Welcome to Gaia! ::

Here is a question I have:



Orlando, I'm curious as to what you think this right is and where you get it from? Could you oblige me with perhaps a definition?

No. It was "politicians are aristocratic, and tend to call their opposition "fags" when they attempt to keep their campaign promises. Where the ******** did I say anything about "republicans" or "democrats"?

That's right, I didn't, don't put words in my mouth Andy.

WHERE THE ******** DID I SAY AN ARISTOCRACY IS BAD? ******** POINT IT OUT NOW, OR QUIT SAYING THAT s**t, BECAUSE IT ISN'T TRUE.

And I ALREADY ******** POINTED OUT THAT ALL, THAT MEANS EVEN A COMMUNIST SYSTEM, SOCIETIES DEVELOP CLASS DIVISIONS, NO WHERE HAVE I SAID THAT ARISTOCRACIES ARE BAD NOR THAT COMMUNIST SYSTEMS ARE SOMEHOW IMMUNE TO CLASS DIVISION, FOR ******** SAKES.

What do you mean "this right"? The right for myself to live and not owe society anything for it? By the fact that stable societies don't allow random murder. It's generally not good for stable societies and governments to allow random people in the street to be killed.

Calm down Peer. The problem is that, as humans, we have to speak (or type) what we are saying as we have not achieved perfect telepathy. So our communication is flawed, and I -have- to make some assumptions about what you are saying, or else I will not get anywhere. And you have to make some assumptions about what I am saying. I am so very sorry that you are not the most easily understood person on the planet. Try to have some patience and explain it to me rather than yelling (Or all-caps-ing) at me for not getting it perfect.

In fact, in your first reply to me you made assumptions about what I was saying. You assumed that I was saying that you were saying that the aristocracy was all-powerful, when that is not at all what I was saying. Should I have "all-caps"ed you? "Rawr, Peer, why are you assuming things, why are you putting words in my mouth?"

So sorry about assuming that you thought that aristocracies were bad; That's what it sounded like. And clearly I am not the only one. In fact, I would ask the thread as a whole if anyone thought that you were implying otherwise, because I doubt we'll find anyone. Me, I kind of thought it was a universal truth that aristocracies are bad, because it puts a large group of people in power. But it's an unavoidable evil, and you just have to dampen it as much as you can.

As for Republicans and Democrats, you never specified their names, but since Republicans have had power for the last 12 years and you specifically said: "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**." It might lead one to think that you are talking about Republicans. Since, you know, they are the ones who have been in power, so they would the ones who would have had to cater to the poor, and they would be the ones who broke campaign promises. And since their opposition is the Democrats, that would lead one to think that you are saying here that the Democrats are "Actually trying to help the poor," where the Republicans are not.

Do you not see the chain of logic there? I really can't see anything else you were trying to say by that statement. It's impossible for it to be covering all politicians, as you are implying, because in the statement you mentioned two groups (Otherwise there would be no good, poor-helping opposition.)

And assuming that I was implying that an aristocracy is a BAD thing, when my tone and word usage implied no such thing, is an unnecessary and slightly offensive assumption. If you'd like to know what my ideal society is, instead of just saying I'm a communist or saying I'm acting like a communist or whatever it is, just ask me "Hey Peer, what do you think an ideal society is?".



Was that an offesnive or slanderous assumption about your character or position? No, it was a clarification of my own position.



No; aristocracies are not inherently evil. In fact, I highly doubt there is such a thing as an evil abstract ideal. Fascism, Communism, Capitalism, Democracy; how can these ideals be inherently evil or good? They're ideals. They don't make moral or ethical decisions. It's the people that operate within those ideals and systems that influence whether they're good or not. An aristocracy at it's best works for the betterment of the people they lead and sacrifice whatever they must in order to ensure the safety and happiness of their people; they are TRULY and completely Noble in every sense of the word. And at it's best, an aristocracy is far, FAR more meritable and just generally better than a democracy is at its worst. The actions of those Nobles is what dictates whether or not an Aristocracy is good or evil.



So what if the Republicans had control of Congress and my White House? That doesn't stop the Democrats at the state level from helping the poor. ********, it doesn't stop the Dem's and independants at the Federal level from just suggesting bills to help the needy. If everyone "catered to the poor" as you keep saying, then the campaign promise of ALL the politician's would have been fulfilled. See, this is where the breakdown in communication is; you keep attempting to color my words to fill partisan lines and thus put words in my mouth.

I'm saying politician's don't cater to the poor; they lie to them.

We had already settled it by the time you locked it. 3nodding