 'water spirits'. They did fear things that they'd never seen or weren't familiar with.



Quote:
The point in this is simple: it is better to be rich, healthy, and safe than to be poor, sick, and afraid . . . The importance of being at one end rather than the other [end of this spectrum] is not a matter of subjective preference; it is the difference between life and squalid death. People who fail to civilize themselves are doomed to live in filth, hunger, and fear -- and to die before their time....[b][They do not realize] that laser surgery is preferable to a shaman's spells.
Wow, I never realized that the "savages" had a choice between laser surgery and shaman spells, back then!

Quote:
. . . Now, consider pre-Columbian Indian life [the best example of savage society]. Not having developed an Aristotle of their own, these Indians had neither discovered the laws of logic nor formed a concept of natural law. Instead, they believed the universe to be ruled by fickle, inscrutable spirits that required unflinching obedience to mind-numbing rituals and taboos . . . . Virtually all of these Indians were either hunters, gatherers, fishers, or planters, still mired in the stone age. They were miserably poor, not only by today's standards but by those of 15th century Europe. All Indians, chiefs as well as warriors, were subject to a variety of economic and physical catastrophies (such as floods, famines, pestilence, and epidemic disease) that modern societies have tamed or forgotten.
Yabadabadoo! I never heard of them being likened to cave men before.Miserably poor? Didn't the Aztecs wear gold jewelry?Or maybe the author is suggesting, in his bigotted way, that it is better to be materialistic than to be able to make do with what nature provides and not ask more than your share?Greed is to be commended?

...The spiritual lifestyle of the Indians was anything but relaxed and simple. Indians lived "in a world of anciety, frustration, inadequacy, and vulnerability, in which the spirits control everything," writes anthropologist Peter Farb. Because they did not understand natural law, Indians lived in constant fear that fickle gods and spirits might take away the things they depended on for life: plants, animals, rain, even the sun.

Constant fear?No.



Quote:
By contrast, modern Americans live in relative serenity due to their understanding and acceptance of natural law. They have no need to trouble themselves about supernatural beings that interfere with their mastery of the enviornment; they can confront the natural world with confidence that their efforts to investigate and control nature will meet with success over the long run. The resultant feeling of being "at home" in the universe is an achievement of Western civilization, not Indian or savage culture.
Serenity? Ha! Only if you consider it serene to worry about how you're going to stretch the few diapers you have til payday and pay bills + rent + food.

Quote:
...Indians who lived for centuried atop massive reserves of petroleum needed the European immigrants to show them how oil could be used to light a lamp or run an engine.
Not if they didn't need the lamp or engine.What good would it have been to have a lamp when they already had fire to see by?An engine would've only warned the buffalo of their presence and scared them off.

Quote:
Indians toiled long hours to produce enough food to keep themselves alive; there was usually not enough surplus to permic much division of labor. If Indians produces less garbage, it was only because they produced less wealth. On the other hand, they would think nothing of stampeding a herd of bison over a cliff, taking what they needed, and leaving the rest of the dead animals to rot.
The indians only worked as hard as any other farmer to grow what they needed.Hell, they taught the pilgrims how to feed themselves, thereby insuring their own doom,unfortunately.What need did they have of wealth?They had everything they already needed. The original DIYers.

Quote:
The enviornment that the Indians were unable to master, mastered them, as famine, disease, drought, floods, and malnutrition regularly left the survivors helpless and afraid. Describing certain pre-Columbian tribes, Jake Page writes, "It was, over the centuries, a hard life. We know from burials that a man of forty-five would be worn down, old; and the average life expectancy was less than that. We know that childbearing women suffered more severely from malnutrition than their men, and children more than their mothers. Not infrequently, people died from diseases arising from what we now know to be poor sanitation."
Western civilization's sanitation wasn't much better, if at all.

Quote:
...Modern industrial nations, on the other hand, have truly built paradise by controlling nature to serve human ends
It's hardly paradise.Unless that's refering to all of the wonderful pollution we produce.



It's not yourself that I have a problem with, Asurai, just this author's thinly veiled supremisist leanings.It's quite obvious from his writing that he thinks indians were nothing more than drooling nit-wits afraid of their own shadows.Other than that, I have nothing useful to add to the other debate going on as I agree with points on boths sides.



Plus, I've spent almost 2 hours on this response between changing and feeding kids and whatnot.If I don't leave off I'm going to get a headache.[/i]
WolfMoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 04:54 PM   #32
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by drgnlvr
Yes, I agree. And no, I don't believe in "wealth redistibution", either. Another name for that is Communism. I'm more of a Socialist (after a fashion). On the other hand, I also don't agree with a corporate CEO buying a new Jag every year, or a Learjet every 5, while his employees down on the line (who are -also- helping make his company prosper) are working 2 jobs just to keep a hovel over their heads, or worse, paying someone in a 3rd-world country $2.00 a day, and a couple of chickens, just so they can have a bigger profit margin. However, this is not all the fault of the CEO, or the shareholders, but also the unions, who've stopped working for labor rights, and become politicians just wanting to line their pockets (And helped price American labor out of the market), as well as the consumer who demands cheaper goods, and the credit card companies who make it easy to get into debt, thus creating a false economy, and......well, I think you get my drift. It's all relative.
Firstly, I'm curious as to what, in your case, is the difference between a Socialist and a Communist.

Secondly, I probably agree. A corporate CEO is entitled to make a substantial amount of profit more than the average Joe working the line, but some amounts are simply exploiting. After all, as you said, they help him to produce the wealth that the company obtains; for all of his planning and organization, he could make hardly a dime without good, hard workers. But at the same time, without the CEO producing wealth and making the company rich, the company wouldn't be creating the jobs that are necessary for the workers to live on. No profit for businessmen, no jobs for workers; no jobs for workers, no profit for businessmen. They're both interconnected to a very significant degree, so neither should screw the other over out of what they deserve.

The unions? The unions today suck.

Quote:
And you would not be the first to accuse me of over-thinking an issue.
Oh, no worries about that. I usually do the same, to the extent that most people get utterly sick of listening to me ramble on and on about the minor points and differences of things. (I believe that things are basically black-and-white, but it usually takes me a long, long time to get there.)

Quote:
There are a gazillion philosophies. Your own personal beliefs will dictate which one you chose to follow.
Sigh. Sadly true in most cases.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 05:06 PM   #33
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom
Is it any better to slaughter people by the thousands for entertainment, like the romans did in the Circus Maiximus to the criminals, barbarians, christians (not catholics) than to do it for religious beliefs?
Not particularly, no, and you'll not find me justifying that particular bit of Roman civilization either. (Although sentencing murderers to fight each other to the death is cool.)

Quote:
where they were light years ahead of the West in biotechnology (shaman or medicine-man's knowledge and use of herbs and infusions and mind-altering substances)
This is true, but it was the Western tradition, not the Indian knowledge of herbs, that gave rise to modern medicine. Most of the Western civilization in, say, 1492 was nothing more than potential, but its potential quickly turned into sciences far more advanced than anything else in the world.

And I'm grateful to the shamans for passing down the uses for, say, water boiled with marigold flowers. (I think that that was them, at least.)
It's cheap and easy, if slightly less effective than its Western equivalents.

Quote:
I prefer Marijuana, beer, a steak and a blow-job to Ecstasy, Coca-Cola, Big Mac and a porn video. And with that phrase alone, I win and you're all my bitches.
You suck, Mael.

But beer is a Mediterranean thing.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 06:52 PM   #34
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
I forgot to mention that those roman atrocities (as we perceive them today) were contemporary to the Apian Road, the aqueducts, military technology and strategic planning, the republic, the senate, roman law, literature and philosophy and all the things we like about them.

And Nietzsche was a mysoginist sunovabitch, but does it undermine his writings?

Blood and evolution somehow walk side by side even when the 1st doesn't contribute directly to the latters' growth nor is it always rationally justifiable.

The Arabian and subsequent Ottoman empires were ahead of the West in all forms of science and technology, but it still didn't prevent them from turning back on it and burying all their heritage in the sand (besides destroying vestiges of former civilizations - the pyramids survived out of sheer size).
I mean, look at them now.

Believe it: the dark ages can happen again. They happened before in the West and it's happening now in the Middle East.

As with individuals, it's not what you say, think and have. It's not what you're capable of. It's what you do with all of it that matters in the end.

Remember that shitty Armaggedon flick? The Ruskie goes: "My uncle is very important man. He make the chip that goes on tip of ICBM and finds Washington, NY and LA." or something to that effect.
Not exactly technology put to good use, huh?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have saved many lives, if you insist on seing it in that skewed a perspective. Has the US apologized for murdering civilians to save soldier's lives?
'Cause that's what it came down to. Machiavel was just plain wrong: the ends do NOT always justify the means.

Difference between Socialism and Communism?
Quite simple, really. In the original Marxist theories, it's sort of a foreplay to Communism.
Sound scary? Not really.

Theorettically, communism is a society without hierarchy and ruling government bodies. There is a state and it's composed of the territories inhabitants as well as the territory itself. Communism is a state of affairs where the workers control the means of production directly according to the communities needs and the state exists no more.

Do notice that our industrial/economy driven society pushes us to make shit we never needed and never really will, adding to the toll on natural resources.
Market laws practically force any "rational" CEO to overproduce or underproduce and make cutbacks in order to keep a stable market.

The value of a modern man's work is now subject to market speculation and pure unadultered greed instead of the actual value of what he produced in terms of its benefit to society.

Socialism is the acknowledgement that society can never immediately jump from one state of affairs (monarchy, dictatorshit, imperialism, republic, economy and what not) to Communism.
Therefore, a middle ground is needed = the state represented by a governing body elected by its peers (worker's unions).

Modern day socialism focuses on what the Left forgot when the Berlin Wall came down:

-People are still being exploited to the point of practical slavery, from Madagascar to India and red China.

-People are being repressed (often by people who refer to themselves as "socialist" - Castro and China again as well as many US backed "governments").

-People are being tortured and killed along with their whole family for speaking their mind on what they think is wrong, from Angola, to Nigeria, to Zimbabwe, the Whole Middle East.

Fuck, man, people are starving to death outside your country, and people are going hungry in yours, and don't you dare say they're all lazy bastards sucking on uncle Sam's tit, 'cause it ain't so, as some members here can personally vouch for.

There are still way too many voiceless people at home and abroad for us to pat ourselves on the back for our great achievments.
There is a real need for a real left. Evolution will go nowhere without a "roadmap". Like that one?

Unlike what you might have been led to believe, REAL socialism is not about censorship (you know, like you have in the states for "National Security Reasons" or in so called communist countries) of any kind. The last guy who tried to pass a law to allow for state secrets was thrown out on his arse. We were lied to for too long to ever allow it again. The difference between us and the US is that we are aware we were lied to.
It shames and embarasses us to admit it, but it's not like we can deny it.

Socialism today isn't about a single party system (in PT, the socialist party just won the elections and you can bet your ass no one here wants a single party system and it won't happen).
Socialism is about Society. It comes from social. Replace Social with Civil, and you'll get an idea. Communism is about community (yeah right).

I don't believe in communism because people aren't all the same, don't need the same and don't deserve the same.

But I AM a socialist because if I believe all people are NOT equal, I also believe they are all equal when they are born and HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES in life.

The unassumed gay paedophiliac who was the rightwing party leader in the bypartisan government that just fell in PT, held the ministry of Defence and Sea, and put warships preventing the Women On Waves ship from docking in my country to give out free information about voluntary interruption of pregnancy (abortion), child planning and safe sex. I mean, not even fucking Ireland did that (one point for Sternn).

He also opposed the referee on Abortion, wants the Catholic church to be reinstated as official national religion and wants kids to sing the national anthem as something compulsory in all schools.

We were trampled under a nationalistic fascist dictatorship for 60 years, so no matter how natural the school anthem sounds to an american, it sends chills down the spine of everyone here if not sung or heard at a military, sports or official government event.

Sadly, we now associate these national symbols (like the national coat-of-arms that has been my avatar untill my ass took over), as they were imprisoned, tortured, killed or sent to death camps in african colonies.

You like your anthem? Good. Keep it.

Oh, did I mention the US republican party (or one of their associations and think tanks) congratulated the PT minister on the whole warship crap, and are now going to fund him his own rightwing political party after the incompetent and corrupted government he was part of fell?
I mean, the dude goes to France, puts on a blond wig and rents boys for fun - they call him Catherine Deneuve there.

Thanks America. Thanks for looking out for the interests of my country and its people... NOT!

But that's OK, 'cause we already agreed every government just pulls for his country.

And I do believe people get the governments they deserve.
That's why we got ourselves a new one. We deserved better and desperately need a better one. You guys probably don't know just how bad things are on this side of the Atlantic.

We are going hungry again.
Something that hadn't happened since this country was squeezed dry by the dictatorship in order to sell food to both nazis and allies in WW II, and bled dry to fight a few colonial wars in Africa (where my father died).

I hated a couple of things about Clinton on foreign policy (although I'll admit Madeleine Albright has more balls and integrity than the whole Bush entourage), but at least the world economy was running (as the global market is slave to the Dollar), but now...

Really now, for those of you in the US who work: has your life improved anything since 2000 as a result of your current governments actions? Are you wealthier? Are you better off? Are you safer?

Don't think about saying the recession hit when it did and that Bush just happened to be there, seen as the market went under because there are no business dealings without trust.
Trust was undermined by Enron, amongst other businesses who sponsored Bush his 1st term.
Is Bush to blame for this?

And Asurai, a fair days wages for a honest days work applies to both the factory floor worker as well as the CEO, but if they are incompetent, one gets sacked and the other is given a huge finantial compensation.

Guess which one.

When one of them is incompetent, the whole company suffers and might even go under or be bought out and dismembered (as it often does).

Guess which one.

Worker and CEO symbiotic?
Yeah right!
Tell that to your fellow americans who got laid off because a CEO decided that underpaid, exploited and mute workers in the Chinese communist regime was the best way to cut losses and increase earnings (When does the 101st arrive there to do some liberation?).
A CEO's only order of business is to generate wealth for the company and increase it or cut losses and file for bankrupcy (at any cost, workers included).

Welcome to the jungle, we have fun and games...

The world isn't black and white simply because there is no absolute black nor white.
It's all really just different shades of grey.
Sure, a lot of tones can easily be told apart, but many can't (unless you insist on seing things as you want to see them and not as they present themselves).

Oops. I raved on for a while, didn't I? Ah fuck it, tomorrow I'll just post a different angle of my arse and all will be forgotten (what an arrogant sod)! :?

Seriously now, sorry for going off on a rant.
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 08:03 PM   #35
drgnlvr
 
drgnlvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Firstly, I'm curious as to what, in your case, is the difference between a Socialist and a Communist.
Marx and the Communist Manefesto aside, Communism doesn't work. Supposedly everyone is equal, and everyone is supposed to get the same share of the money, no matter how hard you work, or how brilliant your idea. There's no reason to excell. There's no reason to -try-. Doesn't matter if you do a half-assed job, or a good job, it's going to be the same pay, either way.

On the other hand, Socialism -does- seem to work. At least in some European countries. Socialism is making sure everyone has the same -BASIC- benefits in medical care, shelter, food and education. What you do with that, is up to you. You can be lazy, or you can excell. You can still make a profit, or you can be dirt poor. You still have your -basic- needs covered. You have the option to do something about adding to the basic medical care, basic housing, etc. But you will not be without those needs covered.

It makes for higher taxes, but in the long run, it makes sound economical sense. Hungry, homeless, desperate people, are -dangerous-. History has shown over, and over, and over again, when the lower class is oppressed, and denied their basic needs, they -will- revolt. Every. Single. Time. People who do not have these basic needs covered, do not spend money on other things, because they have to figure out whether to eat, or pay rent. When there is no basic medical coverage, people will put off going to the doctor for something that can be taken care of easily, in the early stages, thus reducing the number of days missed due to illness, and basic medical coverage will also lessen the instances of people using the emergency room for a clinic, and then not being able to pay, thus raising the cost of medical care for everyone, and raising the cost of insurance. Productivity is up, so more money is being earned at the lower levels, and put back into the economy. Basic needs for food being covered means less loss from theft, and better nutrition, which also ties back into health and productivity. Basic shelter covered, means fewer people on the streets and in shelters, and can reduce violent crime (note I did not say eliminate it).

Quote:
Secondly, I probably agree. A corporate CEO is entitled to make a substantial amount of profit more than the average Joe working the line, but some amounts are simply exploiting.
BINGO! I see no reason to make that CEO live off the same wages the line worker does. There is education, and skills involved that create the environment and situation that allows the line worker to have a job in the first place. Its all reletive, though. Without the CEO, the line worker would not have a job. Without the line worker making the product, the CEO wouldn't have any profits.

But seriously, if those CEOs who are getting paid obscene amounts of money (including several million when the shareholders decide that CEO isn't making a good enough profit for them...I mean, get real! Where is the incentive to make that company shine, when you know you'll get a nice, shiney golden umbrella when you get canned?) don't need THAT much, and if -some- of that were redistributed down the line, there would be no need of Unions, nor would there be any need of working two jobs, or to export our jobs to a 3rd world country. Everyone would go away happy, and our economy would kick ass.

Quote:
The unions? The unions today suck.
They're still trying to cash in on the good they did a couple generations ago, and they ain't doing it. At this point, the unions are nothing more than dead weight sucking the life out of American Industry.

Quote:
Oh, no worries about that. I usually do the same, to the extent that most people get utterly sick of listening to me ramble on and on about the minor points and differences of things. (I believe that things are basically black-and-white, but it usually takes me a long, long time to get there.)
Of course! After all, if you consider something from all angles, and argue your side while covering all those angles, who can argue with you?

Well, except someone else who overthinks stuff.
__________________
Lover, Bard, Phone Monkey, and MILF!
drgnlvr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 08:37 PM   #36
drgnlvr
 
drgnlvr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 411
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom
The difference between us and the US is that we are aware we were lied to.
It shames and embarasses us to admit it, but it's not like we can deny it.
Correction....Many of us here in the US are well aware that we've been lied to.

Quote:
Seriously now, sorry for going off on a rant.
Mael, your rant was well thought-out, and made very good points. In fact, I read the entire rant to my fiance, and he agreed with everything you said (except the part I corrected above).
__________________
Lover, Bard, Phone Monkey, and MILF!
drgnlvr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2005, 08:52 PM   #37
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
Thanks babe, but I suspect your post is something like KY jelly being applied on my ass (see avatar ) before Binkie reads my post and buttfucks me for it.

Binkie, if you do stumble onto my post, lemme tell you I'm well aware of how one-sided and subjective it all is (not to say flatout Sternnish), and am also aware there are quite a few faults in my reasonings (I know I had a lot better arguements to tie Bush to the recession, the Tsunami and the killing of Jesus if possible :roll: ), but I did it on purpose to provoke discussion. Once more, sorry for ranting and derailing the thread somewhat.
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2005, 12:10 AM   #38
pitseleh
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,059
Brilliant post, Mr. M. It's almost redundant to say I agree with all of it. If all socialists were as clear and incisive as you, the world would be ours. Well, I wish.

But, fuck, this always happens with any interesting political thread. I take some days off, and when I check back in, the thread has grown by several pages, and I've totally lost my angle on it. But that's all well and good, it's been an interesting read.

Maybe I'll get back into this later, I can't focus right now.
pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005, 01:02 PM   #39
WolfMoon
 
WolfMoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I own Pitseleh!!
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom
I forgot to mention that those roman atrocities (as we perceive them today) were contemporary to the Apian Road, the aqueducts, military technology and strategic planning, the republic, the senate, roman law, literature and philosophy and all the things we like about them.
And what have they ever given
us IN RETURN?
XERXES
The aqueduct?
REG
What?
XERXES
The aqueduct.
REG
Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.
MASKED COMMANDO
And the sanitation!
STAN
Oh yes ... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
REG
All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two
things that the Romans HAVE done ...
MATTHIAS
And the roads ...
REG
(sharply) Well YES OBVIOUSLY the roads ... the roads go without saying.
But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads ...
ANOTHER MASKED COMMANDO
Irrigation ...
OTHER MASKED VOICES
Medicine ... Education ... Health
REG
Yes ... all right, fair enough ...
COMMANDO NEARER THE FRONT
And the wine ...
GENERAL
Oh yes! True!
FRANCIS
Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.
MASKED COMMANDO AT BACK
Public baths!
STAN
AND it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.
FRANCIS
Yes, they certainly know how to keep order ...

... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.

REG
All right ... all right ... but apart from better sanitation and medicine
and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater
system and baths and public order ... what HAVE the Romans done for US?
XERXES
Brought peace!
REG

What!? Oh ... Peace, yes ... shut up!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
Blood and evolution somehow walk side by side even when the 1st doesn't contribute directly to the latters' growth nor is it always rationally justifiable.
This is something that seems true no matter what. While I'd have a hard time living like my ancestors did, I can't find it in myself to praise the people that brought all of my modern conveniences to me. It seems like a double standard, no? I do kinda feel like the people in 'Life of Brian' at times. You don't like the way things are done, but you benefit from them being done, none-the-less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
Believe it: the dark ages can happen again. They happened before in the West and it's happening now in the Middle East.
You mean the Great Depression? Yeah, that could probably happen again. People are even laying odds that it will. I don't think it will though, but I'm being optomistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
As with individuals, it's not what you say, think and have. It's not what you're capable of. It's what you do with all of it that matters in the end.

Remember that shitty Armaggedon flick? The Ruskie goes: "My uncle is very important man. He make the chip that goes on tip of ICBM and finds Washington, NY and LA." or something to that effect.
Not exactly technology put to good use, huh?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have saved many lives, if you insist on seing it in that skewed a perspective. Has the US apologized for murdering civilians to save soldier's lives?
'Cause that's what it came down to. Machiavel was just plain wrong: the ends do NOT always justify the means.
Yes, actually. I believe it was when Clinton was in office that we went over and officially apologized for that. I don't know if they ever apologized for provoking us by laying waste to Pearl Harbor first, though. It was a shameful thing to have done. Murdering people that are known to be civilians is wrong, period. The US should never have done it.



I'll comment on the rest tomorrow.
WolfMoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005, 01:39 PM   #40
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
Quote:
I forgot to mention that those roman atrocities (as we perceive them today) were contemporary to the Apian Road, the aqueducts, military technology and strategic planning, the republic, the senate, roman law, literature and philosophy and all the things we like about them.
This is very true.

But the Aztecs had none, or almost none, of those things while they were practicing human sacrifice -- and certainly, those few that they perhaps did have were nowhere near the level of their Roman equivalents.

Quote:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have saved many lives, if you insist on seing it in that skewed a perspective. Has the US apologized for murdering civilians to save soldier's lives?
'Cause that's what it came down to. Machiavel was just plain wrong: the ends do NOT always justify the means.
No, we haven't, and we won't. To us, American lives always come before the lives of our enemies. That includes civilians -- without their assent to the Japanese conquests, we would never have been drawn into the war to begin with, and therefore would never have had to make the choice between their lives and ours.

BUT, think about this. Japan was a land peopled by citizens nationalistic unto absurdity. Had we invaded their homeland and fought street-to-street, far more of their civilians, not just our soldiers, would have died. Ironically, dropping the atomic bombs saved more of their citizens' lives in the end.

Quote:
Do notice that our industrial/economy driven society pushes us to make shit we never needed and never really will, adding to the toll on natural resources.
That depends upon how you define "need." Technically, we don't "need" fires, cooked meat, and caves for shelters, since we can live without them. But everything helps, and every little piece of "shit," as you call it, makes life much more comfortable for us.

Quote:
-People are still being exploited to the point of practical slavery, from Madagascar to India and red China.

-People are being repressed (often by people who refer to themselves as "socialist" - Castro and China again as well as many US backed "governments").

-People are being tortured and killed along with their whole family for speaking their mind on what they think is wrong, from Angola, to Nigeria, to Zimbabwe, the Whole Middle East.
Notice that not a single one of those places is a free, capitalistic nation. I'm sure that there's a connection there somewhere.

Quote:
There are still way too many voiceless people at home and abroad for us to pat ourselves on the back for our great achievments.
Sorry (well, not really), but we made the achievement of putting a man on the moon. Regardless of how many "voiceless people" there are, that's a great achievement that deserves to be applauded.

Quote:
Unlike what you might have been led to believe, REAL socialism is not about censorship (you know, like you have in the states for "National Security Reasons" or in so called communist countries) of any kind.
There has never been a communist or socialist country that allows anything approaching the level of free speech that we have in the United States.

Quote:
Socialism is about Society. It comes from social. Replace Social with Civil, and you'll get an idea. Communism is about community (yeah right).
No, socialism and communism are about one part of "society": the poor. Everyone else is regarded as simply there; the rest don't matter, except when it comes to taking their money to prop up the poor.

Quote:
But I AM a socialist because if I believe all people are NOT equal, I also believe they are all equal when they are born and HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES in life.
By that definition, even I'm a socialist.

Actually, that sounds like a capitalist statement. Capitalists believe in equal opportunity; socialists believe in coddling the ones who fail.

Quote:
Really now, for those of you in the US who work: has your life improved anything since 2000 as a result of your current governments actions? Are you wealthier? Are you better off? Are you safer?
Well, my parents (both teachers) are making about double what they were in 1999. Does that count?

Quote:
And Asurai, a fair days wages for a honest days work applies to both the factory floor worker as well as the CEO, but if they are incompetent, one gets sacked and the other is given a huge finantial compensation.
An incompetent CEO does not make money for his company. He does not get financial compensation; the directors do not want incompetents managing their money.

Quote:
When one of them is incompetent, the whole company suffers and might even go under or be bought out and dismembered (as it often does).
That would be the CEO. That would be why there aren't many idiotic CEOs, and why they get paid very, very much. (Responsibility.)

Quote:
A CEO's only order of business is to generate wealth for the company and increase it or cut losses and file for bankrupcy (at any cost, workers included).
Yeah. So?

If the company doesn't make profits, the workers don't have jobs. Obviously, it's in the workers' best interests that the company makes profits. (Note that well-off corporations don't lay off workers; only those that are losing money do.)

A worker's job is to make money for his empoyer. That's it. It's a business contract: 'I give you a job and pay your wages, and in return you make money for me.' Simple. And when the worker stops making profits for his employer, for whatever reason, the employer no longer is obligated to provide the worker a job.

Quote:
The world isn't black and white simply because there is no absolute black nor white.
Sure there is. It's absolutely evil for you to steal, murder, ****, etc. It isn't dependant on circumstances or grey areas: it's always evil, no matter what, and will always remain so. It's absolute black.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005, 01:40 PM   #41
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
I don't think they did.

Australians and New zealenders (ANZACS) as well as british regulars (from Gurkas to irish, scots, Pakis, Indians, Koreans, Chinese, Indonesians and polinesians were tortured and killed in detention camps (death camps) in Burma (remember the Bridge Over the River Kwai? Remember Merry Christmas, Mr.Lawrence?

Hiro Hito never apologized and many japanese still deny it with the same conviction that neonazis deny the holocaust (inspite of the fact that Koizumi already apologized for japanese war crimes).


But what I'm really impressed about is that you are honest and sincere enough to say how most of us feel: "You don't like the way things are done, but you benefit from them being done, none-the-less."

Wow, I don't see that sort of integrity every day.

But really darling, the Great Depression is to the Dark Ages what Bush is to Genghis Khan.
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2005, 01:56 PM   #42
Asurai
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 324
drgnlvr --

I agree on almost all points. I'm slightly more cynical regarding socialism providing everyone with basic needs, but I think that we agree on most everything else that you mentioned.
Asurai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 12:45 PM   #43
WolfMoon
 
WolfMoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I own Pitseleh!!
Posts: 3,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom

Difference between Socialism and Communism?
Quite simple, really. In the original Marxist theories, it's sort of a foreplay to Communism.
Sound scary? Not really.

Theorettically, communism is a society without hierarchy and ruling government bodies. There is a state and it's composed of the territories inhabitants as well as the territory itself. Communism is a state of affairs where the workers control the means of production directly according to the communities needs and the state exists no more.
I knew a girl who always said that communism was for hippies. Everyone gets a 'fair share' regardless of how much weight they pull. I'd definately hate that, seeing as how I've been the person doing my job and pulling someone else's slack. Fuck that. If I'm doing someone else's work I want half or all of their pay, damnit!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
Do notice that our industrial/economy driven society pushes us to make shit we never needed and never really will, adding to the toll on natural resources.
I could probably survive without my a/c and TV, but there's a part of me that's sure I'd die without them. After all my TV could alert me to any psychopaths living in the area. If I didn't have my TV, I wouldn't have been alerted and therefore could perish at some unkown psychopath's hands.........uh, yeah.

And the a/c, well I live in TX and could potentially have a heatstroke if not for the curative powers of my a/c. I need my conveniences.

See?

SEE?

:roll:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
Market laws practically force any "rational" CEO to overproduce or underproduce and make cutbacks in order to keep a stable market.

The value of a modern man's work is now subject to market speculation and pure unadultered greed instead of the actual value of what he produced in terms of its benefit to society.
I can certainly vouch for that. For Valentines Day our beloved CEOs thought we would actually sell three times what we normally sell as far as candy/cards/novelties for valentine's. We ended up having to discount 75% of the shit they sent us cuz we had that much left over. And the laughable part? We get punished for mistakes the CEOs make!!! WTF? So they not only get paid a shitload more than us, but they also get to blame us for their screw ups. Let me tell you how much I love the guys upstairs. We move the merchandize that they tell us to move, hell we're making more many than we have the last 2 years. And they pay us back for our hard work by cutting our hours. Fucking rat-bastards!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
Socialism is the acknowledgement that society can never immediately jump from one state of affairs (monarchy, dictatorshit, imperialism, republic, economy and what not) to Communism.
Therefore, a middle ground is needed = the state represented by a governing body elected by its peers (worker's unions).

Modern day socialism focuses on what the Left forgot when the Berlin Wall came down:

-People are still being exploited to the point of practical slavery, from Madagascar to India and red China.

-People are being repressed (often by people who refer to themselves as "socialist" - Castro and China again as well as many US backed "governments").

-People are being tortured and killed along with their whole family for speaking their mind on what they think is wrong, from Angola, to Nigeria, to Zimbabwe, the Whole Middle East.
Not to mention all the atrocities being committed in Rawanda(sp?) where people are supposedly sent there to help, but they're not, really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
Fuck, man, people are starving to death outside your country, and people are going hungry in yours, and don't you dare say they're all lazy bastards sucking on uncle Sam's tit, 'cause it ain't so, as some members here can personally vouch for.
Damn straight!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
There are still way too many voiceless people at home and abroad for us to pat ourselves on the back for our great achievments.
There is a real need for a real left. Evolution will go nowhere without a "roadmap". Like that one?
We've done a few things that I believe deserve a pat on the back. I think we'd be able to be a greater nation if we actually took care of the people that make it up. Then we could lead by example, rather than trying to do everything at once.If we're so great why are people struggling to survive here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
I don't believe in communism because people aren't all the same, don't need the same and don't deserve the same.

But I AM a socialist because if I believe all people are NOT equal, I also believe they are all equal when they are born and HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES in life.
That's all a socialist is? Hell, guess I'm one too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
The unassumed gay paedophiliac who was the rightwing party leader in the bypartisan government that just fell in PT, held the ministry of Defence and Sea, and put warships preventing the Women On Waves ship from docking in my country to give out free information about voluntary interruption of pregnancy (abortion), child planning and safe sex. I mean, not even fucking Ireland did that (one point for Sternn).

He also opposed the referee on Abortion, wants the Catholic church to be reinstated as official national religion and wants kids to sing the national anthem as something compulsory in all schools.
That's sad. WOW does alot of good. I'm not for abortion (not even getting into that again), but it's more important, over all, to have the information and material available for safe sex and child planning. If the women had proper birth control in the first place they probably wouldn't have much need for abortion anyway. BUT, if someone decides to have an abortion it's better to have it done by someone that's properly trained to do it safely, rather than the girl/woman risking her health and quite possibly her life by getting one done by someone untrained. If it's gotta be done, might as well be done safely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
We were trampled under a nationalistic fascist dictatorship for 60 years, so no matter how natural the school anthem sounds to an american, it sends chills down the spine of everyone here if not sung or heard at a military, sports or official government event.

Sadly, we now associate these national symbols (like the national coat-of-arms that has been my avatar untill my ass took over), as they were imprisoned, tortured, killed or sent to death camps in african colonies.

You like your anthem? Good. Keep it.
There is something to be said for loyalty to one's country, if not their government. I love the people of my country, the government is another story. Seems like no matter who you vote for, it's always a choice between the lesser of two(or three) evils.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
Oh, did I mention the US republican party (or one of their associations and think tanks) congratulated the PT minister on the whole warship crap, and are now going to fund him his own rightwing political party after the incompetent and corrupted government he was part of fell?
I mean, the dude goes to France, puts on a blond wig and rents boys for fun - they call him Catherine Deneuve there.

Thanks America. Thanks for looking out for the interests of my country and its people... NOT!
See, it's things like this that bother me. They congratulatedthe guy for ensuring that the women in his country would risk their lives for unsafe abortions? They high-fived him for keeping people ignorant? Go America...not. I will NEVER understand Bush's stance on birth-control. It's just not practical. People aren't celibate creatures.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
And I do believe people get the governments they deserve.
That's why we got ourselves a new one. We deserved better and desperately need a better one. You guys probably don't know just how bad things are on this side of the Atlantic.

We are going hungry again.
Something that hadn't happened since this country was squeezed dry by the dictatorship in order to sell food to both nazis and allies in WW II, and bled dry to fight a few colonial wars in Africa (where my father died).
Some of really don't know just how bad things are in other places. We're too busy trying to survive ourselves. It sucks to know just how bad it is over there, Mael. I hope you guys do get a better govt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
Really now, for those of you in the US who work: has your life improved anything since 2000 as a result of your current governments actions? Are you wealthier? Are you better off? Are you safer?
Well, my husband and I don't have to worry about that pesky marriage penalty when we file our taxes. And I haven't been blown up by any terrorists, lately. I'm not better off, yet. That's why I took my PTCE and got certified as a pharmacy tech., I should be making a decent amount of scratch when I go through school.

[qoute="Mael"]Don't think about saying the recession hit when it did and that Bush just happened to be there, seen as the market went under because there are no business dealings without trust.
Trust was undermined by Enron, amongst other businesses who sponsored Bush his 1st term.
Is Bush to blame for this?[/quote]

I don't know, but I've heard people are still recovering from ENRON. One of the guys killed himself afterward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
And Asurai, a fair days wages for a honest days work applies to both the factory floor worker as well as the CEO, but if they are incompetent, one gets sacked and the other is given a huge finantial compensation.

Guess which one.
*raises hand*

Oooh, I know! Pick me!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
When one of them is incompetent, the whole company suffers and might even go under or be bought out and dismembered (as it often does).

Guess which one.
I know, I know!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Mael
Oops. I raved on for a while, didn't I? Ah fuck it, tomorrow I'll just post a different angle of my arse and all will be forgotten (what an arrogant sod)! :?

Seriously now, sorry for going off on a rant.
More, please
WolfMoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2005, 05:30 PM   #44
Binkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Beautiful U.S. of A.
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMaelstrom
Binkie, if you do stumble onto my post, lemme tell you I'm well aware of how one-sided and subjective it all is (not to say flatout Sternnish), and am also aware there are quite a few faults in my reasonings (I know I had a lot better arguements to tie Bush to the recession, the Tsunami and the killing of Jesus if possible :roll: ), but I did it on purpose to provoke discussion.
Haha... yeah, it's all good. Once you start doing it just to piss people off, like Sternn does, you'll start seeing.....



...doggies in patriotic hats again!!! :lol:
__________________
"[Brian Blair] was a punk. I can break his fucking back - break his back and make him humble and then fuck his ass ... Suplex him, put him in a camel clutch, break his back, and fuck his ass - make him humble. Teach him to respect the Iron Sheik. And I didn't do it, because for the God and Jesus, and Mr. McMahon." -Khosrow Vaziri (The Iron Sheik)
Binkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2005, 07:14 PM   #45
Loy
 
Loy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 408
So just by skimming through this thread, I've caught a few historical innacuracies I think should be called out (specifically about WW2)

1-Wolfmoon-when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, they weren't bombing a civilian target, they were bombing a miltary target...Pearl Harbor was (and still is) a navy base, and at the time of the bombing we had the largest fleet of military boats out in the Pacific...most o whom were docked in PH. As far as Japanese killing civilians...well, I'm gonna use Bush-Logic here and say "they were near a military base, and most of them worked, either directly or indirectly, for the military. Therefore, they cannot be considered civilians". And to say what the Japanese did was horrible (slaughtering of civilians, etc), let me point out that A-we had been provoking the Japanese into doing something (veiled threats, unwillingness to speak with the Japanese diplomats, etc). And B-well, as far as killing civilians, let's go to....

2-Asurai-the use of the bomb has been greatly contested by historians.....actually, not really. If it's been contested, it's been between historians and agendists who feel like "softening" the US's history.

A-"the use of the bomb was inevitable"-actually, no it wasn't. Japan had been trying to surrender for months beforehand (as made clear by comuniques between the japanese and the allies). What made the US use the bombs? Simple-the comuniques were of a nature that Japan wanted to surrender to the Allies, which, if you remember your history, included the Soviet Union. At this point, we were preparing for the Cold War at the end of the big war (the Dulles bringing over Nazi leaders to "help" with our post-war restructuring certainly played a big part of this), and for the Japs to surrender to the Allies would've been disasterous to these cold warriors (not to mention that if some of the terms bandied about in regards to their surrender would've included them not being culturally fucked with). Now, if you look at our history of warfare, you'll notice that the US has never allowed for an "honorable surrender" from an opponent. Let's face it, we wanted domination over Japan. And the bomb provided just that.

B-"the bomb saved more lives than it killed"-again, if you're thinking of the civilian populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, yes. However, when you look at the population of Japan.....we'll we'd already done a good job of killing most of the civilian population. See, we had been doing a fire-bombing that had destroyed about 95 of buildings, and killed about 85 of the civilians throughout Japan. Now, before you say "we didn't know the damage it was doing", I'd also point out that yes, we did. As Brigadier Gen. Bonner Fellers (an aide to Gen MacArthur) said, at the time, it was "one of the most ruthless and barbaric killings of noncombatants in all history." Ironically enough, it was these firebombings that landed Hiroshima and Nagasaki as A-bomb targets, since the rest of the country had been so thoroughlly destroyed that there was nothing left to bomb. Now, take into account the amount of damage and death on the Japanese mainland, do you really think our troops (had they landed) would have sustained major losses? (Sorry, but I figured on killing off the "we were saving our soldiers lives" argument which usually follows this fact)

Oh, and off the subject of history.....businesses that do well in fact DO lay off workers. For you to say otherwise happens to fall into the lines of A-misinformation, B-self-denial, or C-straight out lying.

And about the comment about Communism and Socialism being about the poor....again, you're misreading the whole point of Marx and company. It's about (simply) the empowerment of the poor, and a studying of the social fabric as a whole. There's no denying of the rich or middle classes (the term Bougoise).

as far as capitolists believing in equal opportunities....OK, an argument could be made that our society is more of an oluigarchy than an actual capitolistic one. But let's go with the myth of us being a capitolistic state....where is the justification, in all the great capitolistic tracks, for corporate personage, or corporate welfare, or allowance of monoplies, or the disenfranchisment of workers from starting up their own businesses, or allowing companies MORE rights (under the guise of corporate personage) than actual human beings have....the list can go on, but this is too basic. The point is...how can one say that a capitolistic society (which is what many claim we live in) provide equal opportunities for everybody (and not coddle those that don't need it), and support exactly that? Again, your mythology needs a bit of updating and/or a total restructuring to comply with the facts.

As far as your statement about absolute evils.....as far as it being rwrong to rob, ****, etc....these actians have been thoroughly forgiven of our soldiers (past and present) during times of war (and in military towns, times of peace as well). Again, morality only has absolutes as strong and pervasive as the person expousing them.

MrMael-as far as the Japanese appologising for war crimes during the big war...they already did that. That was one of the conditions of their surrender.
__________________
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
Loy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2005, 07:50 PM   #46
WolfMoon
 
WolfMoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: I own Pitseleh!!
Posts: 3,747
Damnit, Loy!

Once again I've managed to muddle things. What I meant was that it was wrong for the U.S. to retaliate on civilians for the lives of the soldiers that the Japanese took. Combat, in an ideal world would only be between soldiers and never civilians. I'm perfectly aware that Pearl Harbor has always been a Naval base.

Sometimes I wish my keyboard were still a french one, then I could blame confusing posts on not being able to understand the letters I'm typing with in the first place.

:wink:
WolfMoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2005, 02:39 PM   #47
Loy
 
Loy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Seattle
Posts: 408
Don't worry Wolfie, just take a look at the number of Tyepoes thrughout any of my posts. As lonmg as ideas get through, you should be OK.
__________________
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
Loy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2005, 06:33 PM   #48
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maël
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have saved many lives, if you insist on seing it in that skewed a perspective. Has the US apologized for murdering civilians to save soldier's lives?
'Cause that's what it came down to. Machiavel was just plain wrong: the ends do NOT always justify the means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
No, we haven't, and we won't. To us, American lives always come before the lives of our enemies. That includes civilians -- without their assent to the Japanese conquests, we would never have been drawn into the war to begin with, and therefore would never have had to make the choice between their lives and ours.
I underlined what really shocks me. It's sad to see that kind of thinking in young people. I had higher hopes, but I'm an idiot. I won't even go into what is wrong with that way of thinking. Just what the fuck am I, then? A worthless barbarian? Is the Atlantic just a bigger Danube? And the US refuses to be compared to the roman empire.... Pleeease.

According to this reasoning, Santa Anna should have dropped a bomb on the invaders at El Alamo (even the place's name is in castellano, as with Los Angeles) and California.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
BUT, think about this. Japan was a land peopled by citizens nationalistic unto absurdity.
Funny, 'cause that's exactly how people all over the world see US citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asurai
Had we invaded their homeland and fought street-to-street, far more of their civilians, not just our soldiers, would have died. Ironically, dropping the atomic bombs saved more of their citizens' lives in the end.
This is just speculation, but you're speculating with over half a million peoples lives. They were vaporized and tens of thousands died from leucemia and birth defects. You made the rain go black. You killed for empire. Had Churchill not agreed to decolonize (making way for US supremacy in the Pacific and Indian oceans), you'd never have come these ways.

And sorry, but the US picked a fight. It just didn't count on the japanese 1st blood hit being so effective (Pearl Harbour).

And the treatment of american citizens of japanese origin in desert camps? Do you know anything about those? You probably think all is right and well at Guantanamo.
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2005, 07:36 PM   #49
MrMaelstrom
 
MrMaelstrom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,608
I smell a dog picture coming...
__________________
Undead again...
MrMaelstrom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2005, 08:34 PM   #50
ice
 
ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 42.5
Posts: 1,073


S'the D-o-double-g-izzle :wink:
__________________
"I'm right"

"No - it's more like - wow, isn't enlightenment great?" - Doug Henning
ice is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
twilight crying goddess xxxQueenOfDarknessxx Literature 2 11-30-2010 08:58 AM
Deus Ex Daedalus TV, Movies, & Games 11 12-16-2007 04:27 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:40 AM.