|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:07 pm
lymelady I understand how infuriating it is when people assume things, but aren't you guilty of doing the same thing? Quote: Oh dear god, you're one of those whiny conservative "OMGCOMMUNISM=SLAVERY!!!ONEONEeleventyone!" people aren't you? Maybe it would be best if everyone just cooled down and treated this rationally. I'm pretty sure he meant no harm. Let me put this in to context; the last person (before nohbody) that made an assumption about me, assumed that because I'm half-Japanese and half-Italian, I eat children and then proceeded to tell her two small grandchildren to stay away from me because of this supposed "fact". Now, I do eat children, but not because I am a halfbreed, I do so because children are ******** tasty in a beer batter dip. Nobhdy: You DID use it as a pejorative, referring to communism as "slavery".
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:32 pm
The last time someone made an assumption about me, it was because I'm a redhead so I must be a slut. The time before that, I'm a Catholic so I must believe it's the victim's fault she got raped. The time before that, I was pro-life so that must mean that I'm too ugly to get laid. And a long time ago, my last name is Norwegian, meaning I drink blood from the skulls of my enemies.
We all get assumptions made about us, horrible ones sometimes. Assuming that someone leans towards communism isn't all that bad.
And...is nobhdy allowed to answer in your thread or is he going to have to answer through someone else?
If this turns into a flaming thread, though, maybe PMs would be best, because if it gets bad, I'll ask one of the forum mods to lock it. Hostility breeds hostility. This subforum is for civil discussion, it's the first bullet point. No personal attacks, and respect for each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:17 am
lymelady The last time someone made an assumption about me, it was because I'm a redhead so I must be a slut. The time before that, I'm a Catholic so I must believe it's the victim's fault she got raped. The time before that, I was pro-life so that must mean that I'm too ugly to get laid. And a long time ago, my last name is Norwegian, meaning I drink blood from the skulls of my enemies. We all get assumptions made about us, horrible ones sometimes. Assuming that someone leans towards communism isn't all that bad. And...is nobhdy allowed to answer in your thread or is he going to have to answer through someone else? If this turns into a flaming thread, though, maybe PMs would be best, because if it gets bad, I'll ask one of the forum mods to lock it. Hostility breeds hostility. This subforum is for civil discussion, it's the first bullet point. No personal attacks, and respect for each other. That last one is kinda cool though. ninja It is when he's equating it with slavery. I'll unblock him, I'm just busy running numbers past other team members at the moment. Oh, by the way, I'm in Japan on company business. whee No flaming, he'd better retract the deragatory things he's implied though, or I'll block him again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:48 am
To reply to the original post: It really depends on how you look at it. There is an aristocracy, I think that's fairly clear, made up of the rich, as you said. These people have more money, power, prestige, etc. and thus have a better chance of betting into the government and whatnot. However, it isn't an all-powerful aristocracy, as is proven by America's darling Barack Obama, son of some random Kansas woman and some random African man. Nothing special about his background, yet he seems to be, overall, the favorite for the next election.
And beyond that there is also the fact that, even though the rich are the ones who usually get office, everyone decides which one gets the office. And the poor outnumber the rich. So the rich have to cater to the poor to get elected, which is what the whole idea of keeping an aristocracy down, and preventing the rich from fully controlling the government even though, realistically, it would be impossible to keep the aristocracy out of the government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:41 am
I.Am To reply to the original post: It really depends on how you look at it. There is an aristocracy, I think that's fairly clear, made up of the rich, as you said. These people have more money, power, prestige, etc. and thus have a better chance of betting into the government and whatnot. However, it isn't an all-powerful aristocracy, as is proven by America's darling Barack Obama, son of some random Kansas woman and some random African man. Nothing special about his background, yet he seems to be, overall, the favorite for the next election. And beyond that there is also the fact that, even though the rich are the ones who usually get office, everyone decides which one gets the office. And the poor outnumber the rich. So the rich have to cater to the poor to get elected, which is what the whole idea of keeping an aristocracy down, and preventing the rich from fully controlling the government even though, realistically, it would be impossible to keep the aristocracy out of the government. Never said it was all powerful, aristocracies are only all powerful in fascist and monarch states. Scratch that. Aristocracies are never all powerful. Yet the majority, if not all of, Congress, the President, and even the bulk of the judiciary, are wealthy people. And with a 98% turn over rate (which is ridiculous), catering to the poor isn't THAT big of a deal; instead they rely on partisan issues (IE abortion, war, gay marriage, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:39 pm
ThePeerOrlando2 the last person (before nohbody) that made an assumption about me, assumed that because I'm half-Japanese and half-Italian, I eat children ......Was this because you're Japanese, Italian, or both? confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 2:57 pm
La Veuve Zin ThePeerOrlando2 the last person (before nohbody) that made an assumption about me, assumed that because I'm half-Japanese and half-Italian, I eat children ......Was this because you're Japanese, Italian, or both? confused Well, I've never gotten that and I'm half-Italian, but I assume that's because people want pasta from me. Maybe they're afraid if he has a child with anyone who's German, the child will be the new Axis and will indeed take over the world? Hmm I should explain that one...when I was dating a guy who was 100% German ancestry, someone said to me, "It would be so creepy if the other half of you was Japanese so that your kids would be the Axis." Me: "Wtf?" Her: "Germany, Italy, and Japan." Me: "Lay off the drugs."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:10 pm
La Veuve Zin ThePeerOrlando2 the last person (before nohbody) that made an assumption about me, assumed that because I'm half-Japanese and half-Italian, I eat children ......Was this because you're Japanese, Italian, or both? confused Both. Old Japanese women are ******** racist towards us half-breeds. Lyme: I dated a foreign exchange student from Germany once (she was the whole Aryan yard; blond hair, blue eyes, big boobs, etc. In fact, she was the first girl I ever got to second base with. God I love Germany and the women it produces. heart ) and I got that same kind of crap, only it was my cousin's going "Don't knock her up! You wouldn't want to be the parent of the next Hitler!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:05 pm
ThePeerOrlando2 lymelady I understand how infuriating it is when people assume things, but aren't you guilty of doing the same thing? Quote: Oh dear god, you're one of those whiny conservative "OMGCOMMUNISM=SLAVERY!!!ONEONEeleventyone!" people aren't you? Maybe it would be best if everyone just cooled down and treated this rationally. I'm pretty sure he meant no harm. Let me put this in to context; the last person (before nohbody) that made an assumption about me, assumed that because I'm half-Japanese and half-Italian, I eat children and then proceeded to tell her two small grandchildren to stay away from me because of this supposed "fact". Now, I do eat children, but not because I am a halfbreed, I do so because children are ******** tasty in a beer batter dip. Nobhdy: You DID use it as a pejorative, referring to communism as "slavery". Wait...I have a question. Are we or are we not allowed to express our views and opinions about certain subjects here? Obviously nobhdy has the view that communism=slavery and he's not allowed to express that? If you disagree with him isn't that where you jump in and refute it with facts and other points? Isn't that the point of debate and discussion? Is it because you cannot refute that communism=slavery that you're trying to silence his freedom of speech? Or that you just don't like it when he says that? This is where I am getting confused. neutral Obviously there are a lot of people who have things to say where we all disagree at one point or another. If the people here don't like it when I say I am pro-choice should I just sit back and shut up? Or should I stand up and say what I believe and argue my points/facts/reasons for it? I think nobhdy has the right to say that he believes that communism is slavery just as much as you have the right to refute him...that's what makes it a debate right? But anyways I guess that would be completely off topic from the first post. (You guys can argue it out in the communism thread Waters made I guess) ------------- As for there being an aristocracy...yes there is sort of. It seems to me that the only way to get elected into the government and the like is that you do have to have a lot of money, you really do. And the more money you have to build up your campaign, the better chances you have at winning I think. Still the rich, however they received their money, through hard work or inheritance have a right to do what they want with that money because it is theirs after all. We watched a great movie in my economy class about greed in America by John Stossel and it really shows how greed from the rich can also help the poor. Here's a little clip about it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=NZ-jqQbpfVE (you'll probably have to rent the movie from a store or library to see the whole thing since I can't find it all on YouTube. xP )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:27 pm
ThePeerOrlando2 Never said it was all powerful, aristocracies are only all powerful in fascist and monarch states. Scratch that. Aristocracies are never all powerful. Yet the majority, if not all of, Congress, the President, and even the bulk of the judiciary, are wealthy people. And with a 98% turn over rate (which is ridiculous), catering to the poor isn't THAT big of a deal; instead they rely on partisan issues (IE abortion, war, gay marriage, etc.) Oh, I wasn't saying that you were saying that. I pretty much was trying to say that I agree with you; It's an aristocracy, but it's pretty much impossible to completely eliminate the aristocracy. And the 98% turn over rate is -because- they cater to the poor. They want to stay in office, they vote for what the majority of people want in their state/county/the country. Although, I do think that we should instate a limit to the number of terms, similar to what we've done with the presidency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:42 pm
@Nobhdy: People who are rich do have more opportunities than people who are poor; This is just a fact, because everything costs money, from college to a house or a car. And campaigning for government positions definitely requires a lot of money. And people are born into money; Even though the rich do have every right to pass on inheritance to their children, it does not change the fact that the act of doing this puts their children in a position of greater power than they would naturally have.
@Peer: I'm pretty sure that, though he was asking if you were communist in the first post, he only called Divine a communist. And I can understand and, to an extent, agree with the position that large-scale communism always ends as a dictatorship, though I wouldn't call it slavery exactly.
@Zin: Are you approving of the Oneida society? Because, unless you're talking about a different one than the one I am reading about, they had some really weird beliefs and, apparently, one of the key things holding it together was a weird version of Christianity. Which, I assume, wouldn't be something you would want. Besides which, it only lasted 30 years with a peak population of barely more than 300. Hardly works as a model society for an entire country. And I believe that I did say communism works fine in small communities.
@Kate: That last one is pretty awesome. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:17 pm
SterileNeedles Wait...I have a question. Are we or are we not allowed to express our views and opinions about certain subjects here? Obviously nobhdy has the view that communism=slavery and he's not allowed to express that? If you disagree with him isn't that where you jump in and refute it with facts and other points? Isn't that the point of debate and discussion? Is it because you cannot refute that communism=slavery that you're trying to silence his freedom of speech? Or that you just don't like it when he says that? This is where I am getting confused. neutral Freedom of speech does not encompass slander and libel. If he retracts what he said I have no problem with him being in here; and I already unblocked him several days ago so no one can give me s**t about "OH well he can't cuz he's blocked!" Quote: I think nobhdy has the right to say that he believes that communism is slavery just as much as you have the right to refute him...that's what makes it a debate right? I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I have a problem with him calling me a communist when I haven't said anything that was remotely communistic. Making an observation about class division does not a communist make. He then claimed he didn't use it as a pejorative when he did; thus making him intellectually dishonest or just plain stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:21 pm
I.Am ThePeerOrlando2 Never said it was all powerful, aristocracies are only all powerful in fascist and monarch states. Scratch that. Aristocracies are never all powerful. Yet the majority, if not all of, Congress, the President, and even the bulk of the judiciary, are wealthy people. And with a 98% turn over rate (which is ridiculous), catering to the poor isn't THAT big of a deal; instead they rely on partisan issues (IE abortion, war, gay marriage, etc.) Oh, I wasn't saying that you were saying that. I pretty much was trying to say that I agree with you; It's an aristocracy, but it's pretty much impossible to completely eliminate the aristocracy. And the 98% turn over rate is -because- they cater to the poor. They want to stay in office, they vote for what the majority of people want in their state/county/the country. Although, I do think that we should instate a limit to the number of terms, similar to what we've done with the presidency. That was my point; class division is inevitable and aristocracies always arise in sustained societies. No it's not, otherwise the policies in this country would be alot different, and campaign promises would have been fulfilled to the tune of some 1.5 billion dollars to help poor people; instead, they spend their time calling the opposition who actually has tried to help the poor, a f**. Quote: @Peer: I'm pretty sure that, though he was asking if you were communist in the first post, he only called Divine a communist. And I can understand and, to an extent, agree with the position that large-scale communism always ends as a dictatorship, though I wouldn't call it slavery exactly. And I'm not a communist and don't appreciate people making base assumptions; that's why I blocked him. He apologized via Sterile so I unblocked him and he's free to return, I won't hassle him or anything. Depends on whether you define a failed communist system as still communist. In which case, Fred Phelps is still a Christian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:32 pm
...Okay, so now it's become a "Republicans are Aristocratic pigs, and Democrats really are trying to help the poor even though most of them are rich too" deal? Well since they got congress and will probably gain the presidency, we'll see if the country just becomes perfect in the next few years. :/ I know you're not a communist. You're not listening. He did not assume you were a communist. Quote: What exactly are you perscribing anyway? I fear that you are perscribing communism. All that says to me is, "What government do you think works? It sounds like you are supporting communism." Which, considering that you are stating that all governments have aristocracies and aristocracies are bad, is not an unreasonable assumption. What system would, supposedly, have no classes and no one higher than another? Communism. So if aristocracy and classes are bad, what is good? Communism. I think you are getting all worked up over nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:43 pm
Friends, friends. This whole thing has been one big misunderstanding, allow me to demonstrate: Quote: What exactly are you perscribing anyway? I fear that you are perscribing communism. -me I was inquiring what the solution was to your unfair caste system that you pointed out. I didn't accuse you of anything and I haven't used a pejorative. Quote: that is why i am communist- i want a society with no money. -divineseraph Ok. This sets up my next use of the word. See where he calls himself one? Remember it! I then proceeded to respond to his post and lead the topic astray, which I apologized for here in a later post: Quote: I suppose I am to blame for the off-topicness, I inquired about his communist leanings in my post. -me Ok. Now that we are caught up on that whole business I hope we can all just get along. I would like to thank everybody who defended me. When I have some time later, I will compose a detailed post clearing up all the misconceptions in my original post. Thanks for the un-ban once again, Sincerely -nobhdy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
